December 2008

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. (attributed)

-James Madison

December 24, 2008

ZOMG! Radioactive coal sludge will kill us all! (updated)

What could be worse than a reported half billion gallons of gallons of toxic ash sludge breaking a dike at a Tennessee Valley Authority power plant and flooding about 400 acres, damaging a dozen homes?

Well, how about "news" articles that misrepresent the danger by people falsely claiming that this coal slurry is more radioactive than spent nuclear fuel? Yes, several stories have linked a bad article by Scientific American from a year ago whose headline says exactly that, even though the content of the Scientific American article clearly refuted its own headline.

Ready for a quick breakdown of the facts?

1) The headline of the Scientific American article is "Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste", and that is false. Anybody who bothered to read the article would find that out.

2) From that same article, "In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste", and this is also false. The primary source article (link) says nothing of the kind. Please continue.

3) Again from that same Scientific American article,

In a 1978 paper for Science, J. P. McBride at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and his colleagues... estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors.

This is true.

The point of McBride's research is that shielding at nuclear plants is freaking great, and very little thought is given to the trace radioactivity of coal plants. Because it's trace. Less than 1% of the coal sludge is any flavor of radioactive isotope--it's actually on the order of 10 parts per million. Meanwhile, well more than 90% of spent nuclear fuel is uranium. In other words, coal waste (including fly ash) is orders of magnitude less radioactive. If you were to mount a Geiger counter on your dashboard, you wouldn't even be able to tell when you were driving past a coal plant or a coal slurry pond.

Shame on Scientific American, and shame on ignorant, sensationalist writers who quote an article after only reading its headline or maybe a couple of intro paragraphs. The sludge spill in Tennessee is awful enough from a chemical point of view that we really don't need to sensationalize and make up nuclear problems.

22:55 UPDATE: I have emailed Rick Hind, Legislative Director of Greenpeace’s Toxics Campaign, regarding an interview he gave on the issue. While I am sure he won't enjoy being taken to task on Christmas Eve for not weakening the environmentalist argument in favor of honesty, I do hope he will give some thought to how valuable honesty is in any public campaign.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

August 30, 2008

Bug Braaaaaaaaaains!

Discover Magazine presents an article on (and I quote) Zombie Animals and the Parasites that Control Them.

The gallery of pics includes short descriptions (with links to longer articles) of the strange abilities of certain animals to gain control of others.

Examples:

The caterpillar, still alive, behaves as though controlled by the cocooned larvae. Instead of going about its usual daily business, it stands arched over the cocoons without moving away or feeding.

The caterpillar – now effectively a zombie – stays alive until the adult wasps hatch.

and,

Eventually, the crab begins to change into a new sort of creature, one that exists to serve the parasite. It can no longer do the things that would get in the way of Sacculina's growth. It stops molting and growing, which would funnel away energy from the parasite... and while other crabs mate and produce new generations, parasitized crabs simply go on eating and eating. They have been spayed by the parasite.

Personally, I am opposed to these behaviors. I find them completely immoral and unacceptable. Yech.

But they're definitely interesting enough to share with you.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 17, 2008

Better questions about climate change

I really don't care whether or not you believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. That's beside the point.

All but the fringe biblical literalists do agree that the Earth has undergone massive climate change throughout its history -- without input from mankind. Viewed locally, some of these changes have happened very quickly. So whenever I see people arguing about whether or not the science is "settled" with regard to Anthropogenic Global Warming, and whether it's really happening, I just want to knock their heads together and demand their attention long enough to ask what they think we as a species can do about any climate change, whether it's completely natural or not.

Because realistically, even if it were proven conclusively that human activity has contributed to global warming, you simply couldn't stop those practices that are blamed. All around the globe people want to live a lifestyle that is supported by those very activities that are blamed for global warming (emissions from autos, industry, cattle, etc.). They aren't going to forgo a better lifestyle across Asia and Africa just because you don't like how hot it is. While it is not moot to discuss the validity of AGW theories, or how it could be mitigated through new technology, I think it would be more productive for those who worry about climate change to address how the world could respond to changes that could not be directly stopped or mitigated through any amount of lifestyle sacrifice.

So... forget about AGW. If the oceans were to rise a meter for natural reasons, how would people respond? If ocean currents and wind patterns changed to bring lasting drought to Western Europe, what would Europeans do about it? If glaciers covered the NFC North as they did just 20,000 years ago, would we just surrender that territory without a fight? What kind of a fight would be feasible or even possible?

100,000 years ago, humans would simply have moved their homes away from the water, drought, or glacier as necessary. I suspect we might not be so blasé about it in modern times. But we don't seem to put a lot of thought into the reality that these catastrophic extremes are possible and even likely to occur in cycles in the coming millennia. Maybe that's too far away for you to care about, but stories like this one get me thinking about it quite a bit. Are we willing to be an essentially nomadic species in the long term, just so long as things seem constant within our lifetime? Aren't we too obsessed with history and archeology to just meekly accept that certain areas are habitable now but won't be forever?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 2, 2008

Striped Iceberg

I try not to do a lot of "Oh this is so cool!" posts, but wow, this is so cool:

Those are layers of sediment embedded in an iceberg.

I find it interesting that people are so wary of doctored photographs that this would need to be covered at Snopes, but it is, and their article includes a few other pics. I can't say it caused any skepticism on my part, but it did inspire a lot of awe.

