In memory of the largest Asteroid to break through the Earth's atmosphere in modern times over Tunguska in Russia in 1908, today is National Asteroid Day and the United Nations celebrated it by naming four Asteroids careening towards Earth because nothing allays fears of the human race being extinguished like giving us the dates when it might happen.
First up is 1979 XB, almost five times larger than the 190 metre wide Tunguska Asteroid, currently hurtling through the solar system at nearly 70,000kph and current projections have it approaching close to Earth in 2024.
If 1979 XB misses us we only have to wait another five years for the next apocalypse because the 370 meter Apophis is blazing past our planet in 2029 less than a tenth of the distance to the Moon.
The 50 meter 2000 SG344 is predicted to turn up in our skies between 2039 and 2049 and next up is 2010 RF12 which is top of the ESA danger list travelling at a speed of 117,935kph but luckily is only 7 meters across and although it will have devastating consequences if it hits a major city when it comes in 2090, it is expected to be crushed by the Earth's atmosphere before it reaches the ground,
they hope anyway.
Of course any change in the trajectory of any of the Asteroids will send them pinging off away from us but a big part of the danger with hazardous space objects is that we are not yet very good at detecting them and usually don't even know they are there until they are barrelling towards us.
Still, the United Nations and people in white with telescopes are on it so nothing to worry about.
Sunday, 30 June 2019
Boris And His Deep Sense Of Anguish Isn't Enough
Boris Johnson has said that he feels a 'deep sense of anguish' for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a British-Iranian mother jailed in Tehran on spying charges, but he has rejected any responsibility for her continuing plight.
The Conservative leadership contender faced criticism when, as foreign secretary, he incorrectly stated to a select committee that she was 'teaching people journalism' in Iran despite her claim that she was just visiting family.
Mr Johnson's comments were then seized on by the Tehran regime, as they had jailed her for "teaching a BBC Persian online journalism course which was aimed at training people to spread propaganda against Iran", retried her with Boris Johnson's comments as evidence against her and increased her sentence.
Although Johnson denies responsibility, former Tory Party chairman Sir Patrick McLoughlin said Johnson 'has not helped the case' while her employer, Thomson Reuters Foundation, called on Johnson to 'correct the serious mistake he made' and her husband said that Johnson's comments had 'very traumatic consequences for her as they were used to discredit her and justify a further trial'.
At best he hadn't even bothered to read his brief when he was appearing in front of the select committee and left the woman languishing in an Iranian jail or at worst he was careless but either way, a deep sense of anguish is the absolute minimum he should be feeling as he is directly responsible for her increased sentence.
The Conservative leadership contender faced criticism when, as foreign secretary, he incorrectly stated to a select committee that she was 'teaching people journalism' in Iran despite her claim that she was just visiting family.
Mr Johnson's comments were then seized on by the Tehran regime, as they had jailed her for "teaching a BBC Persian online journalism course which was aimed at training people to spread propaganda against Iran", retried her with Boris Johnson's comments as evidence against her and increased her sentence.
Although Johnson denies responsibility, former Tory Party chairman Sir Patrick McLoughlin said Johnson 'has not helped the case' while her employer, Thomson Reuters Foundation, called on Johnson to 'correct the serious mistake he made' and her husband said that Johnson's comments had 'very traumatic consequences for her as they were used to discredit her and justify a further trial'.
At best he hadn't even bothered to read his brief when he was appearing in front of the select committee and left the woman languishing in an Iranian jail or at worst he was careless but either way, a deep sense of anguish is the absolute minimum he should be feeling as he is directly responsible for her increased sentence.
Saturday, 29 June 2019
Becoming The US President
According to the US Constitution, a Presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States, a resident for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older although being male and white also seems to help but where the UK Elections is all done and dusted within 10 weeks, the run for the 2020 American Election has begun already with 20 Democratic candidates holding the first debates and Donald Trump has launched his (hopefully unsuccessful) re-election bid.
Most candidates running for office usually have a background in politics and have held an elected position, like senator, governor, vice-president, or member of Congress and most modern candidates hold university degrees and over half the former US Presidents graduated in law.
The US has never elected a non-Christian or a woman and only one President, Barack Obama, has not been white.
Becoming President - or even trying to be - can be eye-wateringly expensive. The ability to raise funds from your supporters, or spend your own cash, is of the utmost importance as the 2016 election cost a combined £1.8bn according to campaign finance watchdog OpenSecrets.org.
