Reader Question: How far would 291 billion Goodyear Blimps reach end to end?

Source: LinkedIn Learning

Recently, I had a reader respond on Facebook to a blog post titled: With 29 Trillion Cubic Feet of Natural Gas, How Many GoodYear Blimps Could Be filled? as shown below:

According to the image above, the reader asks the following question: How far would 291 billion Goodyear Blimps reach end to end?   In the blog post below, the answer will be revealed in comparison to three distances:

1) Would the distance be enough to travel around planet Earth?  

2) Would the distance reach from the Earth to the Moon?

3) Would the distance reach from the Earth to Mars?

The answers are outlined and solutions shown below.  Enjoy!

Line up 291 billion Goodyear blimps

In order to start the analysis above up, we need to refer to the 'data' page for the Goodyear Blimps which I provided from the last post -- which can be found here.  If the overall length is searched for on the web page, the answer is the length of a Goodyear Blimp is 264.4 feet long or 81% of the length of a football field.  Wow!  That is shown below:

With this number representing a single blimp, the total distance asked by the reader above can be found by simply multiplying two values together.  The first is the total amount of Goodyear Blimps by the length of a single Blimp (the second value) as shown below:

Obviously, the resulting distance is very long considering that a single blimp is around 80% of the length of a football field.  That is, the total length expressed in units of 'feet' is 71,300,000,000,000-feet.  Or 71.3 trillion feet long.  For distances that are expressed in units of feet that are so enormous, converting the unit into a larger unit (say a mile) makes sense for dimensional analysis.  Especially when the metric will most likely be expressed in units of 'mile'.

To do so, we need to know the amount of feet which are in a mile.  The answer can be found by asking a search engine like 'Google.com' the following question: How many feet are in a mile?  The answer is shown below:

The answer indicates that for every mile, there are 5,280 feet.  With that conversion value in mind, the following unit conversion from feet to miles can be accomplished as shown below:

The number of total miles which would be reached if 291 billion Goodyear Blimps were lined up end to end would be around 13.6 billion miles in total distance.  That number is shown below:

The only remaining question is how to make sense of such a large number?  What is an appropriate metric to use for comparison?  How about if we choose the following three distances:

1) Trips around planet Earth

2) Trips from planet Earth to the Moon

3) Trips from planet Earth to the planet Mars

Lets see how these distances compare to 13.6 billion miles.

1) Trips around planet Earth:

To find out how 13.6 billion miles compares to the number of possible trips around Earth, the circumference of Earth needs to be known.  The fastest way to obtain the circumference is to ask Google the following question:  What is the distance around Earth?   The answer is shown below:

Once we have an answer -- which is 24,901 miles around Earth, a quick inspection is performed to make sure units of measurement are the same.  Yes, both values, 13.6 billion miles and 24,901 miles are both expressed in units of 'mile'.  Therefore, dividing the total number of miles which equates to lining up end to end 291 Goodyear Blimps by the distance around Earth will yield the number of trips that would be made possible as shown below:

Wow!  The answer indicates that with 13.6 billion miles, we could travel around Earth 546,000 times.  Wow!

2) Distance from Earth to the Moon:

The last analysis of distances -- using the circumference around the Earth -- gave us a large number: 546,000 trips around the Earth.  I do not know about you, but trying to imagine that number is too difficult for me.  Therefore, a new metric needs to be created in order to make sense of this enormous number -- 13.6  billion miles -- with which we are left with to untangle.



Another possible metric would be to use the distance between Earth and the moon.  If Google is consulted by asking the following question: How far is the moon from earth? -- then the answer below appears:

From the last analysis, the remainder of the calculation is straightforward as shown below:

According to the calculation above using the numbers mentioned, the total number of trips from Earth to the Moon would be approximately 56,900 one way trips.  Wow!  Looking at the answer, the number of trips is still quite large.  Lets consider a larger metric -- the distance to Mars for a final analysis.



3) Distance between Earth and Mars:



As a final analysis, a yet larger metric is chosen -- which is the distance between Earth and Mars -- to cast the enormous distance of 13.6 billion miles into perspective.  Again, to start the analysis, the distance from Earth to Mars needs to be obtained.  Using the handy search engine Google with the following question: How far is Mars from Earth? -- will yield an answer: 

The answer gives us a slight problem.  Following a quick inspection of 'units of measurement', the answer is given in units of 'kilometers' whereas the distance which is used in the above analysis is expressed in units of 'miles'.  Therefore, Google needs to be consulted with the following question: 54.6 million kilometers in miles -- which yields the following conversion shown below:

Notice how usually the inquiry for unit conversion entails getting a conversion factor.  In this case, the distance of concern was in question to save time.  Now, the final analysis can be carried out -- which is to find the number of trips from Earth to Mars that would be made possible using the distance of 13.6 billion miles.  The analysis is shown below:

The calculation indicates that 401 trips would be possible between Earth and Mars.  Wow!

Conclusion...

In the analysis above, the question from a reader was entertained: how far would 291 billion Goodyear Blimps reach end to end?  The answer was astounding.  Much longer than I even imagined.  Although, using dimensional analysis allowed us to cast the value (i.e. total distance) into a manageable perspective.  The metrics chosen were distances within our galaxy.  If larger metrics were needed for an extremely larger number, the a 'light-year' could have been chosen to which compare astronomically large numbers too.  In the future post, there will be such large numbers which require truly long distances.



For the time being, I am thankful to the reader Mike Martino for asking such a great question.  I have had a wonderful time making sense of the distance calculated along with walking readers through the analysis.  Now, powered with the ability to perform similar analysis, choose different metric and arrive at different answers.  Use the numbers above to explore different analyses.  Feel free to comment on different analyses in the comment section below.



Related blog posts:



Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts


What is dimensional analysis?


How many trash carts can be filled with 80 billion pounds of trash?


How many people would be killed if 1,485 pounds of Fentanyl were distributed onto the streets in the U.S.?

What Is Dimensional Analysis?


Was The Recent Oil Spill in China The Largest In History?


