Chemistry Videos Unveil Problems With Battery Technology

The price and availability of technology has dropped significantly over the last few decades.  With the availability of products increasing, the quality and size of the products has greatly improved too.  These developments have resulted in a range of new applications for better quality electronic gadgets.  Traditionally, the highest quality of electronic devices were reserved only for people with large amounts of 'disposable income' (i.e. wealthy).  Now, with the drive of technology by all avenues, each of us have access to great products.



Why do I mention the obvious with respect to the emergence of technology?  The chief reason is that with the emergence of a wide range of high quality devices comes greater access to quality entertainment.  To name just one, look at the increase of quality videos which are being produced by the public with everyday technology.  In the current blog, I would like to highlight a new website which uses conventional videos to show the unique aspects of chemistry.

Beautiful Chemistry?

Chemistry is beautiful.  Of course, if you were to ask a host of people the following question: "Is Chemistry Beautiful?" The answer would vary considerably.  Part of the issue is that visualizing chemistry is difficult on the 'molecular scale'.  Nanotechnology (on the order of a billionth of a meter -- 1/1,000,000,000 meter -- super small) has unveiled chemistry which was previously restricted to chemists minds -- abstract thinking.



Now, with the aid of technology and resolution, the possibility of viewing chemistry phenomenon is within reach on many levels.  An example is from a blog post I wrote earlier this year regarding new chemistry technology which prevents batteries from catching fire.  One of the causes of fires in lithium ion batteries (batteries in general) is thermal runaway.  This is caused by a 'short circuit' in the battery.  A cause of 'short circuit' was described as "growth spurs" as shown below in the image taken from the original article:

Source: Physics Today

The above image is 'static' -- meaning taken as a snapshot in time.  Scientists wonder how the 'growth spurs' form over time.  What if the emergence of the 'spur' could be tracked in time?  What if the visualization of formation was possible in real-time?  This would enhance the understanding of the battery chemists working on this complicated problem.  Below is an example of such a visualization of a chemical process -- which stands to change the understanding of technology challenges which stand in our way currently.



In a recent video created by the company "Beautiful Chemistry" - the spurs or dendrites which plague battery manufacturers are shown growing in real-time as shown below:

Amazing.



Can you imagine if a variety of chemical challenges were made visible to us?  How would that change the technology landscape?  The problem is inherently very complex.  Being able to see inside the reactions as they occur in real time is important but will not solve the entire puzzle.  In addition to improving the understanding of challenging issues/problems for researchers, the new technology could be incorporated into the educational community to improve education.   There is a lack of participation (education) in STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) in the United States which is resulting in a lapse of competitiveness on the world stage.  At least, that is the forecasts by members of the educational and policy communities currently.  Which is terrible.



One of the greatest difficulties in learning about chemistry and physics along with biology (physical and life sciences) is the abstract conceptualization of the material.  As humans, we are not naturally built to think of the abstract world.  The world in terms of atoms and molecules nonetheless subatomic particles.  Although, a certain percentage of people are able to learn how to and are scientists.



Each of us have the potential to think in such a manner -- but each of us have a subjective threshold for understanding such material.  With better visualization tools available, the threshold has been lowered.  An example of this is a recent video I embedded into a blog post on a virtual tour of a human cell.  Additionally, in another blog post, an additional video shows the virtual tour of a plant cell.  These two videos display the great potential in understanding the abstract that occurs on scales which are super small compared to the human scale.



The educational community is in a great transition currently trying to understand how to change the traditional models which are not working any longer.  An educational expert I spoke to recently said that over the last few decades, there are multiple iterations of changes which are small.  I would argue that incorporating videos like the one above along with virtual reality systems into the educational landscape will be a large leap.  I am excited about the future of the physical and life sciences from an educational standpoint.  Hopefully, funding will be directed toward projects aimed at improving the education by incorporating new videos like the ones shown on this site.




Below are related blog posts:


A Virtual Tour Of A Plant Cell? Really?


A Virtual Tour Of A Human Cell?


New Chemistry Shows Promise In Preventing Fires In Lithium Ion Batteries!!!


The Concept Of Sound Made Simple!


Technology Allows Chemists To View Chemical Reactions -- Example: Sodium On Water!

A Perfect Example Of Why Science Outreach Is Critical: Science Needs Simplification!


Ambassador Of Chemistry Has Followed Me All Of My Life -- Even In the Military

Trump Administration's Enthusiasm For Coal Energy At Bonn (Germany) Is Met With Disappointment

Over the past week and a half, world leaders have been meeting in Bonn (Germany) to continue discussion around the Paris Agreement (or Paris Accord).  Remember, back in June of this year, President Trump announced that his intentions were to pull the United States from the Paris Agreement as soon as possible.

Updates At Bonn From Politico...

While the rest of the world heads away from depending on coal for the production of energy, the Trump Administration is promoting coal on the international stage as shown below in the excerpt:

ADMINISTRATION'S FOSSIL FUELS PITCH FALLS FLAT: The Trump administration made few friends with its promotion of fossil fuels and nuclear energy on the sidelines of an international climate change conference Monday, POLITICO's Emily Holden and Kalina Oroschakoff report from Bonn, Germany. Protesters interrupted the only public event planned by the Trump administration, a panel of White House aides and industry officials arguing that fossil fuels would be around for decades but could be made more efficient to address climate-related concerns. "This panel is only controversial if we choose to bury our heads in the sand and ignore the realities of the global energy system," White House energy aide George David Banks said.

