Just over two years ago I noted the pending, rolling disaster of the introduction of Caribbean Crazy Ants, or Rasberry Crazy Ants, to the American South.
Associated Press is catching up.
Now, will you listen to me when I tell you not to vote for Rick Perry? Will you listen when I tell you we need to control CO² emissions?
2 Comments | 
Biology, Entomology, Environment, Environmental protection, Nature, Science | Tagged: Biology, Crazy Ants, Entomology, Environmental protection, Exotic Species, Nature, Rasberry Ants, Science | 
Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Talk in class turned to Ben Franklin’s kite experiment. “Don’t try this at home,” I said.
Do students ever listen?
Here’s an amateur video showing why standing under a tree in a lightning storm could be a bad idea. Can students extrapolate this to flying a kite in a storm?
Surely there is better video of such events somewhere . . . can you tell us where?
Found it at Wimp.com, with a tip of the old scrub brush to Thom Holland, Scouter with the 626 units at Penasquitos Lutheran Church, San Diego, California.
1 Comment | Boy Scouts of America, Nature, Science | Tagged: Boy Scouts of America, Lightning, Nature, Safety, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
In a letter to the editor of the Leavenworth (Kansas) Times, July 11, 2011, Ronald Banks makes the case simply, succintly and quite accurately, for keeping regulatory agencies that protect our health and the environment:
Ronald Banks
LeavenworthTo the editor:
As an independent, I often find my political opinions “between a rock and a hard place.”
A big concern is cutting or defunding programs or agencies to save money. I can’t say much about SEC, FDA, or any other alphabet agency, except the EPA. As a retired Registered Environmental Manager, I have some experience dealing with those pesky, business-busting regulations.
I would like to persuade the spending hawks to reflect on why the regulations were enacted in the first place. Pesticides were abused and found in our water, air and accumulated in our food as described in the seminal 1962 book, “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson. Hazardous waste dumps were uncovered at Love Canal.
A dump site was also found in Leavenworth. Water contamination as shown in the movie, “Erin Brokovich,” from PG&E plants in California; not to mention BP’s oil spill. E. coli bacterial contamination in hamburger, produce and water, lead in paint, smog/particulate smoke in the air, acid rain, constant oil/gas/ diesel spills on land and sea, have been caused by ironical business cost-cutting on environmental compliance.
Just today I learned Massey Energy compromised safety in its coal mine accident that killed 29 workers.
Don’t get me wrong, I know environmental up-keep is expensive; but it is a public good that must be placed in the fixed costs of a business.
It is not that this information is not known to be true, most would agree they want safe water, air and food. Maybe a reason is in our own psychology? I have recently learned in the latest “Scientific American Mind” that a study by psychologist Ullrich Ecker showed that “our memory is constantly connecting new facts to old and tying different aspects of a situation together, so that we may still unconsciously draw on facts we know to be wrong to make decisions later,” (p12).
In a more political way we also like to see the other party hurt, it feels so good that the feeling unifies a party, even if it hurts us all. As long as the EPA is cut and you are passionate for the cuts factual consequences of the cuts and the emotional consolidation of cheer-leading, may overshadow the good of not cutting. Remember, cuts at the top filter down to our state, county and city; our water, air and food.
Face it. If there isn’t someone guarding the environment, we won’t have a safe and clean environment.
So, what I have said above will be a “hard sell” no matter how good my argument. Let’s not jeopardize the nation’s health for lobbied cost-cutting budgetary reasons.
Do you agree?
2 Comments | Environmental protection, Food Safety, Government, Regulation, Science | Tagged: Budgets, Environmental protection, EPA, Food Safety, Government, Regulation, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Not exactly a DDT/Malaria carnival. Just enough for a sideshow.
First, the controversy over use of DDT in Uganda continues, even as DDT is applied daily there. This demonstrates that DDT remains freely available for use in Africa. It also demonstrates that Africans are not clamoring for more DDT.
Uganda offers a key proving ground for the propaganda campaign against environmentalists, against scientist, against medical care officials, and for DDT. Though malaria plagues Uganda today and has done so for the past 200 years at least, it was not a target of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) campaign to eradicate malaria in the 1950s and 1960s, because the nation lacked the governmental structures to mount an effective campaign. DDT was used to temporarily knock down mosquito populations, so that medical care could be improved quickly and malaria cured among humans. Then, when the mosquitoes came roaring back as they always do with DDT, there would be no pool of the disease in humans from which the mosquitoes could get infected. End of malaria problem.
Plus, for a too-long period of time, Uganda was ruled by the brutal dictator Idi Amin. No serious anti-malaria campaigns could be conducted there, then.
Uganda today exports cotton and tobacco. Cotton and tobacco interests claim they cannot allow any DDT use, because, they claim, European Union rules would then require that the tobacco and cotton imports be banned from Europe. I can’t find any rules that require such a ban, and there are precious few incidents that suggest trace DDT residues would be a problem, but this idea contributes to the political turmoil in Uganda. Businessmen there sued to stop the use of even the small amounts of DDT used for indoor residual spraying (IRS) in modern campaigns. They lost. DDT use continues in Uganda, with no evidence that more DDT would help a whit.
