Re-Sounding Science

More Exciting News in US Ag Policy

2012-01-06T10:10:00.000-08:00

If you have any interest in the connection between industrial agriculture and health, the following statement may make your heart skip a beat.

"Federal drug regulators announced on Wednesday that farmers and ranchers must restrict their use of a critical class of antibiotics in cattle, pigs, chickens and turkeys because such practices may have contributed to the growing threat in people of bacterial infections that are resistant to treatment."

Read the whole article here, but to summarize, what seemed like an obvious thing to regulate (the use of antibiotics in livestock), is actually going to be regulated. It only took 40 years of concern amongst the medical community.

Read my little bit on antibiotic use in pigs here. The issue of antibiotics in US livestock is a big debate. Reports by the FDA show that 80% of antibiotics sold in the US are given to livestock. And a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that about 85% of the antibiotics given to livestock are for "non-therapeutive purposes", which means the animals didn't have an infection, the anitbiotics were meant to make the animals grow faster or prevent infection under stressful conditions.

The End of Ethanol. No, really.

2012-01-06T09:51:00.000-08:00

Probably not. But I was surprised to stumble upon a small article in the newspaper mentioning that the federal ethanol tax credit had expired, something every energy expert and environmentalist figured was permanent. I was amazed that there wasn't more fuss from corn growers, but they still have the government mandate for mixing ethanol into gasoline and tax credits for gas stations to install higher ratio ethanol pumps. In July, the US Senate voted to end the ethanol tax credit, but no one thought the vote would go through both houses. It seems it was much easier to just let the credit expire.

So, what does this mean? Read my earlier post which details how this tax credit altered the price of gasoline. The loss of this subsidy may lead to higher fuel prices as long as the ethanol mandate remains, but since the price of gasoline has been high lately, maybe ethanol actually will be cost-competitive without subsidies.

Nuclear News

2011-12-07T21:05:00.000-08:00

I kept coming across article about nuclear power that I wanted to write something about, but now there are too many, so here is a collection of the best to browse:

Global Nuclear Generation Capacity Falls

Why has Britain done a U-turn on plutonium?

Is Thorium the Energy Panacea We Have Been Waiting For?

Australian and Czech Consortium Launch Joint Thorium Venture

India plans 'safer' nuclear plant powered by thorium

Of Fukushima and Food

2011-12-07T20:46:00.000-08:00

I've been coming across a large variety of articles on radiation levels found in food products coming out of the Fukushima prefecture in Japan. But like all information regarding radiation, the numbers involved are difficult to benchmark. For example, your body emits about 4,500 becquerels naturally from potassium. That's roughly 100 becquerels/kg for an average man.

For example, Japan has a legal limit for radiation levels coming from cesium at 500 becquerels/kg. The Japanese government has recently banned the shipment of rice from 154 farms in a certain region in the Fukushima prefecture after rice grown their was measured to be emitting 630 becquerels/kg. Is this a scary amount? The rice never made it to market thanks to rigorous testing procedures, and the Japanese government says that 630 Bq/kg does not pose any immediate health threat.

The concern over food production surrounding a nuclear accident is warranted, since many foods such as meat, dairy, and herbs tend to concentrate radioactive material. Also, since the human body tends to store a lot of these radioactive nutrients such as iodine, cesium, potassium, they can stay in the body for a long time and lead to prolonged exposure.

A single cow from Fukushima was found to have radiation levels of 2,400 Bq/kg. That's five times higher than the legal limit. It turns out that many farms in the area had rice straw stored outside during the nuclear accident, and they were sprayed with a very high dose of radioactive cesium. The farmers did not receive the warning from the government to dispose of any animal feed stored outside and subsequently fed this radioactive straw to their cows. Officials state that the amount of radiation found in the beef does not pose any health threat but are still considering a ban on shipments of cattle from this region. The problems is that many farms stored their cattle feed inside and have tested their feed and cows as completely safe in terms of radioactivity.

Seafood is probably the most complicated food to determine the risks. There is a big difference in absorption of radioactive material in fresh water versus saltwater. The reason that contaminated fish was such a big deal after Chernobyl was that fish absorb much more radioactive material in fresh water. It is yet to be seen ho much the seafood industry in Japan will be affected. But numerous organizations have been monitoring seafood coming out of Japan since the accident, and so far, nothing unusual.

But scary, contaminated baby formula. That really shouldn't happen.

Fukushima rice banned by Japan

Japan set to ban Fukushima cattle shipments after radioactive meat scare

Japan fears radioactive contamination of marine life

Japanese Tests Find Radiation in Infant Food

Mysterious Radioactivity over Europe

2011-11-11T11:36:00.000-08:00

Several nuclear security monitoring stations in the Czech Republic have been detecting low levels of radioactive iodine since late October. The IEAE says that the amounts detected do not pose a health risk and are NOT from the Fukushima Daiichi accident. They are also confident that the material did not come from a nuclear power plant but that it did come from abroad. Very weird, will be interesting to see if this continues and if they can trace the source.

Low levels of radioactive particles 'found in Europe'

Did Fracking Contribute to the Earthquake in Oklahoma?

2011-11-09T12:35:00.000-08:00

In one of my energy course this week, a fellow graduate student asked if anyone in the media or scientific community had drawn a connection between the recent earthquake in Oklahoma and the practice of hydraulic fracturing. Many other students joked, "Not Yet!"

It's easy to find fear-mongering about fracking all over the web. It's a new technology, performed by large, wealthy corporations, often on public land in beautiful locations. Fracking is responsible for driving the cost of natural gas down over the last decade, but it also carried some legitimate uncertainties.

Did Fracking Help Cause Oklahoma Earthquakes?

Could Fracking Have Contributed To Oklahoma Earthquakes?

There have been recent reports linking specific fracking operations to clusters of small earthquakes in Britain and also in Oklahoma. This will be an interesting phenomena to follow as fracking becomes more widespread.

7 Billion Humans, Maybe Next Year

2011-11-04T10:07:00.000-07:00

Obviously the announcement of the human population reaching the seven billion mark is some sort of estimate, but I had no idea how large the uncertainties were until I read this piece New Scientist:

When will the 7 billionth human be born?

We may not reach seven billion people until 2013. Basically, demographers assume that they can't count a certain number of people in any national census, say 3% of the population. So, they add on people based on models of birth rates. But, since birth rates have been falling across the world, we may be overestimating by a large amount.

We often hear that the world population will peak at around 10 billion people in 2050. But Sergei Scherbov from the Vienna Institute of Demography says the population may not peak until 2100, and it may peak higher than 10 billion.

Nuclear 24/7

2011-11-02T21:24:00.000-07:00

This is just a warning that I am organizing a graduate course on Nuclear Power for the spring semester. My blog posts for the next couple months will be heavy on all things nuclear as I stumble across cool articles and news. Here's a brief course summary:

This course will serve as an interdisciplinary exploration of nuclear power, covering a broad range of topics from physics and engineering to policy and ethics. Led by a variety of experts from the local community, the class will revolve around critical discussions of issues such as weapons proliferation, radioactive waste, climate change, clean energy, reprocessing, economic development, and plant accidents.

Starting with a brief introduction to the physics of fission, we will cover the history of nuclear weapons and the civilian nuclear power program. We will also learn about the environmental and health effects of radiation. We will follow the process of building and operating a modern nuclear power plant in the US through all the stages of design, siting, financing, permitting, and maintenance and operation.

The bulk of the course will be devoted to discussion of the main problems with nuclear power: weapons proliferation, radioactive waste disposal, and catastrophic accidents. We will cover waste reprocessing as it is employed in Europe and permanent waste storage in the US and globally. To understand the risks associated with nuclear power plants, we will study the three most well-know reactor accidents: Chernobyl, Three-mile Island, and Fukushiima. Starting with the Rasmussen Report of 1975, we will also examine the many efforts to quantify the risks of such disasters.

Iran's Civilian Nuclear Off the Ground ?

2011-09-04T11:16:00.000-07:00

Iran's nuclear plant connects to electric grid, the country says

Whoah, crazy.

Vaccines Again Again Again

2011-08-27T00:45:00.000-07:00

Vaccine Cleared Again as Autism Culprit

Yep, no link again. How many times can we prove a negative ? Shouldn't they have proven a positive link in the first place, you'd think so...

Nuclear Reactors Near D.C. Quake

2011-08-27T00:43:00.000-07:00

13 Plants Felt Earthquake, but Reactors Were Spared

Everything normal. It's nice when normal makes the news.

Gender Gap

2011-08-26T10:44:00.000-07:00

Which country has the smallest gender gap?

Neat, Numbers ! Scandinavian countries do well, but their ranks are all over the place. No country does great on all metrics. Also, the health equality metric seems misleading, a lot of really impoverished countries rank very high. I'm guessing that men and women are just equally likely to die in those countries, I don't know how you would account for this.

The End of Ethanol (Subsidies)

2011-06-18T22:19:00.000-07:00

Please see my earlier post on the effects of the US Renewable Fuel Standard of 2007 which heavily subsidizes domestic ethanol production.

Ethanol Ain't the Answer

While many thought these subsidies would be impossible to eliminate, due to Iowa's importance in the presidential race and the influence of the corn lobby, the Senate voted yesterday to repeal the ethanol tax credit. They also voted to eliminate the hefty import tariff on foreign ethanol, mostly from Brazil's sugar cane.

There was an interesting quote from Jessica Bennett of the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA):

"They [Democrats] aforced a vote on what they saw as ‘subsidies’ – although, we don’t view this as a subsidy. But that’s how it’s being billed in the press and in the talking points coming out of the Democratic side of the aisle. The Democrats can now tell Republicans ‘Look, you’ve voted for repealing subsidies for an industry. This is seen as a tax increase on an industry. Now, you’re on the record doing this. Let’s go after multiple industries. You said you were okay with this, so let’s go after the oil and gas industries.’"

If the NCGA doesn't view this as a subsidy, I imagine they would have a hard time calling anything a subsidy. Perhaps if it goes towards another industry it should be called a subsidy, but if it goes towards corn it's,,,,, I couldn't find a term for it on the NCGA website other than "tax credit", which apparently is not a subsidy. The NCGA reporting of this senate vote accuses the Senate of continuing to subsidize Big Oil. NGCA even laments the failure of a recent campaign to end a certain oil subsidy, complaining that the National Taxpayers Union misrepresented the issue as increasing taxes. Although it seems like that's what Jessica Bennett seems to be arguing in her pro-corn anti-subsidy word salad.

It will be interesting to watch the House vote on this issue, since the Senate vote kind of snuck up on everyone.

Exceptional E. coli

2011-06-02T21:18:00.000-07:00

I'm usually wary of excessive media coverage of illness, but this looks quite interesting. There have been several hundred reported cases of E. coli in Europe, almost all originating in Germany. The particular strain of E. coli is quite virulent and this is the first human outbreak (although it has been found in humans before, just not spread from human to human). Those monitoring the outbreak in Germany estimate that it could go on for months, and early speculation traces the outbreak back to cucumbers from Spain, but that is unconfirmed.

EHEC Outbreak: Rare Strain of E. Coli Unknown in Previous Outbreaks

Outbreak is new form of E. coli

Little known about rare E. coli strain behind European outbreak

Ethanol Ain't the Answer

2011-04-22T12:17:00.000-07:00

Summary
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 sought to reduce america’s dependence on foreign oil by increasing domestic production of clean renewable fuels. One key aspect of the legislation, the Renewable Fuels Standard, which requires US refiners to produce 15.2 billion gallons of biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) by 2012 and 36 billion gallons by 2022. From 2007 to 2010, the amount of ethanol produced in the US doubled, from 6.5 billion gallons to 13 billion gallons. This increased ethanol production has negative effects in terms of increased domestic food prices, higher fuel costs, and reduced corn exports.

