Why Would You Start Running At Age 100? Yes, (100 years of age)!

Photo by Fab Lentz on Unsplash

My grandfather passed away 10 years ago.  He was 87 years of age when he left us.  Up until he found out that his cancer was terminal, he was a vibrant and energetic man.  I remember visiting him in his care facility up on a hill at a Masonic Home in Union City (California).  When we discussed his life at home, he would remark that there were people much older than he was.  In fact, one of his neighbors was out playing golf at 102 years of age.  He could not imagine living that long, yet alone golfing at that age.  This to him was a miracle.



That is not the situation for 'Hurricane Hawkins' as she is called in athletic competitions which involve the seniors.  Below is a video of her running at age 103 years old:

Wow!



Julia "Hurricane" Hawkins serves as an inspiration to all of us in the world.  Especially, those who think that age limits your availability to engage in a wide variety of activities.   She attributes her success in her many years maintaining a garden.  Flexibility is a key aspect of moving around and maintaining a successful garden.  A sedentary lifestyle is a recipe for early regression toward less mobility.  Of course, moderation is a good objective to keep in mind while planning goals and future endeavors.  Regardless, stories like "Hurricane" Hawkins are amazing and should be read by everyone.



Related Blog Posts:


What Is Holding You Back From Achieving Your Potential?


My Husband Has Parkinson's Disease; I Can Smell It On Him!

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

Flint Michigan Rations Water, What About Astronauts?

The 1% Can Push Science Research Forward -- Example1: Bob Wright!

Humans Affinity For Junk Food Rubs Off On Bird Population

Let 'Kids Be Kids' And Explore Appropriate Science Projects For Their Grade Level -Please!


Pro Bono Tutoring Can Equate To Paying It Forward!

How does a nation elevate STEM education by showcasing celebrations of science backstage?

Listen to Democratic Candidates Answers Tonight Regarding Climate Science and Green New Deal

Photo by Evangeline Shaw on Unsplash

There is election talk already with the first Democratic Presidential Candidate Forum tonight for 2020.  Which is exciting for science.  The last two-plus years have been an attack on science funding.  Democrats have taken the opportunity to transition toward renewable energy with the proposal titled "Green New Deal."  Climate science has been elevated over the last few months with many Congressional hearings.  How these two hot topic issues will play out in the election for 202 remains to been seen.



Although, tonight will be a chance for the candidates to respond to questions and lay out their proposals for combatting climate change.  Which includes transitioning the nation toward renewable energy -- a bold move in of itself.   According to Politico Energy, the following is being said regarding the event tonight and what to look for (in a summarized form):

WELCOME TO MIAMI: Presidential contenders lock horns tonight in Round One of the primary debates in Miami to prove they're ready to take on President Donald Trump — and show Democratic voters they have a plan to fight climate change.

Democratic National Committee chief Tom Perez said earlier this month he was confident "climate change will be discussed early and often during our party's primary debates," an answer to the campaign from environmental groups and even some 2020 presidential contenders who pushed for a separate debate devoted to the issue.

Polls show climate change has become a top issue for Democratic voters. A recent POLITICO/Morning Consult poll found 42 percent of registered voters thought it was "very important" that Democratic candidates discuss climate change, followed by 23 percent who said it was "somewhat important."

What remains an open question is how far questions tonight will go beyond the commonalities between Democratic hopefuls. As POLITICO's David Siders notes , nearly all of the major Democratic presidential contenders have called for the U.S. to rejoin the Paris climate agreement and have voiced support for tenets of the Green New Deal. Instead, climate activists want debate moderators to ask substantive questions about, for example, how exactly they would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and their positions on hydraulic fracturing or carbon pricing.

For individual plans on fossil fuel reduction and climate change, the following links are listed below:


1) Elizabeth Warren: Clean Energy Plan

2) Jay Inslee: (a) Fossil Fuel Plan  (b) Climate Change Plan

3) John Delaney: Climate Change Plan

4) Bet O'Rourke: $5T Climate Change Plan

5) Julian Castro: Green Housing Plan



I will admit at this moment that I have yet to read the five articles above.  This week has been unusually busy with my personal life.   I mentioned in a previous post
that my wife and I are going through IVF.  Last Saturday, the embryo was implanted into Kayla's uterus.  Which means that Mike (me) has been charged with being a caretaker for the week: cooking, cleaning, bell service, you name it -- I am on it.  Learning how to cook on the fly is tricky.   Plenty of chicken dishes I can handle.  Duck tomorrow night.  Watch out.



I will return to my regular schedule of writing next week.  But for the next few days, my writing (publishing) may be anything far from regular.



Tonight shall be fascinating to hear the Democratic candidates answer for the road ahead.  Including how the nation will transition toward renewable energy on a wide scale along with fighting the looming threat of climate change.  Stay tuned.


Related Blog Posts:


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


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

How Many M&M Candy's Would Be Required To Form A Line Between Earth And The Moon?

Photo by Robert Anasch on Unsplash

A couple of years ago I posted a blog post regarding the number of blimps required to hold a certain volume of gas.  One of the respondent's was really questioning the reason why I chose the metric and question in general.  In his comment, he stated: "Why blimps? Why Helium?  Why not calculate the amount of M&M candy's required to reach the Moon from Earth?"  It is time to address his question below.

What Are The Dimensions Of M&M Candy's?

