In my previous blog I outlined Google’s Clean Energy 2030 proposal for reducing carbon emissions and increasing renewable energy production in the US. As promised, I have gone through the proposal in detail and now offer my thoughts on what I like and dislike about it. As always, these issues are open to debate, and I encourage everyone to get involved, or at least to educate themselves on the subject. I will try to provide links for external sources of information where applicable. The first half of  my comments are as follows, in no particular order:

• I like that the renewable energy goals are being achieved through three main areas: wind, solar, and geothermal. Nathan Lewis at the California Institute of Technology outlines the total energy that can be potentially captured from natural resources in a series of talks and papers. Of these, wind, solar, and geothermal comprise the three largest, although solar by far is greater than the other two. With that in mind, I think the goal with respect to wind is reasonable in that the technology is currently close to maturity and is cost effective. In my opinion however, the geothermal goals seem a bit inflated considering the level of investment that will be needed for widespread implementation of enhanced geothermal systems. Globally speaking, I think solar (thermal and photovoltaic) will be the best solution, but utilizing all of our mix of resources for a near-term national solution is advisable. (Read more…)

Science Chicago held their public outreach finale this afternoon in Millennium Park.  It was beyond fantastic.

Several thousand people turned out for a huge array of engaging science activities. Dinosaurs, liquid nitrogen demos, kazoos made of tongue depressors and rubber bands, magic with Sharpie ink (thanks, Mike Davis!), and a live PBS television Design Squad show were just a few of the highlights. As a science educator, it was really neat to see so many engaged kids (and parents!).

My personal highlight was the kiddie pool of oobleck. This stuff is just amazing (read my previous post for more). Made of two parts corn starch and one part water, it’s a fun science activity you can do at home.

Or, as Science Chicago did, use a cement mixer and 800 pounds of corn starch to create an entire pool of the stuff.

Running or bounding across the surface was, according to my excited seven year-old, like walking on water. As you can see, adults enjoyed it, too.

One poor kid stopped mid-pool and sank surprisingly quickly. He had to be yanked out by two volunteers, legs covered in the gooey stuff.

Hats off to Cheryl Hughes, Rabiah Mayas, and the entire crew at Science Chicago for a terrific day!

While in my home state of Minnesota last week on vacation, I read a very troublesome editorial in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. On display at mall: Human indignity, written by columnist Katherine Kersten, takes to task Bodies… The Exhibition, a Body-Worlds-type exhibit that opened recently at the famed Mall of America.

For those unfamiliar with Body Worlds, this traveling anatomical exhibit of real human bodies has proven very popular and successful in demystifying our inner workings. It respectfully showcases the elegance of our anatomical structure, and provides visual lessons about the destructive outcomes of smoking and obesity. The smoker’s lung is not pretty.

Kersten’s opening salvo:

If you’re heading to the Mall of America this weekend, you’ll find something new to gawk at, along with the lacy lingerie at Victoria’s Secret and the sea horses at Underwater Adventures. It’s “Bodies … the Exhibition,” a show that features human cadavers.

Really? C’mon. Comparing an aquarium, a human physiology/health exhibit, and scantily-clad Victoria’s Secret models is the beginning of, well, a scantily-clad argument.

She goes on to use terms like “high-falutin’” when describing the exhibit’s educational goals.  She criticizes the choice of location for the exhibit, the Mall of America, as being too commercial (shouldn’t exhibits be held where the people are?). The issue of whether or not the exhibit bodies were procured according to accepted medical standard, raised midway through the article, is a very valid and important concern. Kerstens, however, quickly returns to the crux of her argument:

At “Bodies … the Exhibition,” we sense the danger of a line being crossed. The issues the show raises intersect with many of the important questions we face about the nature of humanity in our scientific age.

In short, she thinks the exhibit is in poor taste and that it markets death as entertainment. I don’t see it that way at all. (Read more…)

This past week, while on my way to Cincinnati (my hometown) for a little vacation, I saw this billboard. Go ahead, guess where it’s from.

Yes, Cincinnati does have the fantastic Museum Center at Union Station, which combines our children’s museum, our natural history and science museum, and the Cincinnati History Museum. And you’re right, they are currently showing the “Dinosaurs Alive!” Omnimax film and exhibit.

Unfortunately, this is not their billboard. Instead, it’s from the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky, which seeks to debunk “evolutionary storytelling” by using “the Scriptures as the ultimate authority on science and everything else.” I don’t know about you, but this sounds pretty suspect to me.