Much of the anti-malaria campaign aimed at soldiers, to convince them to use Atabrine, a preventive drug, or to use nets, or just to stay covered up at night, to prevent mosquito bites. Mother Jones compilation of posters and photos.
Second, the website for Mother Jones magazine includes a wonderful 12-slide presentation on DDT in history. Malaria took out U.S. troops more effectively than the Japanese in some assaults in World War II. DDT appeared to be a truly great miracle when it was used on some South Pacific islands. Particularly interesting are the posters trying to get soldiers to help prevent the disease, some done by the World War II-ubiquitous Dr. Seuss. Good history, there. Warning: Portrayals of Japanese are racist by post-War standards.
Third, a new book takes a look at the modern campaigns against malaria, those that use tactics other than DDT. These campaigns have produced good results, leading some to hope for control of malaria, and leading Bill Gates, one of the biggest investors in anti-malaria campaigns, to kindle hopes of malaria eradication again. Here is the New York Times review of Alex Perry’s Lifeblood: How to Change the World One Dead Mosquito at a Time (PublicAffairs, $25.99). Perry is chief Africa correspondent for Time Magazine.
This little gem of a book heartens the reader by showing how eagerly an array of American billionaires, including Bill Gates and the New Jersey investor Ray Chambers (the book’s protagonist), are using concepts of efficient management to improve the rest of the world. “Lifeblood” nominally chronicles the global effort to eradicate malaria, but it is really about changes that Mr. Chambers, Mr. Gates and others are bringing to the chronically mismanaged system of foreign aid, especially in Africa.
These three snippets of reporting, snapshots of the worldwide war on malaria, all diverge dramatically from the usual false claims we see that, but for ‘environmentalist’s unholy and unjust war on DDT,’ millions or billions of African children could have been saved from death by malaria.
The real stories are more complex, less strident, and ultimately more hopeful.
1 Comment | Africa, DDT, Geography - Physical, Health care, History, Posters, Propaganda, Science, World War II | Tagged: Africa, Bill Gates, DDT, Dr. Seuss, geography, Health care, History, Malaria, Posters, Propaganda, Ray Chambers, Science, Uganda, World War II | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
It’s almost an arcane fight, but it’s an important one — if you’re going to discuss climate science and the policies required to clean up pollution that causes destruction of our planet, can we at least agree to stick to the facts, the real facts?
John Mashey is a computer smart guy who jumped into the fray to point out that most opponents to doing anything to stop the destruction have a social or economic interest in stopping the action and continuing the destruction, something Mashey determined from looking at the networks linking the people involved. There’s a lot of howling about Mashey’s pointing out that the emperor is a crook. So far he’s been proved correct.
An academic group you probably never heard of, the National Association of Scholars, has an elected leader who decided to take after Mashey, rather than clean up the house. Peter Wood writes a column for the Chronicle of Higher Education, and sadly, their editorial mavens appear not to have fact checked it. To their credit, they allowed Mashey’s response.
Comments are brutal.
Here’s how Tim Lambert described it at Deltoid:
John Mashey and Rob Coleman have a guest post at The Chronicle of Higher Education‘s blog replying to Peter Wood’s hit piece.
Wood’s article misused the platform of CHE. Its relevance to the concerns of CHE was minimal. It had little purpose but to damage the reputation of one of us, John Mashey, and the climate scientist Michael Mann, whom Wood has often denigrated elsewhere. The political false-association tactics were obvious. Climate scientists are under incessant attack, a fact strongly decried the day before Wood’s article by the AAAS Board. The muddy battlefield of blogs and media has now arrived on the CHE premises, easily seen in the comments.
If one tells the truth in climate science, one needs thick skin. Go read Mashey’s piece before you read the comments. More background from Lambert, here.
And the context you need: Only one study on climate change has actually been retracted over the past couple of years — no, not any of those noting that warming occurs, not any of those that use the graph famously described as “a hockey stick,” but the piece that pulled together all the criticism of the science, at the behest of Republicans on the environment committees in the U.S. Congress, called the Wegman Report. And it was John Mashey who assembled the extensive and sometimes elegant case that the Wegman Report was plagiarized and wrong.
This is, indeed, a case of trying to kill the messenger’s reputation.
Am I the only one suspicious that the National Association of Scholars may have been named to foster confusion about the authority of reports, say from the National Academy of Sciences, the long-time science advisory group to presidents whose reports urge action to stop climate change? Notice their acronyms are the same.
5 Comments | Accuracy, Climate change, climate_change, Ethics, Global warming, Green Politics, How do we know what we know, Plagiarism, Politics | Tagged: Accuracy, Climate change, Ethics, Global warming, Green Politics, How do we know what we know, John Mashey, Plagiarism, Politics, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
You couldn’t make this stuff up.