The Austrailian government's Antarctic Division has some more excellent pics of striped icebergs posted on their website, if that kind of thing floats your boat.

[wince]

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

February 6, 2008

Global Warming and Eating Storm Crows

Reason article on Anthropomorphic Global Warming:

Either way, both sets of satellite data show that the trend in average global temperatures for the past decade has been more or less flat.

A decade of research shows that the global warming trend is not significantly different from zero. So, as we can see, not only is there no reliable evidence of man-made global warming, now it also appears that global warming itself may be showing itself as cresting as part of natural fluctuations. What an inconvenient observation for the storm crows.

So, how are we doing with all of those knee-jerk, feel-good ethanol mandates and subsidies?

Corn Dog - The ethanol subsidy is worse than you can imagine
Ethanol: A Tragedy in 3 Acts
UC scientist says ethanol uses more energy than it makes - A lot of fossil fuels go into producing the gas substitute
Ethanol Production Could Be Eco-Disaster, Brazil's Critics Say

Good times.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 8, 2007

The War on Government Funded Science (updated)

I love science. I hate the entitlement mentality of scientists. Below is a comment I left on an article about exactly that at The Intersection:

Why is it that this post only discusses the federal budget? Aside from the issues you raise about the DOD and the "War on Terror", I think you might address the question of where scientists can get money other than from the federal government, whose moral and legal role in supporting scientific research is always political - in other words, inherently nonobjective. Rather than wade through the murky waters of what research deserves to be funded at the expense of taxpayers who may or may not support it (or the researcher), shouldn't scientists be looking for ways to further separate ourselves from politics, e.g. by cutting the purse strings?

Well? Shouldn't we be? Bonus points to the first person to ask me whether or not I am teaching at a public (i.e. taxpayer funded) high school.

Update: (10/12 at 09:20) The best commentary I've seen on the issue comes from Scott Ott:

Criticized by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, for waging a “war on science” by limiting taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research and refusing to sign the Kyoto protocol on climate change, President George Bush today vowed to “win that war too.”

...He also said he’s committed to protecting the American taxpayer from “zealous academics whose research is so important to society that no one but government would voluntarily fund it, and Congress only does so because they’re spending someone else’s money.”

Hey, that's a great point. And they call Scrappleface a comedy site. Well, it's funny because it's true, my friends.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 31, 2007

Hurricane History

I just know I'm going to want to reference this article at some point this school year, so I figure I'll just link it here and that will make it easier to find later. A little teaser if you are wondering whether or not you would like to read the article:

Taking the last 10 years off the table, you see quite clearly that the number of storms recorded doubled not from global warming but because of the technology used to find them.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 25, 2007

For Future Reference

WaPo:

President Bush this month is giving an obscure White House office new powers over regulations affecting health, worker safety and the environment. Calling it a power grab, Democrats running Congress are intent on stopping him.

This is great news. First, it’s an attempt to block the executive branch from acting without oversight, and instead gives the power to act without oversight to legislators and their aides, which is where that power ought to be, dammit. Secondly, and more seriously, I’ll be able to refer to this post the next time a Democrat is in the White House (cough-544 days-cough) and the shoe is on the other foot. That’s always fun.

As to the details, WaPo reports that the House voted to prohibit the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) from spending federal money on Executive Order 13422. Cutting federal spending, I suppose – so far, so good. But what is Executive Order 13422? It amends an executive order from 1993… let’s check the text:

Each agency shall identify in writing the specific market failure (such as externalities, market power, lack of information) or other specific problem that it intends to address (including, where applicable, the failures of public institutions) that warrant new agency action, as well as assess the significance of that problem, to enable assessment of whether any new regulation is warranted.

That gives me the creeps just reading it. But… I can imagine the argument that it is a damn good thing that each federal agency should have to identify in writing the specific problem it intends to address. So far, I don’t see what the Dems object to.

Unless specifically authorized by the head of the agency, no rulemaking shall commence nor be included on the Plan without the approval of the agency's Regulatory Policy Office…

The Post summarizes this as “No rulemaking can go forward without the approval of an agency's Regulatory Policy Office, to be headed by a presidential appointee.” Is it a big deal to drop the first clause? But the point about the presidential appointee is a good one. Please read “presidential appointee” as “partisan political hack”. The Right Wing would do well to imagine what their reaction to this would have been under Bill Clinton… or what it will be someday under Hillary. Why do we continually have to point this out? In fact, that’s really the bottom line regarding each and every action the Bush administration has taken to gather and centralize power. While it may be fun for some of you to cheer as Bush, Cheney, et alii thumb their noses at the Democrats, it’s going to come back to bite you in the ass.

PS - I am not sympathetic to the desire that some federally employed scientists have for everybody to shut up and let them do what they feel they need to do. When you fund your own research initiative, I’ll support your desire for the government to back off.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

June 8, 2007

Atlantis Is a Go

Raise your hand if you know the Space Shuttle Atlantis is planned to launch tonight. Keep it raised if you know what time and on what television network you can watch live coverage of it. Keep it raised if you actually plan on watching it. I’m willing to bet there aren’t too many raised hands out there except for the true (pardon the term) “space geeks.”

It’s sad if you think about it. This country used to be enamored with space and space travel. Whenever there was an accident the whole country went into mourning. Think Apollo I, Challenger, and Columbia. Kids used to look up to astronauts as heroes, and wanted to grow up to be one themselves. People would travel to Cape Canaveral just to see the Shuttle launch as a vacation. I lived in Florida and we would go to the Cape for the launches quite frequently. If you have never seen one live it is quite a show, lemme tell ya. And now? Nary a peep.

