Morning Fog

China Stressing Science

John Pomfret's recent report, "China Pushing the Envelope,"says that China is pouring loads of money and talent into developing scientists.  The thrust of the article is economic -- that China is becoming "the second superpower" and will increasingly become a threat to U.S. economic dominance.

That may be true, and if so, it would be regrettable for us.  But... well, that's competition.  I think we in the U.S. still understand a little something about competition, and we've prospered without placing much emphasis on "pure" scientific research.  We prefer the applied version, and have done well commercially by picking up and developing ideas conceived and researched by others.    So it is not a foregone conclusion that we are losing our competitive edge just because the Chinese are investing scads of money in science education.

There was one telling line in Pomfret's piece, though, that stood out to me:  "Unburdened by social and legal constraints common in the West, China's trailblazing scientists are also pushing the limits of ethics and principle...."

One of our burdens in the U.S., and one that could seriously harm us, is the alienation of a large part of our population from science as they flock to various forms of anti-scientific religious doctrine.   Religious objections to stem cell research, a turn toward forms of non-scientific medicine, belief in "creationism" -- all these and more weaken our efforts to develop science and scientists.  Yes, we can easily lose our technological lead if we refuse to go where research leads us, and cower ignorantly under rocks instead.

Dysconnection

Census workers being attacked and threatened?  It's happening.  There are lots of other signs of dissatisfaction with government, and of a more general malaise in the country these days.  It reflects ignorance, and certainly, frustration with the economic disaster brought on by eight years of Bush "spend and don't tax" policies, not to mention an inordinate concatenation of disasters, natural and man-made.

Yet I don't think that explains the extent to which we're seeing unprecedented examples of man's basic inhumanity to man.  Another recent news item, for example, points out the rising use of texting to threaten, cajole, and otherwise seek to destroy a person's privacy, perhaps their life. 

In a world where we are all supposedly so interconnected via new technologies ranging from smart phones and the internet through social networking and texting, we're really not connected at all -- not in ways that count.   The technology in this case has tended to lock people away in compartments. 

Real human interaction becomes more and more rare.  In the 1940s, you might go call on your neighbor; in the 1960s, you might have phoned him; in the timid new world of the 21st century, you're likely to text him.  Rather than going out to a movie, people sit at home and watch a DVD on their gigantic plasma television. They fail to socialize, to learn to deal with others.  And naturally, though unfortunately, it's the weird and the dwellers on the fringe who succumb most readily to the tempations of sitting in front of a screen, connecting without connecting. 

Virtual reality, after all, is not reality.  It all boils down to dysconnection, rather than connection. 

BP In the Gulf: Not The Cutting Edge

Amidst all the depressing news from the Gulf of Mexico and worries about the future of the Gulf economy, the environment, and even the viability of sectors of the oil industry, we still have to marvel at the technology of offshore oil.  For example, this passage from today's bad-news article, regarding the next stab at controlling the escaping gunk:

With robotic submarines, the company will sever the leaking, kinked riser pipe that emerges from the top of the blowout preventer, the five-story-tall contraption on top of the wellhead. Then engineers will guide the LMRP cap onto the pipe. The cap is fitted with a grommet designed to keep out seawater and prevent the formation of slushy methane hydrates that bedeviled an earlier containment dome effort.

Really, isn't it amazing that we can do these things, more than three miles under water?  Even the malfunctioning blowout preventer is a pretty interesting bit of technology.  It looked as if it should have worked, but I suppose there wasn't any real way to test it in real-world conditions.  Overall, this technology isn't even cutting-edge any more, but it's impressive nevertheless.

After a minor failure in another energy technology at the nuclear plant at Three Mile Island in 1979, even though the danger was contained, interest in nuclear energy took a nosedive (although some deny the accident was the cause).  I wonder if greater caution in offshore drilling will be a result of the current mess, and whether already-reawakening interest in nuclear power will be spurred by a failure in oil exploitation technology. 