This is not the first time I’ve crossed paths with the Creation Museum. Like I said, I’m from Cincy (about 30 minutes from the museum), so I’m used to seeing their ads around town. However, their older billboards depicted a giant snake with glowing red eyes slithering out of a tree (Garden of Eden, I assume). While the glowing red eyes were a bit alarmist, at least they advertised what the museum was really about– religion. Instead, the new dinosaur billboard implies that you’ll learn real scientific facts. Yes, you’ll see some fossils, but you’ll also see “children play and dinosaurs roam near Eden’s rivers” at an institution that regards Darwin as a “mistaken and fallible man,” completely disregarding his theory of evolution– a theory that, among the scientific community and many members of the public (around 40%), is accepted. Because it’s backed up by real, scientific data. Yes, that 40% should be higher. Unfortunately, “museums” that advocate false information aren’t helping matters.

So, if you find yourself in the area and in search of science, I highly recommend you check out the Museum Center at Union Station’s “Darwin’s rEvolution” exhibit instead. Please.

Hanging on the wall in my office I still have my very first periodic table. It was given to me in the late seventies by my high school chemistry teacher, Mrs. Clarke. It’s woefully out of date but it has great sentimental value.

There are 103 named elements on my old periodic table. Elements 93-103, the transuranic elements (a.k.a. elements higher than uranium, #92) had all been discovered and were named on the periodic table. Elements 104-106 had been discovered before I took high school chemistry, although they would not be named until 1997. I remember my high school chemistry teacher telling us that scientists would discover heavier and heavier elements until, one day, element #112 would be synthesized. She told us that the synthesis of element #112 would complete what is known as a d-shell of electrons and, with the fully completed shell, the new atom might have interesting properties and be more stable than other transuranic elements.

Element #112 WAS discovered in February of 1996 by a team of German researchers at the GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research. The German team created Element #112 by firing accelerated zinc-70 nuclei (atomic mass = 30) at a target made of lead-208 nuclei (atomic mass = 82) in a heavy ion accelerator. 82 + 30 = 112 and hence element #112 was born.

So why have I thought of element #112 recently? Because it was just named this past month! The name? Copernicium. The element was named after Nicolaus Copernicus (1473 – 1543), the first astronomer to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric theory of the universe. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) will officially endorse the element’s name in about six months. So, thirteen years after it was discovered, element #112 has had its existence independently verified and been given a name.

Why did it take thirteen years? (Read more…)

Those interested in the science, economics, and policy of clean energy initiatives do not have far to look these days.  Besides the government’s Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, which maps out a plan for investment in clean energy technologies, many private sector institutions are getting their feet wet as well.  And I don’t mean with investments alone.  Many institutions are taking the time to make internal company policies as well as external proposals for the United States as a whole with regards to reducing our carbon footprint.

One notable participant, and leader in my opinion, is Google, whose “Clean Energy 2030” proposal for reducing US dependence on fossil fuel was first presented in October of 2008.  The proposal is organized to address three main areas of action: energy efficiency, renewable (carbon-free) electricity, and personal vehicles.  By addressing these areas in combination, their analysis concludes that by the year 2030 the following reductions can be made from the predicted EIA baseline numbers: fossil fuel-based electricity down 88%, vehicle oil consumption down 44%, and overall US CO₂ emissions down 49%.

Google is unique in that they have used their resources to not only hire staff to take the time to develop such proposals, but they also have started to implement these solutions within Google and throughout the community.  (Read more…)

I’ve never been a big fan of bottled water. Initially, my distaste for bottled water was due to my feelings that drinkers of bottled water were trying to either appear more refined than me or healthier than me. Either way, I didn’t like it.

Eventually, my distaste for bottled water focused on how the whole concept of bottling and selling water in an industrialized nation, like the U.S., is incredibly unfriendly towards the environment. When I think of how much fossil fuel goes into the manufacture of all of those little plastic bottles which are then filled with water and then flown to America from places like France and Fiji at the expense of burning more fossil fuels so that Americans can drive around in their fossil fuel burning monster-sized SUVs while drinking the stuff and then the empty bottles are carted away by fossil fuel burning trucks and are deposited in land fills where they then take about 450 years to decompose…..well, I think you get my point.

Now I have a new reason to not like bottled water. Could bottled water be dangerous to human health? (Read more…)

So, you exercised today? Good. You followed your low fat, low carb diet? Good.  Your parents lived in New York City? Bad. Very bad.

Health, it seems, has more to do with what stuff you were exposed to while being born than previously thought, according to Bette Hileman from Scientific American. Diseases and disorders, such as diabetes, cancer, depression, and even obesity are much more likely to occur after exposure to gene altering substances. What are these substances? Chemicals we are all exposed to daily, as much a part of our society as we are, that reside in our food, our water, our air. Children in New York City exposed yet unborn and at a young age to contaminants in the air (common air pollutants from traffic) were much more likely to develop asthma than those who were not. This statistic is staggering: in NYC, a full 25% of children are born asthmatic. What’s more, these effects are compounded by the fact that they persist and accumulate from generation to generation. In other words, chemicals your grandmother was exposed to while pregnant with your mom could still affect you severely. That means that all that bad stuff government agencies have been banning over the years could still be affecting us today. And it certainly helps explain the rapid increases in health problems worldwide. (Read more…)