President Trump Tries To Open Up Arctic For Oil Drilling, Judge Says No

Photo by:  Willian Justen de Vasconcellos on Unsplash

Breaking news -- not really.  Read all about it...President Trump tries to open up the Arctic Ocean for oil drilling and is met in court with a response of 'No':

 In a major legal blow to President Trump’s push to expand offshore oil and gas development, a federal judge ruled that an executive order by Mr. Trump that lifted an Obama-era ban on oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean was unlawful.

The decision, by Judge Sharon L. Gleason of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, concluded late Friday that President Barack Obama’s 2015 and 2016 withdrawal of about 1120 million acres of Arctic Ocean from drilling “will remain in full force and effect unless and until revoked by Congress.” She wrote that an April 2017 executive order by Mr. Trump revoking the drilling ban “is unlawful, as it exceeded the president’s authority.”

The decision, which is expected to be appealed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, immediately reinstates the drilling ban on most of the Arctic Ocean off the coast of Alaska, a pristine region home to endangered species including polar bears and bowhead whales where oil companies have long sought to drill. It also has broader implications for Mr. Trump’s effort to push drilling across the American coastline and on public lands.

Specifically, the Arctic Ocean drilling case could give legal ammunition to opponents of Mr. Trump’s efforts to roll back protections for two million acres of national monuments created by Mr. Obama and President Bill Clinton.

With each passing day, the news is filled with updates on the success of the transition toward a renewable energy future.  Some may detail certain obstacles while others break the news regarding either a private entity or government moving (or making a commitment) toward achieving a non-zero percentage of their energy economy on clean (renewable) energy.  This reality is not new.



Neither is President Trump's inability to realize that 'rolling back' environmental laws put in place by the Obama Administration takes skill (and reason/logic) to reverse.  Congress will have to act at the very least.  Within that act will have to be a good reason to repeal the law put into place.  I have previously stated on this blog site the fact that if a rule is to be changed, the replacement has to be better than the previous law.



Which is to say that the law needs to be even more environmentally friendly than the previous proposal to be passed.  Otherwise, the existing law stays in place and is continuously challenged in courts -- as has been the case for the Trump Administration over the last two years.   I try hard to explain that rule to everyone with whom I meet and discuss the 'rollbacks' that supposedly have been accomplished by the Trump Administration.



The reality is stated in the article above that the Trump Administration has failed miserably on at least 40 accounts to persuade courts to reverse or 'rollback' a given environmental rule put in place by the Trump Administration.  These decisions have been in line with the current standards set in place by Congress.  Which should surprise no one including the President of the United States.  We will next have to see what Congress says about the issue at hand.



So far Congress has been willing to hold bipartisan hearings this year on the critical issue of climate change.  Furthermore, Congress recently wrote a letter to the Director of the Department of the Interior, asking him to not drill for oil off the coast of Florida.  That should be a significant indicator to President Trump that his attempts to 'rollback' any Obama Administration's environmental regulations (at least the majority of them) is not an accessible route to go down.



Of course, we are dealing with a non-traditional President of the United States currently.  The newspapers should keep up the great work at reporting on such failures.  Otherwise, a person might be led to think that a 'rollback' is possible without Congress.  The reality is that even Congress is batting for a renewable energy future.  Although the timeline might be debatable.  Nonetheless, a clean, renewable energy future is coming.  Stay tuned.



Related Blog Posts:


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!

3 very interesting research projects for Fluid Dynamics Research

Source: Termoflow

Have you ever been on the road inside a small car only to be passed by a large semi-tracker truck?  Further, as you are passed, the driver experiences a lateral (right or left) push from the trucks passing?  This push is the wind flow which is being pushed to the side by the diesel truck's inefficient air flow.  One major consequence of this inefficient air flow is the production of wind resistance (or a drag force) -- which drives down the miles per gallon (fuel efficiency) a given vehicle can get.