Food Prices
In a report titled “Implications of Ethanol Use for Food Prices and Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the increased production of corn-based ethanol was responsible for 22% of the 5% increase in food prices that occurred between 2007-2008. While increased food prices have a negative effect on all americans, the poorest americans see the biggest effects.

Increases in food prices affect the amount of money the federal government must pay to programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, child nutrition programs (ex. WIC), the National School Lunch Program, and the School Breakfast Program. These programs base their annual appropriations on the Consumer Price Index. Other government programs that will see small increases in spending due to increased ethanol production will be Social Security, military and civilian retirement programs, and Supplemental Security Income, the CBO estimates.

Fuel prices
The price difference between one gallon of unleaded gasoline and one gallon of ethanol is variable and relies on a complex system of factors. According to data collected daily by the American Automobile Association in their “Fuel Gauge Report”, this week, the average nationwide price of a gallon of regular gasoline is $3.84, while the price of one gallon of E85 (fuel that is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) is $4.27, that’s 11% higher. During this time last year the price of a gallon of regular gas was $2.86, while the price of one gallon of E85 was $3.027 (5% higher). These E85 prices include the $0.45 per gallon credit that the federal government gives to ethanol producers.

The price of ethanol is very dependent on the price of a bushel of corn. But corn is a very water and fertilizer intensive crop, so as the price of petroleum goes up, so does the price of corn. Therefore, when gasoline prices are high, we might expect ethanol prices to drop due to high demand, but the production costs will also rise, so the price of ethanol tends to rise with demand.

To meet the targets for ethanol production set in the Renewable Fuel Standard, the EPA required all gasoline to contain 10% ethanol. Because of this mandate, most gasoline distributors will purchase corn ethanol to blend into their gasoline and pass the higher costs on to the consumer. Therefore, corn farmers will continue to see inflated prices of corn due to ethanol demand as long as the E10 mandate is in place.

Exports
In 2004, the US grew 11.8 billion bushes of corn and exported 2.24 billion bushels (19%). In 2010, the US grew 12.4 bushels of corn, but only exported 744 million bushels of corn (6%). This decrease in exported corn is almost entirely due to the increased use of corn starch to make ethanol. Also, the amount of US corn used as animal feed decreased from 6.6 to 5.5 billion bushels; beef is also an important US export.

Limit and surpluses
EISA07 limits the amount of renewable fuels that can come from corn-based ethanol to 15 billion gallons per year. The Energy Information Administration estimates that US corn ethanol producers will reach that limit in 2015. The remaining amount of required ethanol will need to come from cellulosic ethanol, made from non-food plants like switchgrass, crop residue, and wood. But, there is currently no plant producing cellulosic ethanol at a commercial scale, and the cost of a commercial scale plant is still 10-20 times more expensive than a similar capacity corn ethanol plant.

This year, the EPA reduced the mandate on cellulosic ethanol from 100 million gallons per year to 6.5 million gallons. The Energy Information Administration predicts that US ethanol producers will fall far short of the 36 billion gallon per year mandate by 2022.

Ethanol Comic

2011-04-19T16:52:00.000-07:00

Critique to follow soon !

Long-term Health Effects of Radiation Exposure

2011-04-07T13:05:00.000-07:00

Radiation is Everywhere, but Bad Effects Are Not

This article from the New York Times looks at predicting the future effects of the radiation from Japan’s Fukushima plant. What’s interesting is that a lot of our understanding of radiation risk is based on long-term studies of cancer rates of survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Forty percent of the 200,000 people that survived these bombs are still alive! But, there are a lot of significant differences between acute radiation events, such as Fukushima, and the heavy radiation dose experienced by Japanese survivors of the two atomic bombs. Therefore, in using these studies to make predictions about future cancer deaths caused by Fukushima, there are lots of statistical games and small-number assumptions that are made.

For example, the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki received radiation in one single large dose, whereas residents living near Fukushima today may be receiving a very small dose but over a much longer period of time. The public health experts analyzing this issue cannot come to a consensus on how harm scales with dose. How does harm scale with time? Is there a threshold dose?

Here is a summary graphic from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki study.

What’s interesting is that they used control groups (residents of Hiroshima or Nagasaki that were physically in a different city when the bombs went off), to compare cancer rates among the exposed and unexposed groups. The study also estimated the dose of radiation each person received based on how close they were to the bomb and whether they were inside a building or not. The study found that cancers did increase with radiation dose. For examples, people who were exposed to over 100 rem of radiation, 86% of incidents of leukemia were attributed to radiation (as compared with control group). For those who received half a rem to 10 rem, only 5% of their cases of leukemia were blamed on radiation exposure.

There haven’t been any substantial studies on the effects of low doses of radiation over time. Many opponents of nuclear power would like to see a comparison of cancer rates between those who work at a nuclear power plant and the general public. The Nuclear Energy Institute has published such studies, but even they admit how hard it is to find a control group. Nuclear engineers tend to be higher-paid, generally healthier people.

Anyway, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki study seems to be the best data available on risk, and is being used by officials in Japan to predict health risks for residents. Several authors of the original study have been flown to Japan to try and aid the government in projecting effects and deciding who to evacuate.

Here is an interactive graphic that shows the path of radiation from some of the initial explosions at Fukushima. This is based on weather modeling, and many people are complaining that the units are arbitrary (not rem or sieverts). This seems like something that could easily make it into unscrupulous hands to show how dangerous radiation is hitting the west coast.

Coal vs. Nuclear

2011-04-04T15:28:00.000-07:00

New Scientist Magazine had this neat article summarizing a study by the IAE comparing deaths from different types of electricity production. Here's the article. But, the graphic gives you the gist. Coal is by far the biggest killer. Hydropower is crazy if you include a catastrophic dam collapse in China, which I think you should since the nuclear calculation does include Chernobyl.

Japan’s Nuclear Disaster is a Tragedy, but not a Bellwether

2011-03-17T13:26:00.000-07:00

As the crisis involving Japan’s damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant continues to unfold, environmental groups and governments across the world are calling for an end to nuclear power. For some, the possibility of a melt-down represents the final straw for the nuclear industry. However, even if Fukushima melts down, and even if it releases large amounts of radiation, the nuclear power industry will still have one of the safest and cleanest track records in the energy world.

Shutting down existing nuclear plants or prohibiting new construction of reactors will do more harm to the environment and to public health than growing our nuclear power industry.

In Germany, where anti-nuclear sentiment has been growing for years, Chancellor Angela Merkel announced this week that the government will shut down seven of the countries oldest nuclear reactors. The power from these reactors will not be replaced with renewables, since Germany’s grid is already overburdened by intermittent power sources, but by new coal-fired power plants. Therefore, Germany will be one of the only countries in the developed world that is getting rid of carbon-free electricity and replacing it with carbon intensive electricity.

While the nuclear power plant in Fukushima may prove to be a serious environmental catastrophe, the effects will be local, very few lives will be lost in the long run. On the other hand, Japan has 55 other nuclear power plants around the country that are continuing to provide cheap, clean, and reliable power. In this time of national upheaval, millions of Japanese are relying on that nuclear power to run their hospitals, high-speed rail, communications systems, and rescue and recovery efforts.

The reason Japan has built up its nuclear power capacity over the past fifty years is because they lack access to fossil fuels like coal and natural gas. Without nuclear power, Japan would not have the cheap, reliable electricity they needed to grow their high-tech industry and economy. Their robust economy gave them the ability to invest heavily in earthquake and tsunami mitigation efforts over the last few decades. Without Japan’s intensive investment in earthquake-resistant buildings and tsunami barriers, it is estimated that millions more Japanese would have died in the earthquake. These lives saved dwarf the possible few deaths that may result from the Fukushima plant.

Environmentalists like to think that Nuclear Power could be replaced with renewables, but this is simply not the case at this point in time. If we close down nuclear power plants in the United States or in Europe, they will be replaced with coal. If you are concerned about human lives lost, your concern should be placed on coal. Studies by the Harvard School of Public Health estimate that 30,000 lives are lost every year worldwide due to coal power production, mostly from mining and localized air pollution. Another few hundred thousand lives are cut short by coal burning due to increased cancer risks, respiratory, and cardiac ailments. And if you are frightened by radiation, it is important to remember that burning coal produces more radioactive waste than nuclear power per kilowatt.

Does this disaster teach us anything about nuclear power? Yes. We should be very careful when siting nuclear power plants in disaster prone areas. We should be tough with regulating the safety procedures of nuclear power plant. But this is true of any energy producing industry. In 2010, the United States saw a natural gas-line explode under a neighborhood in California kill six people, and the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico saw eleven people killed and untold environmental damage.

The disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant will be remember as a very serious nuclear accident. But the reality of nuclear power has not changed, either in Japan or the rest of the world. Nuclear power remains the best option for clean, cheap, baseload electricity. The United States, along with the rest of the world, should continue to expand this industry as part of reducing their carbon emissions while growing their electricity production to meet demand.

Radiation Worries

2011-03-16T13:53:00.000-07:00

I’ve been watching the crisis with the Fukushima Plant in Japan with great interest, specifically to see how news coverage has presented to threat of radiation. While this is indeed a disaster, and will most likely lead to some local contamination and radiation exposure, there is also a lot of utter nonsense being circulated through the news. I have been searching endlessly for an actual map of confirmed radiation levels, or even mention of radiation levels. I’ve seen news reports citing “high doses” and “low doses” of radiation in the surrounding area, with neither giving actual numbers. I did find some article citing radiation levels in certain locations, but using very different metrics.

Radiation is a difficult risk to measure because you need to consider the dose and the timeframe. This New York Times article does a nice job of explaining what amounts of radiation are natural and what doses are dangerous, over what timeframe:

The average US resident receives about 0.3 rem per year from the sun and the ground. Those of us living in the Rocky Mountains get more like 1 rem per year because of the higher elevation and higher amounts of Radon in our soil. The article says that, “Nausea starts after 50 rem, hemorrhaging at 100 rem,” but they don’t specify a timeframe. I’m assuming a short time period, like days?

Also, according to this article, “one employee at a nuclear plant in Japan has been reported to have had an exposure of 10 rem. The annual dose limit for workers at nuclear plants in the United States is 5 rem.” Are they saying that an average nuclear plant worker receives 10 rem per year. Or is this a worker from the Fukushima plant who received this amount of radiation over the last couple of days.

CNN gives a number for the current radiation levels in Tokyo (140 miles away from Fukushima Plant):

The current radiation level is twice the background level, 0.809 microsieverts per hour. If this radiation continues and someone was exposed to it for a year, it equates to about 0.7 rems per year. But it’s hard to say if this is due to the explosion at the nuclear plant. So much was upset by the earthquake, this extra radiation may be coming from the ground or from buildings. I really want to find a map of radiation as a function of proximity to the plant.

A US navy vessel that passed through the plume from the Fukushima plant, 60 miles away, received radiation equivalent to a month of background radiation in about an hour. They disposed of their clothes and took showers, apparently that’s enough for this level of dose.