LimeBike Dockless Bikeshare Riders Travel A Distance Of 13,000 Miles In Just Over 3 Weeks?

How Many Cigarettes Can You Roll With 18,000 Pounds Of Marijuana?


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


How Much Trash Would Be Required To Fill The Great Wall Of China?


How Many Birds Per Minute Can Be Processed On A Single Line At A Poultry Processing Plant?


Hurricane Harvey Drops Enough Rain On Houston To Fill 560 Dallas Cowboy Stadiums

If Technology Fails, Use Basic Math Skills - Count Manually!!

How Much Water Is Contained In All Oceans Around The Globe?

Scientists should find similarities rather than focus on differences

Source: Kinsky-STEM

STEM education has become a hot topic over the last decade.  STEM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.  Just by inspecting each word in the acronym, the realization of the broadness of the interdisciplinary field becomes apparent.  Within this broad field, scientists tend to focus on differences rather than on similarities.  Which needs to change if STEM initiatives are going to be propelled forward in the future to center stage.

I am a chemist not a biologist!

In the pursuit of elevating STEM initiatives throughout the K-12 education along with the university setting, major differences in technique are starting to arise - which is of concern for the future.  For university professors, my colleagues are reporting that differences in starting to appear across a discipline like chemistry.  Typically, the area of Chem Ed covers all of chemistry.  Recently, our department hired a 'Chem Ed' faculty member for a tenure track position.  She has been with the department for an entire year so far getting her research group up and going.



Recently, she returned from a conference for 'Chem Ed' specialists.  She is a biochemist by education with an emphasis in 'Chem Ed' -- meaning the bulk of her PhD research was concerned with 'Chem Ed'.  For those not aware of what the field (or sub discipline) of 'Chem Ed' is, the emphasis is on researching different methods to improve the curriculum of chemistry in general which results in better retention rates (graduation), higher student engagement in classes, and overall student success throughout the undergraduate journey.  Basically, to improve education methods in the sciences -- 'best practices' in teaching.  This is an exploding field at the moment.




The conference she recently attended was called 'Biennial Conference Chemical Education.  Each year the conference is held in different locations.  If you are interested in reading the history of the conference series, click here to find out more about its origins.  Upon her return, I was speaking with her about the wide variety of presentations which were offered.  Later that same day, I was at an outreach event at a local park, when I ran across a biology professor from our same university who is deeply interested in STEM initiatives.  Without thinking more deeply about my question, I asked him the following question:  "Did you attend BCCE?"

He responded "What conference?"

I followed with "Li from our department went to BCCE  at Notre Dame?"

With that he asked "Isn't that for chemists?...Why would I go, I am a biologist?"


At that point, I was thinking to myself that he is correct and why would I ask such a question to someone in a completely different discipline?


Although, with time, I started to consider the question "Do best practices in Bio Ed translate over to Chem Ed and vice versa? Just out of curiosity.  Why are professors at the same institution attending conferences in completely different disciplines about improving best teaching practices?  Especially, when all of us are working together to elevate STEM initiatives?  This stumped me, so I asked the question on Twitter (social media).



I did a few interesting responses, but the response that most resonated with my curiosity was the following: "Professors do not talk with one another Mike."  This was from a biologist who has years of experience and is at our university.  With time, I reasoned that initiatives like "Faculty Development" on campus bring together professors from a wide variety of disciplines to tackle these matters.  Further, that during these sessions, each discipline could share 'best teaching practices'.  Case closed right?  Wrong...

Chemists do not talk to each other?

I let a couple of weeks pass and then one day, my wife (Kayla) who is a professor of chemistry and is involved in Faculty Development was debriefing me about her day.  I was semi interested to here about the pre-semester chatter in our department with classes starting.  I decided to engage and listen.  She said that during the particular afternoon, she visited the offices of new professors (in our department) just to find out what 'best practices' they were engaged in if any or trying new teaching techniques in the coming semester.  Which has since started (yesterday).  The results were astounding to say the least.



After talking with four professors, she realized that there had been a large amount of data collected over the last 2 years (already considering they were new) collectively.  Further, that a few of the techniques were 'redundant' in practice and could have been avoided.  Of course, for the redundancy to have been avoided, this would required professors sharing 'best practices' with one another.  This left me astounded after hearing the reality.   How can professors who work in the same building not share 'best practices' in teaching?  This left me disappointed and confused (still to this day).



Such a waste of energy.  This needs to change if there is going to be forward momentum.  To cap all of this off, my colleague (Li) who just returned from the conference - BCCE - said that the field of Chem Ed is headed for further splitting into sub-disciplines? What?  Which means that the will be a corresponding 'Ed' component to the following sub-disciplines in chemistry: Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Inorganic Chemistry, Physical Chemistry, Analytical Chemistry, Biochemistry.



Why is this occurring?  This seems to be moving progress in the opposite direction rather than forward!


Why are people searching for differences rather than similarities?  After all, the goal is to improve on educational practices while elevating the fields - which span a wide variety of interests - in the eye of the public.  According to the 'Wikipedia' page for STEM, there are more variations of STEM shown below:

- STM (Scientific, Technical, and Mathematics;[5] or Science, Technology, and Medicine; or Scientific, Technical, and Medical)

- eSTEM (environmental STEM) [6][7]

- iSTEM (invigorating Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics); identifies new ways to teach STEM-related fields.

- STEMLE (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, Law and Economics); identifies subjects focused on fields such as applied social sciences and anthropology, regulation, cybernetics, machine learning, social systems, computational economics and computational social sciences.

- STEMS^2 (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, Social Sciences and Sense of Place); integrates STEM with social sciences and sense of place.

- METALS (STEAM + Logic), introduced by Su Su at Teachers College, Columbia University.[citation needed]

- STREM (Science, Technology, Robotics, Engineering, and Mathematics); adds robotics as a field.

- STREM (Science, Technology, Robotics, Engineering, and Multimedia); adds robotics as a field and replaces mathematics with media.