In defense of his claim that Texas has not warmed over the last century (“Texas temperatures not rising; Wisconsin temperatures not rising”) and, therefore, Texas does not suffer from global warming, and therefore there is no global warming and no ill effects from warming, Steve Goddard posted this today:
Year-To-Date In Texas
Posted on August 7, 2011 by stevengoddard
Almost as warm as 1927, 1925 and 1953. Only a degree cooler than 1911.
It’s heading for 105°, but since it was 15° one day in February, that averages to 60°, so Texas is okay, according to Goddard. In their drive to fuzz up the facts and surround policy debates with snark, the denialists will deny anything, leave no weather record untwisted, and deny the sweat on the nose on their face. According to Goddard, snow in the Great Basin means no drought in Las Vegas, as shown by there being no drought affecting Lake Powell.
Remember Straight Dope’s Cecil Adams’s old line? “Fighting ignorance since 1973 (it’s taking longer than we thought.)” Yeah, that applies to climate denialists in quantity.
Here’s what’s going on in Texas right now:
Drought now affects over a million square miles of the lower 48 states, or 32 percent, according to the Weather Channel. The most extreme cases of “exceptional” drought stretch from Arizona to Louisiana and parts of Georgia, covering almost 11 percent of the lower 48 states.The resulting lack of ground moisture prevents clouds from developing in the low-level atmosphere, making daytime showers near impossible.;
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Preliminary reports from the National Climatic Data Center indicate that July 2011 was the warmest month ever recorded statewide for Texas, with data going back to 1895, [State Climatologist John] Nielsen-Gammon reports. The average temperature of 87.2 degrees broke the previous record of 86.5 degrees set in 1998. The June average temperature of 85.2 was a record for that month and now ranks fifth warmest overall.
Rainfall totals were also unusually light across the state. The July monthly total of 0.72 inches ranks third driest, surpassed by the 0.69 inches recorded in both 1980 and 2000. This is the fifth consecutive month in which precipitation totals were among the 10 driest for that month, says the Texas A&M professor.
Drought and searing heat in Texas. Caused by climate change? That’s difficult to say, difficult to trace. Made worse by climate change? Most likely.
Dallas media track the consecutive days over 100° F. It’s a form of misery index — people can recover from a day or two over the century mark. But more than a couple of days and the heat begins to take a heavier toll on people, on plants and animals, on houses, on cars, on crops, on everything we do in Texas. It’s difficult to make news make sense on weather stories. Tracking the number of days over 100° gives a quick graphic for television news, and puts the story into the vein of a sports record story, a narrative people know.
Here’s how things stack up in Dallas, in terms of days over 100°:
| Rank | Year | Consecutive 100° days |
| 1 | 1980 | 42 |
| 2 | 2011 | 37 (and counting) |
| 3 | 1998 | 29 |
| 4 | 1952 | 25 |
| 5 | 1999 | 24 |
| 6 | 1954 | 20 |
| 7 | 2006 | 19 |
| 8 | 2010 | 18 |
| 8 | 1978 | 18 |
| 10 | 1956 | 17 |
If one looks at the heat streaks, one cannot help but notice that all of the top ten streaks have come since 1952, and that three are in the last decade, five since 1998. Brutal heat streaks appear to be coming more frequently, many close on the heels of previous heat streaks, and with greater severity.
That is what one would expect from global warming.
Moreover, the recent streaks show greater oscillations. 2011 also saw snow and freezing weather in Dallas, a rarity. Greater oscillations in weather also would be expected from global warming.
Goddard offers a comparison of January to June temperatures — the coolest part of the calendar year, and leaving out most of the heat-streak days — and on that basis of a half-comparison, he suggests (doesn’t say — he doesn’t want to be caught lying outright) that there isn’t a warming problem in Dallas in 2011.
Heat stroke? It’s a figment of your socialist imagination. 14 dead? They probably were smokers. Global warming? Not if Steve Goddard can find a statistic somewhere that can be manipulated to appear to deny it.
What do his charts show for July and August of those years?
Finally, there is this: Assume for a moment that there has been no significant warming in Texas as a complete landmass over the past 100 years: Does that mean Texas is not battered by any warming that occurs elsewhere?
Of course not. The current drought in Texas is thought to be triggered in no small part by the La Niña effect, a chilling of the surface of the Pacific in a broad band that stretches west of Peru for about 5,000 miles to the far South Pacific. La Niña is a counterpart to El Niño, a warming of the same band of water that produces different, not-average weather effects. The cycles are not well understood as to cause — there are good hypotheses being tested — but it has been observed that, especially in the latter part of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st, these cycles are speeding up. The best, not-disproven hypothesis is that these cycles react and speed up due to global warming.
So, to the best of our hypothesizing today, the Texas drought is a function of global warming, in timing, frequency and severity.
This demonstrates the ultimate problem with using a local temperature readings to make authoritative statements about global warming, even averaged over about a hundred million acres like Texas: Problems of global warming are not always simply problems of temperature, and non-local causes may cause local effects that will not show up in temperature, especially local effects in precipitation, in timing and amounts.