Democrats Place Higher Value on Human Life

2011-03-09T13:50:00.000-08:00

As U.S. Agencies Put More Value on a Life, Businesses Fret

You may think that assigning value to a human life is a fuzzy existential experiment, but policy-makers and businesses have to put hard dollar numbers on lives all the time. What makes this article so interesting is it shows all the different monetary values that various agencies in the US government use as part of cost-benefit analysis. Also, in the Obama Administration, the value of a human life has gone up.

In 2010, the EPA valued a life at $9.1 million, while under the Bush Administration the value was set at $6.8 million. The FDA used the value $7.9 million in 2010, but $5 million in 2008. The department of transportation uses $6.1 million now, up from $3.5 million in 2005.

The increased value of human life as not the result of any “Protect Life” campaign by the Obama Administration, nor did the President specifically tell agencies to increase the value of human life. These changes are the result of the ways that cost-benefit analysis can be manipulated to get the desired result. It is easier for the EPA to show that increased pollution regulation will save money if the value of a life is higher. For example, under the Bush Administration, a proposal to force car companies to double the strengths of roofs in new car designs was rejected because the costs outweighed the benefits by $800 million. However, the Obama Administration approved the stricter roof regulation because the benefits outweighed the costs. The only different in the CBA was which value they used for the cost of a human life.

Besides politics, how do all of these agencies arrive at these numbers? The man who originally calculated the cost of a human life in the 1970’s, Professor W. Kip Viscusi, has updated his value of the years and adjusted for inflation. He puts the value at $8.7 million in today’s dollars. Here’s how he and his colleagues originally calculated the cost of human life. The Office of Management and Budget advises agencies to use a number somewhere between $1 million and $10 million but probably not less than $5 million.

“Say that companies must pay lumberjacks an additional $1,000 a year to perform work that generally kills one in 1,000 workers. It follows that most Americans would forgo $1,000 a year to avoid that risk — and that 1,000 Americans will collectively forgo $1 million to avoid the same risk entirely. That number is said to be the “statistical value of life.”

This issue has become very political because a high value for a human life means an increased chance of government regulation over an industry. And increased regulation means higher costs for companies. But it is hard for a lobbyist to argue that life actually has less value than the government thinks, so much of this is done behind closed doors.

It turns out that different agencies value death in different ays as well. Late last year, the EPA announced that it might increase the value of preventing cancer at 50% higher because cancer is a slow painful death. Many studies have shown that people put a higher value on not dying catastrophic deaths than on dying quiet respectable deaths. This just shows how much pschology and ethics can go into something that is supposed to be a cold objective analysis.

Taxes in Texas

2011-03-02T13:30:00.000-08:00

In response to: Leaving Children Behind by Paul Krugman

Krugman’s article studies Texas as a model of small government, and fiscal austerity. He relates this to their success at primary education. First Krugman examines the distribution of taxes in Texas. If you are at the top of the income distribution, you pay lower taxes than the national average. But if you are in the bottom 40% of of the income distribution, your taxes are higher than the national average. Weird.

Texas does have low spending, but ow does that fiscal conservancy affect the education system. Krugman looks at rankings. Texas is ranked 43rd in high school graduation rates, 5th in child poverty, and 1st in uninsured children. I wish Krugman would compare these to some ranking of investment in education, either per capita spending or percentage of total budget ranking. A journalist opposite Krugman could use these same rankings to suggest that Texas’ education problems are caused by poverty, due to Texas’ high percentage of illegal immigrants. It would be interesting to do a correlation with these rankings to see who is correct.

Krugman also takes aim at the “Texas Miracle”, which President Bush ran on and parts of which inspired No Child Left Behind. I didn’t know what this was, but I found a nice 60 minutes piece on it:

As Krugman explains, the success of the legislation was based on a lot of schools misreporting their numbers, most likely on purpose. One high school reported that they had zero students drop out in a year, but they actually had 463. The motivation for schools to under report was that their funding was tied to the overall performance of their schools, and they self-reported a lot of these numbers. Why wouldn’t you lie? Would you like your school to have less money or more money next year? You suspect most other schools are fudging their numbers as well.

The conclusion of Krugman’s piece is that you’d think Texas would have a balanced budget since they have such low government spending, but actually they are facing a huge budget gap. The governor is proposing new cuts to education and medicare.

What might be an interesting study would be to look for correlations between different states budgetary legislations and their budget shortfalls. Which types of policies protected states, which put them at risk of running out of money? It would be hard to draw any sort of causation from these, because every state is different.

Clean Air - Clean Jobs = Nuclear ?

2011-03-01T12:50:00.000-08:00

This is an Op-Ed I wrote for a class, it focuses on energy in Colorado...

After Natural Gas, Colorado Should Take Advantage of Another Local Clean Fuel: Uranium

Recently, Colorado passed the Clean Air - Clean Jobs Act, a very progressive bill to shut down and retrofit several coal plants in Colorado and replace them with natural gas plants. Natural gas produces about 30% of the carbon emissions of coal and much lower levels of more immediate pollutants like NOx and mercury. It is also cheap and abundant in Colorado.

Natural gas still emits a lot of carbon dioxide and is difficult to mine. Renewable energy such as wind and solar are expensive and would need to cover huge areas of land to provide the electricity Colorado needs. However, there is another carbon-free source of electricity that is cheap, and the fuel is available right here in Colorado. Nuclear power.

Images of Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island spring to mind, but a lot has changed in the nuclear industry since the last nuclear reactor was built in the US thirty years ago. The future of nuclear power lies in small-scale distributed reactors, which produce less waste and cannot melt down. Hyperion Power, based in Denver, is currently testing its first prototype with the Department of Energy.

These small self-contained nuclear reactors can be mass produced in a central facility and transported to their selected location. Costing less than a comparable coal-fired power plant and providing enough energy to power about 20,000 homes for 8-10 years, these reactors would be ideal for small towns, universities, or military bases. Supporting the development of our local nuclear innovators will bring both jobs and recognition to Colorado.

Many advocates of renewable energy may disagree with nuclear power’s green credentials, citing issue of mining, leakage, and waste storage. While the environmental and public health problems with coal are well established, there are equal concerns about the safety of natural gas. The technology used to squeeze natural gas out of Colorado’s shales, hydraulic fracturing (aka fracking), has garnered numerous public health and environmental concerns.

And while historic problems with uranium processing in Colorado may be dominant in people’s minds, uranium can be mined, processed, and burned in a safe way. The problems associated with coal are well known, but mining and transporting natural gas has tangible safety concerns as well. We should not ignore recent events such as the gas pipeline explosion under a neighborhood in California or the thousands of reports of water contamination due to fracking all over the country. Every source of electricity has its risks and rewards. The detriments of coal far outweigh the benefits. For nuclear power, the benefits far outweigh the risks.

Nuclear power is also economical. Because nuclear fission releases so much energy, burning uranium produces about 250 times as much electricity per dollar compared to coal, even though uranium is more expensive to mine. And Uranium can be mined right here in Colorado, creating even more jobs.

Colorado is quickly becoming a national leader in renewable and low-carbon energy. Natural Gas is a great step towards low-carbon energy production, but Colorado has the resources and the innovation to be a leader in nuclear power, which is a cheap, carbon-free way to produce electricity. We should be the state to lead the country in the nuclear power revolution.

2011-02-23T13:40:00.000-08:00

In response to: Danger Pent Up Behind Aging Dams

I wanted to look at how news pieces use numbers, and I found this interesting article on the decrepit state of dams in the US. To summarize, the state of California found that it would cost $16 billion over 12 years to fix the most critical dams, ones that would cause deaths if they failed. If they repaired all damaged dams, it would cost the state $51 billion. But that doesn’t include dams that are owned and operated by the federal government, about 700 dams in California, 300 of which also require safety repairs, which would add an additional $20 billion to the repair bills.

Across the nation, about 4,400 dams are susceptible to failure out of 85,000 dams. The article says that it would cost “billions of dollars” to repair those dams nationwide. But, California found that it would cost upwards of $70 billion to repair their failing dams, I think a better estimate would be hundreds of billions. Relating back to the federal budget, money to fix these dams that are federally owned must be approved by Congress. Since Republicans just struggled to cut about $65 billion from the federal budget, I doubt they will be in a generous mood, especially for California.

While the article included plenty of numbers on the cost to repair these dams, I would have liked to see some numbers on the potential costs if even one of these dams failed.

The Army Corps of Engineers lays out the bad news. “In a worst case, a catastrophic failure could send as much as 180 billion gallons of water — along with mud, boulders, trees and other debris... - churning down the canyon and into Bakersfield. The floodwaters would turn the downtown and residential neighborhoods into a lake up to 30 feet deep and spread to industrial and agricultural areas.” Considering that 340,000 people live in Bakersfield, that could have huge economic impacts. The article could have included some estimate of lost tax revenue from downtown, the cost to replace damaged buildings, or the estimated number of deaths.

And while the corps of engineers say “the odds of such a disaster are extremely small,” in would be nice to see some actual numbers for those odds. What magnitude earthquake would need to occur, how likely is that? How much are the odds of the dams failure increasing every year? And while 4,400 hundred dams in the US need safety repairs, how many people are in the flood path of these dams, how many acres would be washed away. From a policy perspective, these numbers would be crucial, but even a news piece could have benefited from some additional numbers on the consequences of a dam failure.

Probability of Presidential Re-election

2011-02-16T23:00:00.000-08:00

I found this detailed piece on pre-election approval rating and re-election odds for incumbent presidents, from Nate Silver's blog fivethirtyeight.

The basic conclusion of this analysis is that a president’s chance of winning re-election is correlated with their approval rating running up to the election, especially on election day. This seems obvious, and Nate Silver argues that we can use it to predict Obama’s chance of winning re-election if we watch his approval ratings. The main flaw is the small numbers involved. Gallup approval ratings only go back to 1937, and they take a break during WWII. Since 1940, there have only been 11 president’s that ran for re-election, and only three lost. Nate points out this over-arching bias, since the Civil War, 73% of incumbents presidents that ran for a second term have won. There is a strong incumbent bias.

Using this as a predictive tool is intriguing, and the post delves into examining how early can you use approval ratings to predict election results. About 19 months before, the approval ratings of the winners and losers split, and the split is much larger about 11 months before the election. However, Silver points out that this would happen even sooner but the election of George H.W. Bush skews the statistics, because he had unprecedented approval rating (80 % !) 24 months before the election but dropped fast to about 40% approval. But there are only three incumbents who didn’t win, so it’s hard to justify labeling one as an outlier.

But what if we could predict even more, could we predict Obama’s approval rating? The post suggests that Obama’s approval rating leading up to the election will most likely be correlated with unemployment. He suggests that to guarantee that Obama gets reelected, the unemployment rate needs to drop to about 8%. This is based on historic trends for other presidents facing reelection is troubled economic times.

I thought this was a nice use of a model to make a prediction. It seems simple and straightforward, but there is still a lot of uncertainty and missing variables. How much does the strength of the opponent play? Do weaker opponents run if the sitting president has high approval ratings? It would be interesting to do this same analysis with incumbent parties, so at the end of a two-term president, what are the odds of a presidential candidate winning from the same party.

The Cost of Environmental Regulation

2011-02-09T23:34:00.000-08:00

The Cost of Doing Business in the US

by Carl Bialik of the Wall Street Journal

Thinking about the federal budget, and the distrust of organizations that evaluate costs of federal programs, I found this article particularly interesting. This article discusses a study that was released by the Small Business Administration detailing the cost to small businesses of federal regulations, specifically environmental regulations.

They found that regulation costs small businesses $1.75 trillion per year. Yes, that is about 48% of the total US federal budget for 2010. That seems suspicious off the bat, but let’s look at their various assumptions.