To start the analysis, we need to know what the dimension of a single M&M candy is?  In the past blog post with calculations, I have chosen 'Google' to find information.  Following that format, we can start by typing into Google the question: What are the dimensions of an m&m candy?   The answer is shown below:

Wow! The internet has so much information.  A single M&M candy is 1.04 centimeter.  That is a conversion factor which we can use in dimensional analysis.  Conversion factors are displayed as follows:

If we want to know the distance in units of M&M candies, the conversion factor above can be used.   In our current problem, we want to know how many M&M candies would be required to form a straight line from Earth to the Moon.  In order to figure that number out, we need to know the distance from Earth to the Moon.

Distance Between Earth and Moon?

The distance from Earth to the Moon can be found out by asking Google.  Insert the following question: What is the distance between Earth and the Moon in meters?   The answer is shown below:

The distance from the Earth to the Moon is 384.4 million meters.  Notice how we asked a question specifically calling for the answer to be expressed in units of meters?  The answer must be in units of meters because the unit of measurement of an M&M candy is expressed in units of meters.



Our analysis is almost finished.  To arrive at a final answer, take the total distance from Earth to the Moon (in meters) and divide by the length of a single M&M candy (in meters) as shown below:

The answer indicates a total of 3.7 billion M&M candies would be needed to form a single line from Earth to the Moon.  Our results are summarized below:

With the methodology above, many different types of questions involving dimensional analysis can be asked (and answered too).  Analyses like the one above give the reader experience in handling large numbers.  Large numbers typically only seen in science research or classes in college.  Although, the analysis above mimics questions and answers which are useful in scientific research.  See what questions and answers you can come up with using the above methodology.  Science is fun.  Have fun with it.



Related Blog Posts:



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

Parameters: How Much Water Is Required To Grow A Package Of Almonds?


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


How Many Women Are Needed To Form A Chain 400 miles Long?


How Effective Are Poultry Corporations At Reducing Salmonella In Their Products?


Parameters: How Much Ice Is Melting In The Antarctic? Enough To Cover Texas?


How many Soy Latte coffee drinks can be made with 135,000 tons of Soybeans?


How many cows are needed to generate 50,000 tons of beef exports?


How many Olympic size swimming pools per day would be filled with 890,000 barrels of oil?


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

A Brand Beats Competition In Work Environments

                                    Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

The brand that each of us brings to the work table is more valuable than competing against coworkers.



We live in a hypercompetitive world today with technology moving us forward near the speed of light. Alright — maybe not at the speed of light, but you understand what I am getting at right? Work seems more competitive with the explosion of the internet along with the information superhighway out in front of us. How does one compete in such a stressful environment?



Each human needs sleep. But that does not necessarily translate into downtime which a colleague can use against you at work. Each of us has a natural pace at which our bodies feel comfortable pursuing daily life. That is not to say that each of us cannot be kicked into high gear to accomplish a project. Let me explain further.

Competition Is Not Branding

Specific work environments thrive on competition. But each of us should not confuse competition with our unique brands. Each of us brings a unique brand to the work environment. That branding is what keeps us employed. You might be wondering at the moment: Doesn’t the employee who completes the project first stay employed?




Not necessarily.



What you bring to the table in terms of uniqueness is what keeps you employed. As an example, take a manager who has ten workers underneath her on a team. In the case, she delegates the entire team of ten workers the same task. She requests that each employee work individually. Nominally, she should get ten copies of projects. At the completion of the project, she should expect to receive ten unique reports.



Therefore, when each of us steps into our hypercompetitive environments, we should remember that each of us brings a unique brand to the work environment. The brand begins at birth. Through your life, your brand develops. I have written about brands in a previous post. No two people can ever have the same brand — impossible.



As a result, don’t stress out at work when given a task. You may not complete a job at the same time as your colleagues. You may not even turn in the same length of a report to your boss as your colleague. Your story (and work) will be unique — with the stamp of your brand on it.

Be Proud Of Your Brand

The concept of a brand is becoming more critical as corporations move toward teamwork environments. In the past, work silos or cubicles were famous. Notice that more workspaces are becoming open environments. Settings where people can share ideas and network more efficiently. Work together on projects by merely being in proximity.



Don’t ever be afraid of elevating your colleague up. Do you need all of the credit for a project? I have found in life that elevating my colleagues up in life has, in turn, brought me more success. I am not bragging — just an observation.



What do I mean by elevating your colleague up?



Instead of trying to undermine or compete against your colleague in a work environment, try to elevate their part in the project. Express to your manager or supervisor how their contribution was constructive. If your teammate did not pull his/her weight, then do not elevate them. But do not bad mouth them either. Their lack of branding on the project will be completely noticeable by a supervisor or manager over time.



While competition is high and causes teams to thrive, recognizing specific brands (i.e., individual strengths) can be extremely powerful. Understanding that each of us brings a unique brand to the table alleviates the stress of competition. Believe in your brand and try to stop competing against your colleagues. Work to make the team stronger and, in turn, the corporation more successful. Everyone will win in the end.



Related Blog Posts:


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


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

Why Doesn't Plastic Dry in a Dishwashing Machine?

Photo by Ryan Everton on Unsplash

Have you ever opened up the dishwasher machine after a cycle only to see that residual water is on the plastics inside? What was your thought at that exact moment? "Is the dishwasher working properly?" Do not panic; the dishwasher is working. Plastic containers absorb heat at different rates than metals.

