Morning Fog

Two Natures

The ten-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina's devastating effects on New Orleans has occasioned reviews of what has been done since then to lessen the potential effects of the next such storm. 

One of the key items on such a list, obviously, is the storm surge barrier about 12 miles east of the New Orleans - intended to thwart a wall of ocean from heading straight for the city, it's nearly two miles long and one of the largest projects the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has ever built.

An item in yesterday's Washington Post also describes efforts to reshape the Mississippi River delta in a way that helps rebuild wetlands - wetlands that help mitigate the effects of oncoming storms but have been washed away by earlier efforts to "fix" the river.  (I'd provide a link to this very interesting article, except that I can find no trace of it on the WP website.)

Next, I suppose, we'll hear of some brilliant scheme to prevent the rupture of the San Andreas Fault by pouring billions of tons of epoxy into it? 

We may flatter ourselves that we can hold off, or reverse, geologic change; I'm not convinced.  On a small scale and a short time frame (the foundation wall of my house, 20 years) it might just be possible.  But when we consider the massive forces at work over a huge area in southern Louisiana, I'm not at all sure.  In the long run (which admittedly, most of us won't be here to see) we may just be building the potential for a more cataclysmic disaster.  It may make more sense to work harder to understand what's occurring on the grand scale, and perhaps develop plans to get ourselves out of the way. 

We probably won't.  It's human nature to try to master, even alter, the world we live in; it's Mother Nature to demonstrate to us that we can't.  

Meet The Coronal Mass Ejection

Terrorists, poisons in our food, senseless violence, poor air quality, email spam, cholesterol -- in case the multifarious threats that beset us these days aren't enough to keep up with, various media seem to have instituted a "threat of the month" (or maybe, "threat of the week" club) that you can join.

The latest, the "coronal mass ejection."  This, according to the Washington Post, is a form of "space weather" (like sunspots and meteor showers) that could blitz out every electrical device on the planet, causing immeasurable damage that could plunge us into a cave man existence (paleo dieters, delight!) and even deprive us of fresh water in many of our homes.  We know this because a CME hit the earth in 1859 when, after all, they barely HAD electricity, and it was quite a big deal even then.

I find all this fascinating.  It seems there's always something new to learn about our world.  Sometimes it seems a bit daunting, how little we really do know.

I suppose it would be smart of us to make a greater effort researching some ways to deflect or minimize the effects of a coronal mass ejection, should one occur (one barely missed Earth just a few years ago).  Smart, but not likely, given our track record on dealing with other "the-end-of-earth-as-we-know-it" threats, such as air pollution and climate change.  The best we can do is make a movie about it.  Besides, not to be a fatalist, but maybe these sorts of cataclysmic threats really are beyond our control?

Best to relax, kick back, and get a good glimpse of the "supermoon."

  

How White Elephants Are Born - And How To Abort Them

Thanks once again to my daily newspaper, I learned recently of the existence of an organization called Consumers for Paper Options.  This, it turns out, is a lobbying group heavily supported by the companies that produce ... paper!   What a shock.  And what does the group want?  To slow or halt the government's transition of records, statements and such (e.g., social security statements) from paper to electronic versions.  Why?  Purportedly, because they want to defend to poor or infirm people who do not have computers and may not be able to receive or access their accounts.

We're quite used to corporations seeking to protect their business interests by arguing that ________ (fill in the blank with anything they oppose because it reduces their market) will harm consumers.  Curiously, they never want anything for themselves.  This is called "corporate responsibility" or "corporate good citizenship."   So there's nothing much new here, except the ground on which the battle is going to be fought this time:  paper.

I confess that, in the rush to push toward electronic documents, I have been a footdragger because of my own concerns that computers and electrons are complex systems that not everyone -- for example, those who suffer from dementia or Alzheimer's -- may be able to master.  I can handle electronic documents now, but what happens when I can't?  So subjectively, it seems there should indeed be a means by which those who don't want, or can't handle, electronic statements, can still obtain the real thing. 

On the other hand, Consumers for Paper Options is pressing for lawmaking action that would require government to keep producing paper statements.  I note that there's no evidence of a push to require private companies to do so!  But even if that were not the case, the legislation CPO is arguing for is a bad idea, because it is inevitably the kind of thing that becomes a straitjacket on the government and a windfall to the industry involved.  We've seen it happen in entire sectors of our economy:  oil and gas; sugar; farming.  And the paper industry already has its own corporate entitlements. 

