Today’s science news in a bulleted list.
* Many folks think that oil means gasoline and jet fuel, but in fact a huge fraction of the materials that we use in our daily lives, plastics for example, start out as petroleum derivatives. In an age when demand threatens to outstrip supply and send oil prices into wacky world it is encouraging to know that synthetic chemists have worked out a way to make similar materials from the sugar commonly found in fruits, fructose.
* The idea that increased CO2 will increase crop yields has taken another hit. Estimated time until Exxon-funded advocacy groups absorb this new information: never.
* Via Aravosis via TP via the inimitable David Attenborough, a giant Venezuelan centipede that eats bats. Great for ooking out squeamish coworkers. [Update: read more here.]
* The San Andreas fault is due for a major quake. The basic math of earthquakes is that they build up strain at a constant rate, so the longer you wait between quakes the bigger the quake will be. The San Andreas fault is pretty good about releasing pent-up strain as far as highly-active faults go (compared to, say, this) but let’s hope that it doesn’t wait too long.
* Stem cell news: the good, the bad and the political.
* At Kos, Darksyde has a must-read on the problem of accelerating glacial melt.
What else is up? Chat about science and science-related program activities.
Punchy
What the fuck is going on with the Tour de France? These guys are “implicated” in some doping scandal? Nobody’s even tested positive??
Andrew
Interesting bit about the petroleum products alternative.
Some smart folks have been saying that alternative energy is down right easy to deal with versus finding an alternative to plastics for goods.
tomtom
Yeah, I thought the same thing as soon as I read the ESPN article. The TDF better hope like hell some pretty damning stuff is going to come out about these guys they’re suspending in the next few days or else they’ve got huge amounts of egg on their face for suspending their probable 1 and 2 finishers. The Tour was in the crap either way. They’ve had to suspend riders, whole teams actually, over doping during the course of the tour. My guess is they didn’t want to have to do that again. Still, sucks for those guys that they’re being presumed guilty.
I guess some of the Americans have a much better shot not, unless Vinikourov blows them all out of the water.
Jim Allen
Anything that gets rid of those gawd-awful sealed plastic bubble packages that take a reciprocating saw and leather gloves to get open, I’m all for.
Lee
From the CO2 story.
I think that is the best intentionally funny line I have read in a newspaper in a long time.
I almost forgot the obligatory…
/sarcasm on
Why do these scientists hate America and Captialism?
/sarcasm off
RSA
Oh, great. Soda bottles and candy wrappers that are sticky before you even get them open.
Ryan S.
Heres a link to my favorite science blog. Make sure you read the latest entry and help some teachers buy some textbooks and supplies.
Because this administration refuses to. (make sure you look at the pdf… for some reason can’t link to it.)
No child left behind… my ass!
Punchy
That video of the Monster Centipede taking out a bat in mid-air is a must-watch. I used to take out centipedes myself…shooting them as fast as possible as they hid behind mushrooms and stuff…until I ran out of credits.
Pb
Punchy,
Apparently not everyone has that ‘presumption of innocence’ thing that we (sometimes) do…
OCSteve
I still don’t buy all the global warming hype, but I’m on board with this:
My concern is our dependence on foreign oil, and peak oil. I’m all for a “crash” program (similar to the moon program of the 60s) to develop alternate energy sources. If it also makes the GW camp happy, all the better.
But IMO, the only short term alternative is nuclear. We have not built a new plant in 30 years. We should be breaking ground for 100 new nuke plants right now. Duke Power is working on one in SC, but the usual suspects are opposed:
At what point does the environmentalists’ concern for GW overcome their issues with nuclear power?
Punchy
Will. Never. Happen. WAY too much NIMBY going on. Unless they can stick one on Fed land in the middle of, say, Eastern Colorado or Nebraska, no chance they’ll build one of these.
Steve
I thought Al Gore had a very thoughtful comment on the issue of nuclear power:
Gore is really making two points here, the first relating to the viability of nuclear power overseas, and the second relating to our own country. Because it’s well documented that the US is the biggest polluter (because we have the best economy, duh), it’s tempting to just focus on domestic solutions. But when you think about the rapid industrialization that is taking place in China and India, which have a whopping 2.5 billion people between them, you realize that they have the capacity to put out more pollution than we could even imagine over here.
So the reason Gore pushes renewable energy as opposed to nuclear power is for our own bottom line, really. Nuclear power would be a viable option for ourselves, in a vacuum, but it’s really not practical to get the whole developing world running on nuclear power, for reasons of safety and national security. Instead, we want to get those countries running on new technologies and renewable energy. And the punch line is that if we make our focus the development of those new technologies – rather than spending our money building 100 new nuclear plants – there is a massive market out there for us to SELL those technologies to places like China and India, and make ourselves rich at the same time we fix the energy problem!