- STREAM (Science, Technology, Robotics, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics); adds robotics and arts as fields.

- STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics)[8]

- STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Applied Mathematics); more focus on applied mathematics[9]

- GEMS (Girls in Engineering, Math, and Science); used for programs to encourage women to enter these fields.[10][11]

- STEMM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine)

- AMSEE (Applied Math, Science, Engineering, and Entrepreneurship)

- THAMES (Technology, Hands-On, Art, Mathematics, Engineering, Science)

What?  Again, look at what has transpired over time to find differences rather than similarities.  Why are professionals looking for differences rather than similarities?  To me, this makes little sense.  This is not to say that 'Best Practices' in biology translate over directly to chemistry.  Although, I would argue that each discipline could stand to learn from listening to the successes and failures of each discipline.  Further, this reduces the possibility of redundant efforts and saves time overall.

Conclusion....

What is the point of a university?  Besides education and research, why does a university exist?  One answer is that a university brings together a large number of very intelligent professors in the same geographical zone.  Further, to bring together bright minds together to provide a 'well-rounded' educational experience with the possibility of research experience too.  Aside from this mission, is the university a place to exchange ideas?  Yes, I believe so. 



In light of these questions and possibly answers, why then are professionals searching for differences rather than similarities.  University officials should be trying to bring together professors to share their best and worst teaching experiences. Included in this sharing should be best and worst practices of research too.  Additionally, research which focuses on elevating the percentage of different culture, ethnicity's, and genders who pursue STEM field for a profession.  Research such as this highlight the need to bring different people together into STEM disciplines rather than find differences.   Coordinating a collective amount of diverse opinions and results from various academic teaching pursuits provides a rich and meaningful way to push a diverse field in need forward.  Lets work on similarities and avoid finding differences.


Read about STEM initiatives winding their way through Congress - legislation!



Related Blog Posts:


Why Chemistry Matters from the mouths of Nobel Laureates!


President Trump finally fills the Office of Science and Technology Policy position - Yeah!


Teachers, Parents -- Students need to learn how to write and mail a physical letter


Does your brain move throughout the day?


"All Of Us" - The Best Medical Knowledge Update Effort - Please Join!


What Is Going On Inside That Cell?


How Do Scientists Think?


Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!

Chemistry Reactions Are Amazing - See For Yourself

NIH Director Updates Congress On Research Progress

Chemistry Videos Unveil Problems With Battery Technology

A Virtual Tour Of A Plant Cell? Really?

A Virtual Tour Of A Human Cell?

A Good Start: Republicans Accept Climate Change As Real

New Chemistry Could Reduce Plastic Waste In Landfills

Chemists Learn To Build Up Nanoparticles -- One Atom At A Time!

What Molecules Make Up Your Lifestyle Fingerprint?

How Do Chemists Discover New Drugs? A Brief Introduction!

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

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

Ralph Nader: Warner Slack - Doctor for the People Forever

Source: InnovateMedTec

Have you ever been frustrated while trying to access your medical records?  Considering the abundance of medical records sitting in doctors' offices across the world, why has there not been a system (or systems) devised to give patients the access that is necessary to calm their minds.  Further, why have those same records not been 'anonymized' and made available to medical researchers to gather data across a greater patient population that could result in better medical care -- i.e. better medicine?  Surely, one of the many great physicians over the past few decades have conceived of such a system -- especially with the rise of technology is society.  In the blog post below, the iconic activist Ralph Nader introduces us to his good friend -- Dr. Warner Slack -- who passed away recently.  Dr. Warner Slack is one such physician who not only conceived of such a system, but worked tirelessly to advance the medical field to implement Electronic Health Records.

Electronic Health Records?

'Big Data' is a hot topic today.  The field of data mining with computers is taking on a new role from analyzing 'likes' on social media platforms to analyzing large data sets of pharmaceutical companies over the research and discovery of a new potential drug.  Which is why Electronic Health Records would be transformative for society and Dr. Warner Slack is honored for his ambitious pursuit over the decades as highlighted below in Ralph Nader's letter.  But first, let's take a step back and realize why having access to health records would make our lives better in the future.



In order to design a more effective drug, pharmaceutical companies need more information on the reactivity (i.e. efficacy, side-effects, costs, etc.) of a certain drug.  As I pointed out in the original post on drug discovery in an earlier post (over a year ago - here), the cost is tremendous -- around $1 billion dollars to bring the drug to market place over the course of 20 years.  Yes I said the process takes up to 20 years to get the drug from the university to the marketplace.  This covers the range of costs associated with discovery to patent through clinical trials -- which is no easy task.



Remember as I point out in an earlier post, the target (drug target) is discovered at the university level.  From there the drug target is tested against a wide variety of patented or proprietary test targets from a given pharmaceutical company. If a suitable match is found -- meaning a drug (or medicine) from a company is found to hit the target. Then the pharmaceutical company may be willing to take the drug to market - through clinical trials.  During clinical trials, the drug is tested on a specific population (limited but verifiable to U.S. standards).  Last but not least, the real 'data' on the drug comes from years of testing the drug in various doctors' offices across the world.  Which is why the data that is dispersed throughout the world could be fed back to the pharmaceutical company to optimize (refine or make a better) the drug which was brought to the market place.



People do not realize that as patients, they are testing the efficacy of the newly released medicine too.



Why are we still using a paper-based system of keeping track of patient's health rather than electronic health records?  At first sight, the answer might be related to the complexity with the whole process.  We are talking about hundreds of millions of patients just inside the United States -- not to mention other countries.  Or different countries might choose to use different file types which might not compatible across large populations to mine for researchers.



Global medicine is a topic among the upper echelons of the government and can be read about here.  Race, ethnicity, culture, and gender are increasingly important considerations when looking for effective and reliable treatment options for a given disease.  The more information we have to work with, the better the outcome.  Dr. Warner Slack has made this realization an issue which society has been forced to deal with and embrace in the pursuit of personalized medicine.  Don't take my word for it, read the letter below along with the cited article at the end of the letter about the wide range of Dr. Warner Slack's accomplishment for people during his career in medicine.



