Please check out my new blog The White Noise, hosted on Scientific American.
“Some places could even disappear under the sea, and it was the children of the land who’d have to live with the consequences,” a father said, reading a bedtime story about climate change to his young daughter.
This sentence paints a jarring portrait of a future world, one of many found in the “Act on CO2” TV ad launched by the United Kingdom’s Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) in the fall. The ad, entitled “Change How the Story Ends” was meant to cause the public to rethink carbon dioxide emissions, but instead of raising concern for the environment, it raised anger.
Though I haven’t been among the angry, I’ve been among the puzzled. I assumed outcry would stop the ad, but instead of its demise, 4 more ad campaigns appeared, much like the Greek serpent-beast Hydra’s multiplying heads.
As of October 21, the country’s Advertising Standards Authority received 357 complaints about the campaign. Some complaints said there’s no scientific evidence for climate change, while others said the ad is “upsetting and scaremongering.”
Before and since Copenhagen, crazed and misguided warnings against climate change have cropped up, based on commercials and other “propaganda” that extremists say elicit fear for no reason at all.
Still, the DECC defended its campaign against critics, saying they chose a harsh message because half of UK citizens don’t think climate change will affect them.
Even the climate change activist in me says there has to be a middle ground. While well-intended, it’s hard to focus on global warming when you’re looking at a moving storybook filled with crying farm animals and drowning family pets. On the other hand, climate change needs to be on the public’s agenda. Though we need climate change education, television commercial cult science hardly seems like the solution. For now, its the DECC that needs to change the story and not just the ending.
Filed under: Science
Fraud? Suicide? Blackmail? Perhaps a bad plot line in a daytime soap opera? Nope, just an edition of Science. Though a “typical” paper wouldn’t be retracted from the journal, a misleading paper is hardly unusual. What most forget is that big name journals, just as much as the small players, go for readership, often publishing science for its ‘sexy’ factor rather than for accuracy or quality. But who can blame them in the dying business of journalism?
Zhiwen Zhang and company, current and former post-docs of Scripps Research Institute in San Diego, may be involved in said fraud, having introduced “unnatural” amino acids into proteins, a process that other scientists could not replicate. Yet, they claim this is “good” science, something they still stand by after retracting two 2004 papers from Science and JACS.
After Zhang’s work was questioned by reviewers, his notebooks “disappeared,” he couldn’t reproduce his original work and he was blackmailed for $4000. Huh. Seems to me that this is an open/shut case. With some celebrity science per issue in major journals, this case hardly seems out of the ordinary; someone merely pointed out an inaccuracy, a major one. Zhang stills claims that his science was correct, that others are out to get him…but, at this point, who believes?
Filed under: Chemicals
Soon you may not have to trash your water bottle, hand sanitizer and other liquid valuables before going through airport security.
German researchers have found a way to detect and identify explosive liquids commonly used by terrorists. To do this, scientists employ a new technique called Hilbert spectroscopy to effectively tag liquid adversaries.
This method, quicker and more precise than its predecessors, uses electromagnetic radiation over a wide range of frequencies to scan the molecular signatures of liquids. A wider frequency range allows researchers to see more ridges of the molecular thumbprint. This ‘thumbprint,’ electromagnetic information, from the spectroscopic analysis is then converted into electrical signals that alerts to the presence of dangerous compounds.
A device called a Josephson junction, used in electrical signaling, makes this method practical — 0.2 seconds from top to bottom. Before long you won’t be able to blame a slow security check line on liquid contraband.
Filed under: Energy
Hydrogen’s been given the kiss-off in recent energy developments, set aside for impracticality. Now hydrogen may be redeemed for energy use…by a winery.
Using bacteria and a little electricity to make a microbial electrolysis system, researchers have produced renewable hydrogen from winery wastewater. Though early in the process, the winery eventually hopes to use hydrogen fuel to power the facilities and vehicles on its property.
Past tweaked hydrogen fuel cells ideas include combining the gas with corn and boron, and improving container storage of the flammable gas.
Overall, attempts at making hydrogen a reliable ‘fuel of the future’ are sorely lacking with biofuels taking over the market. Perhaps hydrogen will be a Cinderella story, defeating wicked stepsisters and solar fuel cells along the way? …Hmm, and how often do we see a good fairy tale?
Gas engine pollution is the bruise that triggers perpetual wincing of environmentalists everywhere. We know emissions are bad as we drive our fuel-efficient hybrids and frown at off-road tractors and heavy machinery. Don’t even get us started on diesel users.
Actually, diesel may not be down for the count. New research indicates that a careful cocktail, an auxiliary injection, of ether, carbon monoxide and propane may lower hydrocarbon and particulate emissions and improve cold start-up, a huge step forward for the famously inefficient engines. Emission cuts may be as high as 60%, two-thirds of the EPA’s eventual clean-diesel goal of 90%.
This is a far cry from earlier dealings with diesel – one of which included trying methanol as a fuel, which greatly increased carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions.
Though it seems to be a game of tug-and-war with diesel, at least the emitters seems to be inching toward the mud pit.