All vehicles suffer to some extent from the inefficient air flow surrounding a vehicle.  Some more than others.  Although, a large (and I mean large) amount of interest has been devoted in the form of research to minimize (and improve) air flow across a given object (to generalize it).  For those who are unaware of the study of 'Fluid Dynamics', the following can serve as an introduction:

In physics and engineering, fluid dynamics is a subdiscipline of fluid mechanics that describes the flow of fluids—liquids and gases. It has several subdisciplines, including aerodynamics (the study of air and other gases in motion) and hydrodynamics (the study of liquids in motion). Fluid dynamics has a wide range of applications, including calculating forces and moments on aircraft, determining the mass flow rate of petroleum through pipelines, predicting weather patterns, understanding nebulae in interstellar space and modelling fission weapon detonation,

Fluid dynamics offers a systematic structure—which underlies these practical disciplines—that embraces empirical and semi-empirical laws derived from flow measurement and used to solve practical problems. The solution to a fluid dynamics problem typically involves the calculation of various properties of the fluid, such as flow velocity, pressure, density, and temperature, as functions of space and time.

Before the twentieth century, hydrodynamics was synonymous with fluid dynamics. This is still reflected in names of some fluid dynamics topics, like magnetohydrodynamics and hydrodynamic stability, both of which can also be applied to gases.[1]

With the working introduction given above, the study of 'fluid dynamics' is now more comprehensible.  Still, the variety of projects which the study of fluid dynamics covers is incomprehensible.  Nearly any given situation which involves moving parts different mediums can be understood and broken down into a research project categorized under fluid dynamics.  Why?  Chances are that there is a 'fluid' or  lubricant involved in the workings.



Further, as highlighted below, most objects which move through the world can be understood at the level of a project under the category of fluid dynamics.  The video below highlights 3 research projects that are share the field of fluid dynamics research:

Amazing to say the least.  I love really interesting research project.  Of course, I love to learn just about anything.  The first project which is being tackled by Marguerite Matherne a graduate student studying in Dr. David Hu's lab at Georgia Tech.  Her project involves looking deeper into the process of transporting pollen back to the beehive by bees.  Pollen is composed of proteins which would not normally just adhere to one another.  Therefore, the bee needs to suspend the pollen into nectar to form a suspension.



What properties of this suspension allow the bee to transport the 'maximum' amount of pollen back to the beehive?  The viscosity of the suspension needs to be just right in order to complete the journey (and not fall apart).  Although, the drag force of the shaped pollen cannot exceed the force exerted by the bee in flying back to the beehive.  Otherwise the trip would be impossible.  As shown in the video, the research covers these parameters along with others relevant to the process.  Nevertheless, the project is unique and important to the survival of the bee population -- not to mention helping humans with fruit crops by spreading pollen among crops.



The second research project which was developed by and carried out by Dr. Giorgio-Serchi at the University of Edinburgh -- is devoted to understanding the forces (fluid dynamics) generated by sea creatures resulting in movement across a given area.  How do the framework of the structure interact with the fluid to produce forward movement?  If we could see at the molecular scale, the picture might be much greater in difficulty, therefore, making models (using computer simulations) is suitable for a research project at the moment.



Last but not least, researcher Daria Frank is working with Dr. Paul Linden at Cambridge University to better understand oil plumes.  Specifically, as in the case of the Deepwater Horizon Oil spill, the oil disperses in a plume with an initial angular momentum (angular momentum due to the Earth's spinning around an axis).  The project is to characterize the parameters of the rising oil plume and compare those parameters to a storm passing over the Earth's surface.



Comparing an oil spill -- a swirling plume (in the presence of water -- fluid) versus a storm -- a spinning top (fluid is air).  What are the differences?  What are the similarities?  The information gathered will better place the oil/gas industry in a better position to combat challenges -- especially in the face of a disaster.