When we look at the comparative processing costs (9 cents for an electronic transfer, $1.25 for a paper check) and the technology trend line (computers, tablets and smart phones are ever more ubiquitous, and by the way, who's to say that the new generation, which masters computer use at age 4, won't be able to deal with electronic documents even in their dotage?), the answer is obvious (or should be), especially to profit-making companies that would never think of restricting their own options to cut costs:   Don't do it!

The CPO efforts run the risk of creating, right before our eyes, the next USPS-like white elephant.  It can be avoided if legislators will "just say no" to these self-appointed guardians of consumers' rights.  

Global Science Surprises

Sometimes scientific developments can creep up on you with little cat feet, and before you know it, they've pounced.  Well, maybe not so much new technologies or theories themselves, but their implementation.

One such was global satellite positioning.  We knew for quite a while that those satellites were up there and thought they were for bouncing communications or television signals around.  Maybe GPS was already developing as an application, bit by bit, in the minds of scienctists and technicians.  That must be the case, because a system that can pinpoint a location anywhere on the globe with great accuracy doesn't just happen by itself overnight.

But for most of us, I think, there was one day or another when we rather suddenly became aware of GPS and its workings - maybe on the day, five years ago or five weeks ago, when we acquired a new cell phone and found it had that capability. 

Another such case is the worldwide system that has been developed to detect nuclear testing.  Specialists in the fields of seismic sensing or of test ban verification have been beavering away to realize the concept, but for most of the rest of us, the idea that it's effectively complete comes as news indeed, and its impressive capability and global reach are awe-inspiring.

The system doesn't only detect nuclear explosions; it can help to predict and pinpoint natural disasters like earthquakes (I assume it's the technology involved in tsunami warning systems), track falling meteorites, provide clues as to changes in the earth's crust. And this is another "surprise" that has historically accompanied many a scientific development -- a technology developed for a specific purpose often proves to have additional applications or benefits that no one realized or conceived of initially.   Thus the seismic sensor network, which sprang from a need to detect nuclear explosions in an arms-treaty context, has much broader uses that may actually prove more beneficial. 

This is no doubt the best argument for funding scientific research - funding that, because of its magnitude and lack of immediately visible commercial applications, usually must come from governments.

Meantime, on the political level, whether or not the new system can persuade the U.S. Senate to ratify an international test ban treaty, as arms-controllers and the seismologists hope, is a very different matter.  The Senate has resisted this treaty for years because there "was no means of verification."  I believe opponents will simply find other reasons to continue their opposition.

  

Online Comments - The Pros And Cons And Cons

A friend recently pointed me to a very interesting column by Alexandra Petri, in which she highlights the decision the Popular Science website made recently to cease allowing readers to "comment." 

Their reasoning, as quoted by Petri, is one of the best defenses of "science" that I've seen recently, one that may partially explain why, in our current age, basic scientific concepts seem so subject to questioning and even downright challenge:

We have this mistaken idea that some things are up for debate that frankly are not actually up for debate. People may disagree on them, but the only reason that they disagree is that, well, some of these people are wrong. You do not have to give people who are objectively incorrect equal time. There is no point disagreeing about facts. If you are constantly reduced to proving hundreds of years of scientific consensus over again before you can even start to talk, you waste everyone’s time. Jean Kerr once memorably noted that “the real menace in dealing with a five-year-old is that in no time at all you begin to sound like a five-year-old.”

Whether there's an active cabal of people seeking consciously to undermine science, I can't honestly say; but what does seem clear is that there are many people about who either aren't very well educated, or who simply are too narrow-minded to allow reality to conflict with the myths of their literally interpreted faith.  (Come to think of it, I guess those are the same thing.)

Nor am I certain, as Petri suggests, that the same sort of cabal exists on political or news sites.  Perhaps it does.  But I think the main negative and very regrettable effect of the profusion of unfounded commentary against everyone and everything, in science and politics, is that our media have picked up the habit of treating ignorant views as deserving "equal time."   Too often on the internet or even in the legitimate press, does one see features pitting evolution against "creationism" as if the two were fully equal competitors for the crown of correctness.  They aren't.  One is fact, one is raving.  Those who profess journalism as a profession ought to know and respect the difference. 

(Note: For a different view, consult http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/youtube-makes-over-its-comments-popular-science-just-shuts-them-off/2013/09/25/e70cadbe-25db-11e3-b75d-5b7f66349852_story.html . But this writer typifies the problem of laisser-faire journalism I describe, by failing to see any difference between comments on idiotic home videos, and comments on matters of import.