Filed under: Medicine
“Who is the fairest one of all?” I am. From the coast of South Carolina, a hotbed of tanning, I’m an anomaly. I stick to the shade and liberally apply 95 SPF every hour, on the hour. Why? Melanoma runs in the family.
After identifying a gene that causes melanoma earlier this summer, researchers have been straining to find better techniques for screening and catching the elusive cancer. And so they did, according to a new Australian study. Using radioactive tracers, scientists rely on fluoronicotinamides to shine a spotlight on melanoma, coupling this with former Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scans that often miss the first stages of cancer development.
Though claims of integrating new and old sound reasonable, others opt for another approach entirely. Researchers at Hoag Cancer Center say that a novel cancer vaccine increased the survival rate of patients with metastatic melanoma. Unfortunately, news of HIV leaves vaccines with a rather lackluster season, despite all the press. Perhaps melanoma will be better off. For now, though, I’ll stick with the sunblock.
When I think of contamination, I think of botched studies and ruined crops. Not so, friends.
Scientists in China have crafted a method to rid plants of their toxins and pesticides by spraying them with brassinosteroids (BRs), plant hormones, that metabolize insecticides and other undesirables. Even stranger, these are healthy…or so we think. Previous research suggests that plant hormones reduce cancer cell growth in humans. So have we found a natural super spray? Scientists don’t know but are crossing their fingers for a solution to crop loss.
Instead of employing a spray as a middleman, North Carolina State University is hiring plants to soak up fuel from soil. Using phytoremediation, researchers are sucking up heavy metals from a local contaminated site, a method much more cheap and sustainable than others on the market. The project has been going on for three years strong and has successfully slowed spilled fuel from running into nearby rivers.
Who knew trees were so stalwart? My houseplant died of a lemonade overdose…
On my better days I like to think of myself as scientist-writer, and I pride myself in seeing the science in ordinary life. Because of this, I’ve realized, I’m doing my field a disservice.
The problem of science is lack of public awareness, interest and understanding. As I grudgingly admit, this blog serves no purpose in teaching or making science interesting; rather, it merely shows that I see the world as scientific. Perhaps a good start, but it shouldn’t be continued, if for no other reason than it’s giving me much more attention than science – the exact opposite of my original intentions.
So, where does bring us? Back to science.
After contemplating the schematics of this new endeavor I wondered what subject I should take on. Science as a whole? Too big. I can’t possibly catch all the news. Then, as fate would have it, I began corresponding with a organic chemist at Princeton (thanks, David) who graced me with a question that chose my blog’s new direction: “Do you think our field [chemistry] will ever generate the same enthusiasm/vibe as biology in the popular realm?”
Upon reading it, I was visibly upset. Shaken, really and quite sad. A chemist, who obviously loves what he does, thinks the public prefers life sciences. Perhaps it’s true, but I’ve never entertained the notion, perhaps because to me, physical sciences are the most fascinating things on the science market. And then I start reading blogs and news and realized that, indeed, science media is ruled by psychology and biology. No wonder I always read ACS publications.
And so, I pledge to bring to you physical science news on the daily and whenever possible – blips of a quantum news that I find alluring coupled with my peculiar, and somewhat science-preoccupied, voice. Well, if you’ve been reading, perhaps you like it.
Welcome to Electron-ic Bonds; I hope you enjoy your science.
Resonance hybrids blur the line between their two (or multiple) selves so as to obtain dual identities, much like us. Living in downtown Manhattan, I see the two-toned armors: the fun-loving nightcrawlers and the Starbucks-armed businesspeople of the day; are they not the same? In a place where people transform overnight, I can’t help but consider their duplicity as a resonance of sorts, envisioning electrons in an ever-changing state.
But then, I wonder about this resonance nature. We all take carry pieces of ourselves around, perhaps stowed under our shirt collar or the heel of a shoe, to transform into the our “home” self and “work” self. And in truth, the crowd that does not display such resonance often warrants an eyebrow raise. But what of situations where we “cannot be ourselves?”
Often at such times, we wish to be anywhere else than our staff meeting or family reunion and feel miserable because our resonance is well, missing. What connects us to ourselves? Here, the scientist would say that of course resonance still exists, it’s just not captured at the moment.
I call your attention to other points in life where we “are not ourselves.” I think now of drug-induced activities, romantic affairs, hatefully thrown words in a heated argument. Are these not us, a part of our resonance? I believe so. I think, too often, we claim to have lost sight of ourselves for a moment, only to return to our senses and regret it. But, is this not us, a part of our character? Perhaps a negative blip in otherwise decent people… but still a blip that makes us who we are. The point of the deviation from the valence bond theory is that one structure cannot represent the whole entity. Our futile excuses for bad behavior are electrons that do dictate our nature.
We all have resonance structures, good, bad and indifferent. Nothing can account for our endless properties; we have electrons that evade being wrapped in single-structural boxes. But we must remember that every structure lays the bonds of our character, even the bad; therefore, we must be held accountable, as all molecules are.
Cassie Rodenberg: Electron-ic Bonds 