4 Accessible Examples

Shown below are 4 different examples of research projects which would be encompassed under the category of fluid dynamics research.  The examples are very accessible to each of us, since each represent real life examples frequently encountered in society.  As you progress through the examples, think of questions that you would ask regarding the dynamics surrounding the object's environment.


Example 1: Fluid flow around a race car:

Source: Rodrigonemmen

What are the most relevant methods for dealing with fluid dynamics surrounding the air flow of a car?  How do magnetohydrodynamics figure into the solution?  How do different materials play into the dynamics of air flow across a car?  What about the development of heat spots across a vehicle?  What type of instabilities contribute to turbulent air flow across a car?  What type of equations are necessary to model the air flow?  Partial differential equations?  In order to understand the system better, the solutions involve introducing a method which is a combination of methods. 



Example 2: Fluid flow through an human artery

Source: Di Cardilogy

How does the flow of blood through the vessels of arteries and blood vessels affect the dynamics inside of the heart during a cardiac cycle?  How does the build up of plaque on the side of an artery wall contribute to turbulent flow within the artery?  How does the plaque weaken the artery wall leading to atherosclerosis?  What are the overall dynamics of the arterial system?  How does one build up site of plaque contribute to overall flow within the entire system?  These are a just a few of the questions being entertained by such researchers in the field of fluid dynamics in medicine/engineering.



Example 3: Fluid flow around a bicycle

Source: Insightreplay

What are relevant parameters for cyclists?  Weight of the bicycle?  Weight of the cyclist?  If you shave your leg and arm hair, does that really cut time off of a ride?  What about body shape?  What about the shape of the frame?  Is there an optimal shape of each component which will result in reducing air flow across the system?  These are just a few questions that the cycling industry has had to deal with over the years.  Fluid dynamics could certainly contribute to answering a few of them.



Example 4: Fluid flow around a golf ball

Source: Symscape

Most of us at one point or another have seen a game (or part of) of golf on the television or screen of a smart device.  What are the relevant parameters which play greatly into reducing the turbulence of air build up behind the ball?  In a previous blog post, I show how the 'dimples' on the surface of golf balls play a tremendous role in reducing the drag force on the golf ball.  Golf ball companies are very interested in reducing drag force overall to any degree.  Golfers dream of having complete flight stability during a game to better place their ball in a desired location.




Overall, these 4 examples serve us well in introducing the field of fluid dynamics.  Now, as each of us carry on in our busy days, feel free to pause a moment and look around yourself at your environment.   Find an example where the field of fluid dynamics could make a change -- a positive one.  There are many examples, each of us must be willing to think critically about the underlying parameters which dictate the performance and/or operation of a given phenomena.  Enjoy!



Related Blog Posts:


Does a Golf Ball have more than one shape (round)?

Parameters: "How widespread within NASA is the conviction that human activity is responsible for climate change?"


Want To Improve Science Communication: Add Artists!


White Blood Cells in action destroying Cancer Cells!


Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson explains why 'Space Force' is nothing new...


Scientists should find similarities rather than focus on differences


Why Chemistry Matters from the mouths of Nobel Laureates!


How Far Are We From Star Trek "Replicator" Technology?


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


What Is Going On Inside That Cell?


Chemistry Reactions Are Amazing - See For Yourself


Parameters: Can Computers Think?


Parameters: 3D Printed Human Hearts?


A Virtual Tour Of A Plant Cell? Really?


A Virtual Tour Of A Human Cell?

Soybean Farmers Are Storing Too Much Soybean, Although Chemical Industry Is Greenlighting Trade Deals?

Source: Post Bulletin

Depending on your exporting destination or importing origin along with the industry type, the response to the Trump Administration's tariffs program and emerging trade war is different.  For the chemical industry which heavily relies on good relations with local (North and South) neighboring countries, life is acceptable - as reported recently in the chemical news.  At the same time, if you are a soybean farmer or a farmer who relies on storing product in elevators for an extended period of time, trouble is approaching quickly due to trade coming to a 'stand still'.   The two different scenarios are listed below - briefly.