I think Gore has a very solid point here that really has nothing to do with knee-jerk Three Mile Island stuff. Build some plants if you like, sure, but we have a huge economic interest in making sure we’re the world leader in developing renewable fuel technologies.
Steve
I got so excited about renewable energy that I screwed up my link. Here is the Gore interview I quoted.
srv
Another strategy for failure. It’s all about NIMBY and fear. The problem is right here, right now. Proliferation from US plants is a canard. And China is in all likelyhood going to build lots of dams and nukes anyway (they have no other real choices).
My prediction: we’ll have 200+ more coal plants in 25 years and y’all will still be ranting about marginal renewables. China will build over a 500. And hydro will still be the dominant renewable in the world.
The global economy isn’t going to wait for your invisible hand of renewable magic to keep it fed.
John S.
This is a false choice, and is often put forth by industry groups. One does not have to choose between the global economy and renewable energy, as the two can peacefully co-exist. It is possible to find a solution that works towards both goals. That is, when the debate isn’t framed dishonestly.
srv
It’s possible to find a renewable solution to China’s industrialization needs? Links please? China has said it’s going to build 562 coal plants. You better get busy, or get honest about reality.
Sherard
Howler of the day:
Kos… must-read…
ROTFLMAO!!!
Sherard
Not it’s not a false choice, it is REALITY. Wind and solar are not cost effective. The people that build power plants, you know why they do it ? TO MAKE MONEY. When you can actually make money generating electricity from renewable sources, great. Until then, they are simply not feasible options. Nuclear is, but it will be years before even a single new plant comes on line.
I’m all in favor of reducing CO2 and finding ways to generate more electricity while also reducing CO2. But wishing it to be so, and ignoring the economic liability of renewable sources isn’t going to get it done.
Sherard
I take it back. THIS is the howler of the day:
That could be the most dellusional, pie-in-the-sky dream I have ever seen. Anyone that cannot see the obvious disconnect between the “developing world” and “running on new technologies and renewable energy”, frankly, is a moron. China, for instance, wants to increase their generating capacity by incredible amounts, the cheapest, simplest way possible. And they DO NOT even care what CO2 is.
srv
Wind will be cost effective, but a marginal overall player. People are making plenty of money on photovoltaics. That’s the problem – it’s become a boutique product for those with the means. They can make plenty of money keeping the tech expensive and have no reason to make it cheap for the masses (something that’s been just-around-the-corner for 25 years).
Steve
And that’s why their fuel economy standards destroy ours? I can’t even imagine where you get this counterfactual material.
srv
Oh, they care enough that there are some interesting investments in that arena for China. But it’s mitigation, not a solution. For your own research.
He said generating capacity. Nobody said they aren’t practical, but it doesn’t matter if 500 million of them are driving VW’s. It’s still going to be alot more pollution.
Steve
If you’re going to tell me there’s not a market in China for cleaner, more efficient sources of energy, you’re going to have to hit me with more evidence than just someone’s say-so.
carpeicthus
That centipede is going to give me nightmares for weeks. Note to self: Avoid Venezuela at all costs.
Jim Allen
OCSteve,
When the disposal of the spent nuclear waste is less of an environmental issue than it currently is. I know I’d be a lot more amenable to nuclear power if there was a better way to deal with radioactive waste with a half-life of hundreds years. Even if they can store it all somewhere (Yucca Flats, was it?) there’s still the matter of getting it there.
Andrew
The great thing about radioactivity is, the longer the half life, the less dangerous it actually is. Plus at least we have all the waste handy, and have the option of storing it somewhere safe, and if we ever find a use or a better solution for disposal we can go and get it. We don’t have that option with coal. This link will tell you more, but I’ve quoted the relevant parts.
Small scale pebble bed reactors and thorium reactors are something we can do now that would make a big difference. Also CANDU reactors would be a great thing to be building.
S.W. Anderson
Gee, if synthetic chemists are doing so well, imagine what real ones could accomplish!
bud
Once again, Tim is much more enamored of a popular press article (written by someone who thinks that a net 1 degree temperature rise in the forseeable future is “blistering temperatures”) than I am.
Having more than a passing acquaintence with the vagaries of trying to maintain constant heat using air flows, I can tell you that the experiment cited could not have possibly kept the CO2 levels at the constant levels achievable in an enclosed greenhouse, and attributing the loss of growth to all the other factors (“wind, rain, sun and pests”) as opposed to the probablility that signficant portions of the field simply not getting the levels of CO2 that they think that they are.
An experiment that has controlled conditions versus one that doesn’t… I’ll believe the former.
I’ll take this more seriously when someone starts adding in the “bad” conditions (fans for wind, for instance) in a greenhouse and reporting on the change. One variable at a time, folks.