I’m not a “space geek.” I’m far from it actually. I think that it is important that we continue space exploration, but I admit I’m one of the uninformed on the goings on in the space program. Luckily I have a good friend who works in the industry, so I get all my space news and tidbits from him. Including the notification that he will be busy tonight, “because we are launching.” When he told me this last night, I had to ask him to make sure. “You mean a shuttle is being launched tomorrow?” That’s how informed I am. And I’m guessing the rest of you as well. It’s just not out in the public anymore unless something tragic happens and lives are lost. Then it becomes the argument of why are we even doing it in the first place.

So I wish all in NASA and those involved with this mission good luck and Godspeed. May everything run without a glitch and you get everything accomplished.

Edit (7:00pm CST): Launch was a success. I had a friend of mine see it live and he sent me this picture.

Posted by G-Dawg | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

May 10, 2007

Pesticides and Academic Achievement

I’m not sure what to make of this study that hit the airwaves today suggesting that there is a direct relationship between the date on which a baby is conceived and the child’s future academic achievement.

[Paul Winchester, M.D., Indiana University School of Medicine professor of clinical pediatrics] and colleagues linked the scores of the students in grades 3 through 10 who took the Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress (ISTEP) examination with the month in which each student had been conceived. The researchers found that ISTEP scores for math and language were distinctly seasonal with the lowest scores received by children who had been conceived in June through August.

Okay, an achievement gap and a correlation. The next question, obviously, is about causation.

"The fetal brain begins developing soon after conception. The pesticides we use to control pests in fields and our homes and the nitrates we use to fertilize crops and even our lawns are at their highest level in the summer," said Dr. Winchester, who also directs Newborn Intensive Care Services at St. Francis Hospital in Indianapolis.

Wait. Let’s start with some skepticism. This is being reported in a very factual manner in headlines and on radio, but Dr. Winchester states very clearly that his group’s findings “do not represent absolute proof that pesticides and nitrates contribute to lower ISTEP scores”. So let’s not jump to conclusions. Dr. .Winchester does feel that the hypothesis is strongly supported and therefore a lot more research should be done, and I can understand that, but is there more reason to believe there is a direct causal relationship between pesticides and this achievement gap? I’d really like to see it. I mean, I don’t particularly want to raise my kids in an area with heavy pesticide use, but neither do I want to see weak conclusions thrown around too readily in our legislative, litigious society. This guy’s Gaia language later in the interview just doesn’t sound as objective as I would like from a scientist.

So, does this achievement gap exist outside of Indiana? Anywhere in the southern hemisphere? I don’t hear that being asked anywhere else, so I’ll ask it here.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

March 4, 2007

Arctic Surge?

The Weather Channel has decided to poke a little fun at the Surge/Reinforcements framing issue. Will a fresh batch of artic air be surging into the Midwest and Northeast? Is that word too hot for this cold air? I see the humor.

Political cracks aside, it’s going to be 60 degrees here in Richmond tomorrow, and no sign of the first snow of the season. Sigh.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

February 11, 2007

Communists, Fusion, and the Moon

In reading up on the plans China has to go to the moon and mine He-3 for future nuclear fusion reactors (thanks McQ), I found a lot of what I expected. Quick points,

1) No, silly, they don't have fusion reactors in China... yet. As I noted in the comments section at QandO, I would think any mining plans floated today and enacted around 2020 would be in expectation of viable fusion reactors sometime soon afterwards. Plan ahead.

2) Yes, China is serious about fusion power. They have some excellent research scientists and facilities. This isn't a "cold fusion discovered!" story.

3) Isn't this freaking cool? He-3 is literally just lying around up there. I mean, trips to the moon are prohibitively expensive, but that can change. You aren't thinking fourth dimensionally, Marty!

4) :A quote from Lawrence Taylor, a director of the University of Tennessee's Planetary Geosciences Institute in Knoxville

When you have a communist regime in a capitalist network, you have huge amounts of cash and the ability to direct it.

So... how many Americans view that as a good thing? Something we should strive for?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 25, 2007

Can He Lead A Normal Life?

Gosh, little Dilbert reminds me of somebody. Can't quite put my finger on it, but it might be somebody here, or possibly here. One thing for sure, it does not remind me of myself when I was young.

A few weeks ago, Brad Warbiany wrote a piece on Engineering at The Unrepentant Individual. It was inspired by - even a response to - another piece on Engineering that was posted by Chris Byrne at The Anarchangel.

Byrne says:

Engineering is the art of HOW. How things work, how things are built, how things interact and react, how problems are solved.

Engineering is the fusion of the theoretical and empirical. Scientist understand WHY things work, technicians know THAT things work if they do certain things... but engineers understand HOW things work (and to do so must understand much of the other two), and this understanding allows them to do and build, and fix new things.

I agree completely. Engineering is a philosophy more than a career. And Science is, too. And it is possible to meld the two to some degree, but most people don't. (Being a technician is not a philosophy so much, but more of a training. Like any training, I believe anybody can learn to be a technician.)