The Oxymoronic Essence Of Business Statistics

An interesting study by the Economic Policy Institute suggests that the much-ballyhooed shortage in the U.S. of workers with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math (=STEM) just doesn't exist.  Where a shortage should imply rising salaries, the study found pay for workers in these areas has remained flat.  Further, many U.S. graduates in STEM are unable to find jobs in their field.  If that's the case, who are the ballyhooers who claim otherwise?  None other than tech firms that want (they say) to employ more such people, and that have loudly lobbied Congress for freer immigration access for non-citizens with STEM degrees. 

Elsewhere in today's news, we can read that Carefirst Blue Cross/Blue Shield, a major health insurer in Maryland, is seeking to raise its rates up to 25%, claiming that the cost of providing insurance is bound to rise that much because of the requirements of the Affordable Care Act (mainly, the provision requiring companies to offer insurance to all regardless of preexisting conditions).  Yet that claim certainly contradicts the time-worn actuarial proposition, developed and supported by insurance companies themselves, that a larger pool of insureds spreads risk and lowers costs.  Doesn't it?  In my opinion, it surely does, but it doesn't hurt the insurance company in the least (and surprise, surprise, may significantly benefit them) if it uses rigged "studies" it has performed itself to make the case its price should be higher.

It's not a new phenomenon, but perhaps we should let "business statistics" take its place alongside "military intelligence" in the pantheon of oxymorons.

When Things Go Right

There are major positive things happening in the U.S. lately, events which we're in danger of giving less than their due because we're depressed or oppressed by the economy, the political campaign and the heat/drought.  These events should kindle optimism:

The Olympics:  Not quite at end yet, and certainly receiving at least some attention if you judge by the breadth of reporting available, the Olympic Games in London should nevertheless be greater cause for celebration than they have been so far.  "Team USA" is doing quite well, scoring a lot of medals and setting records, as are the best athletes from around the world as well.  We should be uplifted by the example they all set, of putting forth their best effort and maintaining a positive attitude.

Landing On Mars:  I've been amazed at how little media attention the successful landing of "Curiosity" on the surface of Mars has received.  Folks, this is BIG!  This is exciting!  First, all this fantastically complicated new technology worked flawlessly (and it was mostly conceived and built in the U.S.).  Second, because the understanding that we can expect to receive from Curiosity's work on Mars really establishes yet another new frontier in space.  To those who say the space program isn't worth the money it costs, I would note that economic growth stems from such technological leaps; let's embrace it and cheer it.  And as evidence piles up that we're wrecking the earth's climate balance, let's hope it can work in time to help us find a new planet to move to.

The National Mall:  No, I'm not talking about the big shopping center in Minnesota; I'm talking about the park in Washington DC that stretches from the Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial, and which includes the Reflecting Pool.  People outside Washington can be forgiven for not knowing the Pool has been undergoing refurbishment for nearly two years; but they should rejoice that the project will be completed within just a few days, restoring this national monument to the style and grandeur it once had.  Again, some will complain of the money spent, suggesting the work ought to have been delayed.  Yet this project, like the Mars landing but on a smaller scale, has put people to work and set money to circulating in the economy.   In many more ways than this one, we'd be worse off without it. 

 

You May Also Find This Interesting:
"When Things Go Wrong" on
The Tin Lizard    

Big Summer Storm Catches Utilities Flatfooted

Late on Friday, June 29, a line of numerous, intense, violent thunderstorms fanned out from somewhere just east of Chicago and caused immense damage in a wide swath of the U.S. mid-Atlantic region.  In greater Washington DC, up to 2 million customers were left without electric power.  As of this morning, a full week after the storm passed, about 4500 utility customers still had no power.  Companies were promising to complete the job by Sunday, nine days after the storm--  and just in time for another predicted band of heavy storms. 

And this was no hurricane, no tsunami, just a line of thunderstorms. True, the storm cluster was indeed unusual by its power and breadth, the kind of thing utilities like to label a "100-year-storm."   Except that it isn't.  Our last power outage of 3-to-5 days occurred only two years ago during heavy winter snowfall.  And another happened not so long before that.   In between those multiday ones, we've become accustomed to more frequent outages of several hours at a time.  The fact is that thanks to climate change, extraordinary is now the norm.  Utility planners appear not to have caught on to that fact, but it's time they did.

This storm has reawakened the oft-rehashed discussion about the wisdom of burying power lines.  Utilities have always insisted this is prohibitively expensive, yet many developed countries seem to be able to manage it (it's sort of like universal health care in that respect).   Our public utilities prescribe trimming trees, but they've been at that for years and clearly it hasn't worked.  Anyway, we should keep in mind that the more trees we cut, the more we contribute to climate change and help create more frequent and damaging storms. 