Soybean Storage?

Early on after trade tariffs were set to take effect, I wrote a blog post discussing (briefly) the benefits of global free trade.  In which, I highlighted the obvious fact that all commodities are connected to each other in some manner. Recently, the news site 'Politico Agriculture' has shed light on the connectivity which the trade industry relies on:

HIDDEN TRADE WAR IMPACT: CROP STORAGE SHORTAGE: Retaliatory tariffs have weighed down commodity prices for months. With the harvest well underway, the trade dispute with China is dealing another blow to U.S. soybean producers: a shortage of space in grain elevators that's causing major backups in states like North Dakota, Minnesota and Louisiana — and driving down prices even more.

China, the biggest market for U.S. soybeans, slapped 25 percent duties on the crop in retaliation for President Donald Trump's tariffs on Chinese high-tech products. Now it's effectively closed for business to American soy growers. Some farmers are gathering more soybeans than they can sell or store, jam-packed silos are running out of room, and the trains that usually carry soybeans to the Pacific Northwest for shipping to China aren't moving.

"In Southwest Minnesota and the Dakotas, you now have elevators that are storing all their beans because there's no market to the West. There is absolutely no bid," said Bill Gordon, a farmer in Worthington, Minn., and member of the American Soybean Association board of directors.

Gordon said some storage sites are piling corn outside to make room for soybeans, and that his local grain elevator is expected to be full after just one week of the month-long harvest.

Cash prices falling: The demand for storage space is also widening the gap between the market commodity price for soybeans and the cash price farmers receive for their crops at the elevator. Grant Kimberley, director of market development for the Iowa Soybean Association, said the drop-off — or "basis" — is normally 30 to 50 cents per bushel in central Iowa. Now it's about $1 per bushel.

Downstream problems: There's also a surge of Midwestern crops being shipped down the Mississippi River to New Orleans, where they're sold to Europe, South America and elsewhere. That's putting extra strain on growers and exporters in Louisiana.

"Everything is choking up right here on the Mississippi River on the barges and the elevators," Abraham said. "Every elevator that we have is full of soybeans right now and can literally take no more on."

Soybeans are taking up space which might be used for other crops which need to be stored too.  The states being affected - North Dakota, Minnesota, and Louisiana - have around 130,000 farms (combined in 3 states).  Not all of those farms serve the soybean industry.  Although, that enormous number of farms could be impacted by the connectivity to other crops which need to use the same storage space used temporarily for soybean crops held up by trade tariffs.



On top of the elevators being filled up are the barges (storage boats) which are filled up with soybeans being transported to other states to be stored.  Shown below is an example of a barge filled with soybean being filled.  Just think of all the transportation, space, and time -- which equates to money burned -- waiting to be moved, stored, or shipped.  All of the jobs which are on hold due to trade tariffs.  Not cool.

Source: Feed Stuffs

Additionally, the mere fact that China can just shut down and refuse any crops from the United States shows how reliant the United States is on other countries.  Which is dangerous to say the least.  Our reliance to other countries for crop sales or technology processing is becoming a major issue which going forward into the future will have be heavily weighed by those in elected office who make the large decisions in Washington D.C.



Although, they are elected positions therefore, your input is imperative in driving their respective vote.  With that being said, keeping up with the status of trade talks and disenfranchised farmers is important in moving forward participating in democracy.  Below, the conversation shifts from grave concern now to the chemical industry.  The chemical industry is quite pleased with the changes - which is strange.

Chemical Industry Is Good!

As I mentioned in the introductory paragraph, the chemical industry is one which has flourished since a deal has been arrived at between Canada, Mexico and the United States.  According to the Chemistry trade journal 'C&E News' titled "U.S. chemical industry reacts positively to revised trade pact with Canada, Mexico" the deal is being cast in a positive light:

The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) is an overhaul of the 24-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which underpins $1.2 trillion in total trade between the three countries.