You need to be in one of the main two parties of either the Democrats or the Republicans but even winning the most votes might not ensure you get to place yourself in Donald Trump's reinforced chairs butt groove because Al Gore in 2000 and Hillary Clinton in 2016 gained the most votes but found themselves watching someone else go by in the Presidential Limo.
There are far too many Democrats to even consider looking at them just yet so we will let them be whittled down and anyway we have our own Government to worry about and if, as expected its Boris Johnson, we could well be America's 51st State by then so we will get a vote anyway.
Most candidates running for office usually have a background in politics and have held an elected position, like senator, governor, vice-president, or member of Congress and most modern candidates hold university degrees and over half the former US Presidents graduated in law.
The US has never elected a non-Christian or a woman and only one President, Barack Obama, has not been white.
Becoming President - or even trying to be - can be eye-wateringly expensive. The ability to raise funds from your supporters, or spend your own cash, is of the utmost importance as the 2016 election cost a combined £1.8bn according to campaign finance watchdog OpenSecrets.org.
You need to be in one of the main two parties of either the Democrats or the Republicans but even winning the most votes might not ensure you get to place yourself in Donald Trump's reinforced chairs butt groove because Al Gore in 2000 and Hillary Clinton in 2016 gained the most votes but found themselves watching someone else go by in the Presidential Limo.
There are far too many Democrats to even consider looking at them just yet so we will let them be whittled down and anyway we have our own Government to worry about and if, as expected its Boris Johnson, we could well be America's 51st State by then so we will get a vote anyway.
It's Tricky
QI once included an astonishing fact that the entire supply of gold ever mined, 190,040 tonnes, would fit into 3.27 Olympic sized swimming pools but seen we may all be dripping in the stuff like over-enthusiastic rappers because above out heads is £550 quintrillion of the shiny metal.
That it is embedded in an 140 mile wide asteroid, Psyche 16, 460 million miles from Earth between Jupiter and Mars may present a problem but NASA are on it, planning to find a way to grab themselves a piece of the action although their timescale of 25 years to get 'proof of concept', and the same again to 50 years to start building the machines capable of mining it means that i may have to postpone my Run DMC impression for a while.
As well as NASA, China have their eyes firmly on the Asteroid Belt and have been planning to experiment on Near-Earth asteroids, which pass close to Earth and could be nudged into our orbit to make it easier to extract vital elements.
The moon has been mentioned often as being ripe for mining and Europe is developing missions there with a view to mining it as is Japan and even tiny Luxembourg is targeting space ventures to the Moon, and eyeing near-Earth asteroids for mining.
There's a new Gold Rush only in very slow motion and will be going ahead just past Mars, if you see Jupiter then you have gone too far.
That it is embedded in an 140 mile wide asteroid, Psyche 16, 460 million miles from Earth between Jupiter and Mars may present a problem but NASA are on it, planning to find a way to grab themselves a piece of the action although their timescale of 25 years to get 'proof of concept', and the same again to 50 years to start building the machines capable of mining it means that i may have to postpone my Run DMC impression for a while.
As well as NASA, China have their eyes firmly on the Asteroid Belt and have been planning to experiment on Near-Earth asteroids, which pass close to Earth and could be nudged into our orbit to make it easier to extract vital elements.
The moon has been mentioned often as being ripe for mining and Europe is developing missions there with a view to mining it as is Japan and even tiny Luxembourg is targeting space ventures to the Moon, and eyeing near-Earth asteroids for mining.
There's a new Gold Rush only in very slow motion and will be going ahead just past Mars, if you see Jupiter then you have gone too far.
Supplanting Capitalism With Democratic Economy
Something which the 2008 crash and the right wing ideology of austerity and cuts has underlined is that Capitalism is a failed economic strategy producing wage stagnation, in-work poverty, inequality, banking crises, the rise of populism and an ever impending economic catastrophe.
At last year’s Conservative conference, the chancellor, Philip Hammond, admitted that in the west: 'Too many people feel that the system is not working for them' but the left have only been advocating Socialism for decades and we had a taste of it under Tony Blair's New Labour until he imploded on the Iraq War issue which sucked the air out of all the genuine, and successful, achievements he
imposed on improving inequality on Society.
Despite Capitalism’s cruelties being ruthlessly exposed, the left has not been able to fundamentally change how wealth functions in society, leaving Capitalism with it's privatisation, deregulation, drip down, lower taxes for business and the rich, more power for employers and shareholders to shut down any argument with the shout that there is not an alternative.