The discussion of buried lines may revive for a while, but it's unlikely to go anywhere unless it gets a push from (guess who?) - government.  Cost, productivity, and security factors provide ample reason to make that push.  More on that in my next post.

I believe our electrical Rip Van Winkles need to wake up to a new reality they are reluctant to acknowledge  Their environment is changing; if they don't change along with it, they'll soon be going where U.S. automakers were a few short years ago.  The trouble with that is that we don't have a handy second set of Japanese-made power lines standing by as alternatives. 

So there would be great utility in a change of course.

 

The Forest Unseen

The Forest Unseen, by David George Haskell, is one of the most fascinating books I've read in a long while.  It's a must read for anyone with the least interest in our environment, nature, the life of the forest. 

Haskell's book is a collection of essays written over the course of a year as he observes life in a small section of Tennessee forest.  Topics range across the full spectrum of biology, botany, ecology, and even occasionally theology (in the case of the ichneumon wasp).  For most of us, each little essay will reveal a gem of discovery, something we didn't know or hadn't thought about -- for example, how turkey vultures find the carrion on which they depend (plus what else they find and how it relates to your local utility provider), or the differences between a chickadee's vision and our own.

But it's not just a dry scientific tract.  Haskell writes with elegance and wit.  And while he espouses a do-no-harm approach where nature is concerned, his measured viewpoint on exceptions (as for example when he finds golf balls on the forest floor) may surprise you.

Two notes for special audiences:

For Kindle owners - there are no photos, only essays, so order your Kindle version secure in the knowledge that your perusal of it won't be marred by gray, murky reproduction of illustrations.

For religious fundamentalists - a warning about content:  this book contains adult science material, and filthy language such as "evolution" and "natural selection" occurs frequently.   

Mission Creepy

"Amok," as I recall, comes from the Malay language and refers to the crazed disregard of danger exhibited by tribesmen in battle against British troops.  The condition was attributed to the use of drugs.  Maybe the word will experience a new freshet of usage, since it seems to describe certain types of wild behavior we've seen lately, for example, the guy who was shot in Florida while literally chewing another man's
face off.

It's not just people who can run amok, though.  Organizations can do it too. Today the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency is bringing new charges against cyclist Lance Armstrong.  I'm no particular fan[atic] of bicycle racing, but I do know that Armstrong has on numerous occasions been accused of using performance-enhancing drugs, yet tests have consistently shown no signs of it.  The USADA is a new accuser [of Armstrong], yet it just seems that they're out to persecute him.  It bothers me that despite the history, they can preemptively ban him from current competition; it bothers me too, that the agency chooses to pursue this beyond the expiration of the statutory limitation, with the argument that more recent evidence still can be adduced to prove old charges.  Whether or not the new investigation succeeds in incriminating Armstrong, when is enough enough? 

Surely the efforts of NYC Mayor Bloomberg to ban extra-large soft drinks is another case.  Whether or not a two-quart soda is good for you (and notwithstanding the smarmy protestations of the companies who make them, I think it's pretty certain it's NOT), most of us, surely, would say the mayor's fanaticism is outrunning his common sense.  If people are dumb enough to buy such drinks, let them. Anyway, I'm sure the cup is jammed with ice, so that the actual soda in it amounts to no more than 4 ounces.

Bloomberg's hubris represents a private/government blend.  As an entrepreneur-turned-pol, shouldn't he have a better sense of some limits on government regulation?  (Trick question: Generally private-sector tycoons seem to feel quite free to impose their personal foibles on their employees and even customers; it's just that we tend not to stigmatize them for that.)

The purely private sector isn't immune, either.  I suggested once before that ICANN's plans to widely expand the available "top-level domains" for internet addresses (e.g., ".com," ",edu,".org" and similar) smacked of needless profiteering.  What are we to make, then, of the latest announcement regarding plans to create, and sell, entire such superdomains (e.g., ".book," ".grocery," or ".inc")?   It seems self-evident that the need
for such broad domains disappears if a single company can "own" them.  If Amazon acquires the ".book" TLD, doesn't it become a huge empty field with only Amazon parked in it?  Or only those authors of which Amazon approves?  I can't see anything but overreach here.   If justice is truly sometimes poetic, perhaps we'll find that before these superdomains have produced much profit for ICANN (or Amazon), technology will have moved on to a completely different way of identifying web addresses.