Part of their thesis is that small businesses pay much more per employee to adhere to federal regulations, about 36% more. But I bet that small businesses pay more per employee for a lot of things: health care, legal services, etc. Isn’t that all just economies of scale. Also, most of the disproportionate costs that they found were the result of environmental regulations, but the study that calculated these costs is from 1992, and they are extrapolating to the present. Haven’t environmental regulations changed since then, and perhaps these costs have fallen over time as greener technologies have been implemented by large companies it may have reduced the costs to smaller companies.

I think this is one of those issue where it is hard to put everything in the standard currency of dollars. We regulate industry precisely because we value things other than pure economic growth such as worker safety, environmental quality, future economic growth, and product safety. On the other hand, I guess all of these could be put in terms of dollars. If we had no regulations, how much would we have to pay for toxic clean-up, added health care costs, etc.

It’s not really clear to me how this study included such alternate costs. What would happen if there were no regulations for small businesses, would they regulate themselves, by what standards?

One of the co-authors of the study estimated that 2008 GDP would have been $11.3 trillion without federal regulation. Yes, that is about 75% of the total US GDP of 2008. He based this number on opportunity costs, which I would be really interested to see his assumptions.

Counter-points in the article highlight that small businesses that have exemptions from federal regulations have significantly higher worker fatality rates. The study does not include regulations where the benefits are vague, such as Homeland security, or where the regulations have less than a $100 million impact on the economy. So they are only looking at the big imposing regulation, maybe the smaller ones favor small businesses and balance out.

I generally think this is one of those questions that is so hard to answer with numbers that we shouldn’t really try. But as conservatives are calling for a repeal of many federal regulations as a way to get the economy moving, it would be nice to know what the effect.

Tea Party Budget

2011-02-02T23:32:00.000-08:00

I was looking for some solid suggestions from Republicans on what to cut to reduce federal spending. It would be nice to see some actual numbers such as “cutting this program would save $X,XXX”. But it is hard to come by specifics. I did find a proposed Tea Party Federal Budget, but it had a different problem.

You know this will be fun when an economist from the Brooking’s Institute says this in response, “Oh my god. That’s just crazy. Really that is wacko.”

My problem with the presentation of the Tea Party Budget, which is really just a list of cuts, is that the money we need to cut is given in dollars but all the cuts are presented as percentages. We are left to assume that if we actually did makes these cuts to the budget, it would be fixed, but we have no idea if the numbers actually add up. Here is a list of general budget reductions:

legislative branch -- 23%
federal courts -- 32%
Agriculture Department -- 30%
Commerce Department -- 54%
Health and Human Services -- 26%
Homeland Security -- 43%
Interior Department -- 78%

All of these cuts come from discretionary spending, which make sup about 20% of the overall federal budget. I wanted to see these in terms of the overall budget, so I found what percentage of the budget each of these categories consumed in 2010 (I call this TB below) and multiplied the proposed cut. I also converted them in dollars based on the 2010 budget.

legislative branch -- 0.03% of TB or $1.08 billion
federal courts -- 0.04% of TB or $1.44 billion
Agriculture Department -- 0.22% of TB or $8 billion
Commerce Department -- 0.71% of TB or $26 billion
Health and Human Services -- 0.58% of TB or $20 billion
Homeland Security -- 0.52% of TB or $19 billion
Interior Department -- 0.3% of TB or $11 billion

The total of all of these cuts is $86 billion, which is far short of the $400 billion the Tea Party says we need to cut. They have a list of other cuts: the Affordable Housing Program, the Commission on Fine Arts, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the State Justice Institute. But these represent even tinier percentages of the federal budget. And if they don’t trust the CBO to run the numbers how will we ever know how much of an affect these cuts will have. We should probably know if it will make a difference before we go cut the department of the Interior’s budget by 78%. If you want an even more outlandish claim, see how the House Republican Study Committee plans to cut $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

2011-01-26T13:30:00.000-08:00

In response to: The Great Recession vs. The Great Depression by Paul Krugman on his New York Times blog, The Conscience of a Liberal

Paul Krugman posted this short piece (100 words plus one seemingly simple graph) to compare US production rates during the first year of the Great Depression and the first year of this recession. His goal is to gain some insight into how bad this really is. I would have been more interested to see quantitative definitions for what constitutes a depression versus a recession.

First of all, Krugman says this comparison was inspired by news that world manufacturing had plunged, yet he chooses to graph only US manufacturing rates. His choice is justified because production data is available for the US back to 1919, but this data may not be available globally or for newer industrial regions. He probably didn’t check. Also, he plots both curves in terms of months since peak production, but what did production look like before that. Had we recently been experiencing slow growth or flat levels. Is a depression measured by the magnitude of the change in production or the rate at which it changes. I also would have liked to see how production rates continued for the Great Depression, on what timescale did the economy start to improve. Is our current recession lagging in recovery, or are we right on schedule.

The primary problem with this plot is the units; the plot is not scaled logarithmically, the actual units of the plot are “logs.” Krugman then clarifies in an update to the post that these are actually natural logs, which is a common unit for economists. He explains that if you multiply the unit by 100, you should get the percent change from the start of the line. Even I don’t quite understand why you couldn’t just plot percent change on a linear scale.

Anyway, Krugman suggests that it is clear from the graph that the current recession has about half the magnitude of the Great Depression, and concludes: “at this point we’re sort of experiencing half a Great Depression. That’s pretty bad.” Is it? Half of what? Half of the percent change from peak production? This is very misleading, as the US economy is no longer based on manufacturing as it was in the 1930’s. Now that we have a service based economy, a drop in production probably does not signify such a serious effect as it did during the Great Depression. But the point was to see how current GLOBAL decreases in production compare to those during the Great Depression, which was also global.

Massive Egg Recall Due to Salmonella

2010-08-19T11:46:00.000-07:00

Wright County Egg recalls 228 million eggs (19 million dozens) due to salmonella contamination. The CDC had recorded a four-fold increase in the monthly reports of salmonella cases since May of this year, but it took them until now to trace the cases back to eggs from Wright County Egg. The contaminated eggs were distributed under the following brands:

-Lucerne
-Albertson
-Mountain Dairy
-Ralph’s
-Boomsma’s
-Sunshine
-Hillandale
-Trafficanda
-Farm Fresh
-Shoreland
-Lund
-Dutch Farms
-Kemps

We've had growing coverage of food contamination recalls over the past few years and it leads me to wonder who should be responsible for food safety. It makes sense that the food production company should be testing the food BEFORE they ship it out, but they complain of the cost. Should the USDA be testing, or the FDA or the CDC ?

I personally get my eggs from a local dairy which routinely tests their eggs for salmonella before they sell them, crazy right? They have never had a positive test. Studies are still lacking on how the conditions that laying hens are kept in affect the rates of infection, but in human beings at least the more tightly packed we are (urban) the faster diseases pop-up and spread.

They'll Make A Killing !

2010-05-11T11:43:00.000-07:00

This is an older article, but I found it very amusing. Most health insurance companies hold large amounts of stock in....you guessed it, Fast Food Corporations. As congress currently holds hearing to see if Goldman Sachs committed fraud by betting against its own clients to make a profit. Aren't the health insurance companies doing the same thing. The only way they will make money with those stocks is if more people east fast food, or eat more of it.

Study: Insurance companies hold billions in fast food stock

Cape Cod Wind Farm Finally Approved

2010-05-11T11:36:00.000-07:00

Regulators Approve First Offshore Wind Farm in U.S.

This battle has been brewing for almost a decade, but the massive offshore wind farm was finally approved. The project is still years out from even beginning construction, but this was an important first step.

Abstinence Again

2010-04-05T12:45:00.000-07:00

And you thought you voted abstinence-only education out of office, right ? Unfortunately, the new health care reform legislation includes money for abstinence-only education; I can't believe this legislation didn't get any conservative votes.

$250 million for abstinence education not evidence-based, groups say

Windy Whiners

2010-03-08T09:14:00.000-08:00

Will Politics Slow the Wind?
"The growth of wind power may be curtailed by a growing coalition of naysayers, ranging from electric utilities to Senators"

Here's a great article from Scientific American about the political problems starting to develop around wind power. The good news is that all of these problems are caused by the fact that wind power from the Great Plains has become so cheap that other utilities can't compete. Yes, that is good news. East Coast utility companies are demanding that the wind power companies pay for associated costs, such as transmission. Natural Gas companies in Texas are asking that wind companies help pay for natural gas generators that create energy when there is no wind.

Natural Gas companies, you've got a great idea. Since wind power is soooo cheap, they should pay some of the costs associated with their utilities. Just like when coal and natural gas are really cheap, those companies should pay for the associated costs for their energy production, such as pollution clean-up, ground water contamination, carbon dioxide sequestration, etc. Hmmm, I doubt they would agree.

But, this was the entire goal of subsidizing and pushing clean energy. Eventually, the technology will become cheap enough that it can compete (and maybe out-compete) with non-renewable energy sources. Now the real fun begins, as politicians and energy companies try to figure out how to manage these new utilities.

Whaling Resurgence

2010-03-02T09:00:00.000-08:00

Closely-watched whale talks open in Florida

Talks are being held in Florida by the International Whaling Commision. Their chairman, Cristian Maquieira, has put forward a compromise proposal that would reopen commercial whaling for Iceland, Norway, and Japan. This would be a big change since commercial whaling ended in 1986. These three countries would be closely watched by the IWC to make sure there were no sharp declines in their catch over the next 10 years.

In a related story, Environmental Historians (Sweet Job !) have suggested that prehuman whale populations were much larger and much more extensive than traditional thought. Along with genetic studies, scientists have concluded that humans were drastically reducing whale populations from the very beginning of our history of whaling.

Lost leviathans: Hunting the world's missing whales

From a pure science perspective, I just don't think we should be hunting something so smart and long-lived, no matter how much money their flesh is worth.

FTC Tackles "Greenwashing"

2010-02-10T10:20:00.000-08:00

The FTC is going to update its environmental marketing regulations for the first time since 1998. They plan to define such words as "recyclable" and "biodegradable". I hope they tackle the ever-allusive "all natural", because I'm tired of seeing it on cheetohs and pop rocks.

Will U.S. Government Crackdown on "Greenwashing"?

Gates Donates $$$ for Vaccines

2010-01-29T10:33:00.000-08:00

Here's another great piece of philanthropy from Bill Gates, donating $10 Billion for vaccines in developing countries.

Gates pledges $10 billion for vaccines

The article doesn't mention which vaccines or diseases the money will go toward, but does include this hilarious line:

"they said the money will produce higher immunization rates and aims to make sure 90% of children are immunized against dangerous diseases such as diarrhea and pneumonia in poorer nations."

Yes, you read correctly, a vaccine for diarrhea. The actual vaccine, which I hope they are referring to, is for Rotavirus, which is the leading cause of diarrhea in young children, especially in developing countries.

Solar Surprise

2009-11-30T10:45:00.000-08:00

Well, not really a surprise, but the cost of solar panels and wind turbines has dropped 50% from last year. This follows a decade long trend of dropping equipment prices. This was the goal of government subsidies: the more solar panels and wind turbines built, the cheaper they become. Now, as soon as the government stops heavily subsidizing oil and gas, alternative energy may finally be able to compete.