They mischievously managed to merge Socialism with Communism which they linked to Soviet Union policies and shut down any debate and anyone arguing that Capitalism should be reined in.
As those most profiting from Capitalism are the same people who back it, it is hardly surprising that the left have been unable to break through but with a dawning recognition that a new kind of fairer, more inclusive, less exploitative, less destructive of society and the planet economy is needed, the left have seized the opportunity to put forward 'The Democratic Economy'.
The new left wing economics, a branch from the ideals of Socialism, put forward by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) and the New Economics Foundation (NEF) wants to see 'an economy that makes society, rather than a society that is made by the economy' and in short 'shift decision making power to workers, customers, suppliers, neighbours and the broader public to ensure a more equal model that puts society and it's people before profit, growth and shareholders'.
The idea is to dismantle and displace corporate and financial power in Britain in favour of the less privileged by requiring companies to give their employees shares and to create an 'inclusive ownership' policy which would see inserting into a company’s ownership structure a group of employees with a say in how profits are distributed and wages, hours and employment and working conditions are implemented, workers managing themselves, rather than submit to employers or shareholders.
With Capitalism less effective and more unpopular than it has ever been and many voters unwilling, or unable, to pay much more tax, with living standards squeezed under Capitalism and society in one of the worst, and most unequal, states in several lifetimes, the idea that an economic idea that puts social before commercial goals is a worthy one.
The push should now be to explain that profit and growth are not the economic outcomes that matter, that other values should matter more from now on and Capitalism has failed, just look around you at the ashamedly busy food banks and the homeless sheltering in the town centres to see that, and there is a new economic idea in town.
At last year’s Conservative conference, the chancellor, Philip Hammond, admitted that in the west: 'Too many people feel that the system is not working for them' but the left have only been advocating Socialism for decades and we had a taste of it under Tony Blair's New Labour until he imploded on the Iraq War issue which sucked the air out of all the genuine, and successful, achievements he
imposed on improving inequality on Society.
Despite Capitalism’s cruelties being ruthlessly exposed, the left has not been able to fundamentally change how wealth functions in society, leaving Capitalism with it's privatisation, deregulation, drip down, lower taxes for business and the rich, more power for employers and shareholders to shut down any argument with the shout that there is not an alternative.
They mischievously managed to merge Socialism with Communism which they linked to Soviet Union policies and shut down any debate and anyone arguing that Capitalism should be reined in.
As those most profiting from Capitalism are the same people who back it, it is hardly surprising that the left have been unable to break through but with a dawning recognition that a new kind of fairer, more inclusive, less exploitative, less destructive of society and the planet economy is needed, the left have seized the opportunity to put forward 'The Democratic Economy'.
The new left wing economics, a branch from the ideals of Socialism, put forward by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) and the New Economics Foundation (NEF) wants to see 'an economy that makes society, rather than a society that is made by the economy' and in short 'shift decision making power to workers, customers, suppliers, neighbours and the broader public to ensure a more equal model that puts society and it's people before profit, growth and shareholders'.
The idea is to dismantle and displace corporate and financial power in Britain in favour of the less privileged by requiring companies to give their employees shares and to create an 'inclusive ownership' policy which would see inserting into a company’s ownership structure a group of employees with a say in how profits are distributed and wages, hours and employment and working conditions are implemented, workers managing themselves, rather than submit to employers or shareholders.
With Capitalism less effective and more unpopular than it has ever been and many voters unwilling, or unable, to pay much more tax, with living standards squeezed under Capitalism and society in one of the worst, and most unequal, states in several lifetimes, the idea that an economic idea that puts social before commercial goals is a worthy one.
The push should now be to explain that profit and growth are not the economic outcomes that matter, that other values should matter more from now on and Capitalism has failed, just look around you at the ashamedly busy food banks and the homeless sheltering in the town centres to see that, and there is a new economic idea in town.
Generation Snowflake
Students are by nature generally left wing, they care about the environment, equality, fairness, society and human rights and are on the whole more clued up on all of them then previous generations and who can blame them because what they are seeing is society run by the older generation in a bloody mess.
They are labelled Generation Snowflake by older Generations who like to repeat the mantra that 'they never had it so good' but that is false because even to the most blinkered, what they have is a lot worse then the generation who were only to happy to pull up the ladder behind them.
The world that the young are inheriting from us is far worse off then the one that we inherited from our parents with tuition fees, rising prices, wage stagnation, competition for jobs, austerity cuts and extortionate house and rent prices.
