Nukes! -- Pffp podcast

I am now at about one third through the Physics for future presidents series of the fall 2006, by Richard A. Muller (photo). The series of spring 2007 is also already on line, but since I had started the 2006 course already and the 2007 one seems to follow the same lines, I'll just stick with 2006. Maybe it will make me a president, half a year earlier, who knows.

This descriptive course in physics has a very good didactic structure. Even though it is supposed to be a total immersion course and you are indeed bumping into jargon right from the start, way before all terms begin to make sense, the lectures nevertheless follow a neatly designed path that angles Physics from one subject (energy and power) and step by step adds more to it. From energy and power, we are taken to atoms and heat, which brings us consecutively to gravity, satellites, radioactivity and by one third I have reached nukes. Even though I was a Physics drop-out ages ago, I have no trouble following. Quite to the contrary, I am gripped.

In the early nineteen eighties, when I was at secondary school, I dropped out of Physics class, missing out on obtaining a good understanding of radioactivity and nuclear energy and weapons. Yet, at the same time, just as everybody else, I was extremely concerned with nuclear energy and even more so, with nuclear weapons. These seemed contagious, dirty and destructive. So it was not hard to be against them, even though I never basically understood the contagiousness, the environmental dangers and the workings of the weapons. Consequently a whole lot of irrational anxiety based the rejection of nuclear energy and nuclear weaponry.

In Pffp, Professor Muller has succeeded in taking me by the hand and making this subject (and more!) very clear. The immediate result is a much better understanding of radioactivity, its relation to cancer and of nukes. There is still enough to remain worried about, but at least the irrational anxieties made place for knowledge based concerns. You still get cancer from radiation, but at least I can tell the dangerous radiation from the not so dangerous and fathom the relation between doses and increase of chance it causes cancer. Enough to know, my dentist is taking the right precautions when X-raying my teeth and the watch that glows in the dark is not dangerous.

On the subject of nukes, the cold war in 1980 has been replaced with post 9/11 war on terror. We no longer fear the nuclear confrontation between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, but rather terrorists with nukes. Richard Muller has a nice build up. Do terrorists have uranium and plutonium? They probably do. Can they build a nuke? They probably can. Am I worried? A bit, but no, not really. Why?
For a uranium bomb, one needs uranium-235 which is extremely hard to come by. Plutonium for a plutonium bomb is easier to come by, but the design of a uranium bomb wouldn't work and the construction of a plutonium bomb on the other hand is extremely difficult. Hence, chances are in fact slim, terrorists have working nukes.

I am glad some of my misconceptions I had to walk around with for nearly 30 years have been cleared. I am not nearly a president yet, but I am more of a physicist than I ever was.

Special acclaim for Bob Packett

Today I sat down and imagined someone would turn to me for advice on how to make an educational podcast. I am not a podcaster, so obviously the advice would be the advice from the listener's perspective. What makes for a good informative podcast? In a way, that is what I write about in all those reviews, but the imaginary aspiring podcaster seeking my advice, needed something more general. He needed pointers, not just examples.

It caused me to look at my podcast playlist again and evaluate with different terms. Here it is where I noticed that I keep very few podcasts that are pure monologues. I know there are a lot of those out there, because I try new podcasts all the time, but it suddenly struck me that those are the first I discard. It so turns out that the monologue is the hardest way of keeping someone's attention and pass the information. The worst kind of effort, I find, are those where the host actually has a transcript and reads out the monologue. Even if this doesn't turn out as rather monotonous droning, it comes out as a rather studied and artificially toned speech. It is either lulling or too intrusive, nearly irritating and therefore distracting either way.

The alternative for a monologue podcast is the impromptu, conversational tone which is produced by those who are not following a transcript but rather an outline with notes. This is, in my experience, better than the read aloud version, but is very delicate on the listener's attention as well. If the speaker is easy to follow he becomes too obvious, too transparent and I tend to impatiently ask for getting to the point and move on. Mostly the podcaster is harder to follow, but then the speaker could be too peculiar, too distracted on tangents, too much of many things he would perform better on, if only he'd have an audience in front of him, to guide him on whether he must pace up or slow down, add an example, or get to the point. In short, the monologue podcaster is vulnerable because of the lack of instant feedback.

Indeed, many of the podcasts I stick with have an built-in feedback. Many are recorded lectures, others are interviews and some are panel discussions. It appears to me, people speak better when they have instant feedback. They get better with intonation, with speed, with going in circles or getting to the point, with adding another example or closing off. It also strikes me that with a mix of voices there is more diversity in sounds thus making it easier to stay focussed.

So, my advice to the podcaster, also if he is not necessarily going into educational podcasting, is to make the show with a team. Have several people on the show and have them talk to each other. Because if you are on your own, you have to perform without any feedback and it takes enormous talent to blindly take the listener by the hand and keep him with you. It made me realize I know only of one podcast that sticks out and that will not leave my playlist which is a pure monologue and that is History according to Bob. Professor Bob Packett turns out to have that very rare talent of knowing how to tell the story and keep you listening tightly, without getting feedback in real time.

Shrinkrapradio meets Alan Siegel

In edition #94 of shrinkrapradio, Dr. Dave and Alan Siegel discuss the wisdom of dreams. The wisdom of dreams being that the images of dreams deliver to the dreamer a personal wisdom that is larger than his waking, active, understanding. A nice example is the subject of nightmares. Alan points out that only for seriously traumatized people, nightmares have no good effect. This can also be observed by the fact, so he claims, that when the dreamer keeps track of these nightmares, the nightmares are merely repetitive. In more average circumstance, the nightmare however, develops and even by logging the dream, the dreamer is taking some action to tackle whatever hangup is presented there.

Anybody who keeps track of dreams (and I am one of them) can see this kind of beneficial effect, merely of recounting the dream. Just that already reliefs and focuses some of the energy of dreaming. Quite frequently, additional lessons also present themselves. Eventually, after time, one also is likely to perceive the progress. However, the personal thing dreaming is, also these perceptions are personal.

Perception is reality. And both Alan Siegel and David van Nuys, with their clinical background, I guess, are fine with that. When you are taking the clinical perspective, all that matters is the patient. And if he or she is making sense of the dreams and their dream recounting is helping them, then all the better. Nevertheless, this interview, grazes on the objectification of the question. There are skeptics who claim dreams are just random impressions of the resting brain. Sure, and whatever all those dream accounts do is merely applying interpretations and taking them as the true meaning of the dream. Alan points out that: anybody who keeps track of his dreams is struck by the meaning and will be, as it were naturally, convinced there is more to them. That is a bit of a petitio principi. As to say perception is reality, because when you start to perceive all looks so real.

My own two cents are that these things boil down to a matter of choice. You can choose to be completely skeptical and relate to dreams as completely random. It also implies to choose to throw away some effort to make sense of them, albeit at a completely personal level. And where people do that to their own benefit, more interest is warranted. Dr. Dave makes a suggestion on the way. Shrinkrapradio kicks bottom again.

שולם

עודד ואיתמר חברים טובים כבר מטרום חובה. אתמול חזר איתמר מהגן והראה לנו סימני נשיכה על הגב. הוא סיפר שעודד רדף אחריו בגן, ניסה להרביץ לו ולנשוך אותו. למה? שאלנו, אני לא יודע, השיב איתמר. ומה עשית? קראתי לגננת וגם ליאור ואופיר הגנו עלי. היום סיפר לי איתמר שהוא ועודד עשו שולם. איך? שאלתי. אני אמרתי לו שאני כבר בשולם איתו והוא אמר שהוא בשולם איתי. למה אתה עשית שולם איתו, איתמר? כדי שהוא לא ירביץ לי יותר.

Jef Vermassen bij Simek 's Nachts

Bij een interviewprogramma kan er maar weinig fout gaan als de gast goed is. Martin Simek had op 27 mei de Belgische strafpleiter Jef Vermassen op bezoek en daarmee kon de uitzending al op voorhand niet stuk.

Jef deed alles goed wat een gast goed kan doen. Hij sprak duidelijk en to the point. Hij was in staat om juridische kwesties voor leken tot de essentie terug te brengen. Hij was eerlijk, openhartig en doordat er uiteindelijk over zijn stokpaardje: een project voor kindsoldaten werd gesproken, werden zijn woorden extra krachtig.

Daar waar Simek in het begin probeerde het juridisch werk te banaliseren door middel van een sportmetafoor, liet Meester Vermassen zich niet meevoeren en bleef kalm, zorgvuldig zijn woorden kiezend, onderhoudend en op niveau.

Veel beter was de vraag van Simek, waarom Jef Vermassen niet de politiek in gaat. Misschien voor de Vlaamse en sommige Nederlandse luisteraars een vraag waarop ze het antwoord al wisten, maar voor mij in ieder geval niet. Vermassen blijkt een bliksemcarriere voor het oprapen te hebben, maar verkiest om neutraal te blijven. Zijn toewijding aan Afrika in het algemeen en de zaak van de kindsoldaten in het bijzonder, krijgt daardoor nog meer dimensie. Een heel inspirerende uitzending rond een heel inspirerende man.

William of Ockham -- In Our Time

The last edition of In Our Time the great history of thought podcast by BBC's Melvyn Bragg was about William of Ockham. What a delightful subject he should be, but it proved to be a little bit too much of a delight.

Last week's In Our Time did not appear to be able to decide where to concentrate. On the history of the person, his logical thinking (the razor!) or his meaning in religious thinking (at the time or today). Melvyn found himself too many times cutting the speakers in brevity and rushing forth to the next issue. As usual the guests were excellent and each of their exposes were very worthwhile, but being rushed and cut short, the whole became shattered and I feel William has sort of slipped through my fingers. Maybe a tad too much slashing left and right, in stead of a focussed razoring?