Solar Power Costs 50% Lower than Last Year

H1N1 Vaccine Cartoons

2009-11-26T12:13:00.000-08:00

Cancer Contrarians

2009-11-21T07:39:00.000-08:00

One of the benefits of Health Care Reform that we are already receiving is a critical look at the efficacy of many medical tests and treatments. Although it may seem cold-hearted to think about medicine in terms of money, the most cost-effective treatments are ones that keep the most people healthy and working for the longest period of time. The US Department of Health and Human Services created the Preventative Services Task Force to suss out what medical treatments work and which don't.

Panel Urges Mammograms at 50, Not 40

Lobbyists Lure Lazy Congressmen

2009-11-18T07:22:00.000-08:00

In House, Many Spoke With One Voice: Lobbyists’

Statements on health care reform released by over a dozen congressmen were were all ghostwritten by Lobbyists from the biotech company Genentech. While the Lobbyists goal was not to change anything in the bill, merely to show support, it is scarry to think that our lawmakers will blindly accept the talking points provided to them by a company that clearly has a conflict of interest with the legislation. It's also important to note that almost equal number of Democrats and Republicans were found to have used the Lobbyists provided statements, showing how even a meager two-party system can be marginalized by a major corporation. The lawmakers response to accusations of interference or laziness was “I regret that the language was the same. I did not know it was.”

Tuna's Time Has Come

2009-10-29T09:23:00.000-07:00

Scientists recommend banning fishing and trade of atlantic tuna, which are close to extinction. Their report was sparked by Monaco's proposal to ban international trade in Atlantic bluefin tuna under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). An interesting fact:

Atlantic bluefin tuna are mainly caught from countries around the Mediterranean Sea, but most of the meat is consumed in Asia, particularly Japan.

Tuna ban 'justified' by science

This reflects the larger issue that many fish populations are seeing large declines as decades of loose regulations and over-fishing are taking their toll. Many environmental groups publish list of sustainable seafood choices that can be tailored to your region. You can print out pocket guides for regions of the United States here: Seafood Watch Card.

Cutting Carbon Calories in Sweden

2009-10-26T09:39:00.000-07:00

Our diets have long been the target of climate change policy experts, but exactly how to encourage people to eat more climate friendly foods is a touchy subject. Refer to one of my older posts - Gas Guzzler vs. Meat Guzzler. You can tell people to eat less meat, but the cattle industry complains, and it all depends on how the meat was fed, raised, processed, and transported. There are so many factors that affect the carbon footprint of our food: deforestation, fertilizer use, processing, and transportation. There hasn't been much agreement on a metric to use to judge a foods environmental impact, but Sweden has gone ahead with a trial to start labeling foods in grocery stores and restaurants.

To Cut Global Warming, Swedes Study Their Plates

They chose to label products with the mass of carbon dioxide emitted per kilogram of product. This is most useful for comparing similar products, like two kinds of fish or apples from two different countries, but it might get confusing if you were trying to decide wether to eat salad or bread. It will be interesting to see if these labels actually affect the foods that people choose. If they did, the results would be incredible:

Sweden could cut its emissions from food production by 20 to 50 percent. An estimated 25 percent of the emissions produced by people in industrialized nations can be traced to the food they eat, according to recent research here.

Bad News for Biofuels

2009-10-23T15:21:00.000-07:00

For those of us that follow the science of biofuels, this is not news. It has long been known that biofuels are not viable as a carbon-neutral fuel source. But a new breed of biofuels may even release more carbon than burning gasoline.

Advanced biofuels will stoke global warming: study

Putting Away the Red Pens

2009-10-22T15:15:00.000-07:00

Scientific American had a great article today concerning the new chair of the White House's Council of Environmental Quality. She will be doing things a little differently, namely not censoring scientists. Good Quotes:

"The White House should not be in the business of editing science. Let the scientists do the science. It's a really easy bright line for me."

"I'm not a scientist and I'm not going to comment on the science. My role here and CEQ's role is to advise the president on environmental policy. The science is what the science is."

Editing Scientists: Science and Policy at the White House

FDA Down on the Farm

2009-07-23T08:25:00.000-07:00

House Bill HR2749, The Food Safety Enhancement Act, is currently being debated in Congress. The bill aims to set down who should monitor the treatment and production of farm animals. If you have read Fast Food Nation, you know there are tons of problems with the way we raise animals for food in the United States. Put aside animal cruelty for a second, think about all the reports we've heard over the past year about overuse of antibiotics in farm animals, disease outbreaks, waste leakage. This issue is ultimately about human health and environmental degradation. Henry Waxman is a co-sponsor and stated that the motivation for the bill was the large number of food contamination that we have seen in the past year.

Lawmakers and Farmers Clash on Food Safety Bill

Federal Agency Withheld Research on Driving, Cellphones

2009-07-21T07:48:00.000-07:00

In 2003, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conducted a study to asses the relative risks of driving while distracted. Apparently, they never released their results because told warned them against using their research to lobby the states. But shouldn't the states be using the best research to draft laws. The scientists were particularly peeved as several states passed "hands-free" cellphone laws, but their research (and numerous simulated driving studies since) have shown that talking on the phone with hands-free device is just as dangerous, because it is your mind that is distracted. Here are their key results:

Motorists talking on a phone are four times as likely to crash as other drivers, and are as likely to cause an accident as someone with a .08 blood alcohol content.

The highway safety researchers estimated that cellphone use by drivers caused around 955 fatalities and 240,000 accidents over all in 2002.

U.S. Withheld Data on Risks of Distracted Driving

Electric Cars

2009-07-19T15:26:00.000-07:00

Massachusetts Drivers Fight to Legalize Electric Cars

Obama Moves Mountains

2009-06-11T13:24:00.000-07:00

Actually, his administration decided that maybe we shouldn't move mountains. In an effort to protect rivers and streams from mining debris, the Obama administration has made it more difficult to get a permit for mountaintop removal, and the permits are stricter once issued.

Obama Puts Brakes on Mountaintop Removal

The Math of Marriage

2009-05-13T07:14:00.000-07:00

I have a secret affinity for statistics concerning marriage, because it is one of those areas people rarely quantify. In 2006, the head of the evangelical group Focus on the Family James Dobson said:

In the Netherlands and places where they have tried to define marriage [to include gay couples], what happens is that people just don’t get married. It’s not that the homosexuals are marrying in greater numbers, it’s that when you confuse what marriage is, young people just don’t get married.

Apparently, James Dobson was unaware that countries actually keep track of how many people get married every year, and marriage rates actually rose for heterosexuals in scandinavia after they legalized same-sex unions (and divorce rates went down !). Here is a great article explaining how James Dobson twisted the facts (or just plain ignored them), by Barrett Brown on Skeptic:

Adventures in Math & Marriage
or, Why Gay Marriage Does Not
Decrease Straight Marriage

Here's a beautiful excerpt to counter the quote above:

Denmark began allowing gay civil unions in 1989. Ten years later, the heterosexual marriage rate had increased by 10.7 percent. Norway did the same in 1993, and a decade later the heterosexual marriage rate had increased by 12.7 percent. Sweden followed suite in 1995, and ten years later the heterosexual marriage rate had increased by 28.7 percent. And these marriages were actually lasting. During the same time frame, the divorce rate dropped 13.9 percent in Denmark, 6 percent in Norway, and 13.7 percent in Sweden.

Obama Cuts Funding for Abstinence-Only Sex Education

2009-05-11T09:44:00.000-07:00

Yay, science. Obama cut a $100 million Bush program from the budget that promoted Abstinence-Only Sex Education, and replaced it with a $110 million program of comprehensive teen pregnancy prevention. Since studies have consistently shown that Abstinence-Only programs DO NOT work at preventing teen pregnancy and increase STD spread, this is a great science-based policy decision.

President Obama's budget cuts funding for abstinence-only sex education programs

Check out my previous posts on Abstinence-Only Education:
All About Abstinence or How John McCain got Bristol Pailin Pregnant
Bad Science Journalism Runs Rampant
Laughing About Abstinence
Put Your Condom Where Your Mouth Is

Shady Swine Science

2009-04-30T13:06:00.000-07:00

No, we don't need to slaughter every pig, as Egypt has done. But the extent to which the government is trying to protect the pork industry is alarming. Afterall, the virus did come from pigs, and it is industrial farming practices that allow these types of viruses to stick around and evolve for decades. Shouldn't we at least be testing pigs nationwide for the virus.
Pork industry is blurring the science of swine flu

Swine Flu Tracking Map

2009-04-29T10:04:00.001-07:00

Read this article on how technology is helping doctors track epidemics: Mapping illness.

Then see it in action !

2009 H1N1 Flu Outbreak Map

Industry Ignores Their Own Evidence

2009-04-24T08:46:00.000-07:00

Al Gore backs House global warming bill

As the house hears testimony from scientists and politicians on the Waxmen-Markey climate change bill, recently released documents from a federal trial are proving that an industry group, Global Climate Coalition, ignored the advice of their own scientists and pushed ahead with a lobbying campaign denying global warming.

Here's a great piece from the New York TImes:

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

FDA OK's Plan B for Teens

2009-04-22T12:17:00.000-07:00

In another reversal of Bush science policy, the emergency birth control method known as Plan B has been approved for sale to anyone over the age of 17 without a prescription. If you don't remember, the approval of Plan B has been mired in controversy, as panels of scientists kept recommending to the FDA that Plan B was safe enough to be sold over the counter to women and girls of any age, but the Bush administration coerced the FDA into putting severe age restrictions on it.

Here's the announcement: FDA OKs morning-after pill at age 17 without prescription

In 2003, a panel of outside advisers voted 23 to 4 to recommend over-the-counter sales without age restrictions. But top FDA officials told their subordinates that no approval could be issued at the time, and the decision would be made at a higher level. That's considered highly unusual, since the FDA usually has the last word on drug decisions.

A Simple Solution for Soot

2009-04-17T09:21:00.000-07:00

Black carbon, or Soot, is one of the easiest problems to fix when it comes to climate change. Although it contributes to ~18% of the planet's warming, simple filters on carbon plants and diesel trucks cut the emissions drastically. But, in the developing world, such technologies are expensive. Also, a majority of soot comes from inefficient household stoves. Luckily, replacing these stoves not only cuts emissions, it quickly improves regional air quality (and in-house air quality), and reduces the amount of fuel needed to cook. While buying an electric car may prove costly, buying a new stove for a family in another country feels like an act of human charity, but it also has a huge effect at reducing global climate change. These are the best solutions, because they are win-win.

Here's a new article from the New York Times:
Third-World Stove Soot Is Target in Climate Fight

And here's a map of soot in the atmosphere over the worst areas:

First Major Climate Legislation Introduced

2009-04-01T10:15:00.000-07:00

US Representatives Henry Waxman and Edward Markey introduced the American Clean Energy and Security Act on March 31st to the Energy and Commerce Committee. Committee members will start negotiations on the bill on April 20th after the Easter Recess, but Waxman hopes the bill can be completed and introduced to the House by memorial day. The bill currently includes these major points:

- Reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 80 percent by 2050.
- One quarter of electricity must come from renewable sources by 2025 in every part of the country.
- Increase energy efficiency of building and household appliances.
- Convert Americas electrical grid to a Smart Grid.
- American car manufacturers to produce more electric and hybrid vehicles.
- $10 billion for the coal industry to reduce emissions and capture carbon.
- Establish a cap and trade system for carbon emissions.

Many groups hope to water down this legislation and fight it if it makes it to a House vote. Below are the members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, if you see your representative, I encourage you to contact them and ask them to support the bill and keep it strong on Climate Change.