Some diplomats were dismayed that the U.S. would appear in Bonn to try to bolster American coal sales. "There's no such thing as clean fossil fuels. ... We can't move to the future like that," Tuaoi Uepa, a delegate from the Marshall Islands, said, describing the event as "ridiculous." Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was blunter: "Promoting coal at a climate summit is like promoting tobacco at a cancer summit."

Trump's political appointees also appear to be getting the cold-shoulder from the official State Department negotiating team, Bloomberg Environment reports . The formal COP23 talks are focused on technical issues around implementing the 2015 Paris agreement, and the career diplomats representing the U.S. in those seem primarily focused on nitty-gritty technical priorities such as preventing developing countries from dodging strict transparency requirements. Bloomberg reports the political appointees are being housed in a hotel an hour away from the conference, rather than downtown with the rest of the delegation, and have been frozen out of bilateral meetings with countries including China and Fiji. "They don't want us here," one political appointee told the news service.

The United States has been dependent on coal for a LONG time.  Over the past couple of decades, the United States along with other nations have been diverting investment into other forms of energy.  Renewable sources of energy are the up and coming in the investment world.  Previously, I wrote a blog post detailing this simple fact.   And that should be a big indicator for the leadership in the United States.  Even Congressional leaders understand this but are still quiet in order to let Americans speak through the ballot box.



Even India -- who has not had the chance to enjoy the full benefits of the coal industry has started to shift away from depending or using coal to generate energy.  With this realization in mind, the shift toward renewable energy should be obvious.   Furthermore, the fact that the United States sent representatives to Bonn (Germany) for climate talks with the intention of promoting coal and nuclear power sources should be shameful -- if not present us to the rest of the world as a 'laughing stock.'  My co-worker is a native German and she reads obsessively (U.S. and German news) reports that the remainder of the world is laughing at the United States.



We should therefore not be surprised by the statements in the excerpt above, regarding the realization that the political appointees who attended were housed far away (over an hour) from the conference site.  The fact that the rest of the world "does not want the United States" to attend the conference is a big slap in the face.  Wake up United States.  Wake up President Trump.  Wake up Energy Secretary Rick Perry.  The Department of Energy is currently headed by Energy Secretary Rick Perry who has the following views regarding coal and nuclear:

ON AUTOPILOT: Sean Cunningham, the head of the Energy Department's policy office, held firm to agency talking points Monday when he defended Energy Secretary Rick Perry's controversial grid resilience plan at a National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners gathering in Baltimore: Coal and nuclear plants "came to the rescue" during the 2014 "polar vortex"; the grid is a "paramount national security issue"; and that "both of these resources need to be revived, not reviled," he said. When state commissioners asked about cost estimates, Cunningham countered with a response about the potential cost of not rescuing economically struggling plants. And when asked about whether the grid plan should be narrowed to a particular set of plants necessary for resilience, Cunningham basically said the proposal was narrowly written.

The press didn't have any better luck. When reporters gathered around him, one asked why DOE officials like to reference the polar vortex. "Please just read the text of the NOPR and the accompanying letter [covers] all this," Cunningham said before taking off.

The excerpt above is actually no surprise given that Energy Secretary went before Congress last month and promoted coal and nuclear as a "back up plan" by citing the 'polar vortex' of 2014.  The video of that testimony along with comments was embedded in a blog post found here.



Over the last 10 months, President Trump has clearly demonstrated that he does not understand the Paris Agreement nor does he understand climate change.  I am not putting down on him.  I am suggesting that he surround himself by professional scientists along with others to educate himself on the current threat, future threat, and how the threats pertain to the world at large.  I would expect the same of any politician and administrator hired to consult or advise an elected official.  At least adding scientists to the cabinet would balance the viewpoints out.



Additionally, if President Trump had consultants who were offering advise which was in line with the rest of the world, the following protest of the U.S. remarks would not have happened.  Below is a video which was taken from the 'Washington Post' from the climate talks at Bonn.  The President of the United States should be embarrassed about the event unfolding in the manner that it did.  The protesters were correct to voice the words -- Keep Coal In The Ground:

Conclusion...

In closing, for those readers who have not been following the developing story with the Paris Agreement and the participation (or lack thereof) of the United States, below is a list of blog posts from this year.  Click on any of them.  Read the content and form your own opinion on the Paris Agreement.  Should the United States withdrawal?  Should the United States stay in the Paris Agreement?  These are questions which need to be answered.  I would argue that the world has collectively accepted the threat of climate change and decided to invest in alternate energy sources.


1) Friday - May 19, 2017:

Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future


2) Tuesday - May 30, 2017:

World Goes Left, While Trump Leads Right - On Climate - Why?


3) Wednesday - June 14, 2017:

Trump Goes Right On Paris Agreement, Part Of U.S. And World Head Left


4) Tuesday - July 4, 2017:

President Trump's Understanding of the Paris Agreement


5) Friday - July 7, 2017:

What Is Going To Be Discussed At The G-20 Summit in Hamburg, Germany?

6) Monday - July 17, 2017:

A Good Start: Republicans Accept Climate Change As Real


7) Thursday - August 3, 2017:

There Is No Climate Debate -- Scientific Facts Have Settled The Issue?


8) Thursday - August 17, 2017:

How Is Our Environment (Climate, etc.) Becoming Politicized?

9) Sunday - September 24, 2017:

Republicans Endorse Carbon Tax For Climate Change? Wow

10) Tuesday - October 10, 2017:

Local Politicians Are Leaving President Trump Behind In Continuing To Meet Paris Climate Agreements

11) Monday - October 23, 2017:

What Does Testifying Before Congress Look Like For Secretary of Energy Rick Perry?