The trilateral accord is critically important to U.S. chemical manufacturers because Canada and Mexico are the industry’s two largest export markets. Approximately 46,000 chemical industry jobs in the U.S. now depend on trade between the North American neighbors.

Although ACC and its member companies are still reviewing the provisions of the updated trade pact, the industry group says the agreement “appears to include several enhancements long sought-after by the U.S. chemical sector,” including greater regulatory cooperation.

That is not to say that other industries reliant on chemicals and pharmaceuticals are not hurting with the trade war emerging with other international countries.  Noted in the article above that 46,000 jobs depend on trade.  That is just one single industry - chemical industry.  Imagine all other industries across the board which contribute to global trade which are being negatively impacted.  The total amount of jobs which are tied to the trade of those industries.  When all is considered, the numbers are enormous and difficult to comprehend.

Conclusion...

Just today in 'Politico Agriculture' was the following news:

TRADE DISPUTES LOOM OVER GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY: Trade protectionism and climate change are among the factors weighing on international food security, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit's Global Food Security Index, a benchmark used to measure individual countries' level of food security.

The report, released Tuesday by EIU and DowDuPont's Corteva Agriscience, cited China's retaliatory tariffs on U.S. soybeans as an example of trade turmoil that can raise prices for consumers and hit low-income families the hardest.

"Protectionist trade policies can contribute to world food price increases and limit agricultural competitiveness," EIU wrote.

The benchmark has the U.S. tied for third place with the United Kingdom — and down in the rankings for the second year in a row. The result doesn't indicate a worsening situation in the U.S. but, rather, slower progress on food issues than other nations. Singapore ranks No. 1, followed by Ireland in second. The Netherlands rounds out the top five.

In light of the news above, get ready for prices to change due to changing demand both internationally and within our nation.  As highlighted, each of these avenues of export are tied to one another in some manner.   Typically, the thought of total impact never crosses each of our minds.  That needs to change with the changing times.



Instead of thinking in terms of an 'isolationist' country, the United States needs to again open up trade avenues to disseminate the crops which are stored and hindering profit margins of families (farm families) along with all of the other players in the trade game: tractor drivers, truckers, dock workers, mariners - captains of ships, ship manufacturers, shipping companies, traders, diplomats, local store owners, foreign store owners, Chinese supply chain.  All of these players have families to support.   Not to mention the amount of energy needed to move goods across supply routes nationally and internationally. 



Related Blog Posts:


"Trade Not Aid" -- The Answer For Trade War!


Trade War Hurts Farmers -- From The Farmer's Mouth Directly


Parameters: How many sticks of butter are contained in 7.5 million pounds of butter?


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


How Many Cherries Are In 1.5 Million Shipping Boxes?


Parameters: Trade Tariffs Will Affect International Science


Parameters: Steel And Aluminum Tariffs Are Not Isolated - They Are Tied To Trading Of Other Vital Goods


Parameters: Tariffs Affect Trade In Both Directions -- In And Out Of The USA

Thoughts: Instead of forming a "Space Force" why don't we work together to solve the world's problem?

Source: Brane Space

If you have not heard yet, the current administration in Washington D.C. is planning to form a 6th military branch called the "Space Force."  If you click on the hyperlinked "Space Force" you will be directed to the current (as of the writing of the post) search for this new endeavor.  Many in the defense industry are scratching their heads wondering where the endeavor is headed.  More importantly, why is President Trump calling for the formation?