In my life, I have been employed as a technician, and a scientist, and an engineer. I have not yet been able to determine which of the three I really am at heart. I believe I used to be more of a scientist, but developed an engineering attitude when I was in the Navy. That was done in order to get out of being a technician, by the way. I don't know that I agree with Byrne's idea that a true engineer is an engineer about all things, and I am not alone in that. There are some systems and topics I just don't find very compelling. I don't much like the inside of my computer case. I am a technician about the machine - about both the software and the hardware. How many items/systems would I have to feel this way about to be a technician at heart?

Unlike young Dilbert, I was not an engineering child prodigy. I was good enough at taking things apart, but I wasn't always so good at putting them back together. With the limited financial resoures I had at my disposal, every toy or gadget that I rendered useless was a lesson to leave well enough alone. Combine this with the manner in which my curiosity was dulled by a series of unscientific elementary school teachers, and by high school I was much more a scientist than an engineer. I wanted to know, but not do.

But perhaps I misunderstood all of those years ago. After all, my refusal to take my car apart was not because I didn't want to know how it worked. In fact, there are only two questions that make sense about a car - how does it work (Engineering) and what do I have to do in order to operate it? There is no Why? Being too poor and lazy to investigate it myself does not mean I wasn't an engineer. It means I wasn't a good engineer.

Brad Warbiany describes himself as having been "born an engineer" (and he may soon find what it is like to raise an engineer). Brad notes the Engineering philosophy drives him in his study of politics.

...every day, I look around me and try to figure out how the system works, because I can only give myself the best chance to benefit from it by understanding its workings.

Part of my writings about politics are a desire to figure out and improve the system. I don’t say government doesn’t work because we have the wrong people running it, I say government can’t work because the system has flawed incentives that cause it to fail. It doesn’t matter all that much who we elect unless the system itself changes. My recent dissatisfaction with the Republicans is largely because they promised to change the system, but instead simply said “plug me in”. Of course, understanding the “How” of a political system doesn’t necessarily allow it to be changed, because often the “How” is highly linked to ballot choices of people who refuse to even question or investigate that same “How”.

I have had thoughts along these lines before, so I loved reading Brad's article. I expect I will be making reference to it more than once. Keep an eye out.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

November 3, 2006

Stern Language

I like Sir Nicholas Stern. He’s got a name that lends itself quite nicely to the type of cheap wordplay that is so popular with newspapers and blogs. It really doesn’t go beyond that – I was not at all familiar with the man until last week. The head of Britain's government economic service and the former World Bank chief economist, Stern recently published a report on the economics of climate change (some highlights here and some reactions here). It’s causing quite a stir.

The Economist:

Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the exchequer, asked Sir Nicholas to look into the economics of climate change because he wanted some solid material to counter the argument of those who accept that global warming is happening but believe mitigating it is too expensive to be worthwhile. That view is rare these days in Europe, but common in America, where it is often infused with the belief that attempts to control greenhouse-gas emissions are part of a European socialist conspiracy to undermine the American way of life.

Sir Nicholas has tried to assess the future costs of climate change—drought in Africa, floods in Europe, hurricanes in America, rising sea levels around the world—and has set them against the costs of cutting fossil-fuel usage enough to stabilise carbon-dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. His answer to the second part of this calculation is fairly uncontroversial. The costs of switching away from carbon should not be huge because of the rise in fossil-fuel prices and the fall in alternative energy prices. Sir Nicholas reckons that the world could stabilise concentrations at a reasonable level at a cost of 1% of GDP by 2050. Many other economists have looked at the matter, and most agree with Sir Nicholas.

But Sir Nicholas dissents from the general view on the costs of climate change itself. Most economists who have looked at the matter up to now reckon that, if greenhouse-gas emissions continue on their current path, the costs of climate change would be between zero (where the benefits of warming to cold countries balances out the costs) and 3% of global output over the next 100 years. Sir Nicholas thinks they would be a massive 5-20% over the next century or two: in other words, world output could be up to a fifth lower, as a result of climate change, than it otherwise would have been.

…Sir Nicholas has received plenty of support from economists (four Nobel prize-winners have endorsed the report) and a certain amount of criticism…One complaint is that he has selected the most pessimistic research and ignored more conservative work… Another criticism is that figures on the economic costs of climate change are bound to be nonsense because they are based on a cascade of uncertainties.

But neither point invalidates Sir Nicholas's central perception—that governments should act not on the basis of the likeliest outcome from climate change but on the risk of something really catastrophic (such as the melting of Greenland's ice sheet, which would raise sea levels by six to seven metres). Just as people spend a small slice of their incomes on buying insurance on the off-chance that their house might burn down, and nations use a slice of taxpayers' money to pay for standing armies just in case a rival power might try to invade them, so the world should invest a small proportion of its resources in trying to avert the risk of boiling the planet

Is this a fair point?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 22, 2006

As Gay as a Seagull

The Oslo Natural History Museum opened an exhibition last week on homosexual behaviors in the animal kingdom. I swear on all that I hold sacred that this link is work safe.

The article says that homosexuality has been observed among 1,500 species, and that it is “well documented” in 500 of those species. I am not quite sure what the cutoff is for whether it is well documented.

Also, I was disappointed that there was no mention of seagulls in particular. It’s not that I have some kind of unhealthy fascination with gay seagulls or anything… it’s just that when I learned of homosexual behavior among seagulls, it was the first time I even considered that sexual preference could be something other than a conscious choice.

Okay, I know that the whole story is being begged.

I was in high school biology class – so, 1987. A student asked Mr. O’Day why people would make a stupid assertion like ‘homosexuality is not a choice, it is inherited’. It went something like this:

Student 1: But Mr. O’day, gay couples can’t procreate, so the gay gene wouldn’t get passed on, so it’s a stupid argument to try to make.