Casting Dispersions - The Gulf of Mexico BP Oil Spill

As a footnote to the ongoing saga of the giant petroleum disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, government officials and BP technicians seem to have different concepts regarding the chemicals being used to "disperse" the oil in the ocean.  The government says they could be as environmentally destructive as the crude oil itself; BP says not, that they're only doing what's prescribed in existing protocols for oil spills, and that safer chemicals aren't available in the massive quantities needed.

I'm uncertain.  I've read that the chemicals, called dispersal agents or dispersants, are really a lot like dishwashing detergent.  If that's the case, I submit that it doesn't matter much whether we're using chemical A or chemical B.   Although all parties seem to agree "dispersants" are a good thing, I'm still waiting for the article that would explain why. 

From my (layman's) point of view, I wonder why it's good to break the goop into smaller and smaller particles.  A video widely shown by all the media suggests that that's what's happening underwater.  In your kitchen sink, dispersants may make sense -- they help the grease flow down the drain without clogging it.  Where's the drain in the Gulf of Mexico?  And if there isn't one, aren't small drops just harder to clean up than big globs?

Geothermal Heating - What's The Long Term?

Over the past year and more, there's been a lot of buzz about geothermal heating as the next big thing that's going to save us billions in energy costs in the future.  The latest article to jump on this bandwagon, "Looks Like a Hot Deal" by Christopher Gearon, just turned up in the Washington Post today.

The science behind geothermal heating is that whatever the vagaries of weather on the earth's surface, the temperature of the earth just a few feet below the surface remains remarkable stable throughout the year.  By running a sort of variant on heat-pump technology (drawing and concentrating warmth from a lukewarm medium), it's possible to heat buildings.  Sounds very clever, doesn't it?  I'm impressed by the idea, and it's not just theory; Gearon, the writer of this piece, has converted his home to geothermal at a net cost to him of about $10,000, with the promise of no future heating bills.  Further, there are a number of organizations out there touting the benefits of the technology.

The process is accomplished by various means, but the most common and feasible is to run two or more closed-loop pipes into the stable-temperature subsurface, either horizontally (in which case they can take up most of the ground around the house) or vertically (in which case they may go as deep as 325 feet). 

Has anyone, I wonder, considered the effect of all this heat exchange going on just below the earth's surface?  It's OK for one or two houses but if geothermal became the norm, or was widely used in certain parts of the country, common sense tells me there's a good chance that the temperatures of that below-surface soil would start to change over time, with potential unknown effects on wildlife, agriculture, and even our climate.  It's possible, of course, that the saving in heat generation gained by not running a fossil-fuel burner could offset some of these effects.  But someone ought to consider it.

Other means of setting up a geothermal system (see the Washington Post article, they're outlined there) involve water as the heat exchange medium.  Using a pond or lake would seemingly raise the same question of gradual warming; while using an open loop that would suck up groundwater and circulate it through a system before returning it to the ground seems to have even more potential for warming, and for polluting groundwater -- besides, don't we have enough demands on our aquifers already, without draining off more (even temporarily)?  Incidentally, the pipe used in all these systems is PVC, but we've already seen some problems of deterioration with HDPE or PVC pipe in some plumbing installations...will it really last or will it need to be reinstalled every 10, 20, or 30 years?  So I'm cautious.  The idea is worth exploring, even worth constructing some test systems as Gearon has, but there are some longer term ramifications to be considered. 

Other "new science" has evoked similar concerns about later fallout  -- for example, the idea that we counter global warming by pumping the upper atmosphere full of sulphur particles or dusk (seriously!) without thinking of how that might affect our climate or even our mood.  On a more mundane level, many developed societies years ago mandated low-flow toilets as a means of reducing water consumption.  I'm not sure it accomplishes that (often, I'm told, it requires multiple flushes, so where's the gain?).  Even if it did, did anyone think about whether the new technology creates enough flow to wash sewage all the way down and out to the sewer (or septic field), or will we be confronted, in another ten years or so, with the need to clear or replace clogged sewer lines?