With the entertainment of that idea in mind, there are also a community of special high ranking military service personnel who are wondering why not just deal with the current problems of the world.  Who are they?  In the video below from 'MSNBC' titled "What We Know About The Existing U.S. Space Force | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC" a brief discussion arises between the reporters and Commander Scott Kelly regarding the formation of a "Space Force" and the "Orbital Perspective."  The video is less than 8 minutes in length and worth viewing:

According to reporting by MSNBC reporter Ali Velshi in the video above, there are multiple components to transitioning toward such an endeavor/change.  First, funding would have to be approved by Congress (good luck on that) to create a 'Space Force'.  Not to mention, the paperwork and usual mandates and laws which accompany such a creation.  The process would be a huge ordeal.  Currently, each branch has a 'space subdivision' with the United States Air Force leading out in front with 'Space Command'. 



Skeptics mainly point to the cost, which would ultimately restructure the current distribution of money which funds the main 5 branches of the military.  The video above is divided into two parts.  The first was just discussed -- funding and creating such an extraordinary 'Force' when the military adequately handles the present demand.  The second part of the video above covers an interview with former NASA astronaut Scott Kelly.  Commander Scott Kelly rightfully points out that currently, each astronaut up in space working together are former enemies (military personnel) who are now forging a relationship to work together to advance the mission of space exploration (i.e. different nations put astronauts in the International Space Station). 



As Commander Scott Kelly points out in the video above, the observation by astronauts alike when viewing the Earth from orbit is the following: "Each of us should work together to solve the ONE PLANET on which we both live."  From his description, the 'orbital perspective' causes a viewer to question the meaning of "countries," "states," "nations" or "boundaries" in general.



Historically, each country (nation) has embedded the need to defend space under various branches of the military.  In the United States, the United States Air Force has a branch responsible for space.  Throughout history, only one country (nation) has had anything like a 'Space Force' -- which is Russia.  Currently, each nation who contributes human capital (i.e. astronauts) to the International Space Station do not feel that their welfare is threatened.  At least not enough to start a "space war" forming each a bunch of separate 'Space Forces' in space.  How would that even work?



Until the occupation of space becomes an issue between nations, each nation should focus on their respective contribution to the problems plaguing planet Earth.  There are more than enough problems to focus on without the need of creating another set of military issues (i.e. creating Space Forces).  The wars which are being battled here on Earth are plenty to keep us busy as an aggregate of different nations trying to inhabit the same planet.  Here is another opinion/article from a popular astronomer/astrophysicist on the matter.



Related Blog Posts:


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

How Much Would The Sun Weigh If Filled With Water?

Why Is Elon Musk Powering A Freight Ship With A Rocket Engine?

Why Do People Fly Drones Into "Restricted Air Space"?

Are The Elements Hydrogen And Helium "Of This World"?

How Far Are We From Star Trek "Replicator" Technology?

Source: Memory-Alpha

The Star Trek franchise has generated millions of fans the inception decades ago.  With those millions of fans, comes endless discussions about past, present, and future happenings of the franchise and the employees (producers, actors, writers, etc.).  In the post below, a short video (less than 8 minutes in length) is shown to give the readers and sense of the state of technology in the past decade toward making an actual "Replicator".  Enjoy!



As many of you may know, there is a large group of people who consider themselves "Trekkies" -- avid fans of the Star Trek enterprise.  My wife - Kayla is a "Trekkie" which for those who are unaware of the term is described by the 'Wikipedia' page for "Trekkie" below:

A Trekkie or Trekker is a fan of the Star Trek franchise, or of specific television series or films within that franchise.

The description seems rather ambiguous in some sense.
Are we there yet?  How close is technology to the development of a Star Trek Replicator?


A few years ago -- back in 2014 -- Prof. Neil Gershenfeld described in a short video the state of technology and the 'parallel steps' needed to achieve this goal as shown below:

Wow. The fans of Star Trek might disagree on the actual timeline for completing a true "Replicator" Professor Neil Gershenfeld.  Although, as highlighted in the video above, the necessary steps toward producing the technology to make a "Replicator" involve changing (slightly) the way manufacturing is done today.  I would be interested in hearing Professor Neil Gershenfield's current thoughts on the timeline today in 2018.  The video above was made in 2012. 


