dangerous sunspot report

[sgazer]

http://www.slashgear.com/huge-sunspot-forebodes-major-solar-flares-08226898/

they should be very careful with statements like "sunspots big enough to see with even basic astronomy equipment" as people could do permanent damage to their eyes (and telescope) without the correct setup.

I wanted to place a comment with a warning, but you have to login and it wants to access all your contacts, so couldn't.

[JamesF]

Point taken, but they're not saying "go and look with your telescope", are they? They merely mention that such things are possible.

If someone owns a telescope then I think the responsibility must rest with them to understand how to use it properly and safely. If you decide that any time the words "telescope" and "sun" are mentioned together that there needs to be a warning not to look at the sun directlym where do you draw the line? Will cookery programs be regularly interrupted by warnings that knives are sharp and you could cut yourself and bleed to death, or that ovens are hot and you might burn yourself? Should a recorded message warn you that cars are dangerous every time you turn the ignition key?

Yes, people obviously have to learn somewhere that viewing the sun through an unmodified telescope is dangerous, but I'd have thought that responsibililty lies with the manufacturer or vendor of the telescope, not anyone else who ever happens to mention the fact in passing. At some point people really need to understand that the primary responsibility for their own safety lies with themselves. Learning to ask "Is this a safe thing to do?" and to find out if you don't know is surely part of growing up, isn't it?

James

[Glen]

FTFY

[Glen]

See your point James but he is broadcasting.

[JamesF]

And that somehow absolves people of the need to use their brains?

James

[Glen]

I'm all up for natural selection, but also can't sit idly by seeing the possibility of someone harming themselves, especially when another is promoting it. Sorry James.

[JamesF]

So we can look forward to warnings about sharp knives in cookery programmes, or how power tools are dangerous in home-improvement programmes, or warnings about playing music too loudly damaging your hearing at the start of all CDs and during radio programmes then?

James

[x6gas]

I'm more bothered by the fact that the author explains what a sun spot is, but doesn't define "complex beta-gamma magnetic fields".

[Glen]

Sorry James, I'm not getting where you are coming from, are you saying I was wrong to warn in this situation?

[Damo636]

:icon_scratch:

[JamesM]

Glen, I totally understand where you're coming from and understand your sensitivity and concern. I also understand James's point, in that the article wasn't instructional in attempting to persuade people to have a look, simply that it was attempting to illustrate that the sun spot was significant enough that it was detectable and perhaps the article was a little clumsy.

Having said that Glen, you will be pleased to know that although you may not have felt able to add a comment on the end of that article, a guy called Jamie has and perhaps others reading it will benefit from his advice.

James

[John]

Sorry James, I'm not getting where you are coming from, are you saying I was wrong to warn in this situation?

I think James said "point taken" in his original response Glen which indicates to me that he acknowledges why you made your post.

I notice that someone has posted a warning as a comment on the link you copied in your post so the message is "out there"

Edit: James beat me to it !

[Glen]

Thanks , to let you know I was "jamie" in the OPs link, sorry for any confusion.

Hence the FTFY = fixed that for you.

[sgazer]

great, thanks for adding that comment. I know we can't counter for all the idiots in the world, but it does say "even basic astronomy equipment" and clearly a correct solar filter is not really basic equipment for the man on the street, where-as a toyshop scope is. I know it's not telling people to look at the sun, but it's suggesting that this very interesting phenomenon is easily visible, which may possibly lead people to look at it because of what they read.

I think there are a lot of people out there who do not realise you need the correct filter over the main objective, most of which don't deserve to lose their eyeseight, for that oversight. You don't even get that sort of punishment for murder these days, so why should an absent minded astronomer. A simple warning is worth it, if it saves just one father's/mother's/child's eyesight. I'm fairly sure we wouldn't walk up to one of these people and tell them they deserved to lose their sight.

[JamesF]

but it does say "even basic astronomy equipment" and clearly a correct solar filter is not really basic equipment for the man on the street.