Specific Heat Capacity

I will just cut to the chase. The specific heat capacity is responsible for different materials drying in dishwashers in a given time. Plastic has a much different specific heat capacity than does water. What does the difference mean? The rate of thermal energy absorbed by a material depends on the specific heat capacity:

The specific heat capacity is the amount of heat required to raise a gram of material a single degree on the Celsius temperature scale.

The table below shows that materials absorb heat at different rates:

Engineering Toolbox

The lower the specific heat capacity of the substance, the less heat is required to change the temperature a single degree Celsius.

In the table above, the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of a gram of water (4.186 Joules/gram C) is roughly eight times the amount to change a gram of steel (0.490 Joules/gram C).

How About Plastic?

The plastic container below is a standard container found in a domestic dishwasher.

Target Rubbermaid

Plastic, in general, is made up of a high molecular weight polymer. A polymer is a large molecule of repeating units (i.e., molecular units). In the case of Rubbermaid, the small repeating molecular units are shown below:

Vectorstock

The molecule above is a repeating unit of polycarbonate. Meaning that the molecule above is a link in a chain. On one side of the molecule is the polycarbonate portion of the chain. The polycarbonate part of the repeating molecular unit is shown below circled:

Vectorstock

The dashed ends of the repeating unit with a bracket indicate that the molecule is a link of a more massive chain (of repeating units). Polymers differ in the number of repeating units. The molecular weight of a polymer is dependent on the number of repeating units. The best example of a high molecular weight polymer is a car tire. As a side note, a car tire is an example of a massive polymer - a single polymer chain - a huge chain.

According to the table above with various specific heat capacities, the specific heat of plastic is between the value for steel and water. Water holds heat very well. Whereas, the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of a gram of plastic is double the amount needed to raise a gram of steel.

Heat Transfer Inside A Dishwasher

Hot water circulating in dishwasher heats objects (metals, plastics, etc.). Pots and pans absorb heat from the warm flowing water. The water reaches a maximum of 75 Celsius during the cleaning cycle. Hot water circulating removes food from metal containers and plastics.

There is the last rinse cycle, which increases the temperature of the water an additional 7 Celcius to reach a maximum temperature of 82 Celcius (180 F). The last rinse step dries the dishes.

Specific heat accounts for the heat absorbed to raise the temperature. Heating objects depends on absorbing thermal energy inside a dishwasher:

The thermal energy absorbed by heating (energy = Joules) is dependent upon: mass (in grams), specific heat capacity (Joules/gram C), and the Temperature range (Final-Initial).

Heating inside of a dishwasher depends on the three parameters shown above.

Therefore, the reason why plastic does not dry inside of the dishwasher is due to the large specific heat capacity. Certain plastics might dry which are not made of polycarbonate and possess a lower specific heat capacity.

Metal objects have low specific heat capacities. Which means that during a dishwasher cycle, the metal objects will experience a broad temperature range - heat up quickly to a high temperature. Whereas plastics have sizeable specific heat capacities.

Therefore, the temperature range which plastics undergo throughout a dishwasher cycle will be lower, which means that the water will not evaporate off of a piece of plastic which does not heat up to the equivalent temperature of steel or aluminum.

Dishwashers were not initially designed to heat plastics. Early models were calibrated to heat metal objects. Plastic containers placed on the bottom shelf could experience inhomogeneous (i.e., non-uniform) heating, which would result in changing shape. Yes, the plastic would dry, but be deformed.

To attempt to dry plastic containers, place them on the top shelf. Be sure to clean the plastic in the sink (of all food) first before placing the objects in the dishwasher. That way, all the heat absorbed during the rinse cycle can be converted into heat to evaporate water (i.e., dry). That is the best strategy.



Related Blog Posts:



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


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

Even Monkeys Know When They Receive Unequal Pay

Photo by Audronė Locaitytė on Unsplash

Us humans easily get caught up thinking that we are so sophisticated.   When, in fact, each of us has primal behavior, which resembles our animal ancestors.  What about when our animal species display behavior which resembles human behavior?  In the video below -- an embedded tweet -- shows that even monkeys know when they are receiving unequal pay for the same given task:

Watch what happens when two monkeys are offered unequal pay for the same task: https://t.co/9bSvvkZBVN pic.twitter.com/qcxweN1bKF

— Vala Afshar (@ValaAfshar) June 15, 2019

Have a great Saturday!



Related Blog Posts:



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


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

FDA Stance On PFAS: Study Findings and Survey Results

Photo by Gabriel Gurrola on Unsplash

Congress currently is stalling/deciding on the fate of the PFAS class of chemicals.  To remind you, the chemical class Per- or Poly Fluoro Alkyl Substances (PFAS) is incorporated into a wide array of products.  Two such applications involve the resistant properties of the chemicals make them useful to include in plastic liners in food products or fire retardant in furniture products.  Over the last few months (to a year), I have reported on the emergence of the issues associated with the class of compounds (here and here).  But what is the government going to do?