Botanists, foresters, range scientists and biogeographers noticed effects of warming 50 years ago, with the migration of species northward, and up mountainsides. Wildlife managers noticed altered migrations of game birds and non-game birds about the same time, migration alterations that continue to today. Plant zones used by farmers and gardeners demonstrate a good deal of change, generally favoring warming, over the past century. Evidence for warming is quite solid without a single temperature reading.
A bastion of average temperature non-increases, if Texas is one, may still be hammered by warming and its effects in the Pacific, and especially in the Gulf of Mexico. Is it fair to say the entire system shows no signs of warming?
So we should ask: Are temperatures and precipitation averages, frequencies, timing and totals, about average for the last century or two? Then the case for global warming is a bit weaker.
Dallas will eclipse the previous record string of 100° F days in the next week. All of Texas is in severe drought, and most of the state is in extreme drought. Sounds as if there is something going on with the climate.
Last year the denialism sites lit up with a report that a fourth grade student in South Texas had a science project that disproved global warming, and which won an award from the National Science Foundation. It was a sad hoax. The speed with which these sites pounced on the report should have warned us that a school of thought devoid of practical results from the lab bench or observation in nature gets too desperate for results, and will cut corners to claim them. Goddard’s reports repeat the bad methodology of that hoax.
Richard Feynman once wrote, wryly, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” Goddard and other denialists appear to read that wrongly, thinking that experts are not to be trusted, and that all experts are ignorant of all things, and therefore stupid.
Politics and especially the politics of science cry out for someone to read Feynman — actually read what he wrote. Feynman said we should not assume all scientists are infallible. He did not write that all scientists are fallible and wrong.
12 Comments | Climate change, climate_change, denialism, Geography - Economic, Geography - Physical, History, How do we know what we know, Science | Tagged: Climate change, denialism, geography, Global warming, History, How do we know what we know, Real Science, Science, Stephen Goddard | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Hiroshima residents float lanterns in the river to remember the dead after a traditional Hiroshima Day concert, 2008; the concert and lantern floating are annual events
66 years ago, U.S. military action brought a quick close to hostilities without an invasion of Japan, with the detonation of two atomic bombs, one over Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and one over Nagasaki on August 9.
Events marking the anniversary this year carry the spectre of the Fukushima nuclear power plant, which experienced core meltdowns in reactors as a result of a tsunami earlier in 2011. Anti-nuclear activists in Australia note similarities between the bombs ending the war, and the disaster at Fukushima.
Daily Yomiuri Online carried a description of memorial events in Hiroshima in 2008, from Yomiuri Shimbun:
NAGASAKI–The Nagasaki municipal government held a ceremony Saturday marking the 63rd anniversary of the atomic bombing of the city, at which participants called for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
A total of 5,650 A-bomb survivors, representatives of victims’ families from around the nation and Nagasaki citizens participated in the ceremony. Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda also attended the ceremony, which was held in Nagasaki Peace Park near ground zero.
Nagasaki Mayor Tomihisa Taue read out the Nagasaki Peace Declaration, which urges the worldwide abolition of nuclear weapons.
“Human beings have no future unless nuclear weapons are eliminated. We shall clearly say no to nuclear weapons,” Taue said.
The ceremony started at 10:40 a.m. Three books listing the names of 3,058 people confirmed to have died as a result of the bombing in the past year were placed inside a memorial box in front of the Peace Statue.
The total number of books listing the names of the deceased is 147, and the number of names is 145,984.
Representatives of surviving victims, bereaved families, the prime minister and Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba placed flowers at the site.
At 11:02 a.m., the time the atomic bomb struck, ceremony participants offered a silent prayer. At the same time, local high school students rang the Bells of Nagasaki.
In the peace declaration, Taue read from an academic paper written by four people, including a former U.S. secretary of state, which promoted a new policy for developing nuclear weapons. The proposal encouraged countries to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The mayor said world nuclear powers “should sincerely fulfill their responsibility of nuclear disarmament,” and urged the government to pass the three nonnuclear principles into law.
This year also marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of Takashi Nagai, a medical doctor who helped rescue of victims after the bombing.
The mayor referenced one of the doctor’s remarks, saying: “There are no winners or losers in a war. There is only destruction.”
Shigeko Mori, 72, representing survivors of the bombing, read out an oath for peace that said Japan should promote its Constitution and the three nonnuclear principles to the rest of the world to prevent nuclear proliferation.
Fukuda gave a speech, saying, “Japan should play a responsible role in the international community as a nation cooperating for peace.”
(Aug. 10, 2008)
Other information:
Other related posts at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub:
Remembering that U.S. involvement in World War II as a combatant came after the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, one may respect and appreciate the Japanese national desire to commemorate the brutal end of the war with conversations about peace and how to achieve it. The film below is a short, touching introduction to the Hiroshima Peace Museum website:
4 Comments | 1941-1945, Atomic Bomb, Hiroshima, History, Nuclear weapons, Travel, World War II | Tagged: 1941-1945, Atomic Bomb, Hiroshima, History, Nucleaer Weapons, Science, Travel, World War II | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Talking about Tea Party and Republican economics in the next few months? You’ll need to have Wolfgang Pauli’s wisdom at your fingertips:
Wolfgang Pauli, circa 1945 – Nobel Foundation photo
That’s not right. It’s not even wrong.
Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958), as quoted by R. Peierls
From Wikipedia:
Peierls (1960) writes of Pauli, “… a friend showed him the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli’s views. Pauli remarked sadly ‘That’s not right. It’s not even wrong'”. (Peierls R (1960). “Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, 1900-1958”. Biographical memoirs of fellows of the Royal Society 5: 174-92. Royal Society (Great Britain))
Pauli won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1945: ” At this stage of the development of atomic theory, Wolfgang Pauli made a decisive contribution through his discovery in 1925 of a new law of Nature, the exclusion principle or Pauli principle. The 1945 Nobel Prize in Physics has been awarded to Pauli for this discovery.”
3 Comments | Accuracy, Famous quotes, History, Physics, Quotes, Science | Tagged: Accuracy, Famous quotes, History, Physics, Quotes, Science, Wolfgang Pauli | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Larry Moran is much the overachiever, sort of the Hermoine Granger of evolution wizards scientists.
So, we shouldn’t be surprised that his hosting of the Carnival of Evolution #38 at his rollicking blog Sandwalk resulted in one of the longest, largest, most jam-packed blog carnivals ever.
Go see — unless you’re a creationist. If you’re a creationist you’ll see so much that you’ll begin to doubt your faith in creationism and anti-science, and then you’re likely to confuse that with doubt of God, and you can’t stand such a faith trial.
Yeah, you, Don McLeroy. And you, Granville Sewell. More knowledge than you can hold in your head.
Which article in the Carnival of Evolution is your favorite, Dear Reader?
Tip of the old scrub brush to P. S. Myers at Pharyngula (soon moving . . .).
38 Comments | Biology, Evolution, Science | Tagged: Biology, Cool Stuff, Evolution, Larry Moran, Sandwalk, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
I get e-mail — this time from Moms Rising, wondering whether Campbell’s soup should have Bisphenol-A in it:
Ed,
“Eww Eww Toxic”
That’s our new jingle for Campbell’s soup. No more “M’m M’m Good,” we now think “Eww Eww Toxic” is more appropriate.
Why the “Eww” jingle?
Because, according to experts, Campbell’s Soup Company still uses toxic Bisphenol A (BPA) in their canned goods, despite the fact that it’s proven harmful.[1] In April, MomsRising joined the Breast Cancer Fund and over 20,000 parents to ask three major canned food manufacturers, Campbell’s, Del Monte, and General Mills, what they are doing about Bisphenol A (BPA) in their canned goods. Two companies replied, offering rough timelines for replacing BPA, or sharing details about which products are BPA-free.
We have yet to see the Campbell’s Soup Company respond to those 20,000 people. We’re not going to let the company that markets directly to kids with products like Dora the Explorer “Kidshape Soups” get away with ignoring parents. [2] Especially when parents have questions about a toxic chemical linked to breast cancer, infertility, early onset puberty, ADHD, and obesity. [3]
Sign on now to our open letter to Campbell’s demanding a response to one key question: What are you doing to phase out BPA in your cans and what safe alternative are you replacing it with?
http://action.momsrising.org/go/1078?akid=2863.152249.ftacUO&t=4
With two billion pounds of BPA produced annually in the U.S., it’s no wonder that over 90% of Americans have detectable levels of BPA in their bodies.[4]
Removing BPA from all canned foods is a great first step in reducing our nation’s BPA exposure. Canned goods are used in many ways. And, even if you have the time and resources to get canned goods out of your kitchen, it’s super hard to keep them away from your family. BPA exposure from canned goods shows up on your plate at the local pizza joint, at a five star restaurant, in your children’s school, or at the local food bank.
Let’s work together to make sure that Campbell’s is serving up some “M’m M’m Good” answers to consumers and taking real action on BPA!
Let Campbell’s know you want a response on how they’re going to phase out BPA today:
http://action.momsrising.org/go/1078?akid=2863.152249.ftacUO&t=6
*And please forward this email along to your friends and family!
Together we can build a safer and healthier nation for all of our children.
— Sarah, Claire, Kristin, and the whole MomsRising Team.
P.S Thank you to our partners on this important issue: Breast Cancer Fund! Learn more about their exciting new study & their work here: www.breastcancerfund.org/foodpackagingstudy
P.P.S. Tell us why you want toxins out of your family’s life. The personal experiences and thoughts of real moms and dads across this country make a big impact on legislators and can help change the way our country handles toxins. Share your experience today.
[1] Consumer Reports and Breast Cancer Fund
[2] Campbell’s Soup Company, Kids Soups
[3] Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
[4] Breast Cancer FundLike what we’re doing? Donate: We’re a bootstrap, low overhead, mom run organization. Your donations make the work of MomsRising.org possible–and we deeply appreciate your support. Every little bit counts.