A solar filter isn't the only way to view the sun. You don't need to get even that complex, but I think there's still potentially a case for the argument that if you can buy the parts and make a solar filter for less than £20 at home then it is fairly basic. That aside however...

You don't even get that sort of punishment for murder these days, so why should an absent minded astronomer. A simple warning is worth it, if it saves just one father's/mother's/child's eyesight. I'm fairly sure we wouldn't walk up to one of these people and tell them they deserved to lose their sight.

No-one is saying that anyone *deserves* to lose their sight, but I believe your argument is flawed.

The world is full of objects the misuse of which can result in injury or death. The appropriate time to teach people that there are dangers and how to avoid them is when they're being sold or when people are being taught or encouraged to use them. There's a fair exception if you're targeting children, certainly, as they regularly need to have it hammered into them not to do something that they've been told is dangerous. It should not however be beholden upon every person who mentions in passing the use of an object that has the potential to cause injury that it might be dangerous, regardless of whether they're doing so publicly or not. Firstly because if it were, you'd never get anything useful done at all. but mainly my objection is this:

If you adopt such a position what you're subtly doing is training them that other people will take responsibility for stopping them doing dangerous things and that they therefore don't need to do so themselves. In general people like that idea because it avoids them having to think for themselves and thinking for oneself requires effort. But eventually they get to the point where they stop even trying to decide whether a given action has a risk of injury or not: if they've not been told it's dangerous they they assume it must be safe. That sounds on the face of it like an utterly ridiculous assertion, but the news suggests otherwise. Hardly a week passes without there being some item about a person suing someone else because they were hurt, when your first reaction is "Why on earth didn't they realise they were being stupid in the first place?".

And therein lies another issue. Reinforcing people's ideas that they don't have to have adequate consideration for their own safety encourages a culture of ambulance-chasing lawyers. If you start off by saying "any mention of viewing the sun using a telescope via a public medium must have warning" then how long is it before you also have to start warning that there's a trip-hazard if you use a power pack in the dark? Because you can absolutely guarantee that if you do the former then a lawyer somewhere will be happy to attempt the argument that you should have done the latter because their client tripped over the cables in the dark and broke their arm. And once you start warning about that, there'll be another thing. And another. The result of that action is that people and corporations exist in a climate of fear of being sued and won't offer products and services as a result, or raise their prices significantly to cover the cost of insurance against such lawsuits (both of which already happen).

I'm not saying that it's acceptable for people to injure or kill themselves through ignorance or stupidity. What I'm saying is that with the exception of obvious groups such as the mentally ill, every single adult should understand that the responsibility for their own safety lies primarily, unavoidably, and irrevocably with themselves. If they take an action without regard for their own well-being then the fault for any injury caused lies primarily with themselves.

The alternative is that we end up living in a society where nothing comes without a warning, probably several; the population stops thinking for itself and act more like sheep than human beings, and people are robbed of great science, great engineering and even the relatively simple pleasures in life because they just become too expensive to buy or too much of a risk for those who provide them. You might think that's some doom-laden prophesy of the future, but if you look around you it already happens. Especially the sheep bit. Three little words: "tanker", "driver", "strike".

Errrm, rant over

James

[fatwoul]

...If someone owns a telescope then I think the responsibility must rest with them to understand how to use it properly and safely...

But in order to know something like that, they need to be informed.

...If you decide that any time the words "telescope" and "sun" are mentioned together that there needs to be a warning not to look at the sun directlym where do you draw the line? Will cookery programs be regularly interrupted by warnings that knives are sharp and you could cut yourself and bleed to death, or that ovens are hot and you might burn yourself?...

Surely it relates to scale and seriousness. Comparing cutting yourself with a knife or burning yourself on the oven with permanently and irrevocably blinding yourself doesn't seem reasonable. Comparing it with something equally dangerous and life-altering would be more appropriate, and as such stunts and hazardous actions on TV are frequently accompanied by "do not try this at home". Even Jackass has a warning on it, and viewers of that junk deserve to get injured!