Usually, Congress holds hearings during which the federal agencies (FDA, CDC, EPA) are brought in to deal with the regulation side of the chemical compounds.  That is the reason for all of the recent hearings.  To begin with, the Food and Drug Administration agency needed to do initial testing to make a statement.  The FDA has finally released a statement regarding regulations of PFAS class of chemicals:

For Immediate Release:

June 11, 2019

Statement From:

Acting

Commissioner of Food and Drugs - Food and Drug Administration

Norman E. "Ned" Sharpless MD

Deputy Commissioner for Food Policy and Response - Food and Drug Administration

Frank Yiannas

At the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, increasing our scientific knowledge and capabilities is a cornerstone to ensuring the safety of the foods that Americans consume. We do this by reviewing all available scientific evidence to determine the safety of foods and food packaging and conducting our own research to fill in gaps in the science. As part of these efforts, the FDA has been working to develop new methods to quantify certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in foods. We have employed these new methods to test samples of foods Americans typically consume for certain types of PFAS, and today we are making available recently analyzed data from these initial testing initiatives.

Overall, our findings did not detect PFAS in the vast majority of the foods tested. In addition, based on the best available current science, the FDA does not have any indication that these substances are a human health concern, in other words a food safety risk in human food, at the levels found in this limited sampling. These data give our scientists a benchmark to use as we continue our critical work studying this emerging area of science.

Background on PFAS

PFAS are a family of human-made chemicals that are found in a wide range of products used by consumers and industry. There are nearly 5,000 types of PFAS, some of which have been more widely used and studied than others. Many PFAS are impermeable to grease, water and oil. For this reason, beginning in the 1940s, PFAS have been used for many different applications including in stain- and water-resistant fabrics and carpeting, cleaning products, paints and fire-fighting foams, as well as in limited, authorized uses in cookware and food packaging and processing, referred to as food contact substances.

The widespread use of PFAS and their ability to remain intact in the environment means that over time PFAS levels from past and current uses can result in increasing levels of contamination of groundwater and soil. This same accumulation also can occur in humans and animals, with PFAS found in the blood of humans and animals worldwide. While the science surrounding the potential health effects of PFAS is developing, current evidence suggests that the bioaccumulation of certain PFAS may cause serious health conditions. However, with the decrease in production and use of certain PFAS, levels in humans in the U.S. have been declining.

PFAS can occur in food through environmental contamination, including contaminated water and soil used to grow the food. This type of contamination can occur in a specific geographic area; for example, a water well or farm near an industrial facility where PFAS were produced, or an oil refinery, airfield, or other location at which PFAS were used for firefighting. PFAS can also come into contact with food as a result of the limited authorized uses as food contact substances.

FDA Testing

Addressing potential effects of Americans’ PFAS exposure is a national priority and effort and work is underway in this area by several government agencies. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are advancing knowledge around environmental exposures and potential health risks from PFAS, and the Agency is working on issues related to PFAS contamination with these and other federal partners, including the Department of Defense. State health partners are also investigating exposure and working to reduce exposure in local communities. The FDA recognizes its important role in generating, applying and evaluating the science that is needed to begin to estimate exposures from food. As we continue this research, we will be better able to detect, evaluate, and respond more quickly to potential contamination issues involving food.

The FDA has tested foods for PFAS coming from specific geographic areas with known environmental contamination. Recent limited surveys were conducted on dairy products from certain farms in New Mexico and produce from North Carolina, both of which were from specific areas with known PFAS contamination. For every sample for which PFAS was detected, a safety assessment was performed by FDA scientists. In the case of one dairy farm in New Mexico, milk samples were determined to be a potential health concern and all milk from the farm was discarded and not distributed into the American food supply, and milk production from those cattle has been suspended. The Agency continues to work closely with our regulatory partners in the New Mexico Department of Agriculture on these issues. In the case of the produce samples from North Carolina, the levels of PFAS detected were low and, based on our safety assessment using the best available science, samples were determined not likely to be a health concern at the levels found through testing.

To conduct these safety assessments, the FDA reviews relevant information, such as the levels of PFAS found in that food, consumption of that food and the most current toxicological information for PFAS, which we use to determine whether the levels of PFAS found in that food may pose a health concern, especially to vulnerable populations.

Over the last year, we have expanded our testing to analyze for PFAS in foods typically eaten by Americans, and not associated with specific contamination areas. The samples analyzed were from foods originally collected as part of the FDA’s Total Diet Study (TDS) in 2017 and analyzed in 2019. This is the first time the FDA has tested for PFAS in such a highly diverse sample of foods. While no PFAS compounds were detected in the majority of the foods sampled, varying levels of PFAS were found in 14 samples out of 91, but our safety assessment determined the products were not likely to be health concern at the levels that were detected. We plan to continue this testing and currently have new TDS samples in the lab for analysis. Combined with our other sampling, the testing will help us calculate the risks of exposure through food.

Next Steps

Our findings on dairy, produce, and the samples from the TDS were recently presented by FDA scientists at this year’s annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) in Helsinki, Finland. The purpose of this scientific presentation was to share, with the scientific community, the new methodologies being advanced by the FDA for measuring concentrations of these substances across a wide variety of foods, and the early findings generated from the application of these methods. The FDA has published information on PFAS testing in other foods in the past, but FDA scientists also shared information on its recent limited PFAS testing.

Since PFAS contamination is not specific to the U.S., sharing the FDA’s knowledge and analytical advances with scientists from across the world working on this issue is an important part of our work to begin to address this problem globally. Overall, the FDA’s testing to date has shown that very few foods contain detectable levels of PFAS. However, we know that levels may not be uniform and there is more work to be done. To ensure we are taking the best approach to this complex issue, we have established an internal agency PFAS workgroup with representatives from the human and animal foods programs. A key objective of this workgroup is to establish base-line levels for PFAS in foods, which requires data from these initial and future surveys, and will be used to then estimate overall PFAS exposure. The workgroup will use a systematic, risk-based approach to identify and prioritize FDA activities to reduce exposure to PFAS in human and animal food, guided by available data.

