Thursday, 17 April 2014


found via boingboing

Wednesday, 16 April 2014

the uk & chernobyl - the situation in 1997 - so whats it like now? - 5 things re the 1997 stats to think about

 the source of the summary below is the ever excellent uk parliament notes

1) 7 years later (1997), areas of the UK remained contaminated with radioactive fall-out from Chernobyl, to the extent that the movement and slaughter of almost 1/2 million sheep on more than 600 farms were still subject to restrictions.

2) the average Chernobyl fallout dose per person in Cumbria was 6 times the UK average.

3) Radioac­tive caesium can remain unbound if it is readily taken up by plants and thence into animals. Caesium can then become continuously recycled; i.e. excreted by animals, re-incorporated into plants, re-ingested by animals and so on. The following soil factors all tend to increase caesium uptake into plants (and thus animals): Low clay content; High acidity; Low mineral (especially potassium) content; high organic content - this retains 'free' caesium near the surface (where it is taken up by roots) ; Waterlogging - increases the ‘pool’ of mobile caesium

4) Earlier experience with caesium fallout from nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s and '60s suggests that upland soils may take as long as 30 years to immobilise most of the caesium

5) Since Chernobyl it has become increasingly apparent that many of the 60 or so nuclear reactors of Soviet design still operating in East­ern and Central Europe do not conform to Western standards. The main safety concerns relate to inad­equate containment and emergency core cooling sys­tems, although there are also doubts about standards of construction and operating methods (which may lead to premature ageing of the reactor).

Tuesday, 15 April 2014

#10 ways to lose great staff members

 1) Don’t give them a voice in strategic direction.

2) Don’t give them freedom to fail boldly.

for the other 8 go here

Thursday, 10 April 2014

Do we #trust #politicians? - Maria Miller Poll

ComRes interviewed 1,015 British adults online on 9/4/14 on the subject of her resignation and then the data was weighted to be representative of all GB adults aged 18+. 

Here's the data, and here's my 10 headlines from it

1) In terms of her over-claiming expenses and her resignation statement 49% think its made no difference to how they trust politicians and 49% think its made them trust politicians less

2) 88% think she was right to resign and 82% think she should have resigned as soon as it emerged she overclaimed her expenses

3) 38% think her behaviour on expenses is typical of some but not most MPs and 38% think its typical of most MPs, but not all

4) 49% think the problems with MPs' expenses have remained about the same as when they first emerged in 2009

5) 32% think David Cameron handled the problems regarding Maria Miller's expenses very badly and 30% think quite badly

6) 30% think none of the party leaders would be best at dealing with MPs' expenses if they were Prime Minister and 23% don't know

7) 76% think David Cameron showed an error of judgement by saying “we should leave it there” after it emerged Maria Miller overclaimed her expenses

8) 71% think by initially offering his support to Maria Miller when it emerged she overclaimed her expenses, David Cameron showed he did not genuinely want to “clean up politics”

9) 61% don't think that overall, the current system of MPs' expenses is adequate

10) 72% think that the way people act in their private matters, such as with their expenses, bears a reflection on their ability to do their job as a Minister