What do you think? Justified campaign?
Why isn’t there a government agency watching out for us on this issue? Who stands up for the little mom?
_____________
Need more information? BPA a new issue for you?
National Toxicology Program assessment of dangers of BPA – “The NTP reached the following conclusions on the possible effects of current exposures to bisphenol A on human development and reproduction. Note that the possible levels of concern, from lowest to highest, are negligible concern, minimal concern, some concern, concern, and serious concern.”
And, again from NIEHS’s NTP:
Most plastic containers with BPA, but not all, feature a recycling symbol, #3 or #7.
If I am concerned, what can I do to prevent exposure to BPA?
Some animal studies suggest that infants and children may be the most vulnerable to the effects of BPA. Parents and caregivers, can make the personal choice to reduce exposures of their infants and children to BPA:
- Don’t microwave polycarbonate plastic food containers. Polycarbonate is strong and durable, but over time it may break down from over use at high temperatures.
- Polycarbonate containers that contain BPA usually have a #7 on the bottom
- Reduce your use of canned foods.
- When possible, opt for glass, porcelain or stainless steel containers, particularly for hot food or liquids.
- Use baby bottles that are BPA free.
6 Comments | cancer, Environment, Environmental protection, Food history, Food Safety, Health care, Patents, Regulation, Science | Tagged: BPA, Breast Cancer, Campbell Soups, environment, Food Safety, health, Parents, Regulation, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Great time-lapse video of the tides at Hopewell Rocks, Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick.
Teachers, can you get a decent geography warm-up with this video? Every high school kid should know about the Bay of Fundy, one of nature’s greater phenomena.
More:
Another time-lapse video of the tides at Fundy, taken at Halls Harbour, a different perspective:
Leave a Comment » | Canada, Erosion, Geography - Physical, Geography - Political, Natural history, Nature, Science | Tagged: Bay of Fundy, Canada, Erosion, geography, Hopewell Rocks, Nature, New Brunswick, Science, Tides | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Sometimes in unexpected places you stumble across a factoid that makes sense out of a lot of other factoids, turning them into enlightening, and perhaps useful, information.
Steven Milloy used to be a Monsanto lobbyist? Is that accurate?
Among the allegations, that Monsanto aggressively protects its patents on seeds and other products sold to farmers, and that the company may not be above a bit of skullduggery to push farmers and, in this case, milk processors, to use Monsanto products. Watch for Steven Milloy’s name to pop up in the last paragraph. The site quotes a Vanity Fair article on Monsanto from 2008.
Even if Monsanto’s efforts to secure across-the-board labeling changes should fall short, there’s nothing to stop state agriculture departments from restricting labeling on a dairy-by-dairy basis. Beyond that, Monsanto also has allies whose foot soldiers will almost certainly keep up the pressure on dairies that don’t use Monsanto’s artificial hormone. Jeff Kleinpeter knows about them, too.
He got a call one day from the man who prints the labels for his milk cartons, asking if he had seen the attack on Kleinpeter Dairy that had been posted on the Internet. Kleinpeter went online to a site called StopLabelingLies, which claims to “help consumers by publicizing examples of false and misleading food and other product labels.” There, sure enough, Kleinpeter and other dairies that didn’t use Monsanto’s product were being accused of making misleading claims to sell their milk.
There was no address or phone number on the Web site, only a list of groups that apparently contribute to the site and whose issues range from disparaging organic farming to downplaying the impact of global warming. “They were criticizing people like me for doing what we had a right to do, had gone through a government agency to do,” says Kleinpeter. “We never could get to the bottom of that Web site to get that corrected.”
As it turns out, the Web site counts among its contributors Steven Milloy, the “junk science” commentator for FoxNews.com and operator of junkscience.com, which claims to debunk “faulty scientific data and analysis.” It may come as no surprise that earlier in his career, Milloy, who calls himself the “junkman,” was a registered lobbyist for Monsanto.
If accurate, it’s a sort of “origins” story — I don’t think it explains Milloy’s current advocacy of DDT and almost all other things anti-environmentally-wise. Nor does it explain Milloy’s penchant for making things up whole cloth. Does Fox News disclose this anywhere?
It does suggest his dirty tricks chops against environmentalists and scientists get exercised more than I had imagined.
The story is an interesting and odd footnote in the debunking of the unholy War on Science that claims Rachel Carson was wrong, and DDT is harmless and right.
More:
4 Comments | DDT, Environment, Environmental protection, History, Junk science, Politics, Rachel Carson, Voodoo science | Tagged: DDT, environment, History, Junk science, Politics, Rachel Carson, Science, Steven Milloy, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
A lawyer complains in the Wall Street Journal that the plan from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) intended to help the endangered spotted owl should be dismissed because, well, the spotted owl is still endangered, and after all, didn’t the spotted owl personally shut down the entire lumber industry in the Northwest?
