This topic is not a science discussion, so it has been moved to Just Chat!.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Can you help me explain this to my friend? here's what he said:
I do believe we had the technology to get to the moon but I do not believe we had the technology to transmit an analog TV signal from the moon to the earth. I looked it up myself with no moon context. I looked up how much power is needed to transmit an analog TV signal. Turns out about 50,000 watts per 25-50 miles for VHF. Analog VHF TV signals dissipate quickly, they spread out, they don't travel like a beam. Even with 50,000 watts and a very tall aentena matched to the power (about 100 feet) the signal would be too weak to lock onto after 50 miles. I'm supposed to believe that six foot TV antenna on top of The Eagle could transmit at a high enough power for the signal to reach earth capable of being locked onto? The entire lander was operating on a 12 volt car battery!
"On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 4:34 AM, Jason Perales <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
You are using my client's image in an article on https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/science-features/science-sunday-lunch-question-taste. We're glad that it's of use to you
You can find the image at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sunday_roast_-_roast_beef_1.jpg
Itís not an issue at all but we would greatly appreciate it if you can give credit to our client as they have produced this image that you are using.
You can simply add an image credit (by adding a clickable link) on your article to our clientís website. Since you have been using this image for quite some time now as per the date of your articleís publication, we feel that itís the right thing to do.
Feel free to ask any questions that you may have.
Legal Media Check
On Sunday, 30 August 2020, 10:43:27 BST, Jason Perales <email@example.com> wrote:
Can you please connect me to the right person if this isn't part of your department?
Thank you for replying, Chris.
Can you please give image credit to Carnivore Style?
Credit Name: Carnivore Style
It can be anywhere in the article. Just make sure that it's a clickable link.
Jason Perales <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Chris Smith
Wed 2 Sep at 12:36
Hey, feel free to let me know if you have any concerns regarding my previous email.
What do you think will work best for you?
We blog a lot here on phoenixfm.com but thereís always a worry that we accidentally use an image weíre not allowed to use. You canít just lift something off Google image search Ė that person may have paid for the privilege, and weíre an impoverished community radio station with a zero budget for virtually everything. So we need to be careful.
If I need various stock images, I go to one of the free stock image websites. It can be hard finding them, because the ones that Google tell you are free arenít necessarily free. You have to read a lot of small print.
This morning at 11am I had an email from Alice Felix, Content Head at Legal Media Check. She said:
You are using my clientís image (attached below) in one of your articles (URL given). Weíre glad that itís of use to you 🙂
Thereís no issue if youíve bought this from our market partners such as Shutterstock, iStock, Getty Image, Pexels, Adobe, Pixabay, Unsplash etc.,
However, if you donít have the proper license for the image then we request you to provide image credits (clickable link) on your article. Or else this will be against the copyright policy.
Unfortunately, removing the image isnít the solution since you have been using our image on your website for a while now.
Feel free to ask any questions that you may have.
Legal Media Check
This just seemed a bit weird. I Googled Alice, and it appeared that she lives in Texas, so why is she sending out messages at 5am? Also, some of the English on it just didnít seem quite right either (ďOr else this will be against the copyright policyĒ, etc). Also, for a legal letter it wasnít very aggressive, which I was grateful for, but it set a few alarm bells ringing. Also, this part at the end of her email really surprised me:
Unsubscribe (link) if you donít want me to followup with you.
So Iím being asked not to violate your clientís legal rights but I can unsubscribe? I went back to her and said:
I have spoken to the author who tells me the image was found from a free website. However I am happy to give you a credit, can you please give me the information required?
She replied very quickly (so sheís probably not in Texas unless sheís a really early starter).
Thanks for getting back to me.
Can you please give image credit to (Van Hire Company)?
Link: Van Hire Companyís link
Credit Name: Van Hire Company
It can be anywhere in the article. Just make sure that itís a clickable link 🙂
Beginning to think that with all the smiley faces, this is not a proper legal firm.
I clicked on the link. Itís a van hire company. Not a photographer trying to make a living.
Obviously Iím not mentioning the name of the company, because thatís what they want. We get a lot of people asking us to link to them, because our website has a good standing with Google. Sometimes they offer to pay, which is great as the money goes in the pot to help run the station. (If youíre interested, the going rate is about £50). Sometimes they try to get it for free. But Iíve never had an SEO company pretend to be a legal firm and threaten me (very politely) with action just so they can get a free link for one of their clients.
The Van Hire Company stinks too. The website gives an address of London N7 and a phone number starting with 020, but itís written in broken English and the prices are all in Euros.
I decided to email her back.
Can you please send me proof that Van Hire Company is the photographer who holds the copyright?
They seem to be the magic words, as the correspondence ended very abruptly.
So if youíre reading this, host your own website and you get any emails from Alice Felix, Content Head at Legal Media Check, save yourself some time and put them straight in the bin Ö
I am possibly unusual in that I listen to both the 5 Live Podcast and the Naked Scientists one!
I take issue with your report in today's broadcast on the safety of flying during Covid. Your interviewee failed to consider one vital point which means that the thrust and conclusion are flawed.
By way of background my father died of Covid-19 in late March while in Tenerife. He us still there and I have, at some point, to deal with his Spanish affairs. I have therefore done a lot of investigation into the safety of flying, particularly as I have underlying medical issues.
Your interviewee mentioned the air filters on planes. After asking many times one airline eventually told me "All our aircraft are fitted with super-efficient, state-of-the-art ventilation and filtration systems to control air quality and circulate fresh air around the cabin every few minutes. These systems are similar to those you would find in hospital
settings and meet the highest standards of clinical hygiene."
So I then asked them what size the filters are in microns. Their response was "the Boeing requirement for a HEPA filter is at least 99.97% efficiency on a 0.3 micron DOP (dioctylphthalate, an aerosol used as a standard for testing) particles tested at the rated flow Per MIL-STD-282, Method 102.9.1, DOP-Smoke Penetration and Air Resistance of
Filters. The HEPA filters recommended in the Reference /A/Multi-Operator Message are rated to HEPA Class H13 (or higher)".
So I responded with the observation that as the Covid-19 virus is 0.125 microns or less then their air filters will be ineffective against it.
At this point the airline stopped corresponding with me.
But the point is that the air filters do not filter out Covid-19 but they do circulate the air every few minutes. Therefore if you have say 100 people who do not know each other in an sealed tube (aeroplane) for hours at a time then the risk is very high and not low as your report stated.
I am a regular listener of the Naked Scientists. I have listened to all of your shows from the beginning. I know that Chris has a pet hate for the wearing of surgical masks as a preventative measure during this awful viral outbreak. I am living in China.
There is one major benefit of wearing these masks that I feel Chris may have overlooked. The masks stop an individual from touching their mouth or nose. As Chris has mentioned many times in various podcasts the most important thing a person can do is wash their hands regularly..So a physical barrier acting as a constant reminder to avoid touching your face must be a positive thing. I feel to state that the masks do nothing to prevent catching the virus is therefore not entirely true.
As a doctor I think Chris has a valid point in citing various studies that indicate wearing surgical masks has little or no effect on flu prevention. I would be interested to hear his opinion on the masks acting as a psychological reminder to avoid touching ones face.
Thank you all for your wonderful podcasts.