Without further ado, here is the letter written by Ralph Nader about his good friend -- Dr. Warner Slack shown below:

Warner Slack was a humble, multi-faceted great American physician at Harvard Medical School’s affiliated hospitals. Yet after he passed away last month at age 85, Dr. Slack did not receive the news coverage accorded numerous late entertainers, athletes, writers and scoundrels. In fact, his life was ignored by the Boston Globe, New York Times and the Washington Post.

Dr. Slack, in his pioneering, brilliant humane work, always focused on the lives of the American people whom he served in the millions, directly and indirectly.

It has been said that in a celebrity culture, we honor whom we value. Along the way the most important human beings who give us the blessings of liberty, justice, health, safety, knowledge and overall well-being mostly are missed or slighted by the priorities of a commercially driven culture. These people lift up our society every day on their largely anonymous, selfless shoulders.

In his final days, struggling with pulmonary fibrosis, I called Dr. Slack to express my deepest admiration and said: “For all your adult life, Warner, you have been a physician’s physician, a patient’s physician, a student’s physician, a citizen’s physician, and a champion of peace and justice.” This gentle, many-splendored medical doctor achieved such excellence in an age of specialization and amorality.

Dr. Sidney Wolfe, the nationally known long time director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, called Warner “a hero of mine.”

Just what did Warner Slack do to receive such encomiums? First, he was an early vocal medical practitioner who supported universal health insurance, when few were urging such humanity. He was among the first physicians in the world to see and apply the potential of computers in healthcare delivery but declared that advances mattered only if they advanced patients’ wellbeing. He insisted on patients being informed, on being empowered, and he led the way from his clinical practice in ending the absurdity of prohibiting patients from accessing their own medical records. Over the opposition of most of his profession and hospitals, he pressed on until this basic patient right was enacted as part of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

Dr. Slack founded the Division of Clinical Computing from which flowed many professional articles and studies including prescient warnings about how computers misused can invade patients’ privacy and waste a ton of taxpayer money. He also pointed out that mindless converting from paper records to digital records might ill-serve the patients.

Once in a rare while, we meet relentlessly honest and courageous people who instinctively and cognitively see through the ruses, the snares and the delusions, and the profiteering propaganda that harm innocent, trusting people in so many grave ways.

Unlike many innovators, who bask in the limelight of praise, Dr. Slack humbly kept at it pressing for how his breakthroughs could actually benefit patients and not be hijacked for the all-mighty dollar. Human beings were never to be reduced to numbers.

As his son, author Charlie Slack wrote:

[Warner Slack’s] article “The Patient’s Right to Decide,” published in the British journal The Lancet, put forth a then-radical idea of “patient power”—encouraging patients and physicians alike to overturn the traditionally paternalistic nature of healthcare. Patients, Dr. Slack believed, should play a crucial part in determining their own care. Their insight, he often said, was “the least utilized resource in healthcare.

As an original thinker, a visionary, and a rigorous conveyer of medical ethics and responsibility to the hundreds of young clinicians he mentored or trained, Dr. Slack, maintained his steadfastness with a remarkable congeniality and the human touch.

In pain and hospitalized for weeks, he never complained. His demeanor and continual regard for the orderlies, nurses, and physicians, who took loving care of him, revealed his authentic character.

An early inchoate defender of the underdog, he was among the first physicians to publically oppose the Vietnam War, to go down South to help injured civil rights marchers, even working to help ease the integration of the University of Wisconsin football team. While in his seventies, he twice went to Honduras to provide medical assistance to residents of remote, impoverished villages.

A Princeton classmate of mine, Warner and I got to know each other better in 1980 when he and our Center independently issued tough critiques of multiple-choice standardized testing (SATs, etc.). As the author or co-author of many articles, book chapters, newspaper op-eds and books, such as Cybermedicine: How Computing Empowers Doctors and Patients for Better Health Care, Warner was very aware of phony studies, deceptive statistics, and other technical ways to manipulate persons.

Together with his colleague, Douglas Porter, he authored, in the Harvard Educational Review, the myth-busting article, “The Scholastic Aptitude Test: A Critical Appraisal.” They demonstrated that, contrary to ETS’s defiant assertions, aptitude was not frozen and its test scores could be raised by study and training for the tests. They also showed that SAT scores are poor predictors of college academic performance compared with high school grades.

Our study, “Reign of ETS: The Corporation That Makes Up Minds,” added that non-quantifiable traits, such as diligence, creativity, stamina, and even motivational idealism, can be more important as predictors of college performance.

This year, Warner’s critiques were further vindicated by the news that, joining some other colleges, the University of Chicago, has dropped these standardized tests as a requirement for admission.

Warner managed his interests and professional activities and duties without sacrificing being with his wife, Carolyn, their three children, and seven grandchildren. He relished these gatherings where he expressed his limitless curiosity about the world and continued to be, in Charlie’s words, “a person defined mainly by his youthfulness.”

Someone once said that “the only true aging is the erosion of one’s ideals.” No one who knew and worked with Warner viewed him as “elderly.” He couldn’t have been more contemporary and forward-looking with his classmates whenever they gathered for meetings regarding their unique alumni class organization—Princeton Project 55, which placed Princeton undergraduates and graduates with systemic civic groups around the country.

Dr. Slack was as complete a brainy, humane, down-to-earth, big picture human being as you could ever meet.

He left this life in Carolyn’s arms on the morning of their 62nd wedding anniversary.

His legacy is strong, deeply rooted in his many students and colleagues, and is lastingly conveyed in his writings and exemplary career, under pressure and controversy.

A biography of Warner Slack and his times needs to be written.

Conclusion...