Missing The Obvious: Ford's New In-Car Computer

Media of all sorts are abuzz over Ford's recently revealed plan to put what it calls "driver connect" technology -- i.e., a computer with a couple of 4-inch screens -- right in the dashboard of its new models beginning as early as this year.  This technology promises to integrate a lot of existing dashboard functions through voice commands, while also adding others such as GSP and even the ability to watch movies in the front seat.  The company says some of these functions would be disabled while driving. 

I applaud Ford's reclaiming a mantle of innovative thinking in the U.S. auto industry; it's great that the company seems to be shaping its own future without the need of a government bail-out.  But the obvious point they're missing here is:

This is a bad idea, guys!  

The first thing that occurs to any objective observer is that this is a big safety problem.  Drivers are distracted enough; it's far too common these days to be behind or next to a driver that can't seem to stay in his lane, or slows down inexplicably in traffic, or sits obliviously at a light that turned green 30 seconds ago.  These people are on the phone; they are dangerous; and they don't need more distractions, especially in the front seat.

Let's be open-minded:  As noted, Ford says "some" functions would be disabled unless the car is in park.  That's certainly a plus.  Let's hope, for example, that the driver can't watch a DVD, or the television broadcast of today's football game, while actually driving.  Still, I'm pretty certain that not enough functions will be disabled.   To combine certain functions into voice commands, rather than dashboard buttons, might provide a very minor improvement in overall safety.  But it's been demonstrated in many studies (and it's also just plain common sense) that the issue in distraction is not whether your hands are occupied elsewhere, but whether your mind is. 

Ford could make a strongly positive contribution if all the functions people now seem to expect to do in a moving vehicle (GPS, telephone, and the outlet that runs plug-in electrical gadgets) were disabled when the vehicle is moving.  That would remove a lot of distraction -- remember that advice, to use the phone, pull over and stop?  As an alternative, large flashing warning lights on the outside of the car would be a big help whenever these features are being used:  "Caution! Distracted Driver!"  But I doubt Ford will do either, because no one would buy the car if they did. 

That's the second reason this is a bad idea.  It just doesn't seem to be attractive technology in today's marketplace.  With smart phones everywhere and Apple set to unveil an iTablet, why will people want to use a system that's rooted in their car, rather than one they can use in the car, and also take with them to the office, and home?  Regardless of any safety issues, this seems to me to be the big "if" that will determine whether the "driver connect" concept becomes a Mustang or an Edsel.

More Planets

It's always kind of exhilarating to me to see some of the science reporting that manages to squeeze its way into the news amid the stories of corporate corruption, political pandering, and celebrity salaciousness.  How amazing that there is still so much being discovered, and yet to be discovered, about our world and our universe.

A case in point is the search for new planets now made possible by the Kepler telescope.  New planets with a variety of characteristics have been identified, but none yet with the right combination of conditions to support life as we know it.  Can Earth be unique?  I doubt it - something like us must be out there, and we can suppose it will be found (though I doubt strongly that I'll ever live on it).

Sometimes, though, I wonder why we bother to expand our understanding, to increase our knowledge, to seek out facts -- when the trend on our own planet (well, in the U.S. anyway) seems to be toward an ever-more-common denominator of ignorance, an unwitting shamble into a new Dark Age.  Here are a few of the things I have heard in conversation recently, from people with university education:

70% of all IRS employees don't pay their taxes (well OK, they may pay withholding, but if they owe more, they never pay it).
A British scientist who argues against climate change was beaten up by UN police because of his beliefs.
Interpol has carte blanche to operate "above the law" in the U.S.
You should not even think about answering all the questions that will be posed by the U.S. census this year - "just say no."

Sometimes, it seems as if the planets must be whirling around in people's heads rather than out there in space.  We're used to the exaggerated lie from politicians seeking to sway voters by any means (witness Sarah Palin and her death panels).  But now, we're seeing more frequent and even less factually-based claims from all manner of "ordinary" people.  