BlogReeder
From the article:
Rice feeds alot of people. So it’s less than half predicted. But it did increase. The FACE (Free Air Carbon dioxide Enrichment) experiment makes sense. I like how they threw in ozone. Why don’t the throw in red state – blue state too? I hear the politics of the farmer is important.
Nutcutter
Courtesy of DKos, this story indicates that the Bushco War on Science is still in full swing
Read it and weep.
scs
An interesting article on minimally conscious patients. It seems that brain nerves can regrow and, contrary to popular belief often repeated by all the media about the “one year” mark, this is real proof that sometimes progress can be visible only after 20 years.
While this finding may not apply directly to Terri Schiavo’s case, it just goes to show you the amount of scientific ignorance that went into the whole Terri debate, bought hook line and sinker by the supposedly media elite and then trickling down to help form the opinions of bloggers and ordinary people.
I noticed the sourcing for many “facts” about brain damage for many MSM articles, such as pundits in the bigger newspapers, when you actually dug a little deeper to see where they got their opinions from, seemed to be often based on quoted statements by Dr. Ronald Cranford and his lawyers. (Too bad these pundidts didn’t seem to bother to read the Science sections of their own papers.) Dr. Ronald Cranford was a pro-death activist and one of Michael Schiavo’s doctors. He was also one of two doctors who examined Terri who determined that she was in PVS, contrary to the opinion of the other doctor who examined her.
For instance I saw the oft quoted statement presented as “fact” that Terri had “zero” activity in her EEG’s, when the real fact is that any person who is even alive will have at least some activity- not zero. The idea that all PVS is the same- and means total cortical death and that it is laughable to think that a PVS could respond to stimulae seems also commonly quoted from Ronald Cranford and lawyers, when in reality we have known since 2001 that it is possible that even some severely PVS patients are theorized to have some sensory perceptions. The fact that “all” of Terri’s cortex was gone when actually 30% remained was mostly based on Cranford’s statements. Just a lot of truth stretching to paint a picture that wasn’t entirely accurate. In short, Cranford and Michael did a real snow job on the public, and unfortunately, the media and the public ate it up.
Cranford presented himself like some highly enlightened, cutting-edge brain specialist, but in fact his ideas were old fashioned, pre-2001 ideas about brain damage. Although those ideas are still common among the regular medical community, it’s only because the medical community is slow to adopt new guidlines while the research is still ongoing. However, all one needs to do is google PVS and zoom in on the medical research articles from reputable institutions to get updates on the knowledge that is out there.
I just think I’ve noticed this time and again, that the media will glom on to the statements of ONE individual, and perhaps it gets picked up by AP somehow, and then HUNDREDS of media outlets will repeat it as unquestionable fact, when in fact they were too lazy to check up on this source’s statements or get the other side of the story. I’ve noticed this especially often with medical or scientific facts. I guess the lesson here is, don’t believe everything you read. With the internet now, we have so many opportunities to do our own research now and we should take advantage of it.
Nutcutter
Fucking liar.
It’s an article about one patient. It has no particular bearing on any other case.
What is the recovery rate for diagnosed PVS over five years? Ten? Twenty? You don’t know without looking it up, do you?
Nutcutter
What’s the matter, scs? Busy getting your illegal fireworks together over there in the trailer park?
I’m looking at a story on the wires this morning that refers to your interesting case as a “one in 300 million event.”
What sort of things can be inferred from a one in 300 million event? Why don’t you list them for us?
Should patient care, the law, or family decision and living will protocols be adjusted based on a one in 300 million event? Are end stage cancer patients changing their outlook when a one in 300 million remission happens somewhere in the world? Do doctors tell the families of those patients that they should sign up for 20 years of enforced care on the basis of the hope created by a one in 300 million medical event somewhere?
I am really interested in your views on this. You seem so genuinely concerned and knowledgeable.
Nutcutter
But, that’s what you do. Glom onto something out on the fringes of a subject and beat it to fucking death with your incessant and obnoxious trolls.
Why would you criticize “the media” for doing exactly what you do?
BIRDZILLA
Plants depend on CO2 in order to survive you might say the automoble was a great thing for plants it produces the CO2 that the plants need and AL GORE ponly produces HOT AIR
Nutcutter
That’s right. Plant life never really took off until the automobile was invented.
Jason
What a stupid reporter.
No, dumbass. It’s not a fertilizer. It’s the main carbon source for all plants. The carbon in the plant is not like nitrogen or phosphorous that the plant needs and gets from the soil.
Thus contributing to global warming?
In these experiments there is no way for them to maintain a constant blanket of CO2 the way there would be if global levels were increased no matter how well the little sense-and-spray thingies work.
Don’t be like the global warming dismissers and run to the bank with every little experiment that you think totally makes your case.