Pet grooming versus nuclear fusion

Bouncing Bertie Boffin here!

Gosh you learn can some interesting things watching the telly can't you?

Now you might think from this wee video clip that I was not paying attention last week while Gail was entranced by her hero Brian Cox pontificating about science, energy resources and the future of mankind.

But can bet your bottom dollar that my flappy little ears pricked up when I heard Professor Cox assert the following:

"Americans spend ten times more money a year on pet grooming than they do on nuclear fusion."

I think some criticism was implied.

Well my friends, what to make of this?

As we know, an explosive release of energy can sometimes result if a muddy dog is confronted with a tub of warm water and a bottle of shampoo.

However is a settled fact in the Bertie and Gail household that very little money is spent on pet grooming. It costs nothing to rinse a pup in the River Dee after all.

But before Gail starts to look any sort of smug, I ask her just how much of her hard earned cash went on nuclear fusion over the past twelve months.

This elicits a rambling response about paying taxes and government funded scientific research, blah blah, blah, all of which amounts to an admission that the hairbrush she purchased from Pets at Home back in February might have cost more than any indirect contribution she's made to solving the world energy crisis.

Fellow pups, I am wondering if we might start a campaign. Next time your owner threatens you with a 'spa day', why not suggest instead they put their pennies in an envelope and send them off to their nearest nuclear fusion laboratory…?

How else will we secure a carbon-free energy future?