Bye Bye Books

A funny thing happened on the way to the Forum, no not the Roman Forum, but the forum online. It dawned on me that we are looking at the last era of books and reading as an information source.

It all started while recently researching media spin, propaganda, and how the folks behind the media create a perception of reality in the masses. I was going to read some books on the topics but I stumbled onto three documentary videos in a row. Spin, OutFoxed, and Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land. All of these videos were readily available online, and I could sit and watch them on my computer at my leisure. I realized I probably learned as much watching a video as I did by reading a book. Additionally, I became aware that there are certain advantages that videos have over books:

1. I can watch a video in an hour (or so). It would take me much longer to read a book (I am not a speed reader)
2. Many concepts can be illustrated visually with graphics, animation, or actually video footage that can’t be shown in a book. For example, I could see the actual videos of media personnel plying their trade, which I wouldn’t get just reading about it.
3. It’s just easier. I at least think more readily in pictures and can receive information easier visually than by words. Words are often translated into pictures when I read to get more reality on them. The visual media is a more natural media.
   

What are the disadvantages you asked? One might say videos are less portable; you can’t take them to bed with you. Oh, contraire, media-challenged one. With the advent of video players like iPod, and its worthy competitors, one can put many videos on a personal video device and take it with you to bed or wherever. Not sure if it’s a good idea in the bath yet, but I am sure waterproof devices are on the way. I even have a friend with a gigabyte of storage on his cell phone and he loads videos on there. He showed me Terminator on his cell the other day.

Videos have become the communication media of choice. The younger generation has taken to video like a fish to water. If you don’t believe me poke around some video sites like Google Video or YouTube. It has become very easy to create videos, with low quality digital cameras or higher quality digital video cameras, virtually everyone can create video footage.

The main two categories of books are fiction and non-fiction. I asked you, had you never read the book, would you find it easier to watch a well made movie of fiction, or read a say 500 page book? As a recent example, I read The Da Vinci Code, and then saw the movie later on. Some people complain that the movies don’t do the book justice. Or they alter the original concept too much. Well this is a danger, if the author of the book is saying one thing and the movie changes it or degrades it. But in the case of The Da Vinci Code, I felt the movie was pretty true and I didn’t miss much at all from book. Though I did enjoy reading the book, in retrospect, with a chose of either I think I would opt for the easier path of seeing the movie. Plus in the future I feel more and more creative people will write a screen plays and go for the movie as a first choice so there won’t be a conflict between the book version and the video version.

On non-fiction, there is a plethora of documentary films arriving on the scene as of late. More of them are even making it into the movie theater, and on the DVD rental circuit. I told you of my recent experience researching the media. I think it is much easier, and perhaps more informative to sit and watch a video than read a long boring non-fiction book. The rate of learning and retention is greater in the visual experience as well.

I am sure there will always be a place in the heart of many for books and reading words, just as one likes to listen to those old radio shows back in the 40’s for kicks. Or admire the virtues of black and white TV, or the original Victrola.

Perhaps the only good reason to continue the tradition of reading is that virtually all of our past, though it is a meager sampling, and rather fragile (ala such events as the burning of Alexandria) is recorded with the written words. Therefore, it behooves some of us to remember how to read so that we can gain knowledge of the past. So I will still encourage my grandkids to read, though they will probably consider it as I did learning Latin.

And then there are Feelies (as in Brave New World), but that is a little farther into the future.

Nuke Me, Baby

I read a friend’s blog the other day about a Revolution in energy, a new energy source that would do away with our reliance on fossil fuels. Well, it occurred to me that the Revolution is already here, and has arrived and been discarded by many. It’s Nuclear Energy.

Nuclear is the only energy source that is viably workable for the amounts of energy this planet needs, and it’s environmentally clean. People got freaked a few decades ago about a poorly built nuclear reactor, a flawed design no longer in use.

The RBMK-1000 Reactor

The four RBMK-1000 reactors at Chernobyl represented crude technology that was 30 years old at the time of the accident. They are in fact similar to that used by Enrico Fermi at University of Chicago's Stagg Field in 1942 to create world's first chain reaction. The 1000 indicates 1000MW (electrical). About half of soviet reactors use graphite moderators. Edwards says there are 15 RBMKs operating in USSR but that the other 40 reactors are similar to US reactors.
Since the graphite provides the major part of the moderation needed to sustain the chain reaction, the coolant water actually may provide excess moderation. This means that a void in the water coolant could actually increase the reaction rate. "...any increase in reactor power increases coolant boiling, which increases the steam void fraction, which in turn increases core reactivity and causes the power to rise even further." This positive void coefficient for the RBMK exists under most operating conditions and makes them particularly difficult to control at low power levels.
It also has a slow scram system. These soviet reactors are missing such safety features as the 6 to 8 inch steel reactor vessel and the steel and concrete reactor containment dome of the US light water reactors.

However, they have much better designs now days and those kinds of accidents are virtually impossible. A nuclear reactor is as safe as it is designed and engineered to be safe.

Oil has peaked as an energy source, and is on the downhill from now on. This means it is harder to obtain and prices will go up, until it gradually becomes unviable as an energy source. On the other hand, there is a huge burgeoning middle class coming online in China who are demanding appliances and cars and such. A quarter of the world's population. And India is in the same boat right behind them. Demand for energy is just starting on a huge exponential surge.

We need a solution now, or 10 years or so down the road its out with the lights. Both China and India have new nuclear reactors in the works, but its not enough. Only France, who has about 80% power from nuclear sources, is sitting well.

Let me list the benefits of nuclear energy as a source of power:

1. It’s clean. It produces no by products that pollute the air. Disposal of the nuclear waste is not really a problem and does not impinge upon the environment. Even former Green Peace founder Patrick Moore has come out with in favor of nuclear as a Clean, Green approach to energy. There is no need to put huge amount of crap into the atmosphere. Coal-fired electricity produces 960 grams of Carbon Dioxide per Kilowatt/Hour of electricity, for example.
2. Uranium comes from friendly sources. It is found predominantly in the U.S. friendly countries of Canada and Australia.
3. Contrary to oil, there is enough uranium in the ground to last for many centuries, even at the new accelerated rate. No more energy wars, or kissing Arab butt, would be necessary.
4. Another benefit is that a byproduct of nuclear energy production is hydrogen. The hydrogen can be used in fuel cells to provide power to an already existing technology to run our vehicles.

Compared with coal as an energy source I think there is little doubt which is the optimal choice. Nuclear energy is ready for new Revolution, the Second Coming.