Dr. Warner Slack has been hailed by others as the 'pioneer' of electronic health records.  Read here about his envision of artificial intelligence and computers playing transformative role in medicine.  With the rise of technology coupled with Dr. Warner Slack's vision, we have arrived at pursuits toward precision medicine like "All of Us" trial being conducted by the National Institutes of Health.  In the future, we will thank heroes like Dr. Warner Slack who have paved the way toward a better understanding of health by giving access (and better care) to patients through making the data (medical records) available to both patients and researchers.  The future of medicine should be exciting through both participants eyes.  Thank you Dr. Warner Slack for your work.  And Thank you Ralph Nader for bringing our attention to lesser known heroes like Dr. Warner Slack.



Related Blog Posts:


NIH Director Updates Congress On Research Progress

Does your brain move throughout the day?

Parameters: Race, Ethnicity, and Gender Needed In Health Research

Ralph Nader: MAGA is really MADA?

Ralph Nader: Has Corruption Become Institutionalized?


Ralph Nader Says 10 Million People Could Change Healthcare Policy - That Few?


Ralph Nader Suggests To Consumers Reading 'Consumer Reports' Before Impulse Buying


Thoughts: Ralph Nader On A Cashless Economy


Ralph Nader Asks "Will the Federal Civil Service Defend Us?"


Activist Ralph Nader Gives Politicians Advice Post Hurricane Harvey


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


Can One Community Organization Change Regional Transportation Habits?

What is a typical day like for a systems engineer at JPL?

Source: Phys.Org

Hollywood gives us a picture (one example) of a typical day in the life of a systems engineer at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.  What does that picture look like?  An example might be shown below:

Source: RareHistoricPhotos.com

Now compare that with the written description from an interview of a true systems engineer at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena as highlighted on the 'Science & Entertainment Exchange' website shown below:

What is a typical day like for a systems engineer at JPL?

The one thing I love about my job as a systems engineer is that there really is no such thing as a typical day. It changes dramatically over the lifecycle of a project, which goes like this. In the early phases of a project, the scientist community and NASA decide what it is that needs further study. Take Jupiter, for example. How was Jupiter really formed? Related to that question are things like: Does Jupiter have a core? How big is the core? What is the water vapor content of the atmosphere?

Next, a call for proposals is sent out and engineers work with scientists to figure out how to go about finding the answers. Can we use a telescope on Earth? Or do we need to send a spacecraft all the way to Jupiter? Can it just fly by the planet or does it need to go into orbit? Then, we come up with a specific design for the spacecraft and instruments. For the instruments: they are often selected through a parallel proposal process. For the spacecraft side: if a spacecraft is going all the way to Jupiter, we work through big design questions like: Does it need nuclear power? Or can we use solar power? If we use solar power, how big would the arrays need to be? Over time, we mature the design to a very high level of detail, then build parts, and assemble them. There are many points throughout the design process for testing things, performing analyses, etc., to ensure everything is going to come together smoothly and perform the way we expect. Eventually, we launch the spacecraft. Once we are in this operations phase, we are getting the data back from the instruments, but also managing the health of the spacecraft.

So far, I have worked on projects starting from the middle of the design phase through the final assembly, testing, launch, and operations phases. My job focuses a lot on troubleshooting and resolving design disconnects. For example, early in the design phase a telecom engineer might want 100 watts of power to make sure the signal back to Earth is very strong and easy to lock onto, but the power system may be providing only 500 watts for the entire spacecraft. The systems engineer’s job is to work with engineers from both of those areas (and the rest of the spacecraft too) to explore the trade space and figure out the best approach.

The description above implies the images below:

Source:JPL

Laboratories like the one above and below house teams of scientists who work collaboratively to think about all of the considerations for a given mission.  A team which appears like the picture below:

Source: JPL/NASA

The laboratory above (spacecraft factory) is a result of years of work by NASA engineers.  Over the course of decades, space scientists have worked to optimize (perfect) the process of design, construction, testing, and launching/mission.  According to the description above by the systems engineer, a day can take on many different forms.  Which highlights a very important observation which frequently arises when non-scientists visit laboratories.  The scientific process has many components which range from constantly sourcing out funding for various research projects to solving unexpected problems encountered during research and development.


Conclusion...


The traditional (old image) of a scientist or systems engineer is one that is not only outdated but has changed over the last few decades.  What image do I speak of?  The image of men chalking up the boards with equations has been replaced largely by computational methods.  A scientist working alone in his/her laboratory day after day has been replaced by a more collaborative working environment -- diverse with different genders, race, and ethnic backgrounds.  Which spurs different angles of creativity and ideas in solving a project at hand.  Since funding is getting more hard to find, more consideration into each part of the process from planning to finalizing construction of a spacecraft is considered in more detail. The result is a more diverse and inclusive interdisciplinary research and design group of scientists who are more concerned about living in a better world and beyond. 



Related Blog Posts:


Why Chemistry Matters from the mouths of Nobel Laureates!


Scientists compare Misinformation In Mainstream News to a Viral Infection


What Is Going On Inside That Cell?


How Do Scientists Think?

Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!

Chemistry Reactions Are Amazing - See For Yourself

A Virtual Tour Of A Human Cell?

New Chemistry Could Reduce Plastic Waste In Landfills

Chemists Learn To Build Up Nanoparticles -- One Atom At A Time!

How Do Chemists Discover New Drugs? A Brief Introduction!

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

Why Should You Study Chemistry?

Teach Science To The Public And The Result Is: A Citizen Scientist!

Thoughts: An example letter of opposition to repealing the 2015 Clean Waters Rule

One of the most important resource for any nation is the water contained in or surrounding its borders.  Water is important for survival.  Water is also a wonder of the world.  Just go and stand on the beach of either the West Coast or the East Coast of the United States and water extends beyond the limit of the eye can see.  Furthermore, within that boundless distance is a whole other wildlife existence -- i.e. the marine wildlife.  Although, some would argue that within the land mass of the United States, there are plenty of water ways which provide just as much wonder and beauty for the eye to see as well.  I am not here to argue that point.  I am here to draw your attention toward protecting the vital water ways.  In the blog post below, I show a letter signed by over 180 organizations opposing any attempts to pollute our vital water ways for short term gain while exposing the nation toward long term environmental consequences.