Quite rightly, they look at society, Capitalism and the Conservative Government and ask how we are the fifth richest nation but have abundant food banks, in work poverty and the homeless filling our town centres and ask how did it get like this?
Despite Brexit ruining things and severe austerity measures still in full flow, the Government are promising further tax cuts for the richest so is it any surprise that voting patterns and political opinion show a sharp swing amongst the younger voters towards the left and away from the ideology which has caused them so much pain and will continue to do so for decades.
The Socialism doctrine appears to be chiming with them, the idea of a more equal society as proposed by the likes of Jeremy Corbyn which would rein in rampant Capitalism and rebalance power away from the wealthy who have an unfair advantage in today's Society.
It is to our shame that the planet we are leaving them is filthy and polluted and the opportunities, debt and inequality that we are handing to them is far worse then when it was passed down to us.
They are labelled Generation Snowflake by older Generations who like to repeat the mantra that 'they never had it so good' but that is false because even to the most blinkered, what they have is a lot worse then the generation who were only to happy to pull up the ladder behind them.
The world that the young are inheriting from us is far worse off then the one that we inherited from our parents with tuition fees, rising prices, wage stagnation, competition for jobs, austerity cuts and extortionate house and rent prices.
Quite rightly, they look at society, Capitalism and the Conservative Government and ask how we are the fifth richest nation but have abundant food banks, in work poverty and the homeless filling our town centres and ask how did it get like this?
Despite Brexit ruining things and severe austerity measures still in full flow, the Government are promising further tax cuts for the richest so is it any surprise that voting patterns and political opinion show a sharp swing amongst the younger voters towards the left and away from the ideology which has caused them so much pain and will continue to do so for decades.
The Socialism doctrine appears to be chiming with them, the idea of a more equal society as proposed by the likes of Jeremy Corbyn which would rein in rampant Capitalism and rebalance power away from the wealthy who have an unfair advantage in today's Society.
It is to our shame that the planet we are leaving them is filthy and polluted and the opportunities, debt and inequality that we are handing to them is far worse then when it was passed down to us.
Thursday, 27 June 2019
Vaping Ban On Health Grounds
Something that nobody tells you when you switch from cigarettes to e-cigarettes is that because you are inhaling nicotine, you actually get more from the e-cigarette than you do from smoking a cigarette because you don't know when you have had a cigarettes worth and you just keep inhaling and the result of the extra nicotine is some very funky dreams.
Usually quite fun, they can be very vivid, lucid and weird dreams especially if you have a good blast before you go to bed but the flip side is the nightmares are also much more terrifying as i found out which can be very, very scary.
Apart from the weird dreams, generally e-cigarettes are considered harmless and the NHS are even considering offering them for free which makes he ban by San Francisco on health grounds a bit of a strange one.
Inhaling nicotine is not dangerous in itself especially when compared to the many poisonous chemicals contained in tobacco smoke and nicotine does not cause cancer unlike tobacco in normal cigarettes and doctors, public health experts, cancer charities and governments in the UK all agree that, based on the current evidence, e-cigarettes carry a fraction of the risk of cigarettes but it is the 'based on current evidence' where San Francisco have got the jitters.
The ban is to stay in place until their health effects are clearer which echoes the ban in Australia which is reviewing all the available evidence of the health impacts of vaping and e-cigarette liquids.
As vaping is still very new and the effects are unknown then it is probably correct that a full review is conducted but i have always had two other fears over e-cigarettes which are hard to argue against.
The first is that the e-cigarette companies are aiming their wares at the under 18 market. Hard to argue when you see flavours such as ice cream, bubble gum and candy floss while the second is that the 'safe' aspect of vaping is tempting people to try smoking who would not have necessarily have and i've met people who have tried vaping, liked it and then tried a cigarette.
The best course of action is to not smoke at all and e-cigarettes are great for smokers who are addicted to nicotine already but there should be the concern that they do prove attractive to non-smokers and the under-age and i have seen myself them act as a gate-way to real cigarettes.
Inconvenient for vapers but until the evidence points conclusively one way or the other, i can't blame San Francisco for the ban.
Usually quite fun, they can be very vivid, lucid and weird dreams especially if you have a good blast before you go to bed but the flip side is the nightmares are also much more terrifying as i found out which can be very, very scary.
Apart from the weird dreams, generally e-cigarettes are considered harmless and the NHS are even considering offering them for free which makes he ban by San Francisco on health grounds a bit of a strange one.