O’Day: Gay men are physically capable of having sex with a woman and fathering children – passing on those genes.

Student 1: Well, okay… but… it just can’t be natural. I mean, gay men father these babies for generations and generations? It doesn’t make sense.

Wulf: Yeah. Why would it survive natural selection? What purpose would homosexuality have?

O’Day: Perhaps homosexual men possess characteristics that are more community oriented. That would make their gene likely to be passed on over generations. I can’t say for sure, but the fact is that - morality aside - homosexuality is observed in the animal kingdom.

[blank stares]

O’Day: For example, many seagulls are gay. And it isn’t because they hang out on the coast.

I have no idea why seagulls were his example, but I remember it pretty clearly – partly because seagulls used to congregate on the soccer field, and there was one kid in class who, for the rest of that school year, would walk into class, point out the window at the gulls, and say “look at those faggots on the soccer field!” I thought it was funny the first time.
So, um, back to Oslo. No mention of seagulls in the BBC article, but it still sounds like an interesting exhibit. But of course the question comes up: Is this a proper function of government? Well, Norwegians are a bunch of socialists, so for them I suppose it is. What I find most frustrating about the USA is that this sort of thing would be opposed here for all the wrong reasons. In case you doubt my assertion:

There has been some hostility to the exhibition. An American commentator said it was an example of "propaganda invading the scientific world".

Haha… no kidding. An American said that? I find that hard to believe. We all know how Americans like to keep their science separate from their social agendas.

Petter Bockman, a zoologist who helped put the show together, admitted that "there is a political motive".

Thanks for clearing that up, Petter. Incidentally, it wasn’t that long ago that gay rights activists were protesting plans to test the sexual orientation of penguins which had engaged in homosexual activity. BBC story here. That was rather ridiculous, imho. At the time, I refrained from making comparisons between zoos and prisons. It is a less natural environment, and therefore provides less insight. Besides, it would be in poor taste to note the similarities between this image and this one.

Adding some female penguins to that zoo was just fine. Let’s at least make an effort to keep our science separate from our social agendas after all.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 15, 2006

Richard Dawkins and the War Between Science and Religion

I have some thoughts to share regarding this interview of Richard Dawkins in Salon. Let’s start with the very first clause in the very first sentence:

In the roiling debate between science and religion, it would be hard to exaggerate the enormous influence of Richard Dawkins.

There ought not to be any debate between science and religion, as I have discussed before (see here). So, right off the bat this is striking me as unnecessary sensationalism – publicity for its own sake. And while I like Dawkins’ work (what I have read of it), he is a celebrity, and possibly susceptible to the same foibles as any other celebrity. All press is good press, no? I know better than to judge an entire article by the first clause, but I also remember the importance of an opening sentence (casual blog entries such as this one excepted, of course).

Still in the intro to the interview:

Dawkins' latest book turns to his more recent passions. In "The God Delusion," Dawkins fulminates against religious moderates as well as fundamentalists. He argues that the existence of God is itself a scientific conjecture, one that doesn't hold up to the evidence.

I think it is interesting to consider the existence of God to be a scientific conjecture, but in reality it is a belief that far precedes scientific thought. It certainly isn’t a hypothesis, as it cannot be falsified by experiment. It is extra-scientific. Besides, while it doesn’t hold up to the evidence, it would be horrendously wrong to imply that this makes it false. Atoms existed long before we could prove that they do. I won’t belabor the point with more examples.

Thankfully, Dawkins does make the point that most self-avowed atheists fail to make: He isn’t really an atheist.

Well, technically, you cannot be any more than an agnostic. But I am as agnostic about God as I am about fairies and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You cannot actually disprove the existence of God. Therefore, to be a positive atheist is not technically possible. But you can be as atheist about God as you can be atheist about Thor or Apollo. Everybody nowadays is an atheist about Thor and Apollo. Some of us just go one god further.

To be a vehement atheist is to have faith, ironically, and to assert more than one actually knows.

Of course, the comparison of the God of Abraham to the Flying Spaghetti Monster fails on account of the number of people who claim to have witnessed each. Even as a severe agnostic, I allow for a greater possibility of a god that vaguely resembles the one described in Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition, since so many sincere and rational people claim to have a personal experience with this kind of entity. Maybe they know something that I don’t. Unlike Dawkins, I humbly hold that as an explanation of more than zero percent likelihood. I don’t arrogantly write it off as hallucinations and dreams – he does this without evidence, take note.

But the part of the interview that really rankles me is when he gets into atheists being more intelligent than theists. Putting aside the anecdotal evidence of this or that genius who believes or believed in God, Dawkins seems to make some statements that he has no business making. For example:

The one meta-analysis of this that I know of was published in Mensa Magazine. It looked at 43 studies on the relationship between educational level or IQ and religion. And in 39 out of 43 -- that's all but four -- there is a correlation between IQ/education and atheism. The more educated you are, the more likely you are to be an atheist. Or the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to be an atheist.