Well, no, the owl didn’t shut down the mills.
But before we discuss, can we at least read the shorthand version of what USFWS has to say? Here’s the press release on the plan:
Plan Marks New Route for Recovering Northern Spotted Owl and Promoting Healthy Northwest Forests
Contact:
Janet Lebson
503-231-6179
janet_lebson@fws.gov
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today released a final revised recovery plan for the threatened northern spotted owl, stepping up actions that so far have helped stem but not reverse the old-growth forest raptor’s decline. The revised plan identifies three main priorities for achieving spotted owl recovery: protecting the best of its remaining habitat, actively managing forests to improve forest health, and reducing competition from barred owls, a native of eastern North America that has progressively moved into the spotted owl’s range in Washington, Oregon, and northern California.
“For more than 20 years, northern spotted owl recovery has been a focal point of broader forest conservation efforts in the Pacific Northwest,” said Robyn Thorson, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Pacific Northwest Regional Director. “This revised recovery plan is based on sound science and affirms that the best things we can do to help the spotted owl turn the corner are conserving its habitat, managing the barred owl, and restoring vitality to our forests.”
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will use the recovery plan to work with land managers in the Pacific Northwest such as the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, as well as other federal and non-federal landowners, to advise them on habitat management activities that can benefit the spotted owl and contribute to improved forest health.
Because about 20 million acres of U.S. Forest Service lands and about 2 million acres of Bureau of Land Management lands are potentially affected by recovery plan recommendations, the three agencies worked together on key recommendations related to forest management. Both agencies provided formal letters of support for the plan’s recovery goals.
“This recovery plan is a welcome update to the state of the science surrounding the northern spotted owl,” said Cal Joyner, Deputy Regional Forester for the Pacific Northwest Region of the U.S. Forest Service. “The plan will help us implement a mix of actively managing and protecting habitat to best contribute to conservation and recovery.”
“The recovery plan provides space to develop ecological forestry principles and to actively manage our public forests to achieve the twin goals of improving ecological conditions and supplying timber,” said Ed Shepard, Oregon/Washington State Director for the Bureau of Land Management. “We look forward to continuing our close cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service as we put the science from the recovery plan to work in our planning, in evaluating proposed timber projects, and in improving forest health.”
Overarching recommendations in the revised plan include:
- Conservation of spotted owl sites and high-value spotted owl habitat across the landscape. This means the habitat protections provided under land use plans on federal land will continue to be a focus of recovery, but protection of other areas is likely needed to achieve full success (including some of the lands previously slated for potential timber harvest on federal lands, and possibly non-federal lands in certain parts of the owl’s range where federal lands are limited).
- Active management of forests to make forest ecosystems healthier and more resilient to the effects of climate change and catastrophic wildfire, disease, and insect outbreaks. This involves an “ecological forestry” approach in certain areas that will restore ecosystem functioning and resiliency. This may include carefully applied prescriptions such as fuels treatment to reduce the threat of severe fires, thinning, and restoration to enhance habitat and return the natural dynamics of a healthy forest landscape. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommends this approach in areas where it promotes ecosystem function and is in the best long-term interest of spotted owl recovery. The agency also strongly affirms adaptive management principles to continually evaluate and refine active forest management techniques.
- Management of the encroaching barred owl to reduce harm to spotted owls. Most of the recovery actions the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has carried out since finalizing the spotted owl’s 2008 recovery plan deal with the barred owl threat. A major part of this is developing a proposal for experimental removal of barred owls in certain areas to see what effect that would have on spotted owls, and then to evaluate whether or not broad scale removal should be considered. This portion of the 2008 plan was not significantly revised.
“While the new recovery plan has been refined and improved from the 2008 version, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service continues to implement the most important recommendations,” said Acting U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Rowan Gould. “We have begun to address the barred owl threat, improved survey protocols, and developed incentives for private landowners to voluntarily participate in recovery actions. We look forward to expanding conservation partnerships to contribute to the spotted owl’s recovery.”
Since the northern spotted owl was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 21 years ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and recovery partners are benefitting from far more information on what factors most affect its survival and productivity. This includes a broader body of scientific knowledge on the species itself and forest ecosystem dynamics — including variables such as climate change and the role of natural disturbances such as wildfire. Recovery partners also are taking advantage of new science and technology to develop more precise tools for analyzing how different strategies can contribute to recovery.
In addition, land managers have made significant strides in advancing active forest management techniques to promote the health and resilience of forest ecosystems. The recovery plan emphasizes the concept of adaptive management to apply new knowledge and science to those techniques on an ongoing basis. This is a more mainstream approach today than in 1994 when the Northwest Forest Plan was created to address the needs of several forest-dependent species, including the spotted owl, and the region’s timber industry.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed a final recovery plan specific to the spotted owl for the first time in 2008. As the agency and recovery partners moved forward in implementing many recommendations in the 2008 plan, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initiated a targeted scientific revision to some portions of that plan after facing legal challenges and critical reviews from leading scientific organizations in the conservation community.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service tapped the knowledge and perspectives of public and private sector experts over the last two years in developing this revised plan, the draft of which was released in September 2010. The agency held more than 30 workshops and meetings with public and private partners throughout the spotted owl’s range to share information, evaluate options, and incorporate valuable input during the revised plan’s development. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service accepted public comments on the draft revised plan for a 90-day period and received more than 11,700 comments. In April 2011, the agency released an updated Appendix C, relating to a new habitat modeling tool, for an additional 30-day public comment period and received about 20 public comments.