Of course, it's evident that these sorts of assertions, believed wildly and blindly by those who express them, come from that modern-day font of all knowledge, the internet, or its close cousin, talk radio.  They're picked up, believed, and repeated by many who ought to know better.  I have no doubt that the stories about new planets will give new vigor to all sorts of paranoiac theories about our being spied on by aliens.  Here is my own humble contribution:  A guy from the gas company came today to replace a battery in the gas meter (which reports usage without requiring someone to come into the house).  Naturally, I am absolutely certain this means that the gas company (and maybe others) can now listen to every conversation my wife and I have. (NOT!)

Maybe we'd better put aside our telescopes and focus a bit more on educating ourselves right here on Earth.  I have no doubt that the freshly announced initiative for science and math education is needed and useful, but it looks as if we need to focus more on some of the humanities:  civics, history, logic, evaluating and using sources of information.  Or, should we believe that the cause is lost, and accelerate that search for another planet that sane people might move to? 

Prize Season - Literature And the Sciences

Amidst the furor that's likely to develop over the announcement that the Nobel Peace Prize goes to Obama this year, it's worth noticing also some of the other Nobels, as well as other internationally recognized awards.

Literature Prizes

If the Nobel Peace Prize is subjective (as it certainly is), then the Nobel Prize in Literature is übersubjective.  Though occasionally coming up with a winner who has an established readership beyond specialists in his/her own country, the Nobel has more often gone to a hitherto unnoticed writer.  This year's winner, Herta Mueller, is a case in point, described as "little-read" outside her native Germany. 

The Nobel has been criticized in the U.S. (and sometimes elsewhere in the world) as too Europe-centered, but the truth of that is self-evident.  Individuals like Nobel, or corporations like Booker (now, apparently, Man Booker), by virtue of providing prize money, get to decide, if they wish, the qualities they want to see in a winner.  Even if they don't, the committees and organizations that award these prizes will, over time, develop a certain bias toward certains kinds of works.  

The bias of the Nobels seems to have drifted toward the cleverly written novel of endless obscure literary references and vapid story lines (A.S. Byatt comes to mind), the kind of thing that in the U.S., engages the interest only of professors of English.  (I haven't read Ms. Mueller's work - does she qualify?)  Anyway, with that sort of focus, it's little wonder that the Committee's choices seem Europe-centered; that's where that sort of writing is concentrated.  Today's Washington Post has a very useful cheat sheet about these various literary prizes, with capsule descriptions of their typical focuses. 

Science Prizes

Leading up to the literature and peace prizes, there is usually a string of announcements of Nobel prizes in science.  I think it's a shame that these don't get more attention.  Perhaps they get more in other countries, but here in the U.S., the single, quick announcement is about the extent of the coverage.  No analyses, or long articles attempting to ascertain what the judges may have seen in the work of the awardees. 

That's natural to some extent; science is specialized, it doesn't have a large following (doesn't draw those valuable eyeballs and clicks!); and it's hard, in the since that most journalists are liberal-arts types who can't grasp or describe the concepts.  Still, they're worth our attention.  While there are many prestigious, internationally recognized awards in literature, in science, the Nobels are really the only game on the globe.

Lucy In The Sky With ... Dust?

Today, something fascinating from the world of science!  In "Shading the Earth," the National Geographic Magazine outlines a concept scientists have developed that could mimic the effects of a major volcano by filling the atmosphere with tons of small sun-blocking particles.  The model is the eruption of Mt. Pinaltubo in the Philippines in 1991, which was measured to have reduced the earth's average temperature by about a degree for nearly a year. 

Why would we care to do that?  It could be a sort of band-aid for global warming.  If the dire predictions about warming (rising seas, warmer climate, decimation of species, etc.), and if mankind is unable to get together to head off these problems before they can occur (which seems almost certain), scientists say we might be able to buy time by filling the sky with particles that would shield us from the sun and reduce temperatures by a degree or two.  Cool! (Literally).