Dawkins says that it’s a correlation, but then he speaks about it as a causation. Could it be that atheists are more likely to seek an education? I certainly wouldn’t find that hard to fathom. But more importantly, who exactly will be persuaded by this argument? Dawkins says that one of his goals is to persuade people to his point of view, but I just can’t imagine that if I were a religious man, I would want to read about how my religion indicates that I am probably a bit dim and ignorant. [shrug] Perhaps this simply means that I am not his target audience. But I don’t understand this pressing need of his to force a decision between science and religion. Plenty of people – of varying degrees of intelligence and education – are able to have both a scientific philosophy and a religious faith. Dawkins’ attack of the moderate just seems unnecessary and unhelpful. Late in the interview (bottom of page 3), Dawkins says:

Well, I don't relish confrontation for its own sake. I don't spoil for a fight. I'd much rather have an amicable discussion. But I am a professional academic, and professional academics are used to arguing about all sorts of things. And we argue in a robust way, bringing forth evidence where we can and using our skills of argument to use that evidence. So I may come across as passionate. But that doesn't mean I go out of my way to have confrontations in an aggressive way. I don't.

I have to ask; is the best way to start an amicable discussion… to title your book The God Delusion? Real non-confrontational, Richard.

Furthermore, when asked what is so bad about religion, he selectively speaks to what is bad about some of the organized, hierarchical religions, especially with regard to their political influence. It is here where he paints with the broadest brush. He says that religion is bad because:
- it encourages one to believe falsehoods,
- it encourages one to be satisfied with inadequate explanations which really aren't explanations at all,
- it actively discourages people from scientific explanations for the world and for life,
- some religions teach that blasphemers and apostates should be killed,

But it is the politics, not the faith itself that is the problem. Dawkins skims right over that distinction and blasts all religion as bad. The fact is that most religious beliefs are similar to most secular beliefs in that they only become dangerous when they are permitted to govern the lives of those who do not actively consent to such. For example, your religious faith is no more dangerous to me than is the commune where my cousin lives – until the government sanctions that religious faith or that communist philosophy as a system by which I must abide.

Of course, Dawkins has no problem imposing his beliefs on others. He calls it child abuse for parents to teach their religious faith as anything more than one choice among many. This completely neglects the reality that religious faiths all have exactly one thing in common: they do not view themselves as but one choice among many. They all consider their own doctrines to be correct, and others to be varying degrees of incorrect. Dawkins is no different, except that while my parents may have worried that I would burn in flames for all eternity for having the wrong beliefs, Dawkins only worries that I would contribute to the evils of the world through the duration of my short life. Oh, and my parents based their concerns on personal spiritual/religious experiences that they held, whereas Dawkins bases his concerns on personal spiritual/religious experiences that he does not hold – a null set.

It’s a ridiculous argument and expectation.

Now, having said all of that, I should note that I agree completely with this exchange:

Salon: But it seems to me the big "why" questions are, why are we here? And what is our purpose in life?

Dawkins: It's not a question that deserves an answer.

But that’s a personal preference. There are people who will choose to ponder this question, and it is not illegitimate for them to do so if it pleases them. It is simply illegitimate to expect scientists to attempt to make any answer. We cannot. That’s not a failing of science – it’s just not what science is for. And furthermore, for scientists who are agnostic on religion, we simply don’t care about the question.
Dawkins says that there are certain “core questions”, like;

how did the universe begin? Where do the laws of physics come from? Where does life come from? Why, after billions of years, did life originate on this planet and then start evolving?

But that’s also a personal preference. It is no more natural to ask these questions than, Why are we here? and What is our purpose in life? I know plenty of people of good intellect who simply don’t care about these questions.

Where I disagree with Dawkins is that I don’t see where he or anybody else gets off judging the absolute legitimacy of these questions or the people who ask them. The issue is whether science is a legitimate way to attempt an answer. And, for each of us of course, whether we have a personal interest in using our time and energy pursuing the questions.

Dawkins has a fanaticism that does not seem to have any rational, scientific basis. His hatred of religion is evident in his language.

The science lobby, which is very important in the United States, wants those sensible religious people -- the theologians, the bishops, the clergymen who believe in evolution -- on their side. And the way to get those sensible religious people on your side is to say there is no conflict between science and religion. We all believe in evolution, whether we're religious or not. Therefore, because we need to get the mainstream orthodox religious people on our side, we've got to concede to them their fundamental belief in God, thereby -- in my view -- losing the war in order to win the battle for evolution.

What war? What is the inherent conflict between science and religion? Dawkins asserts that there is one, but he hasn’t convinced me that it is necessary to have one. I don’t believe it exists. It can’t be measured and reproduced. Shall we write it off as hallucinations and dreams on his part?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 26, 2006

Inquiring Minds

Yesterday, my son said that he would point his yellow National Geographic junior binoculars at the moon “and see if those dark spots really are mountains”. Unfortunately, we are just past the New Moon, so he was not able to perform his observation. Give him a couple of weeks. Oh, and those binoculars are not powerful enough to see much of anything. But still, consider the implications of his thought process. This five year old has had a Galilean breakthrough on his own. Technology and natural, childlike inquisitiveness are what drive science. And these in turn drive technology. Which means that I will soon be purchasing a starter telescope on eBay.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

August 24, 2006

Pluto Demoted

There are now eight planets in our solar system.

After much debate, astronomers of the International Astronomical Union today demoted Pluto from planet to dwarf planet.

"Dwarf planet" is defined as "any round object that has not cleared the neighborhood around its orbit, and is not a satellite."

Makes sense to me. Pluto was only originally classified as a planet after its discovery by Clyde Tombaugh in 1930 because it was thought to be similar in size to Earth. It's actually about one-fifth the diameter of Earth.