Henry A. Waxman, CA, Chair - Joe Barton, TX, Ranking Member
John Dingell, MI, Chair Emeritus - Ralph Hall, TX
Edward Markey, MA - Fred Upton, MI
Rick Boucher, VA - Cliff Stearns, FL
Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ - Nathan Deal, GA
Bart Gordon, TN - Ed Whitfield, KY
Bobby Rush, IL - John Shimkus, IL
Anna Eshoo, CA - John Shadegg, AZ
Bart Stupak, MI - Roy Blunt, MO
Eliot Engel, NY - Steve Buyer, IN
Gene Green, TX - George Radanovich, CA
Diana DeGette, CO - Joseph Pitts, PA
Lois Capps, CA - Mary Bono Mack, CA
Michael Doyle, PA - Greg Walden, OR
Jane Harman, CA - Lee Terry, NE
Janice Schakowsky, IL - Mike Rogers, MI
Charles Gonzalez, TX - Sue Wilkins Myrick, NC
Jay Inslee, WA - John Sullivan, OK
Tammy Baldwin, WI - Tim Murphy, PA
Mike Ross, AR - Michael Burgess, TX
Anthony Weiner, NY - Marsha Blackburn, TN
Jim Matheson, UT - Phil Gingrey, GA
G.K. Butterfield, NC - Steve Scalise, LA
Charlie Melancon, LA - John Barrow, GA
Baron Hill, IN - Doris Matsui, CA
Donna Christensen, VI - Kathy Castor, FL
John Sarbanes, MD - Christopher Murphy, CT
Zachary Space, OH - Jerry McNerney, CA
Betty Sutton, OH - Bruce Braley, IA
Peter Welch, VT

Killing Two Birds With One Solar Panel

2009-03-20T15:16:00.000-07:00

Let's say you have two problems, impoverished villages are raiding a forest for firewood to heat their homes, and that forest happens to be a preserve for an endangered species. Solution, build a solar panel barrier around the preserve to keep local villagers out, and provide them with free electricity to heat and light their homes.

Solar power schemes could protect nature reserves

Of Science and Swine

2009-03-19T15:00:00.000-07:00

Some scary science. Antibiotic-resistant staph bacteria are popping up in pigs and spreading the infection to humans. Nicholas Kristof did an excellent couple of pieces on the cause, routine feeding of antibiotics to swine in industrial farming.

Our Pigs, Our Food, Our Health

Pathogens in Our Pork

If that wasn't scary enough:

Study shows crops absorb antibiotics from livestock

Kristof points people to some excellent resources if you care about this problem, these causes:

Save Antibiotics
Keep Antibiotics Working

And this book:

Obama on Education

2009-03-10T10:45:00.000-07:00

Obama wants to put more money into education, especially early education. In reality, you can be cursed for life if you early childhood education is not excellent. He also want to reform standardized tests so that they actually measure student's ability. He wants to pay science and math teachers more. He wants to extend school hours and the length of the school year. The overall goal is to raise the standards of America's public school system, and it looks like good methods to do just that.

Obama wants to overhaul education system from 'cradle to career'

Obama's Statement on Science

2009-03-10T10:37:00.000-07:00

The White House published a memorandum on Scientific Integrity today. It is the total opposite of the practices of the Bush Administration.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

Highlights:

"Science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration on a wide range of issues, including improvement of public health, protection of the environment, increased efficiency in the use of energy and other resources, mitigation of the threat of climate change, and protection of national security."

"The selection and retention of candidates for science and technology positions in the executive branch should be based on the candidate's knowledge, credentials, experience, and integrity;"

"When scientific or technological information is considered in policy decisions, the information should be subject to well-established scientific processes, including peer review where appropriate, and each agency should appropriately and accurately reflect that information in complying with and applying relevant statutory standards;"

Contrast that with this story about a Bush Aide from 2004:

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

Obama Reverses Bush Stem Cell Funding Restrictions

2009-03-09T11:59:00.000-07:00

Stem Cell researchers, it's safe to come out now. The real problem with Bush's limit on stem cell funding wasn't that it restricted research, because stem cell research has flourished in the past 8 years, but it moved this research out of the public sphere. Rather than public universities and hospitals conducting the cutting-edge stem cell research, it was private companies that made the most progress in this field. This private companies corner the market on life-saving research, rather than have these therapies affordably available to the public.

Obama Lifts Bush’s Strict Limits on Stem Cell Research

Obama links scientific research to protecting 'free thinking'

Of Holocausts and Homosexuals

2009-02-27T11:01:00.000-08:00

What does this have to do with science, a lot. South American catholics are getting into a lot of hot water lately. First, we had the Bishop from Argentina who denied the Holocaust and was suspended. So what could possibly be worse than denying the Holocaust ? Well, a catholic priest from Brazil has just been suspended for suggesting that maybe we shouldn't discriminate against homosexuals, and maybe it would be okay if people use condoms, and maybe it would be neat if priests didn't have to be celibate. Sounds like he's looking for a good time ;)

Father Couto landed in trouble with the Church authorities because of an interview that he gave to a local newspaper defending the use of condoms as a matter of public health. He also spoke out against discrimination against homosexuals and said he was opposed to celibacy for priests.

Seminary sacks 'Holocaust bishop'
Brazil priest suspended for views

But, seriously, science. Holocaust deniers refuse to accept overwhelming evidence (government documents, photos, videos, chemical evidence) that there was a Holocaust in World War II. And the catholic church is now refusing to accept evidence about the congenital basis for homosexuality and the role of contraceptives in preventing disease, suffering, and poverty. The irony is that Germany now estimates that over 50,000 homosexual men were arrested (as homosexuals) and killed under the Nazi regime. Should the Catholic Church really suspend a bishop whose general message was "can't we all just get along ?"

Do Scientists Make Bad Politicians ?

2009-02-27T10:39:00.000-08:00

Yes, but they don't have to. Scientists often misunderstand their place in public policy decisions. Here is a great post on this topic, focusing on the recent appointment of Dr. Steven Chu as the Secretary of Energy, and Dr. John Holdren as the President's science advisor.

Politics in the Guise of Pure Science

Higher cervical cancer rates in provinces restricting HPV vaccine

2009-02-12T11:53:00.000-08:00

Higher cervical cancer rates in provinces restricting HPV vaccine

Here is the relevant section from this story from Canada. Reading the comments for this story was very revealing. It looks like a lot of people don't really know how vaccines work. Many people pointed out that the long-term effects of the HPV vaccine hadn't been studied. But, it's a vaccine, not a drug, the long-term effects should be your bodies natural response to the viruses proteins. Over 80% of people in their 20's have some strain of HPV, shouldn't we be more concerned about those effects ? It's looks like we are already seeing the long-term effects of this vaccine: lower cervical cancer rates.

HPV vaccine

Some provinces with the tightest restrictions on HPV vaccination also have the highest rates of cervical cancer, according to the report. Jurisdictions that have very restrictive programs, with less than 55 per cent of eligible females included, are Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Yukon Territory, New Brunswick and Alberta, the report said.

“Our research reveals that the vaccination programs bear absolutely no relationship to the risk of cervical cancer in each province,” said Rosemary Colucci, lead author of the study.

“Sadly, the differences in provincial programs may eventually result in differences in effective control of cervical cancers.”

For example, Quebec and British Columbia have the lowest incidence rate of cervical cancer at six per 100,000 females and offer the vaccine to 100 per cent and 65 per cent of eligible females respectively, the report said.

Provinces with the highest incidence rates, such as Nova Scotia with 10 and P.E.I. with 11 cases per 100,000 females, offered the vaccine to 53 per cent and 41 per cent of eligible females.

In 2007, the federal government pledged $300 million over three years to the provinces and territories to launch a national vaccination program against human papillomavirus, which causes cervical cancer.

All provinces and the Yukon have school-based vaccination programs for girls aged nine to 17.

Preventable Disease Spreads in Minnesota Unvaccinated

2009-02-10T10:19:00.000-08:00

Five children have been diagnosed with Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) disease in Minnesota, and one child has died. This disease is preventable by a mandatory vaccine given to children in their first year. However, three of the children had not had the vaccine due to parental deferral, one child had not completed the vaccine, and the fifth was too young to have completed the full vaccination series. What's scary is that these five children came from five different counties and had no known relationship or contact. That means this disease has popped up individually five times in unvaccinated children.

Invasive Haemophilus influenzae Type B Disease in Five Young Children --- Minnesota, 2008

Stimulating Science

2009-02-09T10:09:00.000-08:00

Science funding was a big part of the New Deal (A new deal for the White House), and was quite controversial at the time because many Americans blamed technology for the Depression (loss of jobs due to industrialization, over farming, etc.). Since the Unites States has been falling behind in the Science race for the last eight years, wouldn't it make sense for the Stimulus bill to include increased funding for basic science research ? Many Senators think not:

Physics vs. Medicine in the Stimulus Bill

Science Funding to be Slashed under Stimulus "Compromise"

Some items to be cut:
1.4 billion from the NSF line
1 billion from the DOE Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy line
750 million for NASA exploration
427 million from NOAA
218 million from NIST
100 million from the DOE office of science line.

Traditional Plant Breeding Just as Dangerous as GM

2009-02-09T10:05:00.000-08:00

There's a lot of fear-mongering around GM crops, and while caution is warranted, people can get way to paranoid about this technology that is still in its formative years. Check out this article from New Scientist:

Conventional crop breeding may be more harmful than GM

Cookin' the Books on Coal

2008-12-26T10:37:00.001-08:00

More on the Coal Ash tsunami in Tennessee. The estimated amount of coal ash spilled was 1.7 million cubic yards. Thanks to an aerial survey, officials have re-estimated the spill at 5.4 million cubic yards. What's interesting is that the pond was only meant to hold 2.6 million cubic yards, so it was over full by 100%.

Coal Ash Spill Is Much Larger Than Initially Estimated

More about coal, often when you read news stories about coal online, you get banner ads about clean coal. These take you to expensive flash websites that are short on facts and high on cute children espousing the necessity of coal. I am yet to find any mention of Global Warming or Climate Change on these website. But I found something else today, a banner ad against clean coal. It was a cartoon canary, and the banner read "In Reality, there is no such thing as clean coal."

In Reality, There is no such thing as clean coal.

It turns out to be an anti-coal coalition run by the Alliance for Climate Protection, Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the League of Conservation Voters. Check out their propaganda (it comes with real live FACTS !).

Science-Based Drug Policy, What a Great Idea

2008-12-23T16:59:00.000-08:00

The Evidence Gap

New York Times ran an article today about the unaccountability of drug rehab programs. Basically, state and federal governments spend upwards of $15 billion a year, with insurance companies spending another $5 billion, but there is really no accountability about which programs work, what are the success rates. But Oregon passed revolutionary legislation in 2003 requiring any rehab program receiving state funds use only "evidence based practices." Okay, that seems obvious, leeches and hypnosis don't get results, so they shouldn't get funded. But seriously, this is a prime example where science policy needs a little more science. There are programs that people just assume work, and so they give them more money, like Alcoholics Annonymous (AA), one of the largest recovery programs in the country. It actually has a very low success rate, but you wouldn't know.

Among the evidence-based practices are medications that make you sick if you use a certain drug, like naltrexone, for alcohol dependence, and buprenorphine, for addiction to narcotics.

This same budgetary audit needs to be applied to many other areas of health in our country. For example, sex education. Studies have repeatedly shown that Abstinence-Only education DOES NOT WORK, it has up to an 86% failure rate, read my earlier post. Yet, these programs saw a huge funding increase under the Bush Administration, and governors and representatives are still pushing funding increases for these programs.