Measuring PFAS concentrations in food, estimating dietary exposure and determining the associated health effects is an emerging area of science. Although the FDA’s scientists are at the forefront of developing new and more sensitive testing methods to measure PFAS in foods, this work does not occur in isolation. We’re also working closely with our federal and state partners to advance the science of PFAS detection and better understand the potential health risks associated with PFAS exposure.

As the FDA continues to evaluate the food supply, we are committed to using the advanced analytical capabilities of FDA labs to generate and share new scientific information, such as our testing methodologies. By working closely with our state partners and helping them to develop their own testing capacities, we can work together to increase the baseline knowledge of PFAS occurrence in foods. We will also continue to support response to local requests about known or possible contamination events.

Federal and state partners each have important roles to play to better understand PFAS exposures and potential health effects, and the FDA will continue to work with these partners to help inform appropriate next steps to protect and promote public health. As part of an era of smarter food safety, the FDA is committed to testing more foods, collaborating with other federal agencies, helping states develop their own testing capacities, and continuing to support responses to contamination events. It is critical that we continue to share our knowledge and leverage existing and new resources as local, state and federal agencies work together to study this emerging public health issue.

We remain committed to sharing further updates as our ongoing surveillance work into PFAS exposure in foods continues.

The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.

The initial findings indicate that no dangerous detectable levels were found in foods.  Except for milk in New Mexico.  FDA regulators reached out immediately and stopped milk sales/distribution.  For the broader class of PFAS chemicals, the danger has been reduced for the moment.  Testing in foods (which are different from liquids) presents different challenges.



Namely, matrix effects.  The presence of spectator chemicals (not being analyzed) could interfere with measurements of chemicals of interest. Currently, the Cannabis industry is plagued with matrix effects which distorts method development at each stage.  Which is why the FDA states above that method development are emerging for such tests.



Regardless, I will update you on the progress of the testing along with the regulations which emerge as a result of the current hearings.  Stay tuned!



Related Blog Posts:


More Congressional Hearings on PFAS, when can Americans expect Action Taken by Regulators?


Update: EPA Throws Journalists Out Of PFAS Conference - Why?


Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS


Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals

Seth Godin On Writing: Overwriting

Photo by Green Chameleon on Unsplash

There are very few masters at efficiently placing words on pages to make sense.  In fact, Scientists are great offenders of using too many words to convey ideas.  Seth Godin, author, and businessman has stated the problem clearly and concisely below regarding writing for those who struggle like me:

Overwriting

Decorating a car with bling, mudflaps and an airhorn is a form of signalling. You can show your peers that you have the resources to waste on superfluous adornments.

(Did you see what I just did there? I could have said, “You can show your friends that you have money to burn,” but I didn’t.)

Overwriting has a long tradition, particularly among academics. Make it a bit more complex and wordy than it needs to be. Write run-on sentences. Apparently, complicated writing must be more true.

One reason for this commitment to overwriting is that it keeps the hordes away. It’s difficult to read and hard to imagine writing. And so scarcity is created.

And yet, the articles and books that stand the test of time are straightforward. They’re memorable. They can be understood by the reader you seek to serve.

Simply write.

Write simply.

As few words as you need, but no fewer.

But simply write.

We can all use some advice on writing.  The process is a continual process of learning how to not drag on and use up all of our reader's attention.  Which could result in not revisiting your work to read further?  Learning to be concise is an art, a personal goal of mine. Have a great day.



Related Blog Posts:



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


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

FDA should finalize Sodium Reduction Targets, Although Lobbyists Hit Congress Hard in Opposition

Photo by Jason Briscoe on Unsplash

 Too much sodium in the diets of Americans is unhealthy. According to the American Heart Association (AMA), the average American eats more than 3,400 milligrams of sodium a day. The recommended amount by the American Heart Association is less than 1,500 milligrams per day.



To make matters worse, when asked about the amount of sodium in their daily diet, respondents in one study could not estimate the exact (or approximate) number of milligrams of salt in their food each day. Further, the respondents thought that they were eating less than 2,000 milligrams per day.



In light of this revelation, the amount of sodium in Americans daily diets should not be solely in the hands of the consumers. What about the manufacturers of food? Why are these corporations not held accountable for elevated amounts of salt in their products? Congress has directed the Food and Drug Administration to address the issue of sodium reduction targets in foods sold in the United States. What is the status you may ask? 

Reporting from 'Politico Agriculture' suggests that there is a battle in Congress with lobbyists on one side and Sustainable Food Policy Alliance on the other regarding Sodium reduction targets in food:

Make way for sodium reduction? Health advocates and the Sustainable Food Policy Alliance have asked appropriators to make sure there's no language in the approps bill that could block FDA from advancing long-awaited sodium reduction targets (past bills have pumped the brakes). They also want funding to support sodium cuts in school meals, among other things.

The FDA has said it's preparing to release sodium reduction targets in the coming months, but the effort has sparked late-game lobbying from industry groups. The agency is now expected to finalize only short-term reduction targets, but the final details are unknown.

How much sodium will be in our daily diet? Will the FDA clamp down and ultimately set a lower amount of sodium in each product? Or will the Agency give in to the lobbyists who hit Congress hard and let the status quo exist without change?