August 15, 2006

NASA Announces Dark Matter Discovery

Well, they announced that they will announce it, anyway.

Astronomers who used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory will host a media teleconference at 1 p.m. EDT Monday, Aug. 21, to announce how dark and normal matter have been forced apart in an extraordinarily energetic collision.

[...]

Shortly before the start of the briefing, images and graphics about the research will be posted at: http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/

Briefing participants:
- Maxim Markevitch, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Mass.
- Doug Clowe, postdoctoral fellow, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz.
- Sean Carroll, assistant professor of physics, University of Chicago, Ill.

A video file about the discovery will air on NASA TV at noon, Aug. 21.

Audio of the event will be streamed live on the Web at: http://www.nasa.gov/newsaudio

That's all they're giving us so far, but it sounds intriguing. I'll be watching.

Posted by Rick | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

August 9, 2006

ZooBank

I wrote about ZooBank in March:

...a group called the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) at London's Natural History Museum has begun planning a definitive, open-access, web-based catalogue of species - the comprehensive, peer-reviewed Wikipedia of all living things scientists have discovered. The project is called ZooBank.

Today, "Peter" left a message on the article. It reads,
We have launched ZooBank today (www.zoobank.org).

What a great tool for biologists of all stripes. I had to share.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

July 21, 2006

Anthropomorphizing the Weather

Accuweather’s Katrina Voss makes an interesting observation:

Oddly, modern technology may have rejuvenated the primeval practice of anthropomorphizing weather.

Some cultural habits are so hard to kick.

I don’t really have anything to add on this topic. I just found the naming of hurricanes to be a fascinating way to bring a train of thought around to the fact that life in a technological age does not in any way require us to be more rational than our ancient forbears.

The Accuweather blogs are a good read if you like meteorology - which we do. (thanks, R*)

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 18, 2006

Exceeding Infinity

As a scientist and technophile, I am all about the research into and application of alternative energy sources. Those who know me will not be surprised that I am on record here, here, and especially here saying what shouldn’t need to be said – that finding alternative energy sources is beyond the proper purview of our government, and should be dealt with by the market, even if that means that some investors get rich (horrors!).

As a scientist and proponent of alternative energy sources, it really drives me nuts to see some of the things people have to say about the topic. For example, Michael Kanellos, Editor at large for CNET News, covered the comments of Rice University chemistry professor and Nobel laureate Richard Smalley in 2004. Dr. Smalley of course calls for more government money to be spent on energy sources. I wish Kanellos had quoted Smalley more extensively, so I would know exactly where to lay blame over some of the comments in the article, such as:

If the government doesn't start funding energy research, future generations might end up living in dark, nanotech scientist says.

…and…

Wind, wave and hydrothermal power have mostly been tapped.

tapped? TAPPED?

I can’t believe that such a statement would have to be refuted, but if it must be, then consider what the U.S. Department of Energy has to say on the subject (emphasis mine):

Sources of renewable energy are either continuously resupplied by the sun or tap inexhaustible resources. They include solar, geothermal, biomass, wind, and hydropower resources.

Specifically if you click on the link for geothermal, you get the following (again, emphasis mine):

In the United States, most geothermal resources are concentrated in the West, but geothermal heat pumps can be used nearly anywhere.

The use of wave power and oceanic thermal gradients is so undeveloped that it doesn’t even get mentioned in the DoE page above.

Not only are these resources far from “tapped” in the way the word is used in the CNET article, the technologies for harnessing these resources are constantly becoming more efficient and affordable.

What was Mr. Kanellos thinking? Did he simply report accurately what Dr. Smalley actually said? If so, he is still guilty of not looking into the facts of the situation. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt in some way, but I don’t see how I can. The nature and potential of renewable resources is covered in elementary, middle, and high school. It’s easy to look up. It’s even common sense – how could solar power or wind power be “tapped”?

And I haven't even touched the ridiculous scare-mongering suggestion that our children will not know electricity if we don't do something.

Suggestions? I might have to file this one under “inexplicable” until I hear from Mr. Kanellos on the matter. Perhaps he has already clarified these remarks somewhere, but I haven't seen it.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)

July 11, 2006

Nothing so Green as Algae

How about a new technology that would reduce harmful emissions from factories – wouldn’t that be great? GreenFuel Technologies thinks they have just such a development... from a certain kind of algae.

40% less CO2; 86% less nitrous oxide.

…the algae is harvested daily. From that harvest, a combustible vegetable oil is squeezed out: biodiesel for automobiles.

"You want to do good for the environment, of course, but we're not forcing people to do it for that reason — and that's the key," says the founder of GreenFuel Technologies, in Cambridge, Mass. "We're showing them how they can help the environment and make money at the same time."

(USA Today ran this article back in January, and I just never commented on it.)

What’s that? A market solution? Without government mandating algae on all smokestacks? As should be obvious, if it is a good idea, private industry will work toward it. Sure enough,

Venture capital investments in clean technologies last year reached an all-time high of $1.6 billion in North America… In the fourth quarter of 2005 alone, green technologies or "cleantech", made up 10% of all North American venture capital investment…

In reality, cleantech is still too long-term to be a great venture capital investment (VC represents only about 3% of cleantech investment for reasons discussed here). The industry is going to use government money to get off the ground either way, and I don’t see that there is much sense in small-government libertarians fighting it. But it is becoming less and less reasonable to argue about whether or not smokestack pollutants are melting the ice shelves. We can squabble over the meaning of the word “consensus”, but the reality is that there is a demand for green technologies, and industry is moving to meet that demand. The best thing for you to do now is decide whether you want government to facilitate these investments, or over-regulate and stifle them... and advocate accordingly.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

July 3, 2006

Is NASA An Industrial Subsidy In Disguise?