As with so many grand ideas about changing Mother Nature, there are some concerns.  The accelerating pace of warming is pretty clear evidence that we imperfectly understand the interrelationships among various natural factors on earth.  Does it make sense for us to gin up a huge scheme which (assuming it can be done at all) would have unpredictable effects?  What if cooling was greater than expected; could we be plunged from warming into another ice age?  There's also the problem of keeping the sky filled with reflective material over a period of years; once we start, can we stop without frying ourselves?

My main objection to "shading the earth" is on a little baser level.  In politics, we never seem to be able to do anything until a major crisis forces the issue (see "Health Care , Is Compromise in the Air?."  That's no less true in cataclysmology.  The existence of a seemingly viable means of keeping our planet livable without sacrifices will just encourage further procrastination in dealing with painful choices, such as how we use fossil fuels, reducing our carbon footprint, and the like.  In that environment, I suspect it would be well nigh impossible to convince the deniers that our current mode of operation need change in any way.

So please, let's just keep this concept behind the curtain; work to perfect it and plan it, but keep it for a real emergency, and let's keep working on a long-term fix, which will certainly include changing the way we think and act.  Maybe in the meantime, all the space debris from our rockets and satellites will form its own umbrella.

A Word On Information Privacy

Facebook just bought Friendfeed.  If you haven't heard of Friendfeed, give this interesting article a look.  If you haven't heard of Facebook, and don't have an account, you may be among the lucky ones who could still preserve a modicum of privacy in tomorrow's world.  

So, what does the Facebook-Friendfeed deal mean?  Writer Chadwick Matlin begins his piece with one baldly intimidating statement: "Facebook just bought the rights to nearly everything you do online," and ends his piece with another:  "[Facebook bought Friendfeed]...so it could own you."  In between, he speculates breathlessly about Facebook's plans to become the aggregator of all social media.  The promise is user convenience, not having to track or manage separately all your links, posts, and feeds to and from a proliferating array of blogs, Facebook, Digg, Twitter.  The threat, about which no one seems particularly concerned just yet, is to individual privacy.

By itself, the Facebook news doesn't seem like much, and Matlin may be incorrect in his speculation; but generally, the push is on for these seemingly user-friendly sites to collect more and more information about the individuals who use them.  Aggregation of all that information -- not just contact info but your interests, photos, friends, associations, and the like -- can tell anyone who cares to ask (and who can pay for it) a lot about you.  Some random observations:

• Tagged.com is one of the worst. Avoid it. It's a phishing expedition disguised as social networking, and getting involved with it (as I inadvertently did when an acquaintance sent some photos) will magically quintuple your spam e-mail within days. (They're now on my "blocked" list.)
• Facebook didn't originally seem too intrusive, and does allow you to decide what information you want to provide. But the trend to grab more is evident in a recent twist which requires a "confirmation" process involving giving up your cell phone number (something I don't do easily) and other data before you can post a comment on the pages of organizations of which you're a "fan."
• The venerable E-bay collects immense amounts of information, some of which can be justified to protect the financial and personal security of buyers and sellers. But did you know, as I discovered by accident, that as a party to a transaction, you can access other bidders' buying history on the site, seeing everything they bought or bid on, and the prices paid? Can you think of a reason for that? I can't. In fact it seems to contradict the premise of a free auction; it's not information you would have in a real auction. (Incidentally, you can't do the same on the German version of E-bay, because German law protects individual privacy far more stringently.)
• Your health insurance company may be selling your prescriptions and medical history even as you read this, to anyone who wants to pay for it. If they're not selling it, they're failing to protect that information from data miners which do.

Now, I realize none of this may concern you in the least.  As always, everyone has to make his/her own choices regarding how much personal information it's appropriate to dole out, and to whom.  Actually, I'm pretty free with my own information, except that I do keep my cell phone number pretty close because I don't want it ringing at me constantly with nuisance messages.  But one thing is certain:  the more that's out there, and the less you can compartmentalize it, the greater the likelihood of a data compromise you may not wish for.