Inhaling nicotine is not dangerous in itself especially when compared to the many poisonous chemicals contained in tobacco smoke and nicotine does not cause cancer unlike tobacco in normal cigarettes and doctors, public health experts, cancer charities and governments in the UK all agree that, based on the current evidence, e-cigarettes carry a fraction of the risk of cigarettes but it is the 'based on current evidence' where San Francisco have got the jitters.
The ban is to stay in place until their health effects are clearer which echoes the ban in Australia which is reviewing all the available evidence of the health impacts of vaping and e-cigarette liquids.
As vaping is still very new and the effects are unknown then it is probably correct that a full review is conducted but i have always had two other fears over e-cigarettes which are hard to argue against.
The first is that the e-cigarette companies are aiming their wares at the under 18 market. Hard to argue when you see flavours such as ice cream, bubble gum and candy floss while the second is that the 'safe' aspect of vaping is tempting people to try smoking who would not have necessarily have and i've met people who have tried vaping, liked it and then tried a cigarette.
The best course of action is to not smoke at all and e-cigarettes are great for smokers who are addicted to nicotine already but there should be the concern that they do prove attractive to non-smokers and the under-age and i have seen myself them act as a gate-way to real cigarettes.
Inconvenient for vapers but until the evidence points conclusively one way or the other, i can't blame San Francisco for the ban.
Who Wants To Live Forever?
For the first time in 100 years, Britons are dying earlier. The UK now has the worst health trends in western Europe and doctors and experts believe that the impact of austerity is a major factor
Statisticians first noticed in 2013, just after the austerity cuts were introduced, that rises in life expectancy in the UK had begun to slow down and then gradually, the graph flattened out until a few years ago when it started to decline.
Obviously, as it was the Conservative Government who placed gave us austerity, they claim that 'Life expectancy cannot be expected to increase forever' but the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries said it now expects men aged 65 to die at 86.9 years, down from 87.4 years, while women are likely to die at 89.2 years, down from 89.7 years.
According to a study by New Scientist, one in five adults say, if possible, they would definitely want to live forever and companies are developing the means of merging the human brain with artificial intelligence to achieve so-called 'cybernetic immortality' which involves uploading their thoughts and consciousness into a machine and living forever as a type of computer hologram.
Another possibility of achieving immortality is through advances in genetic studies where the cells linked with the ageing process are effectively switched off.
The moral issue is that even if we could live forever, should we? Overpopulation is the obvious problem which lead to mass food poverty, and rapidly speed up the damaging environmental problems we already face today.
If achieved, it would be the biggest scientific breakthrough in the history of mankind but while nobody wants to die, or at the very least not die before they are due, would you want to live forever it is an intriguing question, despite the Governments best efforts to make sure we don't even reach our allotted time on the Earth at all.
Statisticians first noticed in 2013, just after the austerity cuts were introduced, that rises in life expectancy in the UK had begun to slow down and then gradually, the graph flattened out until a few years ago when it started to decline.
Obviously, as it was the Conservative Government who placed gave us austerity, they claim that 'Life expectancy cannot be expected to increase forever' but the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries said it now expects men aged 65 to die at 86.9 years, down from 87.4 years, while women are likely to die at 89.2 years, down from 89.7 years.
According to a study by New Scientist, one in five adults say, if possible, they would definitely want to live forever and companies are developing the means of merging the human brain with artificial intelligence to achieve so-called 'cybernetic immortality' which involves uploading their thoughts and consciousness into a machine and living forever as a type of computer hologram.
Another possibility of achieving immortality is through advances in genetic studies where the cells linked with the ageing process are effectively switched off.
The moral issue is that even if we could live forever, should we? Overpopulation is the obvious problem which lead to mass food poverty, and rapidly speed up the damaging environmental problems we already face today.
If achieved, it would be the biggest scientific breakthrough in the history of mankind but while nobody wants to die, or at the very least not die before they are due, would you want to live forever it is an intriguing question, despite the Governments best efforts to make sure we don't even reach our allotted time on the Earth at all.
Avoid Tax Refund Companies
As we slip and slide our way to the end of another academic year, Student thoughts will be turning to employment through the summer and every year i have this conversation about paying tax and the companies who will try and get you to sign up so they can claim it back for you for a hefty fee.
Companies such as TaxReturned.co.uk, RIFT and taxrebates.co.uk who will try and tell you that they can get you back any tax you paid but not tell you the extortionate fee they charge. Read about them here.
