![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sleep disorder?
Apr. 11th, 2005 03:07 pmSomewhere recently, a report on sleep disorders was published by some Relevant Authoritative Group™, filled with the language you come to expect from such publications, filled with doom and gloom and doing all but proclaiming the end of civilization, as we know it, due to an epidemic of sleep disorders.
Which is not to say that sleep disorders don't exist. I am convinced, by first-hand experience, that those middle-of-the-night ads for various "sleep systems" are probably a good investment on the part of the merchants; at least they've targeted the right audience.
Last night, I could not fall asleep until about 2 am again. While waiting for sleep to come, I watched something on the Discovery Channel called Supervolcano.
Talk about your gloom and doom.
In real life, you see, the northwest corner of Wyoming lies atop a pool of magma that has erupted quite violently three times in the last 2.1 million years, at intervals of approximately 600-700 thousand years. So naturally beautiful and hydrothermally diverse is this region, that the government has designated it as a National Park, familiar to us all as Yellowstone.
If the great timer that controls volcanic eruptions in the vicinity runs out in our lifetime, or even within a future period equal in length to the recorded history of humankind, or, actually, ever, the result is not going to be pleasant. A supereruption will throw 6000 times more stuff into the atmosphere than did Mt. St. Helens, likely snuff out most plant and animal life across much of the continent, and perhaps plunge the rest of the planet into an ice age.
While all of this is informative, I had trouble understanding the point (which is why I tend to avoid natural disaster movies, and horror flicks, for that matter). First of all, we in the audience know the story line features a supereruption, which puts a certain twist on the remarks made by various characters (the Asian reporter turns out looking positively clairvoyant, while the Homeland Security official comes across as a dork). Those same remarks would have an entirely different weight had we the audience sat through the whole film without that eruption, and if, in addition, the authorities had taken precautions in the face of what turns out to be a non-eruption, you'd have a story that made no sense at all, dramatically.
On the other hand, the screenplay did highlight a couple of interesting points, at least for me.
The first was the nature of the questions asked by the reporter. For example: "Can you rule out the occurrence of a supereruption in the future?" (A variation on this was in fact asked by a reporter at a NASA Return to Flight news conference a few days ago, phrased something along the lines of: "Can you be certain you've found all of the flaws similar to those that caused the loss of Challenger and Columbia?")
The second had to do with the initial, hostile reaction of the Homeland Security official in the story to a suggestion that people be encouraged to walk out of affected areas (instead of staying in place and waiting for the Federal government to come save them). Consciously or not, I think the screenplay captures something essential there: government's inherent hostility to individual initiative in times of crisis.
The doctor's appointment is made, BTW. It's a few days out, but that should not be a problem. In those few days I should be able to dope out whether my tiredness is the result of not enough sleep - heck, the problem may be the mattress - or perhaps something else.
Cheers...
Which is not to say that sleep disorders don't exist. I am convinced, by first-hand experience, that those middle-of-the-night ads for various "sleep systems" are probably a good investment on the part of the merchants; at least they've targeted the right audience.
Last night, I could not fall asleep until about 2 am again. While waiting for sleep to come, I watched something on the Discovery Channel called Supervolcano.
Talk about your gloom and doom.
In real life, you see, the northwest corner of Wyoming lies atop a pool of magma that has erupted quite violently three times in the last 2.1 million years, at intervals of approximately 600-700 thousand years. So naturally beautiful and hydrothermally diverse is this region, that the government has designated it as a National Park, familiar to us all as Yellowstone.
If the great timer that controls volcanic eruptions in the vicinity runs out in our lifetime, or even within a future period equal in length to the recorded history of humankind, or, actually, ever, the result is not going to be pleasant. A supereruption will throw 6000 times more stuff into the atmosphere than did Mt. St. Helens, likely snuff out most plant and animal life across much of the continent, and perhaps plunge the rest of the planet into an ice age.
While all of this is informative, I had trouble understanding the point (which is why I tend to avoid natural disaster movies, and horror flicks, for that matter). First of all, we in the audience know the story line features a supereruption, which puts a certain twist on the remarks made by various characters (the Asian reporter turns out looking positively clairvoyant, while the Homeland Security official comes across as a dork). Those same remarks would have an entirely different weight had we the audience sat through the whole film without that eruption, and if, in addition, the authorities had taken precautions in the face of what turns out to be a non-eruption, you'd have a story that made no sense at all, dramatically.
On the other hand, the screenplay did highlight a couple of interesting points, at least for me.
The first was the nature of the questions asked by the reporter. For example: "Can you rule out the occurrence of a supereruption in the future?" (A variation on this was in fact asked by a reporter at a NASA Return to Flight news conference a few days ago, phrased something along the lines of: "Can you be certain you've found all of the flaws similar to those that caused the loss of Challenger and Columbia?")
The second had to do with the initial, hostile reaction of the Homeland Security official in the story to a suggestion that people be encouraged to walk out of affected areas (instead of staying in place and waiting for the Federal government to come save them). Consciously or not, I think the screenplay captures something essential there: government's inherent hostility to individual initiative in times of crisis.
The doctor's appointment is made, BTW. It's a few days out, but that should not be a problem. In those few days I should be able to dope out whether my tiredness is the result of not enough sleep - heck, the problem may be the mattress - or perhaps something else.
Cheers...