Over the last century, these waterways have been increasingly under threat with the pollution which has resulted from decades of misuse and over development.  Recently, an updated rule to a 1972 rule by Congress -- 2015 Clean Water Rule -- has come under fire.  I say recently, but really since 2015, the rule has been discussed.  With President Trump's Administration looking toward 'loosening' the definition of 'water ways' -- the environment is under a new threat. Here is an excerpt from 'Wikipedia' page for '2015 Clean Water Rule shown below:

The Clean Water Rule is a 2015 regulation published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to clarify water resource management in the United States under a provision of the Clean Water Act of 1972.[1] The regulation defined the scope of federal water protection in a more consistent manner, particularly over streams and wetlands which have a significant hydrological and ecological connection to traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and territorial seas. It is also referred to as the Waters of the United States rule, which defines all bodies of water that fall under U.S. federal jurisdiction. The rule was published in response to concerns about lack of clarity over its scope from legislators at multiple levels, industry members, researchers and other science professionals, activists, and citizens.[2]

The rule has been contested in litigation. In 2017 the Trump administration announced its intent to review and rescind or revise the rule.[3] Following a Supreme Court ruling on January 22, 2018 that lifted a nationwide stay on the rule, the Trump administration formally suspended the rule until February 6, 2020, thereby giving EPA administrator Scott Pruitt more time to issue a draft proposal of replacement water regulations with looser regulatory requirements.[4]

At this point you may be wondering why this is important?  Defining a water way is pretty simple right?  Possibly.  But if regulations toward a business or permitting is in question, then money enters the equation and dominates the outcome.  That is, unless, the proper law is put into place to have the federal government - through agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency - enact laws which prohibit the use and misuse of land around water ways.  The law should be consistent throughout the United States to protect all water ways.  If states are given individual rights to create laws, then some may fare better than others and inconsistencies along with corruption will result in environmental disasters such as water pollution in Flint (Michigan), or Virginia, or Colorado -- to name a few over the last few years.



Furthermore, as a result of these disasters, more often than not the fall out is distributed unequally over the community at large with the lower income community bearing more of the brunt than wealthier neighborhoods.  Which is an environmental injustice.  The citizens of the United States should be able to rest assured that the federal government puts the safety and health of its citizens first before making a small/insignificant profit or loss in the short term.  With that being said, I am a strong proponent of reaching out to politicians -- either by mail or other means.  The letter below is an example of ways each of us can reach out and tell elected officials that we want the safety and health of the citizens placed first rather than profits or potential losses which in the long run make no sense at all.



The letter below is followed by the organizations backing the opposition toward repealing the Clean Water Rule.  There is no conclusion at the end of this blog post after the letter.  The problem of protecting our environment is an ongoing problem -- an open ended problem.  Each of us should look toward the organizations which have signed on to see how each of us can be involved in promoting change.  Change which results in a healthier environment.  Here shown below is the letter which was sent to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler in opposition to repealing the 2015 Clean Water Rule:

The Honorable Andrew Wheeler
Acting Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20460 

The Honorable R.D. James
Assistant Secretary of the Army, Civil Works
U.S. Department of the Army
104 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310 

August 13, 2018

RE: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0203: Comments on Definition of “Waters of the United States”—Recodification of Preexisting Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 134 (July12, 2018)

Dear Acting Administrator Wheeler and Assistant Secretary James:

On behalf of the undersigned 187 organizations and our millions of members and supporters across the country, we oppose the Trump administration’s attempt to repeal the 2015 Clean Water Rule and urge the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Army Corps”) to withdraw this proposed repeal. We also oppose the agencies’ plan to permanently weaken commonsense protections for streams and wetlands through a new rulemaking. Repealing the 2015 Clean Water Rule and replacing it with a rule that limits which streams and wetlands are covered under the Clean Water Act’s pollution prevention programs is an assault on water quality and public health.

The administration’s latest attempt to justify its proposal to repeal the Clean Water Rule lacks merit. The new legal theories forwarded by the administration in this supplemental notice fail to justify repealing the Rule and ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence that protecting small streams and wetlands is essential to ensuring water quality in downstream rivers and larger water bodies. The 2015 Clean Water Rule creates more certainty, not less, regarding which water resources are federally protected, and is legally and scientifically sound. It was for these reasons, and others, that the EPA and Army Corps received more than 685,000 comments on their first attempt to repeal the Clean Water Rule (dated July 27, 2017) and more than half a million of those comments were in strong opposition to this plan.

The current administration’s assertion that the previous administration relied too much on science when crafting the 2015 Clean Water Rule is absurd. Commonsense water policy  decisions must be based on the best available science if we are ever to achieve the Clean Water Act’s water quality goals. Headwater, seasonal, and rain-dependent streams contribute to the drinking water sources for more than 117 million people in the United States. Wetlands filter pollutants and can buffer communities from flooding. These rivers, wetlands, lakes, and streams provide recreational opportunities for millions powering a robust outdoor economy. In its latest proposal, the administration would abandon the agencies’ prior scientific and economic rationale for protecting streams and wetlands without offering any scientific evidence to support its plan to permanently repeal effective Clean Water Act protections for these water resources. Science tells us that we should be doing more, not less, to protect our nation’s water resources. 

Not only is the administration’s plan to repeal the 2015 Clean Water Rule unjustified by science or law, it disregards more than 800,000 comments submitted in support of the 2015 Rule. The agencies should withdraw the proposed repeal immediately. Moreover, any potential revisions to the 2015 Clean Water Rule must bring us closer to achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act, and must be carried out in a transparent rulemaking process
that is science-based and legally sound, and that provides a meaningful opportunity for all stakeholders to participate. 