How Many Turkey's Are Served On Thanksgiving Day? How Many People Served?

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!!!!!  As each of us gather around the table to give thanks to the harvest of the year, there is plenty to think about.  Traditionally, at this time of year, a series of blog posts (including this one) are distributed digitally to lay out fun facts for the family to have fun with through quizzing each other along with discussions.  Here is a traditional 'fact sheet' filled with numbers which will blow your mind.  What am I presenting here this year?



Thanksgiving is a holiday where a HUGE meal is cooked for the entire family (and extended family in some cases).  One of the best aspects of Thanksgiving meal is the 'left overs' for additional meals.  The thought of excess food started getting me thinking about 'food insecurity' -- those who are without food periodically.  The number is staggering.  I decided to tally up the total number of Turkey's distributed (sold) throughout the United States and calculate the number of possible people that could be fed.  Finally, I wanted to know how does that number compare to those who are 'food insecure'.  Below are the calculations and results.

How Many Turkey's Are Sold In U.S.?

Considering that the Thanksgiving meal is composed of many parts (mash potatoes, cranberry sauce, green bean casserole, stuffing, etc.), I decided to restrict my line of questioning only to the Turkey component.  Which means, the total amount of Turkeys will only be counted in the following blog post -- neglecting all other components of the meal.  Therefore, the numbers will be even larger (the result) when considering the other components of the Thanksgiving meal.



As I mentioned earlier, I was interested in figuring out the number of Turkey's that are sold in the United States for Thanksgiving.  To do so, I typed into a search engine the following question: How Many Turkeys Are Consumed On Thanksgiving?  The answer is shown below:

Wow!  46 million Turkeys will be cooked and cut open to feed people today.   In order to make the calculations more easily accomplished and for clarity, the number will be expressed into 'scientific notation' as follows:

That is a large amount of Turkeys which will be consumed at the dinner table in the United States .  Usually, there are 'leftovers' of excess Turkey in a given household -- i.e., each of us buy and cook too much Turkey for a given household.  I started wondering how many people could be fed with the total number of Turkeys consumed on Thanksgiving day.  The answer to this question will be 'a
range' not a single calculated number -- since Turkey's vary in weight -- i.e. not all Turkeys weigh the same.  Therefore, different weights will provide different amounts of Turkey for Thanksgiving dinner (or lunch).



Let's get started with this analysis...To arrive at an answer, another question needs to be determined -- "How Much Turkey Is Consumed By A Single Person?"   If the following question is entered into a search engine: How Many People Can A Single Turkey Feed? The answer is shown below:

As I mentioned above, the answer should be a range instead of a single number.  If the first link is chosen, the following general statement is obtained regarding the average amount of Turkey which is consumed by each person sitting at the dinner table is shown below:

Each person will eat on average around a pound of Turkey.  Good.  Next, Turkeys vary in weight overall.  Therefore, another question needed to be asked to "Google": What Is The Average Weight Of A Turkey?  The answer is shown below:

The answer provides a range -- which I suspected all along.  Which means that the final answer will also be 'a range' -- i.e. not a single number.  With range of weights known for Turkeys sold, the range can be calculated of two total amounts of Turkey -- total pounds of Turkey -- as shown below:

The answer above indicates that the total amount of Turkey produced from the total amount of Turkeys purchased in the United States will range from 510,000,0000 - 1,104,000,000 pounds of Turkey (510 million to 1.1 billion pounds of Turkey).  From above, we know that the average amount of Turkey consumed by each person is around 1 pound.  With this conversion factor, we can calculate the range of people who will be able to be fed (w/ 510 million - 1.1 billion pounds) as shown below:

Wow!  The total amount of Turkey which can be extracted from 46 million Turkeys is enough to feed 510 million - 1.1 billion people -- depending on the size of the Turkeys sold.  I mentioned this to a hotel employee this morning and she remarked: "Wow - 46 million Turkeys died for us today?"  That is a staggering amount of Turkey and people who could be fed.



Unfortunately, not all of the United States citizens will be eating Turkey today for various reasons.  Some will avoid Turkey due to dietary restrictions.  Whereas others will avoid Turkey based on religious reasons (Seventh Day Adventist).  Yet others will avoid eating Turkey for reasons of choice -- i.e. a vegetarian or vegan diet.  Last but not least, some will not enjoy a Thanksgiving Turkey meal because of 'food insecurity.'   As I mentioned above, I wondered with the total amount of Turkey produced, how does that number compare to the total number of 'food insecure' people in the United States.  The answer/analysis is shown below.

Food Insecurity?

Food Insecurity?  Yes, this was a new phrase to me also until earlier this year.  I was talking to a colleague about the unfortunate aspect that a surprising percentage of our university students at California State University at Northridge are homeless.  Additionally, last semester my wife decided to donate to a 'pantry' on campus which collected food for students who were "food insecure."



The definition of "food insecurity" from the USDA Economic Research Service webpage is:

Very low food security (old label=Food insecurity with hunger): Reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.

 When I first heard of this phrase in related to our students I was amazed.  My mind was blown.  I could not wrap my mind around going without meals.  Obviously, this occurs with the unfortunate problem of chronic homelessness here in the United States.



I did not mention this unfortunate fact to disappoint or ruin anyone's Thanksgiving holiday.  I did mention this to add 'gratitude' to our daily experience today.  Be thankful.  Now, lets continue our comparison so that we can get to our Turkey meal.



Food insecurity is a major issue.  How big is the problem of 'food insecurity'?  The answer is shown below:

There are 41.2 million U.S. citizens who go periodically without food -- are 'food insecure'.  Oh my goodness.  If we take the numbers of people fed above and compare the number of 'food insecure' in the U.S. -- we get the following results.  Here is the amount of meals that the total number of Turkeys consumed on Thanksgiving could theoretically feed:

Note: the answer above indicates the upper limit of the number of meals which could be served with the total number of Turkeys sold in the U.S. for Thanksgiving holiday. Wow!

Conclusion...

Again, I did not mention 'food insecurity' to bring anyone down.  Actually, I wanted to analyze the excess amount of food made on the Thanksgiving holiday which is a more difficult issue.  Instead, I chose to limit my analysis to the total amount of Turkeys sold in the U.S. for Thanksgiving.  As you can see, the number of people possible to be fed is staggering.  Furthermore, to consider that if that total amount of Turkey was directed to those in need, a total of 27 meals would be possible.



Remember, today is a day to be thankful and celebrate family with a wonderful meal.  I hope that each reader has a wonderful Thanksgiving meal.  Think about the total amount of food being made around the United States.  Consider the additional amount of food if the total number of 'side dishes' were to be considered.  Have a wonderful day!



To find more blogs exploring large numbers reported in the news click here!

Environmental Protection Agency Is Under Fire For Recent Hires With Ties To Industry

Recently, the New York Times ran an expose titled "Why Has the E.P.A. Shifted
on Toxic Chemicals? An Industry Insider Helps Call the Shots" -- which highlighted the newly hired EPA employees Nancy Beck and Liz Bowman.  Additionally, Michael Dourson who has been nominated for a top level position is having great difficulty progressing through his senate confirmation.  These three people have had ties with industry (chemical, coal, and other) in the past before joining the Environmental Protection Agency.   Below is a video and a couple of excerpts that illustrate the change (of employees) that is taking place at the EPA and the potential consequences of these changes.



With these changes, the public is now becoming the new 'watchdog' since the changing tide of the EPA is inclined to cater to industry while putting the public at risk.  Each of us should be mindful of the change which is occurring right before our eyes.  Here is the video of an interview with Senator Cory Booker describing the dangers with the nominations to the EPA from the Trump Administration (just under 8 minutes in length):

Wow.  EPA employee Liz Bowman should not be making statements like the one contained in the video above.  This is a federal agency, not a private corporation.  Of course, the news of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt stacking the EPA with industry representatives is not completely surprising given their ties to industry.  President Trump has advocated for less regulations which are apparently "restricting business" or are "job killing regulations" over the last 10 months since he assumed office.  Although, the complete change in the environment of the EPA with the intention of "privatization" of the culture is completely frightening -- especially when the removal of regulations means threatening the environment and its inhabitants (humans along with other species).



There are concerns on behalf of the members of the Senate which were raised during the last few weeks of Dr. Michael Dourson's confirmation hearing.  Specifically, the concerns were regarding Dr. Michael Dourson's past ties and records with respect to his work in industry.  According to a recent article from the website 'The Intercept' titled "TRUMP’S EPA CHEMICAL SAFETY NOMINEE MAY BE TOO TOXIC EVEN FOR REPUBLICANS" many different officials had questions about accidents which occurred in their respective states:

Resistance to his nomination is coming from red states that have been directly harmed by chemicals Dourson has defended on behalf of industry. The senators from West Virginia, for example, might have been expected to fall in line behind Dourson. But in a hearing last month, West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito questioned the nominee about his involvement with two chemicals that have affected her state: PFOA and MCHM, both of which, Capito said, had “very much touched the lives of my fellow West Virginians.” Capito, who didn’t respond to inquiries for this story, has yet to announce how she will vote.

Dourson was responsible for setting a state standard for PFOA that was thousands of times higher than the EPA’s current safety level. His consulting company Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment also worked on MCHM, one of the chemicals that spilled into West Virginia’s Elk River in 2014, leaving some 300,000 people without drinking water.

West Virginia’s other senator, Joe Manchin, announced his intention to vote against Dourson last month. Though a Democrat, Manchin often votes with Republicans, but not this time. West Virginia is “unfortunately familiar with the dangers that can arise when we neglect to properly comply with and enforce our chemical regulations,” Manchin said in a statement.

Dourson is also facing problems in another red state struggling with chemical contamination: North Carolina. While both Republican senators from the state voted for Pruitt and Wehrum, neither has committed to Dourson. The state is home to Camp Lejeune, the military base where TCE and other carcinogenic chemicals seeped into drinking water, leading to a cluster of cancer cases. As retired Marine Jerry Ensminger pointed out in the Raleigh News and Observer, Dourson’s evaluation of TCE, which was paid for by the American Chemistry Council, calculated a safety level that was less protective than the one set by the EPA. Ensminger, whose daughter died of leukemia at Camp Lejeune, has called on his senators to oppose Dourson, whom he calls a “walking, talking example of conflict of interest.”

North Carolina is also ground zero for GenX, the latest in a family of chemicals known as PFAS to be found in drinking water. DuPont and its spinoff, Chemours, have dumped at least 1 million pounds of PFAS into North Carolina’s Cape Fear River since 1980. GenX and other PFAS are unregulated, which is limiting the state’s ability to clean it up.

The ability to regulate chemicals in the environment lies within the reach of the Environmental Protection Agency.  Methods of determining levels of toxicity are determined for a given chemical are controversial at times.  Risk assessment in industry and academia have been at odds over the last few decades.  One overarching issue is that for a research at a university to duplicate the risk associated with a given compound, the testing data needs to be known from the corporation.  Corporations are not required to hand over the information.  Just a 'safe level' to assist either concerned citizens or government agencies to set policy -- which is extremely scary.



Another troubling reality is that not all toxicologists will agree on the 'degree of toxicity' with a given chemical.  In general, there are panels which are formed and review testing data and agree on a 'safe level' for the public to be exposed to.  Although, if you were to ask each toxicologist walking the Earth today, there would not be an overwhelming agreement.  Which is why continuous debate and optimization of 'safe levels' of a given chemical must be determined over time.  With more accurate testing and more data, a more accurate 'safe level' can be set.  That does not mean that each of the current 'safe levels' are incorrect.



Recently in an article in 'The New York Times' Titled "Why Has the E.P.A. Shifted on Toxic Chemicals? An Industry Insider Helps Call the Shots" a troubling new development in the form of regulation by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has come to light.  EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has decided based on advisement from officials to insert regulation which makes the 'tracking' of dangerous chemicals more difficult:

WASHINGTON — For years, the Environmental Protection Agency has struggled to prevent an ingredient once used in stain-resistant carpets and nonstick pans from contaminating drinking water.

The chemical, perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, has been linked to kidney cancer, birth defects, immune system disorders and other serious health problems.

So scientists and administrators in the E.P.A.’s Office of Water were alarmed in late May when a top Trump administration appointee insisted upon the rewriting of a rule to make it harder to track the health consequences of the chemical, and therefore regulate it.

The revision was among more than a dozen demanded by the appointee, Nancy B. Beck, after she joined the E.P.A.’s toxic chemical unit in May as a top deputy. For the previous five years, she had been an executive at the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry’s main trade association.

The changes directed by Dr. Beck may result in an “underestimation of the potential risks to human health and the environment” caused by PFOA and other so-called legacy chemicals no longer sold on the market, the Office of Water’s top official warned in a confidential internal memo obtained by The New York Times.

Even though the chemical PerFluoroOctanoic Acid is not sold on the market anymore does not mean that 'tracking' health data is not needed.  According to the Wikipedia page for PFOA the chemical will persist in the environment indefinitely:

PFOA persists indefinitely in the environment. It is a toxicant and carcinogen in animals. PFOA has been detected in the blood of more than 98% of the general US population in the low and sub-parts per billion (ppb) range, and levels are higher in chemical plant employees and surrounding subpopulations. How general populations are exposed to PFOA is not completely understood. PFOA has been detected in industrial waste, stain resistant carpets, carpet cleaning liquids, house dust, microwave popcorn bags, water, food, some cookware and PTFE such as Teflon.

As a result of a class-action lawsuit and community settlement with DuPont, three epidemiologists conducted studies on the population surrounding a chemical plant that was exposed to PFOA at levels greater than in the general population. The studies concluded that there was probably an association between PFOA exposure and six health outcomes: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol), and pregnancy-induced hypertension.[7]

The primary manufacturer of PFOS, the 3M Company (known as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company from 1902 to 2002), began a production phase-out in 2002 in response to concerns expressed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).[8]:2 Eight other companies agreed to gradually phase out the manufacturing of the chemical by 2015.[8]:3

By 2014 EPA had listed PFOA—free acid, and PFOS—potassium salt, as emergent contaminants:

PFOA and PFOS are extremely persistent in the environment and resistant to typical environmental degradation processes. [They] are widely distributed across the higher trophic levels and are found in soil, air and groundwater at sites across the United States. The toxicity, mobility and bioaccumulation potential of PFOS and PFOA pose potential adverse effects for the environment and human health.[8]:1

PerFluoroOctanoic Acid is a robust chemical which is resistant to environmental degradation.  Which is why manufacturers enjoyed the use of the chemical in various products.  Otherwise, the chemical would break down easily and with it the product in which PFOA was incorporated into.  This is just one chemical among many which is problematic to the health and safety of the consumer.



Additionally, the 'safe levels' of a given chemical can be set by ignoring various data sets which is common and often results in setting levels much higher (which is a direct threat to human health) than should be.  As mentioned in the first excerpt above, Dr. Dourson set the threshold for PFOA 'thousands of times higher' than should be.  Imagine the damage done by his reckless behavior which was guided by industry.  Of course, he has a history of problems.  Take for instance the spill of the chemical 'MCHM' -- methylcyclohexanemethanol -- which caused over 300,000 West Virginia residents to be without water for months.



Consumers of the news will remember the controversy surrounding the toxicity (or lack thereof) of metheylcyclohexanemethanol.  Turns out that Dr. Dourson set the risk limit.  Events such as these should cause consumers to be outraged.  Furthermore, each of us should be on the phone contacting our elected official and informing them that we care about chemical safety.  Do not allow Dr. Dourson to work with the EPA any longer.  He is a consultant already -- even while seeking a higher position at the EPA.  Check out my earlier blog post which shows a letter from over 100 organizations opposing the nomination of Dr. Dourson for the position at the Environmental Protection Agency.



Conclusion...



There will always be disagreements among toxicologists about the 'safe levels' of a given chemical.  Although, with greater amount of safety data and health data -- our regulators can be more precise.  The current Administration has decided to populate the top positions at Federal agencies with people with great ties to their respective industries.  The result of this action throws more responsibility on the consumer -- i.e. the public -- to serve as the 'watchdog' for the safety of the inhabitants of the Earth.



Each of us should be trying to understand the issues at hand and weigh in (by letter writing or phoning) our elected officials.  Just the act of informing them that we care will go a long way.  They have the power to get corporations to hand over 'safety data' and demand action (prosecution) where necessary.  Furthermore, congress can act and change the quality of the system.  In order to do so, each of us needs to push them to do so.  Otherwise, the status quo is acceptable in their minds.  The status quo is unacceptable and each should be reminded of this simple fact.  We deserve to live in a healthy environment rid free of dangerous chemicals -- when possible.


Below are related blog posts.  These will help put into context the blog post above:



Listed from most recent to oldest (2017):


EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?


Is Dr. Michael Dourson Good For The EPA?


EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation


Republicans Endorse Carbon Tax For Climate Change? Wow


Democrats Question EPA Adminstrator Scott Pruitt On Historical Job Cuts At EPA


Environmental Groups Question Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Cuts


How Is Our Environment (Climate, etc.) Becoming Politicized?


A Good Start: Republicans Accept Climate Change As Real


Congress Is Not Being Honest With The Public By Passing The HONEST Act?


Why Would A President Choose To Deregulate The Environmental Protection Agency?


What Does America Drinking Water Look Like With Little-to-No Regulation?


Why Is International Climate Action Important To Your Higher Education Institution?


Scientists Write President Trump Regarding Climate Action


Does The United States Really Sell Oil To Fund Science Research?


A Republican Senator Votes "NO" For EPA Nominee Scott Pruitt For The Environment?


Should Pollution Concern Us?


Can The President Prevent The Public From Learning About Scientific Research???

Make A Huge Impact Considering The "Law of Averages"

I love reading other blogs for the diversity of issues which range from hilarious to very serious.  On this spectrum is the category "thought-provoking."  Recently, I was reading a favorite blog site of Seth Godin.  Seth offers up humorous and sometimes serious bits of thought which he releases each day.  Instead of rambling on (like I do sometimes), he releases short, succinct, and thought-provoking blog posts which will add a little to your day.  Do you believe me?  Well, probably not without reading an example, right?  Below, I cut and pasted a recent post which is a perfect example of a typical post which will stick with you throughout the day -- called the "Law of Averages":

The real law of averages

If you want to raise the standards of any group, improving the top of the heap isn't nearly as effective as focusing your effort on the base instead.

Simple example: Getting a Prius to go from 50 miles per gallon to 55 miles per gallon isn't nearly as important as getting SUVs to go from 10 miles per gallon to 15. There are two reasons for this. The first is that there are a lot more SUVs than Priuses. The second is that they use far more gallons, so a percentage increase has far more yield. (You can't average averages).

If you care about health and a culture of performance, it's tempting to push Olympic athletes to go just a tenth of a second faster. It's far more effective, though, if you can get 3,000,000 kids to each spend five more minutes a day walking instead of sitting.

Organizations pamper and challenge the few in the executive suite, imagining that one more good decision in the biz dev group could pay off. The thing is, if every one of the 10,000 customer-facing employees was more engaged and kind, it would have a far bigger impact on the company and those it serves.

I think the reason we focus on the few is that it feels more dramatic, seems more controllable and is ultimately easier. But the effective, just and important thing to do is to help the back of the line catch up.

For those who are unfamiliar with the definition of the "Law of Averages," here is an excerpt from the "Wikipedia" page:

The law of averages is the law that a particular outcome or event is inevitable or certain simply because it is statistically possible.[1][2] Depending on context or application it can be considered a valid common-sense observation or a misunderstanding of probability. This notion can lead to fallacious thinking when one becomes convinced that a particular outcome must come soon simply because it has not occurred recently (e.g. believing that because three consecutive coin flips yielded heads, the next coin flip must be virtually guaranteed to be tails).

As invoked in everyday life, the "law" usually reflects wishful thinking or a poor understanding of statistics rather than any mathematical principle. While there is a real theorem that a random variable will reflect its underlying probability over a very large sample, the law of averages typically assumes that unnatural short-term "balance" must occur.[3] Typical applications also generally assume no bias in the underlying probability distribution, which is frequently at odds with the empirical evidence.[4]

Seth Godin makes use of the "Law of Averages" in different contexts than is traditionally used. Which makes the blog post more thought provoking.  Reading widely gives a person higher chance of stumbling upon some hidden gems.  This is a good example.



Motivating change is not easy on any level.  But as Seth alludes to, going after the majority to motivate a smaller change is larger than pursuing a smaller (but perceived to be more influential) minority is true in a variety of areas of society.  This is good food for thought for advocacy - in terms of 'grass roots' efforts.  Incorporating the 'law of averages' into our thinking while attempting to change the world would indeed do us some noticeable change.  Imagine the impact of pursuing a small amount of people for a small change instead of a larger group of people for a large change.

Republicans Take Away Undocumented Immigrants Tax Cuts?

I was dumbfounded the other day when I read the following excerpt shown below from 'Politico Education' regarding undocumented immigrants:

- Undocumented families: A clause in the House Republican tax bill would block most undocumented immigrants from claiming child tax credits and tax credits for college expenses, Pro's Ted Hesson reports. "Under current tax law, an undocumented immigrant can file taxes with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, or ITIN, in lieu of a Social Security number," Hesson writes. Under the House Republican bill, ITIN would no longer be acceptable to claim child tax credits or the American Opportunity Tax Credit that covers college expenses. The change was proposed by the White House in its fiscal 2018 budget.

One would believe that the news above is coming from another nation -- certainly not the United States.  Certainly not the United States with a President who believes and propagates that undocumented immigrants do not contribute to the economy but cause crime and take away jobs.  According to the excerpt above, not only are Republican representatives acknowledging that undocumented immigrants contribute to the economy, but also PAY TAXES - wow.  That must mean that they are contributing to the nation like a citizen.  Why all the negative news then?  We have known for quite a while that our nation is a nation made of immigrants and that everyone should be treated equally.


Now, the new tax bill seems to send a gut punch to undocumented immigrants.  Why are the tax credits being torn away which help families save for school expenses and college tuition?  This is quite amazing since the new tax bill stands to help out (with tax cuts) to the top earners of the nation.  What is wrong with our elected representatives?  At least undocumented immigrants are getting some respect by the news -- that they do (as we all knew all along) contribute to the United States economy like a normal citizen would along with paying their respective amount in taxes.  I am amazed that the credits which are being taken away from undocumented immigrants for education could generate enough to offset the cuts given up at the top.  Seems fishy.



Related Blog Posts:


Activist Ralph Nader Calls To Each Pillar Of Society - A Call To Action.


Undergraduate Institution Leads The Change In Publications -- Yeah!


President Trump's Immigration Rhetoric Damages International Science Student Enrollment


The Biotech Industry Takes A Stance Against Immigration Ban


International Students Make American Science Stronger


Can One Community Organization Change Regional Transportation Habits?

Veteran's Day -- A Day To Be Thankful

Today is Veteran's Day in the United States of America.  A day to pay respect to those who have served our wonderful country in the past, present, and who continue to do so.  A day to remember those who did not make the trip back home from the battlefield.  A day to remember those who have given the ultimate sacrifice (lost their lives for our country).  This is the cost of freedom in the USA.  I will share a memory (as a veteran) which arises every Veteran's Day in my mind.


I am a veteran.  I remember one of the greatest feelings in the world.  What might that feeling be?  When I would "deploy" to the Middle East (1996-200), I would miss the United States of America with each day (month) passing.  One of the best feelings was to feel the aircraft landing in South Carolina at Shaw Air Force Base.



When the wheels bounced slightly followed by the feeling of the entire airplane being grounded, I felt a rush surge through my body -- along with the other soldiers on board.  The excitement would run sky high to see those family members waiting to greet their respective soldiers back from a deployment.  My biological family was in California, but my military family would always find a way to have a fellow service member there to greet each of us back to the soil of the United States of America.  As I stepped off of the airplane, I would see a giant American Flag displayed in the hanger (the fuel shop hanger) in front of me with the following song by Lee Greenwood being blared in the background.  I will forever remember the image and sound until I die (here two examples of greeting ceremonies - Example 1 and Example 2).  Here is the song below:

Last but not least, there are those who have returned from the battlefield in physical person who are changed and have great trouble adjusting to life back home.  Below is a video which conveys the sense of despair and lost of those who suffer irreparable trauma in the service for your freedom.  Take a few minutes to think about the cost of freedom.

Not only do we need to think of them on this day, we need to look out for them when in need.  If you have a friend or a family member who is suffering from mental health problems associated with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), please do not hesitate but seek help from medical professionals immediately.  Their lives could depend on it.  Last but not least, there are those who have given the ultimate sacrifice (their lives) and will be remembered forever with gratitude for their service.  Additionally, last year, I wrote a short post which included promises to Veterans from the present Presidential Administration.  There is no harm in reminding our elected officials of the need to help those in need. 




Keep these images in mind as you go on throughout your busy day either working or celebrating the day off for Veteran's.  Have a safe but thoughtful Weekend.

EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?

With the succession of each new presidential administration comes changes to policy which are motivated by the comments made on the campaign trail.  I understand that.  Further, I understand if the new administration would like to "hide" any comments made on federal agency websites regarding climate change.  Alright, I admit that I really do not understand the logic behind that, but I understand if that is a motivation.  Fine, but the results cannot be removed -- just hidden behind new language which suits the new administration's goals.



What recently baffled me was for the Environmental Protection Agency to completely suppress scientists from attending a scientific conference.  The main objective at such a conference is to update the scientific community on new scientific results.  By restricting the scientists from attending, the EPA Administration is effectively suppressing the dissemination of science.  Yes, these results had to do with climate change.  Below is the brief summary of the suppression on behalf of the EPA and the results which were suppressed.  This is not good and should not continue in the future.

Scientific Results?

Recently, the results of a scientific study were suppressed as mentioned above.  In an article titled "EPA Keeps Scientists from Speaking About Report on Climate" from the trade journal "Laboratory Equipment" comes the news regarding the EPA preventing their staff from speaking at a conference:

The Environmental Protection Agency kept three scientists from appearing at a Monday event about a report that deals in part with climate change.

The scientists were expected to discuss a report on the health of Narragansett Bay, New England’s largest estuary. The EPA didn’t explain exactly why the scientists were told not to.

“EPA supports the Narragansett Bay Estuary, and just this month provided the program a $600,000 grant,” agency spokeswoman Nancy Grantham said in a statement Monday. “EPA scientists are attending, they simply are not presenting; it is not an EPA conference.”

Thomas Borden, program director of the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, which published the report, told The Associated Press that Wayne Munns, director of EPA’s Atlantic Ecology Division, called him Friday afternoon to say two staffers who work out of its research lab in the town of Narragansett had been advised that they could not attend. Munns did not give him an explanation, but Borden said he understood that the decision came from EPA headquarters in Washington.

One of the staffers, Autumn Oczkowski, was scheduled to give the keynote at an afternoon workshop session. Another, Rose Martin, was scheduled to speak on a panel.

“We’ve been working with more than five researchers in that lab who have contributed substantial elements to our report,” Borden said.