And in troubling economic times, shouldn't insurance companies be looking at the effectiveness of various treatments like accupunture and chiropractic. These treatments have been shown utterly indistinguishable from placebo, yet insurance companies often cover them, isn't that a bad business practice. I am hopeful that if we had universal health coverage, more research would go into the real effectiveness of treatments, so that the most people could be helped for the littlest cost.

Coal Ash Catastrophe Not So Clean

2008-12-23T15:44:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, a coal ash retention pond's wall failed at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston steam plant. 3.1 million cubic feet of toxic sludge rushed out into nearby land and into the regional water supply. Over 400 acres are buried under 4-6 feet of this sludge, which contains numerous heavy metals and high levels of radioactivity. Most people forget (or never knew) that coal ash is actually more radioactive than nuclear waste. Environmental officials are saying this is the worst environmental disaster in the history of the Southeast, and estimated environmental degradation is ~50x worse than the Exxon-Valdez oil spill. Worse yet, mainstream media hasn't even picked up on it yet. Here is a collection of coverage from local journalists, and other blogs.

TVA ash storage pond breach covers 400 acres in Roane County

Videos from Knoxnews

Image Gallery from Knoxnews

Massive Coal Ash Spill in Tennessee Puts the Lie to Clean Coal

Center for Environmental Journalism's Coverage

This just shows how far we are from Clean Coal technology. And as much as Three-Mile Island is used to fear-monger against nuclear power, perhaps these images will steer us away from investing in this dirty energy option.

Obama Announces Science Team

2008-12-22T16:36:00.000-08:00

Obama announced his science team, and left all doubts about his commitment to tackling climate change in the dust:

Dr. John Holdren will be the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)

Dr. Harold Varmus and Dr. Eric Lander as the other co-chairs of PCAST.

Dr. Jane Lubchenco will lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Lisa Jackson will be the head of the EPA.

Carol Browner will lead the policy council on environment, energy

Nancy Sutley will direct the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

In Obama's weekly "radio" address, he announced his science team picks, as well as elucidated his beliefs on the value of scientific research:

The truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources—it’s about protecting free and open inquiry, It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient—especially when it’s inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. That will be my goal as President of the United States—and I could not have a better team to guide me in this work.

Watch it here

A Scientist for Secretary ?

2008-12-11T08:54:00.000-08:00

Steven Chu, a physicist with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, will be appointed by President-elect Obama as the new Secretary of Energy !!! Why so excited ? Did I mention he's a physicist ? He won a Noble in 1997 for his work on cooling and trapping atoms with lasers, which is totally useful for solving America's energy crisis. Okay, not really, but as the director of LBNL he focused research on alternative energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Clip from wikipedia:
Chief in Chu's campaign is an unprecedented research pact reached between UC Berkeley, oil industry giant BP, the Lawrence Berkeley Lab and the University of Illinois. Nearly US$400 million in new lab space will expand energy-related molecular work centered at Lawrence Berkeley that involves partners around the world; a US$160 million Energy Biosciences Institute Helios Building is to be funded by BP and subsidized with $70 million of California state funds, house up to 50 BP scientists in a private lab, and will include Chu's separate solar-energy program.

Rep. Henry Waxman Heads Congressional Committee on Energy and Commerce

2008-11-20T17:46:00.000-08:00

Very exciting news for science. Representative Henry Waxman, D-CA, has taken over the chairmanship of the congressional Committee on Energy and Commerce. Waxman has long been a champion for the environment and scientific integrity in politics.

In 2003, Waxman released a report concluding that the Bush Administration had purposely politicized science to push their pro-life and anti-environment agenda. Read more on the Waxman Report.

When asked why he was running for the chairmanship, Waxman responded:
“I am running for the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee because we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to advance health care, achieve energy independence and tackle climate change. These are difficult and contentious issues, and I believe I can provide effective leadership so that Congress and the new administration working together can deliver results for the American people.”

Read more about his new chairmanship:
Longtime Head of House Energy Panel Is Ousted

A Good Start

2008-11-18T17:26:00.000-08:00

President-elect Obama spoke today to a conference on climate change in Los Angeles, CA. He made it clear that he would not soften of back down on his plan to fight climate change outlined during his presidential campaign.

Obama will stick to these promises specifically:
-Reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by 2050
-Invest $150 billion in new energy-saving technologies

I reported on this issue here on December 22, 2007.
California enacted a sweeping climate bill in 2007 that would have, among other things, imposed strict mileage and emissions standards on all cars and trucks sold in the state. More than a dozen other states adopted the standards, but they were struck down by the Bush administration last December on the ground that the states did not have the legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

In response to this, Obama said
“When I am president, any governor who’s willing to promote clean energy will have a partner in the White House. Any company that’s willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Washington. And any nation that’s willing to join the cause of combating climate change will have an ally in the United States of America.”

Obama Affirms Climate Change Goals

Growing Creationists for the White House

2008-11-18T09:00:00.000-08:00

Evangelical Home-Schooled children are recruited to an elite christian college in rural Virginia. They are taught predominantly from the bible, and their only science education is fervent creationism. They are groomed for politics, garnering a disproportionate number of internships in the White House, Congress, even the FBI. Could anything be scarier for Science Policy, maybe the fact that their numbers are growing.

Home-schooling special: Preach your children well

The Presidential Appointments

2008-11-11T14:28:00.000-08:00

Almost more important than who is President, is who the president puts in charge. Many of the divisive decisions of the Bush administration were made by Bush appointees in other departments or organizations. Many scientific organizations are encouraging President-Elect Obama to announce his Science Advisor as soon as possible. President Bush waited to appoint a Science Advisor until June of his first year, long after he had created executive orders on climate change and stem cell research. Also, Bush was the first President to remove the Science Advisor from a cabinet position. Besides Science Advisor, here are some important appointments that we should watch for:

Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
And all new staff to lead:
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Office of National AIDS Policy

President-Elect Obama Must Appoint Officials Who Will Restore Scientific Integrity to Government, says National Science Group

Climate Change Policy

2008-10-13T16:16:00.000-07:00

The Future of Climate Change Policy: The U.S.'s Last Chance to Lead

The Big To-Do List--Scientific Challenges Facing the Next President

Veeps on Science

2008-10-03T11:23:00.000-07:00

Biden and Palin talk energy and environment

The major difference I noted were that Palin refused to admit that Climate Change was due to Carbon Emission, whereas Joe Biden was much more unequivocal:

We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That's the cause. That's why the polar icecap is melting.

Also, when Joe Biden referred to alternative energy he said, "solar, wind, and biofuels." When Sarah Palin referred to alternative energy, she said "the nuclear, the clean coal," the two technologies furthest from implementation.

Who Will End the War On Science ?

2008-10-02T08:45:00.000-07:00

Cut funding, censored reports, a demoted science advisor, stem cells, intelligent design...New Scientist Magazine looks into which presidential candidate will be the best for science.

McCain vs Obama: Who will end the war on science?

And check out the groups who weighed in:
Center for the Study of the Presidency
Center for Progressive Reform
ScienceDebate2008
Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes

Palin's Record of Climate Change Denial

2008-09-18T08:01:00.001-07:00

Even in the state of Alaska, where the effects of climate change are already severe, Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin denies the evidence in her own backyard.

Ignoring her Bible, Palin denies human dominion over Earth

New Energy Legislation

2008-09-16T16:12:00.000-07:00

The Democrats in the House are proposing a new energy bill that looks pretty good:

House moves toward offshore drilling vote

Yes, it includes drilling, but only 50 miles offshore, where there actually isn't any oil, so it really doesn't include drilling. It's a ruse that I support. But, the oil companies only drill on a third of their current federally leased land anyway, so if they aren't going to use it, does it really need to have oil underneath ?

It would also:

Roll back $18 billion in tax breaks for the five largest oil companies and requires energy companies to pay billions of dollars in royalties avoided because of an Interior Department contracting error.

Make it a federal crime for oil companies holding federal leases to provide gifts to government employees, a response to a recent sex and drug scandal involving the federal office that oversees the offshore oil royalty program and energy company employees.

Provide tax credits for wind and solar energy industries, the development of cellulose ethanol and other biofuels.

Require utilities nationwide to generate 15% of their electricity from solar, wind or other alternative energy source.

Obama Answers Top Science Policy Questions

2008-09-08T15:39:00.000-07:00

Find your candidates,
ask where they stand.

Use this graphic to ask your state political candidates where they stand on science policy issues. But Barack Obama is the first presidential candidate to answer these questions. You can read his full response here. Here are some highlights:

"When Sputnik was launched in 1957, President Eisenhower used the event as a call to arms for Americans to help secure our country and to increase the number of students studying math and science via the National Defense Education Act. "

"I will invest in new vaccines and technology to detect [bioterrorism] attacks and to trace them to their origin, so that we can react in a timely fashion. I have pledged to invest $10 billion per year over the next 5 years in electronic health information systems to not only improve routine health care, but also ensure that these systems will give health officials the crucial information they need to deploy resources and save lives in an emergency."

"I recently introduced the "Enhancing Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education Act of 2008" that would establish a STEM Education Committee within the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to coordinate the efforts of federal agencies engaged in STEM education, consolidate the STEM education initiatives that exist within the Department of Education under the direction of an Office of STEM Education, and create a State Consortium for STEM Education."

"Stem cell research holds the promise of improving our lives in at least three ways—by substituting normal cells for damaged cells to treat diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injury, heart failure and other disorders; by providing scientists with safe and convenient models of disease for drug development; and by helping to understand fundamental aspects of normal development and cell dysfunction. "

Drugs are Bad !

2008-09-08T15:16:00.000-07:00

Marijuana Ingredients Show Promise In Battling Superbugs

Some compounds found in marijuana may be effective in killing drug-resistant bacteria. Drug policy makers should know about research like this. Alas, if only they were briefed by independent scientists !

And here is some older recent research:
Marijuana takes on colon cancer
Marijuana does not dent IQ permanently
Marijuana might cause new cell growth in the brain
Smoke for strokes
Out-of-date drug laws are hurting people

Unequal Economy

2008-09-06T10:32:00.000-07:00

A lot of people forget that Economics is science too, not just random magic. The New York Times just reviewed "Unequal Democracy", a book by Prof. Larry M. Bartels of Princeton. He reviews and presents the last 50 years of economic data to conclude that the economy truly performs better under Democratic Presidents: GDP, income growth, and stock prices. Look at the facts, not the rhetoric.

Read the Review:
Is History Siding With Obama’s Economic Plan?

Buy the Book:

The War Against Waste

2008-09-05T18:56:00.000-07:00

US military launches war on global warming

This sounds like a much better idea than the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism. No, the US military is not actively tracking down polluters and killing them, but they are aggressively cutting their energy use and investing in alternative energy. Considering that the US military uses 1.5% of the nation's energy, this is a big deal. Their goal is to get 25% of their energy from renewable sources by 2025 and to cut their energy consumption by 10-20% in that same time. This is not just about stopping global warming (okay, it's mostly not about stopping global warming); it's about saving money. The US military spends roughly $14 billion a year on energy. They are also working on developing portable wind and solar powered bases that they could set up in disaster struck areas where power may be unavailable, a great idea.