Sincerely, 

350.org
Allegheny Mountain Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Alliance for the Great Lakes
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy EnvironmentsAllegheny Mountain Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Alliance for the Great Lakes
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
Alternative Solutions, LLC
American Chestnut Land Trust
American Rivers
Amshoff Farm LLC
Anacostia Watershed Society
Anna K. Murray & Associates, P.C.
Association to Preserve Cape Cod
Audubon Naturalist Society
Baltimore Tree Trust
Beargrass Creek Alliance
Berkshire Environmental Action Team (BEAT)
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners
Brodhead Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Burns Environmental
California Coastal Protection Network
Charles River ConservancyCharles River Watershed Association
Chesapeake Foodshed Network
Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage
Chestnut Ridge Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Chicago Audubon Society
Cincinnati Naacp
Citizens Campaign for the Environment
Clark Fork Coalition
Clean River Project, Inc.
Clean Water Action
Climate Action Now, Western Massachusetts
Codorus Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Columbia County Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Committee on the Middle Fork Vermilion River
Community Water Center
Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County
Conservation Alabama
Conservation Colorado
Conservation Voters New Mexico
Cumberland Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited
CURE (Clean Up the River Environment)
Delco Manning Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Detroit Audubon
Donegal Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Inc. Earthjustice
Earthworks
Ecological Land Management
Environment Minnesota
Environmental Advocates of New York
Environmental Law & Policy Center
Environmental League of MA
Environmental Protection Network
Environmental Working Group
Florida Wildlife Federation
FLOW (For Love of Water)
Forbes Trail Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Fort Bedford Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Freshwater Future
Friends of Dyke Marsh
Friends of the Earth
Friends of the Malden River
Friends of the Mississippi River
Friends of the Rappahannock
Genesee Valley Audubon Society
God's Country Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Gold Creative Design LLC
Greater Boston Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Green Newton
GreenLatinos
Greenpeace
Groundwork Lawrence
Harpeth Conservancy Hilltown Anti-Herbicide Coalition
Hip Hop Caucus
Hop Brook Protection Association, Inc
Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited
Indiana Wildlife Federation
Interfaith Partners for the Chesapeake
Iron Furnace Chapter of Trout Unlimited
JAPRI.Org
Jim Zwald Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Junction Coalition
Kentucky Resources Council, Inc.
Kentucky Waterway Alliance
Lackawanna Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Lakeshore Natural Resource Partnership
Lakeside Publishing MI
Lancaster Land Trust
League of Conservation Voters
League of Women Voters
League of Women Voters of Ohio
League of Women Voters Upper Mississippi River Region
Lincoln Land Conservation Trust
Little Lehigh Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Littledove Farm
Lloyd Wilson Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Loudoun Wildlife Conservancy
Maine Conservation Voters
Maryland League of Conservation Voters
Mass Audubon
Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions
Massachusetts Rivers Alliance
Mattawoman Watershed Society
Merrimack River Watershed Council (MRWC)
Michigan League Of Conservation Voters
Michigan Wildlife Conservancy
Midwest Environmental Advocates
Millers River Watershed Council
Milwaukee Riverkeeper
Minnesota Division Izaak Walton League of America
Minnesota Environmental Partnership
Mississippi River Collaborative
Monocacy Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Montana Trout Unlimited
Montana Wildlife Federation
Mystic River Watershed Association
Nantucket Land Council
Nashua River Watershed Association
National Parks Conservation Association
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Council of Maine
Nature Abounds
NC League of Conservation Voters
Neponset River Watershed Association
Neshannock Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Nevada Conservation League
New Hampshire Rivers Council
Northwest Watershed Institute
Ohio Environmental Council
Ohio River Foundation
Organizing for Action
PennFuture
Penns Creek Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Penns Woods West Chapter to Trout Unlimited
Pennsylvania Council of Churches
Pennsylvania Council of Trout Unlimited
Pequabuck River Watershed Association
Physicians for Social Responsibility Philadelphia
Pike/Wayne Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Planning and Conservation League
PolicyLink
Potomac Conservancy
Prairie Rivers Network
Puget Soundkeeper Alliance
Rachel Carson Council
Red River OutdoorsRiver City Paddlesports Inc.
River Network
River Network Partners
River Source
Rock Creek Conservancy
Roman Catholic Diocese of Fresno
Savage River Watershed Assn.
Save EPA
Save Our Sky Blue Waters
Save the Illinois River, Inc. (STIR)
Schuylkill Pipeline Awareness
Sea Run Brook Trout Coalition
Seneca Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Shehawken Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Sleepy Creek Watershed Association
South River Watershed Alliance
Southern Maryland Audubon Society
Southern Oregon Climate Action Now
SouthWings
St. Mary's River Watershed Association
Sustainable Business Network of Greater Philadelphia
Taunton River Watershed Alliance
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
Tookany/Tacony
-Frankford Watershed Partnership
Tradewater / Lower Green Rivers Watershed Watch
Tulpehocken Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Tuolumne River Trust
Valley Forge Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Virginia Conservation Network
Virginia League of Conservation Voters
Washington Conservation Voters
Washington Environmental Council
Water Supply Citizens Advisory Committee
Waterways Alliance
West Virginia Rivers Coalition
Western Organization of Resource Councils
Westfield River Watershed Association
WildEarth Guardians
Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters
Wisconsin Trout Unlimited
Yukon River Inter
-Tribal Watershed Council

Related Blog Posts:




Ralph Nader: An Open Letter to Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon

What Does An Official Letter From The White House Requesting Funds For Hurricane Harvey Look Like?

Universities Are Jumping On Board With States To Pick Up Paris Climate Slack

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

Journalists Collectively Sent President-Elect Trump A Warning Regarding Fake News?

With 29 Trillion Cubic Feet of Natural Gas, How Many GoodYear Blimps Could Be filled?

Source: Flying magazine

The task is to fill as many GoodYear Blimps (which are shown above) with a total of 29 Trillion Cubic Feet of Natural Gas.  Why 29 Trillion?  According to an article in the 'Washington Examiner' titled "American natural gas is fueling the world's future" written by Energy Secretary Rick Perry, 29 trillion cubic feet of Natural gas is the amount produced last year as shown below:

Natural gas has been and remains a critical component of the nation's energy portfolio. In 1988, President Ronald Reagan spoke at the last WGC meeting held in the United States and stressed its importance as an affordable, secure and clean-burning fuel. That year, the United States produced just under 18 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and it accounted for less than 10 percent of our power mix. Last year, the United States produced nearly 29 trillion cubic feet of this fuel, and it was the single largest source of our electricity, accounting for 32 percent all U.S. production. We are now on track to reach record-breaking production levels, and natural gas now makes up nearly one-third of the country's electricity generation.