Placing the daily sodium intake in the consumer's hand is difficult. Why? Sodium finds its way into foods by different ingredients. Below are different ingredients (chemicals - molecular structures) which contain sodium:

You may recognize the different molecules above as common ingredients in different favorite foods. Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) is the molecule responsible for enhancing the flavor of food - which tricks the body into eating more. Food packages sold in stores do not list all ingredient concentrations. Which makes determining the total amount of sodium in the daily diet difficult.



Although, armed with the list of sodium containing chemicals which are common in foods gives the consumers a fighting chance to curtail their consumption. Congress needs to act on the Food and Drug Administration to reach sodium reduction targets soon. Until Congress pushes the FDA to reach a goal, consumers should be vigilant about the amount of sodium incorporated into their diet. Stay tuned!



Related Blog Posts:


Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Questions Drug Manufacturer Over Excessive Prices On Drugs

New Drug Design Strategies - Consider the Patient during the Design Process


Former FDA Director Asked Congress For Clarity Regarding CBD in Food Products


Food is not addictive, but is filled with Addictive Drugs -- Engineered Chemicals to Elicit Addiction


"Just Make A Generic (Cheaper Version) Of The Drug"? Not So Easy...


Update: On FDA's Policy Agenda For Combatting Opioid Crisis


The future: Making Medicines in your kitchen?

Does Climate Change Really Impact National Security?

Photo by Bob Blob on Unsplash

Climate change has threatened land used for agricultural purposes over the last few years.  The property is beyond use for growing crops in certain parts of the world -- which amounts to a threat of the security in the respective region.  Back in 2014, the Pentagon stated that climate change threatened National Security in a report. With the turn over of the House, more hearings have occurred this year on climate change.  This week another hearing will occur.  First, earlier in the year, a hearing did occur to address this issue -- climate change and national security.


The hearing held earlier this year (back in April) was titled "The Need for Leadership to Combat Climate Change and Protect National Security" chaired by Congressman John who summoned the testimony of two seasoned political leaders: (1) Secretary of State John Kerry and (2) Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. 


The purpose of the hearing is stated below:

Climate change presents a massive and growing threat to the United States, including to our national security.

In November 2018, the U.S. Global Change Research Program released Volume II of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, which concluded that climate change “is projected to significantly affect human health, the economy, and the environment in the United States.” The report also found that efforts to mitigate the causes of climate change and adapt to its impacts do not “currently approach the scales needed to avoid substantial damages to the U.S. economy, environment, and human health and well-being over the coming decades.”

In January 2019, the Director of National Intelligence, Daniel R. Coats, released the Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The report found: “Global environmental and ecological degradation, as well as climate change, are likely to fuel competition for resources, economic distress, and social discontent through 2019 and beyond."

Last month, Former Secretary of State John Kerry and former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel led 58 prominent national security officials in sending a letter to President Trump, writing:

[W]e are deeply concerned by reports that National Security Council officials are considering forming a committee to dispute and undermine military and intelligence judgments on the threat posed by climate change. … We urge you to trust and heed the analysis of your own national security agencies and the science agencies on which their assessments depend, including the 21 senior defense officials that have identified climate change as a security threat during your Administration. A committee designed to undermine the many years of work they have done will weaken our ability to respond to real threats, putting American lives at risk

The hearing will examine the threat of climate change to the United States, including national security, and the need for leadership to combat this threat.

The purpose is very clear.  Climate Change is a threat to national security.  Diminishing resource availability will exacerbate national security issues among nations throughout the world.  In the above purpose statement,  21 senior defense officials clearly state that climate change is a threat to national security.  The hearing last April shed light on the introduction into the issue as outlined by the Pentagon and other reports previously.



The  full hearing is shown below:

Chair Senator Elijah Cummings Opening Statement:

To provide context for the hearing which is linked in the title, below are the written testimonies of each.  First, the written testimony of former Secretary of State John Kerry is shown below:

Secretary Kerry

Testimony Before House Oversight Committee

April 9, 2019

Mr. Chairman – thank you, not only for your leadership on climate change, but even more, for your stewardship of a Committee which, at its best, demands accountability of those in positions in power, on behalf of the American people.

Chairman Cummings, Ranking Member Jordan thank you for inviting me and Secretary Hagel to join you this morning, and for welcoming back to Congress not just one but two recovering United States Senators.

I think most on this Committee would agree that there’s a long list of issues where, despite the advice and warning of experts, Washington remains gridlocked.

But at least on most of those issues, no one can credibly deny the magnitude of the challenge let alone the existence of the problem.

The same cannot be said about climate change.

Think about it: During World War II, America would never have tolerated leadership that denied Hitler’s aggression. During the Cold War, no one in public life would have been taken seriously if they didn’t offer a policy to counter the Soviets. And after 9/11, it would’ve been disqualifying to deny that al Qaeda knocked down the Twin Towers.

Facts are facts. But here we are in 2019 where too many in positions of responsibility still call climate change a hoax and advocate policies that will only make the reality of climate change even worse.

Enough. We have no time to waste debating alternative facts only to be forced to invest years more trying to reestablish trust in the real ones.

Just the other month, we learned that the White House is planning to convene a task force, apparently working behind closed doors, to “determine” whether climate change is a national security threat. We already know what the outcome will be: it’s a council of doubters and deniers convened to undo a 26-year-old factual consensus that climate change is a national-security threat multiplier.

It’s a scheme to pretend there are two sides to an issue already long since settled.

In examining the facts regarding this issue you don’t have to just accept my or Secretary Hagel’s word. The designation of climate change as a security issue wasn’t settled by President Obama’s NSC, my State Department, or Secretary Hagel’s Pentagon.

No. It was settled 28 years ago by a Republican President and a team that included Jim Baker, Dick Cheney, Brent Scowcroft, Colin Powell, and Bob Gates. In 1991, the Bush administration assessed in its National Security Strategy that threats like climate change, which “respect no international boundaries,” were “already contributing to political conflict.” Each of his successors included climate change in their National Security Strategies. Even after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush’s administration made room in the 2002 National Security Strategy to warn of “dangerous human interference with the global climate.”

There is not a scintilla of accepted science or bipartisan military expert analysis that four consecutive administrations were wrong. There is no event and certainly no scientifically based event or suggestion that the proposition should be reexamined. No.

The factual basis of climate change’s threat originated not with politicians but with the national security community, including the intelligence community. Eleven retired military leaders constituting the military advisory board at CNA, a naval think tank in Arlington, described climate change in 2007 as “a threat multiplier for instability.” Seven years later, 16 retired flag officers representing all branches of the military implored Americans to understand the severity of “a salient national security concern” because “time and tide wait for no one.”

Instead of convening a kangaroo court, the president might want to talk with the educated adults he once trusted enough to fill his top national security positions.

Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats has reported that climate change would increase “the risk of social unrest, migration, and interstate tension in countries such as Egypt, Ethiopia, Iraq, and Jordan.” Then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told the Armed Services Committee last year: “Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today.”

These officials weren’t making back-of-the-envelope projections about a distant, dystopic future.

Climate change is already impacting national security. The American Security Project (ASP) is an organization of security experts including retired admirals and generals, flag officers who spent their careers in service not to a president or a party but to country above all else. It also includes former United States Senators— both Democrat and Republican. The experts at ASP note that climate change “is what we call a ‘ring road’ issue; meaning that climate change affects all of these other threats....It will change disease vectors. It will drive migration. These changes, in turn, could affect state stability and harm global security.”

Lieutenant General Castellaw and Brigadier General Adams of the American Security Project know the ground truth. They write: “Even as our comrades on active duty in the U.S. military forces plan for the impact of the rise in sea levels in places like Bangladesh, the retreat of the ice in the Arctic and extreme storms in places like the Philippines, members of Congress and others continue to deny the obvious. The truth is that climate change is real and poses significant challenges for our nation’s security.”

As Secretary of State, I visited Naval Station Norfolk. It’s the biggest naval installation in the world, and the land that houses it is literally sinking. In fact, sea levels on the East Coast are rising twice as fast as the global average, thanks to uneven ocean temperatures and geology.

The admiral in charge of the fleet and the base commander made clear what further sea-level rise could mean for Norfolk or for the U.S. Navy fleet, 20 percent of which is home-ported nearby. Increased risk of wildfires can even prevent troops from training with live ammunition.

Willful denial won’t change the fact that our military readiness will be degraded when the permafrost our Alaskan bases are built on begins to thaw out.

And it doesn’t end with military impacts. Climate change didn’t lead to the rise of the terrorist group Boko Haram in Nigeria, but the country’s severe drought and the government’s inability to cope with it exacerbated the volatility that militants exploited to seize villages, butcher teachers and kidnap hundreds of innocent girls. And it is accepted fact that climate change—a prolonged, historic drought— killed off such a vast percentage of Syria’s livestock that more than a million people were forced to migrate to Damascus and its environs, contributing greatly to the violence in that country.

The prospect of a more arid climate throughout the Middle East and parts of Asia will increasingly strain the most essential resource of all: fresh water. We’ve already seen tensions rise around the basins of the Nile, Central Asia’s Indus River and the Mekong in Southeast Asia. Areas facing unrest, instability and weak governance are breeding grounds for violent extremism. Climate change will only exacerbate mass migration in places already enduring economic, political and social stress.

Mr. Chairman, the only people cheering the president’s apparent attempt to erase climate change from U.S. national security considerations, live in Beijing and Moscow. China and Russia have for years been mapping the resource competition, military implications, and geostrategic challenges that climate change will present in an ever-changing, climate-impacted Arctic. What a gift to them if we stop making our own assessments because we have our heads buried in the sand while their eyes are on the tundra.

I know legislating on climate is not easy. I was charged with responsibility of leading the last serious bipartisan effort with Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman. I lived the difficulties. But I know we’ll never get there at all if we don’t listen to our generals and admirals and our scientists. We can spend the next two years debating whether two plus two equals five. But it would mean someday a young American in uniform will likely be put in harm’s way because truth lost out to talking heads.

Let’s debate how to address the climate national security threat, not whether it’s real.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And second, the written statement of former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel:

TESTIMONY OF CHUCK HAGEL

FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND U.S. SENATOR

APRIL 9, 2019

Chairman Cummings, Ranking Member Jordan, members of the Committee, thank
you for inviting me to testify here today about the threats posed by climate
change to our national security.

I’m proud to be sitting next to my friend and former Senate and Cabinet
colleague, Secretary John Kerry. We’ve shared many conversations about this
issue over the years. We are both founding members of the American Security
Project, an organization that has led research into the national security
implications of climate change.

In my public career, both in the Senate and at the Department of Defense,
preparing for climate change was an important part of my work. In 1997, the
Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which laid out the conditions for Senate
support of an international agreement on carbon emissions. Later that year I led
the Senate delegation to the Kyoto negotiations where John was a member of the
delegation.

In 2005, I was the author of the climate title to the Energy Policy Act, creating the
Department of Energy Loan Guarantee program and the international Clean
Energy Ministerial meeting.

In 2007, I led the effort to require a National Intelligence Assessment of the
security impacts of climate change.

As Secretary of Defense, I issued the Department’s first Arctic Strategy in 2013,
highlighting how the military would respond to melting ice and other challenges,
as well as the Department’s first Climate Adaptation Roadmap, detailing how to
prepare for climate change.

I supported the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement because it met the requirements of
the Byrd-Hagel resolution, ensuring that all nations take measurable, reportable,
and verifiable steps to reduce their emissions.

While climate science rapidly advanced over my decades in public service, my
priorities remained the same: any actions to address climate change must protect
America’s economy, environment, and our national security.

My views were always informed by science. As scientists reduced uncertainty
about climate change over the last two decades, it became clear that the U.S.
must implement policies to address the challenge – because climate change is
threatening our economy, the environment, and our national security.

Dating back to the George H.W. Bush Administration in 1992, intelligence and
national security professionals were telling us that climate change posed a direct
threat to U.S. national security. This work has been informed by U.S. scientists
telling us that a melting Arctic, more frequent droughts and floods, and extreme
weather are all examples of the changing climate in the United States and the
world.

Changing weather patterns threaten our national security through its impacts on
military infrastructure, disaster response, and the economy.

We now don’t need to wait for more sophisticated climate models to project the
security consequences of climate change. The impacts of climate change are
clearly evident today.

As members on this committee know, this past year’s extreme weather has
seriously affected our military readiness. In September, Hurricane Florence
decimated Camp Lejeune and caused damage to Fort Bragg and military
installations across North Carolina.

A few weeks later, Hurricane Michael leveled Tyndall Air Force Base on Florida’s
Panhandle, causing damage to 17 F-22 stealth fighters and major structural
damage throughout the base.

Last month, floods in my home state of Nebraska severely damaged the runway
and infrastructure at Offutt Air Force Base, home of U.S. Strategic Command.

As a Nebraskan, spring floods surprise no one back home. However, these floods
were far more extreme than anything we’ve seen. We saw record setting flooding
along the Missouri, Platte, and Elkhorn rivers and across the Midwest.

Estimates of the cost of these disasters to the military are significant. The Marines
have requested $3.6 billion to rebuild their North Carolina operations, while the
Air Force has requested an initial $5 billion for Tyndall and Offutt.

While the bases may rebuild over time, the loss of training and readiness cannot
be recovered. In a February letter to the Secretary of the Navy, General Neller,
Commandant of the Marine Corps, wrote that because of the damage from the
storms, “The combat readiness of Marine Expeditionary Force – 1/3 the combat
power of the Marine Corps – is degraded and will continue to degrade.”

I will close by addressing the proposal by the White House to question the science
behind the national security estimate on climate change. We still do not know the
details of what the proposal before the National Security Council would do. Press
reports have indicated that National Security Advisor Bolton wants to create a
panel that would re-examine whether climate change is indeed a threat to
security.

If this panel were created in good faith, under the legal requirements of a federal
advisory committee, I am confident that the weight of scientific evidence and
present day realities would confirm what I and other national security leaders
have found: climate change is a real and present threat to our national security
which most likely will get worse.

That is why I signed a letter, along with Secretary Kerry and 56 other senior
national security officials, asking that the President not “dispute and undermine
military and intelligence judgements on climate change.” I ask that a copy of that
letter be included in the record.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your questions. 

Climate change presents threats to all aspects of our society.  In future years to come, these small effects now will become exacerbated by the lack of action taken currently.   Denying the threat of climate change with a link to national security is extremely risky.  Back in 2014, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel gave a speech in which he stated that climate change is a 'threat-multiplier':

Climate change is a “threat multiplier”…because it has the potential to exacerbate many of the challenges we already confront today – from infectious disease to armed insurgencies – and to produce new challenges in the future.  

The loss of glaciers will strain water supplies in several areas of our hemisphere.  Destruction and devastation from hurricanes can sow the seeds for instability.  Droughts and crop failures can leave millions of people without any lifeline, and trigger waves of mass migration.

Secretary of State John Kerry stated that climate change has been considered a hoax by the current administration while the past four Presidential administrations have been in acceptance of a growing problem without a solution.   The current hearings show concern is real and that a solution is being sought after.  How and on what timeline the solution will occur remains in the decisions made by Congress and the administration.  Time is of the essence, therefore, hearings are an encouraging development to track in the days to come.  Stay tuned!



Related Blog Posts:



Mayor Garcetti Moves Los Angeles Away From Fossil Fuel Investment

Congress Intervenes And Asks For No More Oil Drilling Off Of Florida

President Trump Is Out Of Touch With The Transition Toward Renewable Energy

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

Environmental Groups Question Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Cuts

President Trump's Immigration Rhetoric Damages International Science Student Enrollment

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

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

President Trump's Understanding of the Paris Agreement


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


Is This Behavior Presidential - President Trump?


Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future


READ THIS BEFORE VOTING -- Presidential Science (WORLD) Issues!


Brings Jobs Back By Promoting Renewable Energy!