All About Abstinence or How John McCain got Bristol Palin Pregnant

2008-09-02T14:39:00.000-07:00

If a politician is going to propose Abstinence-only sex education, that position needs to be supported by facts. Please read my previous post on the failure rate of Abstinence, which noted that teen pregnancy rates rose this year for the first time in fifteen years. Considering that the republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's 17 year-old daughter is pregnant, let's look at how John McCain has supported Abstinence-Only education (info from Planned Parenthood):

McCain opposed spending $100 million to prevent unintended and teen pregnancies.

McCain opposed legislation requiring that abstinence-only programs be medically accurate and scientifically based.

McCain opposed Title X, the nation's family planning program.

McCain opposed requiring insurance coverage of prescription birth control.

McCain opposes comprehensive sex education. (And stated he supported the President's policy of Abstinence-Only).

McCain unsure where he stands on government funding for contraception.

McCain opposed repealing the "global gag rule," which bars foreign nongovernmental organizations from receiving U.S. family planning assistance if the organization (using its own, non-U.S. funds) provides abortion services or information or advocates for pro-choice laws and policies in its own country.

So, let us look at the facts. John McCain unanimously supports Abstinence-Only education, even though the perfect example of its failure is now riding in his campaign tour bus. Across the country, how many unplanned teen pregnancies are the direct result of the Bush-McCain Abstinence-Only policies ?

Quantifying Cooperation

2008-09-02T13:10:00.000-07:00

Which countries are most cooperative at combating Climate Change?

Sarah Palin on Science

2008-08-29T13:10:00.000-07:00

Today John McCain announced Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate for the presidential election. Here's where she stands on science:

She supports the teaching of Creationism in public schools.

She opposed listing Polar Bears as an endangered species (and is now suing the federal government to remove them from the list), even though her own commisioned report by Alaska state wildlife officials agreed with the scientific conclusion of the federal report claiming Polar Bears will be extinct by 2050. Her quoted reason: protecting Polar Bears limits oil drilling off the northern coast of Alaska. She also claimed the climate models were unreliable, with a degree in journalism she must know better than the scientists.

Palin views on oil, polar bears may be liabilities

Alaska seeks to reverse U.S. polar bear decision

And this may count as Conflict of Interest:

Her husband works for British Petroleum.

More importantly, she has received over $4,000 from executives of VECO including the former CEO, who last year plead quilty to federal conspiracy and bribery. Yes, that is the same VECO who paid for those pesky home renovations for Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens, currently under investigation.

Science News You Can Use... To Get the Blues

2008-08-26T14:39:00.000-07:00

Arctic Soil is melting and could soon release more greenhouse gas than we've ever seen, causing runaway Global Warming ! Geez, what else is new ?

Not-So-Permafrost: Big Thaw of Arctic Soil May Unleash Runaway Warming

Alternative medicine is a harmless placebo, right ? Unless it contains 20,000 times the legal dose of lead, arsenic, and mercury. But...it's ALL NATURAL !

Okay, women shouldn't drink alcohol when pregnant, but how much should they not be drinking ? Given that 1 in 1,000 babies born has fetal alcohol syndrome, maybe we should just leave it at zero drinks, but that wouldn't be scientific. One research group aims to find out when is the best and worst times to drink during pregnancy.

Alcohol Consumption Can Cause Too Much Cell Death, Fetal Abnormalities

Candid Candidate Creationism

2008-08-26T09:28:00.000-07:00

In reference to creationism, Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden said in a Fox News interview, “I refuse to believe the majority of people believe this malarkey!”

In contrast, President George W. Bush had this to say about creationism in 2005, "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about."

Presidential candidate Barack Obama had this very thoughtful response to a question about Intelligent Design asked by the York Daily Record:

“I’m a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state. But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry.”

Sexuality Science

2008-08-19T16:52:00.000-07:00

Studies over that past decade have increasingly shown that homosexuality is congenital, present at birth, and possibly genetic. We've also discovered a lot of quirky facts about animal sexuality along the way.

How can the trait of bisexuality evolve, if it reduces offspring? It turns out, women who have lots of children are more likely to have sons who are bisexual. Read more:
Bisexuality passed on by 'hyper-heterosexuals'

There are over 1500 species that have evolved homosexual tendancies. But why does it evolve ? What benefit does homosexuality give to a species ? Research from the past century suggests peace-making, better parenting, and stress relief. Also interesting, rates of homosexuality are much higher in cities (cultural ?), and rates of homosexuality in other species increase in captivity. Check it out:

Bisexual Species: Unorthodox Sex in the Animal Kingdom

Living with Lies

2008-08-19T16:48:00.000-07:00

Recently many Climate Change denyers have insisted that the earth stopped warming up 10 years ago. Well, unsurprisingly this isn't true, but it's not exactly untrue. This belief comes from a misunderstanding of the way the earth's temperature is measured. New Scientist does a great job explaining this, employing an anology involving naked people in Antartica. Check it out !

Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998

Debate on Faith, But Not on Science

2008-08-16T17:11:00.000-07:00

Tonight, the presumed presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama will come together to discuss Faith at a mega-church in Southern California.

McCain, Obama set to face off with popular pastor

However, both candidates have turned down invitations to a special debate on science policy. Why does the future president need to know about science, don't they have science advisors for that? Correct, but they also have religious advisors from various faiths. Considering that the President is not supposed to make decisions based on their personal beliefs, but what they think is best for the nation, what does it matter? But wouldn't it be prudent for the president to already have a grasp about how biofuel legislation affects the cost of food, or how much oil is really in ANWR, and what affect would that have on gasoline prices. Both candidates have shown a lack of understanding on these issues, and Americans have repeatedly polled that the Economy is the number one issue this election, not personal beliefs.

ScienceDebate2008

Revive "Drive Fifty-Five"

2008-08-12T18:12:00.000-07:00

Did you know that for every 5 mph that you drive over 55 mph you add 10 cents to the gallon of gas ?

In the 1970's, the government estimated that setting the national speed limit at 55 mph would save 167,000 barrels of oil a day, which equated to 2 percent of the country's highway fuel consumption at the time. Considering that a greater percentage of Americans drive on the freeway daily and they tend to drive much higher than the current speed limit, reducing the national speed limit to 55 again would most likely conserve an even greater percentage of oil today.

Considering that either drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) or offshore would not bring oil onto the market for at least five years, and that economists predict it will at best drop gasoline prices by a couple cents, shouldn't the government focus efforts on conservation now. Because conservation save people money instantly and there are no environmental sacrifices. Also, that oil isn't going anywhere. If we reverse Climate Change and solve our energy crisis we could still keep that oil for the strategic reserve, saving it for a real national emergency.

Check out this highly propagandous website:
Drive55.org

More Pseudo-science on Fox News

2008-08-11T12:20:00.000-07:00

Team of Psychic Detectives Aid Police in Search for Missing Florida Girl

Fox News reports that a team of Psychics is helping the Orlando police search for a missing toddler. Notice that they don't say if the police are paying them; usually these types of people just help without request. Fox fails to investigate any of the psychic detectives claims, such as the existence of a "person signature." Fox also doesn't look into the groups success rate or get a second opinion on the groups methodology, i.e. from a forensic scientist. Of all the psychics who claim to have aided police in finding missing persons or murder suspects, none have ever been verified by the associated police department. Often times the psychics waste thousands of man-hours giving police false leads. And sometimes psychics have told parents their missing children were dead and where to find their body, when they were still alive. Fox should have mentioned this precedent.

Next week Fox will talk with a homeless guy who is also aiding the police in this investigation; he thinks OJ did it.

Don't Ask Don't Tell Us How Bad It Is

2008-08-10T12:15:00.000-07:00

Recent congressional hearings have analyzed the US military's law of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Did you know the estimated financial burden to US taxpayers to keep this policy in place is $363 million. And since it's inception, over 12,500 members of the armed forces have been dismissed because of it, 800 of which had skills deemed "mission critical". Considering there are troops being accidentally killed due to poor or lacking equipment, should we really be wasting this money to barricade serving military personnel into the proverbial closet ?

For a detailed report on the number of Homosexuals in the military, read the Williams Institute's testimony for the U.S. House of Representatives.

They also look at how the "Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy" affects retention rates in the armed services:
Effects of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on Retention among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Military Personnel

Also, when soldiers return from active duty, their family is trained on how to identify signs of depression and post-traumatic stress. However, same-sex partners of returning soldiers cannot get this training, because they technically cannot exist, nor can they visit their injured partners in military hospitals. How do you think this affect the health and mentality of our troops ?

Free Market Ford

2008-08-01T12:42:00.000-07:00

Republicans and Libertarians (small government proponents) often state that Climate Change should be solved by free market solutions. In the auto industry, they may be right. Although it has nothing to do with environmental conservation, as fuel prices rose, truck and SUV sales plummeted, as did the profits of GM and Ford. In response, Ford announced it would close some SUV plants, and add more shifts at its plants manufacturing more gas sipping models like the Focus. As profits continue to plunge, Ford has now announced it will be introducing some new models to the American market that are already sold in Europe. These models were already sold in Europa because the demand was already there, Europeans dream of gas prices as LOW as ours.

Ford Delays New Pickup and Reduces Production

Ford sales down 14.9 percent in July

Demise of American gas guzzler forces Ford to focus on European models

General Motors to close four truck plants, consider sale of Hummer

So, did the free market work, was there no need for MPG regulation 10 years ago ? What about the thousands of Ford employees who lost their jobs, pensions, or healthcare as Ford cut-back and closed plants ? What about the dent in our economy caused by Americans buying more foreign cars that consumed less gas than domestic rivals ? Could this have been avoided ? Perhaps this will stimulate a long-term trend of American manufacturers making pint-sized cars, or maybe we will start buying Hummers from India as soon as gas drops below $3. And what about Ford, will they regain their place as the #1 car manufacturer in the world? Or is it too little too late?

China's Carbon Kerfuffle

2008-07-29T10:04:00.000-07:00

While China gets a lot of bad press about their pollution and increasing carbon emissions, Conservatives in the United States use them as an excuse for not being proactive at home in regards to stopping Climate Change. But guess what...

33% of China's Carbon Footprint Blamed on Exports

It's our fault after all. America's consumption of Chinese goods is fueling their greenhouse gas emissions, and damaging our own economy in the meantime. Besides, China still produces a FIFTH of the carbon dioxide per person compared to the United States. Still, their growing emissions provide a serious concern, but they will need our help to change and they need the United States to set an example.

California Bans Trans Fats

2008-07-25T13:38:00.000-07:00

California Is First State to Ban Trans Fats

Call it a Nanny State, but this makes sense for California. While you may think people should be free to make poor health choices such as eating junk-food or smoking, these poor health choices cost the state a lot of money in health care costs. Also, California is only banning trans fats in restaurants and retail baked goods. Perhaps people will start hoping the border to Nevada to gamble and eat margarine.

Vaccination Veracity

2008-07-11T08:22:00.000-07:00

Measles Outbreak Spreads to 15 States, Largest in 10 Years

The headline says it all. But here are some important excerpts;

"According to federal health officials, most of the victims were not vaccinated against the highly contagious virus."

"What concerns me is the trend of more and more people not vaccinating their children because of fears that vaccines cause autism — although no studies have proven this to be true," Dr. Joseph Rahimian, an infectious disease specialist at St. Vincent's Hospital in Manhattan

"With the whole debate about vaccines — and now parents due to their personal beliefs not vaccinating their children — what we are seeing now is that we are going to have these epidemic outbreaks throughout the country," said Dr. Manny Alvarez

"This latest outbreak comes eight years after the virus was declared practically dead in the United States, thanks to a vaccination program that began in the 1960s."