In the paragraphs below, the following dimensional analysis will reveal the total number of GoodYear Blimps needed to consume 29 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.  Enjoy.

How Much Gas Occupies a GoodYear Blimp?

As the case is with all math problems or shall I say dimensional analysis problems, the largest problem is figuring out where to start.  The current problem is to determine the number of Goodyear blimps which could be filled with a total volume of gas of 20 trillion cubic feet.  First, lets express that number into scientific notation as shown below:

The number looks different using scientific notation right?  Scientific notation allows scientists to express very large numbers into manageable numbers without having to write all of the zero's after each number.  Otherwise, writing large numbers would take up unnecessary space and would not have any different meaning compared to writing in a compact - scientific notation form.



Next, a metric is needed to compare the total amount (volume) of gas to.  The metric chosen is the amount of volume that is occupied by a Goodyear blimp.  Readers of this blog site will remember the first time that the Goodyear blimp was used as a metric in a blog post.  A Goodyear Blimp -- model Wingfoot One is shown in the picture below:

Source: EAA

In order to find out the amount of gas that occupies such a floating structure, we can ask a search engine -- Google -- the following question: How much gas is contained in a Goodyear blimp? The answer is shown below:

If we choose the second link underneath the questions shown above titled "Current Blimps" then we are directed to the Goodyear website -- specifically, the web page for the 'Wingfooot Series'.  Scroll to the bottom for the dimensions of the Wingfoot One Goodyear Blimp.  We can find the volume of gas which occupies a single blimp in this section of the web page.



According to the Goodyear website for the 'Wingfoot Series' of blimps, the total volume of gas is 297,527 cubic feet of helium in a single blimp -- the Wingfoot One shown in the photograph at the beginning of the blog post.  Note: both numbers (total volume of natural gas and volume of gas per blimp) are expressed in units of 'cubic feet'.  Therefore, there is no unit conversion needed in the following steps of the dimensional analysis.  Which means that both numbers can be directly compared with one another and simplifies the length of the calculation.



With the volume of gas in a single blimp known, the next step (final step) is to divide the total amount of gas (in question) by the volume in a single blimp as shown below:

According to the result of our calculations shown above, the total amount of natural gas produced by the United States could fill a total of 97 million blimps.  Wow!

Conclusion...

Solving math problems (dimensional analysis problems) like the example shown above highlight the enormity of the amount of gas produced by the U.S. per year.  Additionally, the amount of gas produced only accounted for around 32% of all electricity required for the United States in a given year.  The number might come in handy when talking with friends at social gatherings.  You might point out that to power the entire United States per year exclusively on natural gas would require around enough gas to fill around 291 million Goodyear blimps.  However you choose to use the calculations above, the result gives us a better understanding of the amount of natural gas produced in a single year by the United States.



Related Blog Posts:



Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts


What is dimensional analysis?


How many trash carts can be filled with 80 billion pounds of trash?


How many people would be killed if 1,485 pounds of Fentanyl were distributed onto the streets in the U.S.?

What Is Dimensional Analysis?


Was The Recent Oil Spill in China The Largest In History?


LimeBike Dockless Bikeshare Riders Travel A Distance Of 13,000 Miles In Just Over 3 Weeks?

How Many Cigarettes Can You Roll With 18,000 Pounds Of Marijuana?


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


How Much Trash Would Be Required To Fill The Great Wall Of China?


How Many Birds Per Minute Can Be Processed On A Single Line At A Poultry Processing Plant?


Hurricane Harvey Drops Enough Rain On Houston To Fill 560 Dallas Cowboy Stadiums

If Technology Fails, Use Basic Math Skills - Count Manually!!

How Much Water Is Contained In All Oceans Around The Globe?

Why Chemistry Matters from the mouths of Nobel Laureates!

Source: TED Fellows

Does the modern image of a scientist reflect or match that of a past image?  Here is a modern image shown below:

Source: Science

And here is an image taken from the 1950s shown below:

Source: ShutterStock

How do they differ?  How are they the same?  The reason why I ask these questions is that science in general (and society for that matter) has been locked in the gender rigid mindset in professional aspirations.  As a result, there are a lack of females in science as are there a lack of minorities.  This image presents one far different from that in the cover photo above - which is representative of today's society.


In presenting the wrong image of a scientist, the gap of diversity is narrowed and science (as a whole) suffers from the loss of potentially great contributors which is terrible to say the least.  In the changing world in which we live today, diversity and inclusiveness have a greater meaning in all fields.  Especially science.  As I have mentioned in an earlier post, all of us (people) start out at one point in our lives as "amateur scientist's".  The difference between then and now are those individuals who pursue a profession of creativity and curiosity which is unbound by traditional means.

Science is an open ended field of search and discovery of understanding the world around us.  As highlighted in the video below from the mouth's of Nobel Laureates, science is really made for anyone who chooses to pursue their curiosity and thirst for knowledge.  Contrary to popular thinking, there are many different fields in science -- which do not require - math or complex equations.  Here is a video which is not new but will drive home the point of 'why chemistry matters' in a collection of elegant short statements:

After watching the video above, I hope that you are inspired to think creatively and follow your curiosity to its limits.  This is one of the great joys of scientific research as a profession.  Many people have misconceptions about science - which is terrible.  I find that view to be 'self-limiting' and not useful.  Each of us should understand that the field of science as a profession is within our reach.  That is if we are willing to do the work to pursue that line of work as a profession.



 Although, even if a person chooses not to pursue science as a profession, this does not mean that science is not accessible to each.  Each of us could potentially have access to the world wide web - which is limitless in knowledge about the world around us.  The act of pursuing that knowledge resides in each of us.



Related Blog Posts:



How Do Scientists Think?


Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!


Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts