Reading Test 37

Tunnelling under the Thames

The first tunnel ever to be built under a major river was the tunnel under London’s River Thames.

At the beginning of the 19th century, the port of London was the busiest in the world. Cargoes that had travelled thousands of miles and survived all the hazards of the sea were unloaded on the banks of the Thames, only for their owners to discover that the most frustrating portion of their journey lay ahead. Consignments intended for the southern parts of Britain had to be lifted onto horse carts, pulled through the docks and across London Bridge, built in the 12th century and as impractical as its early date implies. By 1820, London Bridge had become the centre of the world’s largest traffic jam.

It was an intolerable situation, and it was clear that if private enterprise could build another crossing closer to the docks, there would be good money to be made in tolls paid by users. Another bridge was out of the question, as this would deny sailing ships access to the city centre and an ambitious man turned his thoughts to tunnelling beneath the Thames instead. This was not such an obvious idea as it might appear. Although increasing demand for coal had meant a great many tunnels had been dug in mines in Britain, working methods remained primitive. Tunnels were dug by men with simple tools, by candlelight. However, in 1807, a group of businessmen set themselves up as the Thames Archway Company. Their ambition was to tunnel below the Thames, but there was little to guide them as there had been no previous attempt to do this. Their chief engineer was Richard Trevithick, designer of the world’s first high-pressure steam engine. His men made progress at the beginning, but then things began to go disastrously wrong, with muddy soil pouring into the tunnel. Eventually, the Thames Archway Company had had enough. Its funds were exhausted, Trevithick was sick from exposure to the river water, and its efforts had proved only that a passage under the river exceeded the limits of contemporary mining technology.

At that time, the only machines used in mines were pumps. It took a man of genius to recognise that a different sort of machine was needed, a machine that could prevent the roof and walls of a tunnel from collapsing. This man was Marc Brunel, a Frenchman who had become one of the most prominent engineers in Britain. Not long after the failure of the Thames Archway Company, Brunel saw a rotten piece of wood lying on the riverbank. Examining the wood through a magnifying glass, he observed it was infested with something that looked like a worm. Brunel realised that as it tunnelled through the wood, it would push chewed wood into its mouth and digest it, then excrete a hard substance that lined the new tunnel. Brunel realised that the worm’s digging technique could be adapted to produce a new way of tunnelling. His realisation led him to invent a device that has been used in one form or another in most major tunnels built since – the tunnelling shield. It consisted of a heavy iron frame that could be pushed forward a few inches at a time. The front of the frame was made up of a series of iron frames that could be folded back to allow miners to dig the ground ahead. Behind these frames was a wall consisting of a series of iron plates pressed against the tunnel face and supported on a set of horizontal wooden planks, that would prevent the face from collapsing. It was a complex and rather cumbersome machine and not easy to use, but it seemed that it would protect the miners from the worst of the river’s water. Brunel’s team carefully examined earth samples taken from beneath the riverbed, and subsequently decided to dig the tunnel close to the muddy river bottom, where he could expect to find clay. This would be a more solid and safe substance to dig through than the sand that was found deeper down.

Brunel began work on his tunnel in 1825, but the problems of such an operation soon became apparent. Although the shield itself worked well, water began to drip into the tunnel. This was more of an annoyance than a danger while the pump was working, but this machine proved unreliable and sometimes failed altogether. When the pump broke down, work had to stop as the tunnel quickly flooded. There were occasions when the miners had to abandon their tools and flee for their lives. Even when Brunel’s men were able to work, they had to run the constant risk of the pumps failing. They also complained of frequent headaches and dizziness, caused by the poor air quality. The air underground was dirty and stale, contaminated due to the lack of an adequate ventilation system. There were lighting problems too. Illuminating the tunnels by candlelight was a constant challenge. Lamps give off only a very weak glow, and there were a number of accidents because the miners could not see what they were doing. Lastly, a number of Brunel’s miners walked off the job because they could not tolerate the excessive temperatures that developed in the cramped conditions underground.

Despite all these setbacks, the tunnel finally emerged on the opposite river bank on August 12, 1841. Brunel’s triumph, however, was only partial. The small payment per person made by the thousands of visitors who flocked to see the marvel hardly paid even a penny per foot of the tunnel’s construction costs. Brunel had gone bankrupt long before the project was completed, and the government loan he had required to complete the project had to be paid back with interest. As a result, there was not enough funding to make it accessible to horse-drawn vehicles, as intended. Instead, the passageways were filled with souvenir sellers and entertainers. In the end, the tunnel was closed two years later, used at night, before it was finally closed entirely and fell into dereliction for decades.

It was only when the underground railway came to London in the 1880s that the Thames Tunnel found a use and achieved a measure of real usefulness. It was bought in 1869 by the East London Railway, who found it to be in such excellent condition that it was immediately pressed into service as a route for passenger trains heading east. The tunnel became, and remains, part of the London Underground network.

This quiz is for logged in users only.


Intelligent behaviour in birds

Many people are aware of the intelligence of chimpanzees and other mammals. However, birds also demonstrate intelligent behaviour.

A
For centuries, many scholars maintained that humans were the only intelligent organism on Earth. Many traits were considered to be exclusively human examples of acumen for example, language, tool use, deception, awareness of self and others. However, exciting new research on a number of animals, particularly birds, has called into question the uniqueness of these traits, forcing us to reconsider this opinion. In 1964, people were amazed when naturalist Jane Goodall first discovered chimpanzees making and using tools. But ornithologists, people who study birds, were not overly surprised. Almost 20 years earlier, a renowned ornithologist had shown that tools use was commonplace in populations of woodpecker finches residing on the Galapagos Islands. These tiny birds routinely used twigs to extract grubs from under bark.

B
Since then, the catalogue of tool-using animals has grown. At least three Australian bird species make tools similar to those of the woodpecker finch, and when white-winged choughs come across shellfish, they have been known to use rocks as hammers to crack open the recalcitrant shells. Other birds show a more sophisticated level of insight. For example, black kites have been reported dropping bait into lakes to bring fish to the surface of the water, thereby making them easier to catch. A kite may also pick up a smouldering stick from an area recently burned by a bushfire and drop the stick on a pile of unburned grass. The bird then feasts on the small animals that flee from the subsequent fire.

C
Most tool-using behaviours are a means of extracting food, which may provide a clue as to how the mental abilities needed for tool use evolved. The predominant explanation is based on the proverb that ‘necessity is the mother of invention’. Essentially, brain tissue is energetically expensive, so animals should have evolved only the necessary intellectual capabilities required to overcome the challenges they face in their environment. Consider a hypothetical duck grazing on a seemingly endless supply of grass. Being particularly intelligent will not help the duck eat more grass. In contrast, other species, such as birds of prey, live in a more challenging environment, where food may be distributed erratically, hidden from view or highly mobile. The food itself may be quite intelligent. So, if there are not enough resources to feed all individuals, then only the smartest in each generation will live and reproduce.

D
New Caledonian crows boast many different tools in their tool kit. They use a hooked tool made by removing all but one of the side branches from a twig. They fashion serrated rakes (using their beaks as scissors) from stiff, leathery pandanus leaves. They also make probes by modifying their own moulted feathers. Each tool is used in slightly different ways to pull grubs from deep within tree trunks. The crows carry their favourite tool from one foraging site to the next. They also store their tools for later re-use in a secure place on their perch. Problem-solving abilities have traditionally been thought to be beyond the reach of animals. Nevertheless, birds are coming up with innovative solutions all the time. Recently, New Caledonian crows were observed moulding a piece of wire, something they had never seen before, into a hook and then using it to retrieve food.

E
Literally hundreds of such reports have accumulated in back copies of scientific journals. Recently, a team of biologists from McGill University in Canada collated them and compared the frequency and size of innovations with the size of the birds’ forebrain (the brain-area responsible for higher-order information processing relative to the hindbrain. The team uncovered a clear relationship: birds with relatively large forebrains are able to invent fresh solutions to ecological challenges, and to exploit the discoveries and inventions of others, more often than birds with relatively small forebrains.

F
Intelligence in birds may also arise as a result of selection to overcome the dynamic challenges of communal living. Since this involves competition between group members, to be successful, a social animal may need to be able to reflect on its own intentions, as well as those of others. The consequence of being part of a community may be the evolution of a distinctly ‘political’ brain.

G
What better way to exercise a political brain than to be deceitful! Perhaps the best example of deception among birds comes from the white-winged choughs. Choughs are cooperative breeders – that is, they form a communal group consisting of one breeding-pair and up to 15 non-breeding ‘helpers’. However, because young choughs have so little enthusiasm for foraging, or gathering food, they are often too hungry to help. And because it is socially unacceptable to be part of a group and provide little help, young choughs often act deceptively. For example, when an adult is watching, a young chough will place some food in the mouth of a hungry chick but it does not release the food. Instead, it waits until the adult departs and then eats it. A chough can also help the group by preening the chicks. Interestingly, it is more likely to preen the chicks if another bird can see it do so. A chough that has been sitting totally still on the nest while the rest of the group is foraging out of sight will comically spring up and frantically start to preen the chicks as soon as some of its group members come into view. It is likely that these young choughs are only motivated to help when others are watching because they are concerned about their social status. Choughs need other choughs to like them as they cannot breed without them.

 

This quiz is for logged in users only.


The hazards of multitasking

Doing more than one thing at once – is it always a good idea?

You arrive at the office, review your todo list and start to feel a headache coming on. You resolve to tackle the items as quickly as possible. While you return calls, you sort emails and other letters. You begin keying in slides for tomorrow’s presentation. Then your manager comes in wanting an immediate update on sales figures. You have just opened the spreadsheet when a very important customer calls. With the receiver held between your shoulder and your ear, you continue adding up the sales totals until, 15 minutes later, you finally manage, politely, to get rid of the client. You’ve been multitasking again.

You may believe that anyone who wants to get ahead today should master the art of multitasking. However, a recent study by the Families and Work Institute in New York City has found that 45 per cent of US workers believe that they are asked or expected to work on too many tasks at once. Managers may be surprised to learn that they are actually wasting their workers’ time. As it turns out, the human brain cannot really master the computer’s art of crunching data in the background while moving between process windows. Instead, a growing number of studies show that trying to juggle jobs rather than completing them sequentially can take longer, and leave workers with a reduced ability to perform each task. In addition, the stress associated with multitasking may contribute to short-term memory difficulties. The combination results in inefficiency, careless thinking and mistakes – not to mention the possible dangers of divided attention for drivers, air traffic controllers, and others who handle machinery.

How can a time management strategy that has become part of the common wisdom actually be so wrong? Exploring that question requires a closer look at an area of consciousness research that examines how the brain focuses attention. One of the modern foundations of current knowledge of multitasking was laid in 1935, when the American psychologist John Ridley Stroop reported that processing information from one task could cause interference with another. Stroop noticed that when study participants were asked to name the colour of a word – such as ‘green’ – printed in a different colour – red, for example – they experienced difficulty saying the name of the colour. This phenomenon is thought to occur when two tasks get tangled: the brain must suppress one that has been learned so well that it has become automatic (reading), to attend to a second task that requires concentration (naming the colour).

During the past couple of decades, psychologists have probed more deeply into the nature and limitations of multitasking. Psychologist and brain researcher Ernst Pöppel, of the Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich, believes that it is impossible to carry out two or three different tasks simultaneously with the same degree of concentration. He says that seemingly simultaneous awareness and processing of information actually takes place in ‘three-second windows’.

In these three-second segments, the brain takes in, as a block, all the data about the environment streaming in from the sensory systems; subsequent events are processed in the next window. So a person can concentrate on a conversation for three seconds, then for three seconds on a crying child, and three seconds on a computer screen. While one subject at a time occupies the foreground of consciousness, the others stay in the background until they, in turn, are given access to the central processor.

Another experiment by psychologist David E. Meyer, of the University of Michigan, quantified just how much time we can lose when we shuttle between tasks. The researchers asked test participants to write a report and check their email at the same time. Those individuals who constantly jumped back and forth between the two tasks took about one and a half times as long to finish as those who completed one job before turning to the other. Each switchover from one task to another meant rethinking, and thus involved additional neural resources. In effect, the brain needs time to ‘turn off’ the rules for one task and to turn on the rules for another. ‘Multitasking saves time only when it is a matter of relaxed, routine tasks,’

Meyer says. It also takes the brain longer to adapt when switching rapidly back to an interrupted task, rather than waiting longer before switching back.

By its nature multitasking is stressful, and the area in the brain most involved with multitasking is also most affected by the resulting stress. Located behind the forehead, the prefrontal cortex, which, a neuroscientist call the ‘executive’ part of the brain, helps us to assess tasks, prioritise them, and assign mental resources. It also ‘marks’ the spot at which a task has been interrupted, so that we can return to it later. This stress can also affect brain cells in another region, the hippocampus, which is important for forming new memories; damage in that area also makes it difficult for a person to acquire new skills.

Psychiatrists Edward Hallowell and John Ratey, of Harvard University, say that multitasking can bring about a brain condition that causes sufferers to constantly seek new information while having difficulties concentrating on its content. All in all, it may be wise to let the email wait while you work on your presentation. You will save time and perform each task better.

 

This quiz is for logged in users only.


Desktop Experience Recommended

This website is currently optimized for laptop and desktop devices only.

Please open this website from a computer to access all features properly.

Mobile & Tablet Access Restricted
Scroll to Top