...Should a recorded message warn you that cars are dangerous every time you turn the ignition key?...

They beep to remind you to use your seatbelt. Isn't that the kind of thing you're talking about anyway?

...Yes, people obviously have to learn somewhere that viewing the sun through an unmodified telescope is dangerous, but I'd have thought that responsibililty lies with the manufacturer or vendor of the telescope, not anyone else who ever happens to mention the fact in passing...

This particular lesson isn't something you can learn by error. It's not a matter of whose job it is.

...At some point people really need to understand that the primary responsibility for their own safety lies with themselves. Learning to ask "Is this a safe thing to do?" and to find out if you don't know is surely part of growing up, isn't it?

I would suggest that a person's prospects of "growing up" will be severely hampered by having to learn how to read braille from scratch, not to mention having to learn how to do everything else in the dark.

I'm sorry, but this is a somewhat emotive issue for me. My grandad went blind in his mid-50s (macular degeneration), had to leave work, couldn't drive, so lost a lot of his freedom, and took a long time to get used to the changes. That was nobody's fault, but fault didn't enter into it. That isn't something I'd wish upon anybody, and as a photographer and amateur astronomer, I can't think of anything more valuable to me than my eyesight.

[JamesF]

But in order to know something like that, they need to be informed.

Certainly. But I dealt with that elsewhere.

Surely it relates to scale and seriousness.

So who would be the arbiter of scale and seriousness? Who wants to put themselves in the firing line of the lawyers and the press for making a "wrong" decision?

They beep to remind you to use your seatbelt. Isn't that the kind of thing you're talking about anyway?

*laugh* To be honest, I have no idea. Either I've never owned a car that did, or I always put my seat belt on before getting to the point at which that would happen. I'm aware of someone who still deliberately doesn't wear a seat belt, but I have to admit that I struggle to imagine why you'd forget to put one on.

This particular lesson isn't something you can learn by error. It's not a matter of whose job it is.

For clarity, let's say "responsibility" rather than "job". Strictly speaking, it *is* something you can learn by error unless you use a binoscope, but that's just being flippant. However, I would argue that it cannot, should not, and in fact must not be the responsibility of anyone who mentions a potentially dangerous act (for whatever definition we decide upon) in passing to point out the potential hazards. The society in which we live has already demonstrated that the inevitable conclusion of such a requirement would be lawsuits and self-imposed censorship, to the detriment of everyone other than lawyers.

I'm sorry, but this is a somewhat emotive issue for me.

That's fair enough. Everyone's opinion is coloured by their own experience. For clarity, there are three people in my close family who have permanent physical injuries of varying degrees of seriousness and preventability where it might be argued that enough warnings could have prevented them. My own is irritating and annoying, but no worse than that. I accept that it's fundamentally my responsibility however.

James

[Frank the Troll]

Nice one JamesF

On a bag of Nuts "Warning, may Contain Nuts" "to eat, open bag"

Should they also put "chew thoroughly before swallowing"

What happened to commom sense?

[pajr777]

[Frank the Troll]

Very good pajr777

And I think, this sums up James's point very well.

[iwatkins]

By "basic astronomy equipment", a basic refracting telescope would be fine if used to project the image onto card.

Or simpler still, a pair of eclipse glasses. AR11476 is easily visible using these, or at least was yesterday when I could see the sun.

Yes, it is advisable to warn people of the risks, but I think anybody knows not to look at the sun with the naked eye never mind through a telescope/binos.

Cheers

Ian

[E621Keith]

Being astronomer we know we should never look at the sun without proper equipment, but sometime we forget how uneducated the general public can be.

Ever wonder why some microwave ovens comes with warning no to put live animal inside. I thought being an cooking appliance it's quite obvious it will cook anything inside and won't be suitable for drying your pet after a wash.