Some have a minimum charge (i have seen £90), and some take a percentage of the tax repayment obtained (i have seen 40% fees) and you will need to sign a deed of assignment which means that your refund will be paid to the tax refund organisation in the first instance, so they can take their fee before paying you the remainder.
How it works is that the refund organisation will request you send the P60 or P45 and then will literally, take the information out of the envelope you sent it in and place it in another and forward to HM Revenue & Customs earning a 40% or £90 fee for as much work as opening an envelope and closing another one with your details in it.
You may be happy to receive £600 tax back but not so much when you find out that the tax you paid was £1000 and you could have got it all back for the price of a stamp or a phone call.
HM Revenue & Customs even have a Personal Tax Account that you can set up to make it even easier and i have a link which gives a guide to how to do it here, but please, don't hand out easy money to the likes of RIFT or TaxReturned because it's yours, you earned it and don't let the shysters deprive you of it.
Companies such as TaxReturned.co.uk, RIFT and taxrebates.co.uk who will try and tell you that they can get you back any tax you paid but not tell you the extortionate fee they charge. Read about them here.
Some have a minimum charge (i have seen £90), and some take a percentage of the tax repayment obtained (i have seen 40% fees) and you will need to sign a deed of assignment which means that your refund will be paid to the tax refund organisation in the first instance, so they can take their fee before paying you the remainder.
How it works is that the refund organisation will request you send the P60 or P45 and then will literally, take the information out of the envelope you sent it in and place it in another and forward to HM Revenue & Customs earning a 40% or £90 fee for as much work as opening an envelope and closing another one with your details in it.
You may be happy to receive £600 tax back but not so much when you find out that the tax you paid was £1000 and you could have got it all back for the price of a stamp or a phone call.
HM Revenue & Customs even have a Personal Tax Account that you can set up to make it even easier and i have a link which gives a guide to how to do it here, but please, don't hand out easy money to the likes of RIFT or TaxReturned because it's yours, you earned it and don't let the shysters deprive you of it.
Wednesday, 26 June 2019
Scorchio
Most countries know how to appreciate the sun because though the sun never set on the British empire, it rarely shines in the motherland but today on the south coast of the UK it was 25C and the weather forecasters are warning it could go as much as 10 degrees higher by the weekend.
While colleagues stuck their heads in the sink and hogged the fans, our thoughts must go to the nations across Europe who have been driven to taking extraordinary measures as a heatwave bringing record-breaking June temperatures surpassing 40C (104F) lands in some areas in the coming days.
In Germany, authorities have placed speed restrictions on stretches of the motorway due to concerns that scorching temperatures could damage road surfaces and in France schools have been closed and national exams postponed after education minister, Jean-Michel Blanquer, deemed it would be too hot.
France has also installed temporary fountains and have been roaming the streets, handing water to the homeless while French officials decided that in Paris and Lyon only the least polluting vehicles would be allowed on the roads from today due to pollution level.
Switzerland's national weather service Meteo Swiss has issued a red heat alert, the highest level, and Meteorologists expect previous highs to be approached and possibly exceeded in Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.
The last European heatwave even close to being comparable to this one was in 2003, which led to the deaths of 20,000 people but the most disturbing thing about it is that national highest-ever temperature records are typically set in late July or August so grab that sun cream with a factor of a hundred and one because summers here now and it's going to be nasty.
While colleagues stuck their heads in the sink and hogged the fans, our thoughts must go to the nations across Europe who have been driven to taking extraordinary measures as a heatwave bringing record-breaking June temperatures surpassing 40C (104F) lands in some areas in the coming days.
In Germany, authorities have placed speed restrictions on stretches of the motorway due to concerns that scorching temperatures could damage road surfaces and in France schools have been closed and national exams postponed after education minister, Jean-Michel Blanquer, deemed it would be too hot.
France has also installed temporary fountains and have been roaming the streets, handing water to the homeless while French officials decided that in Paris and Lyon only the least polluting vehicles would be allowed on the roads from today due to pollution level.
Switzerland's national weather service Meteo Swiss has issued a red heat alert, the highest level, and Meteorologists expect previous highs to be approached and possibly exceeded in Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.
The last European heatwave even close to being comparable to this one was in 2003, which led to the deaths of 20,000 people but the most disturbing thing about it is that national highest-ever temperature records are typically set in late July or August so grab that sun cream with a factor of a hundred and one because summers here now and it's going to be nasty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)