With regard to the NASA budget, Kip Esquire of A Stitch in Haste yesterday brought up a post from the archives, noting that "one of the stickier wickets for some libertarians is the issue of government-funded space exploration."

This is an issue which Rammage and I have discussed many times (in person and in email - don't bother searching). I would like to point readers to an excellent point/counterpoint discussion, here. Enjoy!

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

June 29, 2006

Supreme Court to visit EPA Rules on CO2

The United States Supreme Court today agreed to hear a case involving the federal regulation of greenhouse gas pollutants.

In 1999, various environmental groups filed an administrative petition requesting that EPA set motor vehicle emission standards for greenhouse gases. The EPA denied that petition in August 2003, saying that it had no statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. At that time, EPA also said it would not regulate greenhouse gas emissions even if it had the authority to do so under the Clean Air Act.

In October 2003, [Massachusetts] and 29 other parties challenged that ruling in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit [and lost].

This March, Massachusetts and 28 other parties filed a petition for certiorari requesting Supreme Court review. Today, the Supreme Court agreed to review the federal appeals court case.

(story here)

As the Tacoma Tribune notes, the decision could determine how the nation addresses global warming.

I expect many on the right to stick with arguments that the Earth is not warming (false) or that it is only warming because of non-human activities (false) like the fact that the sun is shining brighter (true) and that this ruling could make it illegal to exhale (false and only mildy humorous even the first time, after which the comment has no humor value unless followed by a blast of secondhand cigarette smoke), but that doesn't help the debate. The question is, Has Congress already mandated that the EPA regulate the emissions of CO2? If so, then the EPA seems to be in the wrong in deciding not to do so.

And that does appear to be the case, says the National Resources Defense Council. As reported here, they note the wording of the Clean Air Act:

As evidence, the council cites Section 103, subsection (g) of the act, which states, in part, that federal officials should develop nonregulatory strategies and technologies for preventing or reducing "multiple air pollutants, including sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, heavy metals, PM-10 (particulate matter), carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, from stationary sources, including fossil fuel power plants."

But the EPA says that the word "nonregulatory" in the above passage is the key to the whole issue. If Congress has not given them the power to regulate these emissions, it doesn't matter how detrimental anybody believes them to be. That seems pretty clear to me, but the split decisions in the lower courts make me wonder how exactly this will play out, both when this case is heard in October and over the next several years. I'll be holding my breath. [rimshot]

The other states involved in the case are California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1)

June 12, 2006

Robotic Touch

Attention, Science geeks.

So far, robots have a very poorly developed sense of touch. But researchers are taking steps in the right direction in the quest to build a robotic fingertip. If you haven't yet heard about the research that Drs. Vivek Maheshwari and Ravi Saraf, at the University of Nebraska, published in the most recent issue of Science, then you need to check it out. If you don't have access to Science, then check out Scientific American or listen to the story on NPR.

Using a self assembled electroluminescent thin film that glows in response to applied pressure, Dr. Saraf's team has built what should be the precursor to robotic skin.

The thin film consists of layers of gold and semiconducting nanoparticles that are produced out of solution, so the sensor can be built to conform to complex shapes, such as those on robotic appendages or surgical instruments.

A more detailed explanation from Nature (I believe this requires subscription):

The film is about 100 nanometres (100 x 10-9 metres) thick, roughly 1,000 times thinner than standard office paper. It is built like a sandwich of alternating layers of gold and cadmium sulphide nanoparticles, each separated by insulating polymer sheets just 2 or 3 nanometres thick.

The whole device is hooked up to electrodes that allow a current to flow through the film. When pressed onto a surface, the stress distorts the layers so that electrons can more easily hop across the insulating polymer layers and hit the cadmium sulphide particles. This makes the particles glow — the greater the stress, the more light they emit. A camera then measures the strength of the glow, which relates directly to the pressure felt by different parts of the film.

Of course, using a camera to detect the different levels of pressure may seem pretty impractical when trying to develop a robot skin. But obviously, fiber optics can transmit this information to a processing center (a novel approach). At that point, it would seem like a great idea to look into grafting this stuff onto humans with injuries. Years away, I know. Decades. But it could be done.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

June 7, 2006

Top Ten Ways to Destroy Earth

Want to destroy the Earth? Look no further! Just follow the link below.

Destroying the Earth is harder than you may have been led to believe.

You've seen the action movies where the bad guy threatens to destroy the Earth. You've heard people on the news claiming that the next nuclear war or cutting down rainforests or persisting in releasing hideous quantities of pollution into the atmosphere threatens to end the world.

Fools.

The Earth is built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. It has taken more devastating asteroid hits in its lifetime than you've had hot dinners, and lo, it still orbits merrily. So my first piece of advice to you, dear would-be Earth-destroyer, is: do NOT think this will be easy...

Having shamelessly quoted most of this article, I'll take a second here to say, I personally believe that some of the things man is doing and has done, have indeed affected the Earth adversely, contrary to the gist of the quote above. But I think the linked article is interesting nonetheless.

Click here, if you dare.

Image: LiveScience

Posted by Rick | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)