[Photosbykev]

A solar filter isn't the only way to view the sun. You don't need to get even that complex, but I think there's still potentially a case for the argument that if you can buy the parts and make a solar filter for less than £20 at home then it is fairly basic. That aside however...

No-one is saying that anyone *deserves* to lose their sight, but I believe your argument is flawed.

The world is full of objects the misuse of which can result in injury or death. The appropriate time to teach people that there are dangers and how to avoid them is when they're being sold or when people are being taught or encouraged to use them. There's a fair exception if you're targeting children, certainly, as they regularly need to have it hammered into them not to do something that they've been told is dangerous. It should not however be beholden upon every person who mentions in passing the use of an object that has the potential to cause injury that it might be dangerous, regardless of whether they're doing so publicly or not. Firstly because if it were, you'd never get anything useful done at all. but mainly my objection is this:

If you adopt such a position what you're subtly doing is training them that other people will take responsibility for stopping them doing dangerous things and that they therefore don't need to do so themselves. In general people like that idea because it avoids them having to think for themselves and thinking for oneself requires effort. But eventually they get to the point where they stop even trying to decide whether a given action has a risk of injury or not: if they've not been told it's dangerous they they assume it must be safe. That sounds on the face of it like an utterly ridiculous assertion, but the news suggests otherwise. Hardly a week passes without there being some item about a person suing someone else because they were hurt, when your first reaction is "Why on earth didn't they realise they were being stupid in the first place?".

And therein lies another issue. Reinforcing people's ideas that they don't have to have adequate consideration for their own safety encourages a culture of ambulance-chasing lawyers. If you start off by saying "any mention of viewing the sun using a telescope via a public medium must have warning" then how long is it before you also have to start warning that there's a trip-hazard if you use a power pack in the dark? Because you can absolutely guarantee that if you do the former then a lawyer somewhere will be happy to attempt the argument that you should have done the latter because their client tripped over the cables in the dark and broke their arm. And once you start warning about that, there'll be another thing. And another. The result of that action is that people and corporations exist in a climate of fear of being sued and won't offer products and services as a result, or raise their prices significantly to cover the cost of insurance against such lawsuits (both of which already happen).

I'm not saying that it's acceptable for people to injure or kill themselves through ignorance or stupidity. What I'm saying is that with the exception of obvious groups such as the mentally ill, every single adult should understand that the responsibility for their own safety lies primarily, unavoidably, and irrevocably with themselves. If they take an action without regard for their own well-being then the fault for any injury caused lies primarily with themselves.

The alternative is that we end up living in a society where nothing comes without a warning, probably several; the population stops thinking for itself and act more like sheep than human beings, and people are robbed of great science, great engineering and even the relatively simple pleasures in life because they just become too expensive to buy or too much of a risk for those who provide them. You might think that's some doom-laden prophesy of the future, but if you look around you it already happens. Especially the sheep bit. Three little words: "tanker", "driver", "strike".

Errrm, rant over

James

Well written and imho a very accurate and sad summary of modern life.

I am responsible for my own actions, I don't expect others to cover me in bubble wrap incase I might hurt myself. But if I fall over wearing a full body bubble wrap suit I reserve the right to sue everyone for the loss of hearing when the bubble wrap pops around my head.

[Ainsley]

+1 James.

[sologuitarist61]

Just to throw spanner in the works.

I believe that fast food places warn that coffee cups contain hot liquid; hot water stills have signs saying 'careful, hot water', cookery programmes warn of dangerous equipment like mandolins (sharp slicing equipment).

In respect of eyesight, mine is badly impaired because I used to like taking sunsets with my camera and so I too can no longer drive. Yes, I know I should have known better, but I was young and silly as maybe many of the people who hear this information and then go have a look through bins or a telescope.

I don't agree with a Nanny State as such, but sometimes people need to be warned. So I am with Glen on this one, a warning should have been given and its was irresponsible not to do so.