The revised recovery plan does not include recommendations from the 2008 plan for a new habitat conservation network of “Managed Owl Conservation Areas.” Rather than creating a potentially confusing new land classification, the plan identifies the scientific rationale and parameters for habitat protection and will revise the spotted owl’s designated critical habitat to reflect the latest scientific information about areas essential for the owl’s recovery. Identifying this habitat through the critical habitat process — as the ESA intended — will be more efficient and provide land managers and the public with additional opportunities for review and comment.
For a recovery timeline, Frequently Asked Questions, related information, and the recovery plan itself, visit www.fws.gov/oregonfwo.
America’s fish, wildlife and plant resources belong to all of us, and ensuring the health of imperiled species is a shared responsibility. The Service is working to actively engage conservation partners and the public in the search for improved and innovative ways to conserve and recover imperiled species. To learn more about the Service’s Endangered Species program, go to http://www.fws.gov/endangered/.
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. We are both a leader and trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for our scientific excellence, stewardship of lands and natural resources, dedicated professionals and commitment to public service. For more information on our work and the people who make it happen, visit www.fws.gov. Connect with our Facebook page at www.facebook.com/usfws, follow our tweets at www.twitter.com/usfwshq, watch our YouTube Channel at http://www.youtube.com/usfws and download photos from our Flickr page at http://www.flickr.com/photos/usfwshq.
-FWS-
Stay tuned for the response, and my response to the response.
_____________
Oooooh, bonus! Story in the Daily Astorian says saving the spotted owl habitat also ties up carbon, helping out with the fight against global warming.
Leave a Comment » | Economics, endangered species, Environmental protection, Forestry, Geography - Economic, Geography - Physical, History, Politics, Science, trees, Wildlife | Tagged: Conservation, Economics, Endangered Species Act, Environmental protection, Forestry, geography, History, Law, Politics, Science, Spotted Owl, US Fish and Wildlife Service, USFWS, Wildlife | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Is the Somalia drought caused by global warming, even partly? Voice of America reports, with Rebecca Ward (can’t find the “non-autoplay” button in the HTML; see the thing below the fold):
4 Comments | Africa, Climate change, Global warming, History, Science | Tagged: Africa, Climate change, Global warming, History, Science, Somalia, Voice of America | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Our memorial to George Washington neared completion in the 1880s. For an obelisk more than 550 feet tall to honor the Father of Our Country, planners decided to top it with a “capstone” made of the what was, then the most precious metal known on Earth. The top is a pyramid, and the top of the pyramid is a one-pound block of this precious metal.
What was the most precious metal known to humans in 1880? Gold? Platinum? Tungsten, perhaps, not yet chosen to be filaments in the yet-to-be-perfected Edison “A” lightbulb?
Washington’s Monument is topped with aluminum.
Yeah, aluminum.
“But,” you begin to sputter in protest, “aluminum is almost ubiquitous in soils, and it’s cheap — we use it in soda cans because it’s cheaper than steel or glass, for FSM’s sake!”
Today, yes. In 1880, no. Aluminum requires massive amounts of energy to refine the stuff from ore. Aluminum is common in soils and rocks, but it couldn’t be refined out easily for use.
That problem’s solution was electricity, generated from coal or especially falling water. For a while, our nation’s biggest aluminum refining plants resided in the state of Washington, not because they were close to aluminum ore deposits, but because there was a lot of cheap electricity available from the Grand Coulee and other dams on the mighty Columbia River. It was cheaper to transport the ore long distances for refining than to transport the electricity.
This history reveals a lot about science, history, energy use, resource conservation and economics — areas in which most climate denialists appear to me to lack knowledge and productive experience.
Peter Sinclair more often explains why climate denialists get things wrong. In this video, the first of what could be a significant series, Sinclair explains how we got to where we are today in energy use and conservation — or energy overuse and lack of conservation, if the Tea Party and Rand Paul get their way. (Notice the ingots of aluminum shown in the historic film footage.)
This is history which has been largely covered up, partly because so much critical stuff happened in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, a time the internet doesn’t cover well.
Leave a Comment » | Climate change, climate_change, Conservation, Economics, Environment, Environmental protection, Global warming, Green Politics, History, Politics, Science, Technology | Tagged: Climate change, Conservation, Economics, Energy, Global warming, Green Politics, History, Politics, Science, Technology | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Ed Darrell on Texas's Colorado River
Come on in, the water's fine. Come often: Cleanliness is next to godliness.
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 