WOW!! This should stand out in anyone's mind who is affiliated with a scientific organization as a dangerous act by the government.  Evidently, the EPA Administration is allowing the scientists to attend the conference.  Although, the scientists are not allowed to present or attend a specific session on climate change.  Take the paragraph taken from above shown below regarding funding and the conference:

“EPA supports the Narragansett Bay Estuary, and just this month provided the program a $600,000 grant,” agency spokeswoman Nancy Grantham said in a statement Monday. “EPA scientists are attending, they simply are not presenting; it is not an EPA conference.”

This is deceptive on part of the EPA Administration.  The EPA is playing on the fact that a majority of the public does not understand that science (scientific data - scientific results) is presented at "non-EPA" conferences.  Any EPA Scientist could give a talk or present results at any scientific conference -- as long as the conference was in the specific field.



For instance, a conference regarding the field of atmospheric chemistry would be a perfect place for a scientific talk by the EPA on environmental issues regarding the atmosphere.  For instance, possibly a talk on regulating industries which contribute large amounts of greenhouse gases.  The conference does not necessarily have to be funded or hosted by the Environmental Protection Agency itself.

Conclusion...

In the case above, the EPA is clearly overstepping its ethical boundaries by suppressing the dissemination of science.  Especially, since the science is funded by tax-payer money.  Meaning that any attendees who pay their taxes are entitled to the results of the study which are funded by the tax money paid to the U.S. government.  This act is very dangerous and should be sounding alarms among the public.  Simply for the reason that in the current situation the research is regarding an estuary.  What happens if future research is suppressed which contains scientific results regarding a disaster at a chemical plant which the EPA did not properly regulate?  Your health could be at stake potentially by the suppression of scientific data.  Generally speaking, keeping a transparent channel of dissemination of scientific results regardless of outcome is a great idea for a democratic society.

A Virtual Tour Of A Plant Cell? Really?

Have you taken a tour through a cell in the human body?  How about a tour through a cell in a plant?  Probably not because you are composed of billions of these cells.  In order to tour them, your size would have to be on the 'nanoscale' -- 1/1,000,000,000.  -- that is 1 divided by 1 billion.  That is really small.  Although, if you were able to scale yourself (for the purpose of touring only of course) to that level, here is a short tour via a video (about 6 minutes in length) of what you would see:

Crazy cool right?  In case you missed the tour of the human cell, I embedded a video in a post with a short tour of a human cell -- check it out.  The virtual tour above along with the tour in the previous post are the beginning of a new way to utilize technology (comparable to that used by the gaming industry) to teach critical instruction to the students of today and tomorrow.



Furthermore, think of using the technology presented above during a visit to your physician.  Exploring the pathway of disease progression or mitigation through various treatments (on display) would clarify the need to stick to strict protocol prescribed by your physician.  Regardless, videos like these have a tremendous promise in providing a visually stimulating atmosphere to the students of the present classroom and those in years to come.  The future of technology incorporated into the classroom along with society continues to amaze and inspire new avenues of learning.



Related Blog Posts:


A Virtual Tour Of A Human Cell?

Dr. Francis Collins and Bill Gates Discuss Global Health And Genomics

Technology has driven many recent advances in medicine and global health (on a larger scale).  In the decades to come, the role of 'big data' will only become increasingly important.  Currently, global health is largely based on advances from developed and technologically advanced nations such as the United States.  The current administration is trying to shift funding for science and research into the private sector.  Of course, there is natural push back from Congress (which is great - never put your eggs into one basket). Relying on either government science research or private science research entirely is not a good idea in keep a top notch research program for a given country.



In the discussion (in the video) below, a discussion is shown between two giants.  The first is from the government sector -- Dr. Francis Collins.  Dr. Collins is head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).  The NIH is a major avenue of research funding for science in the United States.  Money is awarded through congress to research from either the NIH or the National Science Foundation.  Of course, other government agencies exist, although, these two are specifically associated with research primarily.  This makes Dr. Collins a perfect representative with whom to have a discussion with regarding the future of research in global health and genomics.  As for the private sector, one person stands out in particular due to their efforts and successes in funding research and producing staggering results -- Bill Gates.



With that being said, the 'Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation' has made great strides in pushing global health research.  From a private sector funding standpoint, Bill and Melinda Gates have had substantial success in gathering up other organizations to offer up funding for important scientific research.  Basically, together they have formed what makes up the "private sector" research funding.  We are grateful to them.  In light of that, Bill Gates has a tremendous amount of insight into the future of 'global health'.  Especially, from the standpoint of funding and executing successful science research which results in results in the field.  The interview below is a great example of success from the private sector along with insight from the government sector (from Dr. Francis Collins).



Without further ado, here is the video of the conversation shown below - which is roughly an hour in length:

Enjoy!



Related Articles on Global Health and Medicine (and big data) from this site are the following:


A Virtual Tour Of A Human Cell?


Congress Is Not Being Honest With The Public By Passing The HONEST Act?


World Health Organization Suggests More Funding For Antibiotic Resistance Research


The Biotech Industry Takes A Stance Against Immigration Ban


What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?


How Much Do New Drugs Cost To Bring To The Pharmacy Counter?


The NFL Is Collecting Big Data?


Is Disease Or Treatment Different In Women?


Why Doesn't Pre-Regulation Of Consumer Products Exist?


Unraveling The Resistance Of Antibiotics!


How Do Chemists Discover New Drugs? A Brief Introduction!


A Perfect Example Of Why Science Outreach Is Critical: Science Needs Simplification!


After Reading This, You Might Want To Drink Breast Milk


Science Calls Into Question Benefits Of E-Cigarettes -- Part 1


How Many Smells Can Humans Differentiate Between?