Has the timeline improved or slowed down based on our current technological progress?  


How about the momentum from the political side in changing the timeline?  


What steps have the current Administration taken to support producing technology to make a "Replicator" in the near future?



The Star Trek Replicator has been compared to a '3D Printer' in today's technology as shown in the picture below - taken from the "Wikipedia" page:

Source: Shisma

With a description from the "Wikipedia" page for Star Trek Replicator shown below:

Although previous sci-fi writers had speculated about the development of "replicating" or "duplicating" technology,[1] the term "replicator" was not itself used until Star Trek: The Next Generation. In simple terms, it was described as a 24th century advancement from the 23rd century "food synthesizer" seen in Star Trek: The Original Series. In Star Trek the original series food was created in various colored cubes. In the animated series (1974), various types of realistic looking food could be requested as in the episode entitled "The Practical Joker". The mechanics of these devices were never clearly explained on that show. The subsequent prequel series, Star Trek: Enterprise, set in the 22nd century, featured a "protein resequencer" that could only "replicate certain foods," so an actual chef served on board who used "a hydroponic greenhouse" where fruits and vegetables were grown. Additionally, that ship had a "bio-matter resequencer" which was used to recycle waste product into usable material.[2]

According to an academic thesis: "The so-called 'replicators' can reconstitute matter and produce everything that is needed out of pure energy, no matter whether food, medicaments, or spare parts are required."[3] A replicator can create any inanimate matter, as long as the desired molecular structure is on file, but it cannot create antimatter, dilithium, latinum, or a living organism of any kind; in the case of living organisms, non-canon works such as the Star Trek: the Next Generation Technical Manual state that, though the replicators use a form of transporter technology, it's at such a low resolution that creating living tissue is a physical impossibility.

In its theory it seems to work similarly to a universal assembler.[citation needed]

In order to realize a true "Replicator" -- the necessary steps outlined by Professor Neil Gershenfeld will have to be taken.  The timeline behind completing those steps are debatable and constantly changing.  New code will have to be written to guide manufacturing.  As a result, the benefits to society overall will be realized whether directly tied to the project of creating a "Replicator" or not.  Just as many adventures (research funded projects) result in improvement to society overall, the effort toward realizing this will differ no less.  Not to mention, our understanding (as a society) of the challenges and understanding will greatly improve in the process.  Nonetheless, the future is super exciting....stay tuned.



Related Blog Posts:


Example Of Tesla's Self Driving Car Feature - Video - Amazing!

Parameters: 3D Printed Human Hearts?


Parameters: Can Computers Think?


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

Thoughts: What Does National Institute of Health Director Francis Collins get asked in front of Congress?

Source: C-SPAN

Regardless of each opinion held by every person existing in the great nation of the United States, each of us could learn a great deal by watching a hearing held by Congress on any given topic.  The topics are very diverse and surprising when a person decides to look into the variety.  I would even go onto say, there is a tremendous amount of content to mull over when making choices for constituents across every district of the United States.  Our elected politicians have an enormous amount of material to consider for a given topic.  Of course, that is the purpose of hiring aides (in Washington D.C.).



With that being said, what do the people who are asked to testify in front of congress say?  What type of questions are asked of them by congressional leaders?  At the end of the blog post, I will include other posts with links to other congressional testimonies.  Since I am focused mainly on science and the environment, I thought that highlighting the recent testimony of Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the National Institutes of Health would be appropriate for the present post.  Below are the introductory remarks with a couple of short videos.

NIH Director's Opening Remarks

At the beginning of a congressional testimony, the major players get a chance to give an opening statement or submit opening remarks to be entered for the record.  Below are Dr. Francis Collins opening remarks:

  

Good morning, Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Murray, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee.  I am Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., and I have served as the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) since 2009.  It is an honor to appear before you today.

Before I discuss NIH’s diverse investments in biomedical research and some of the exciting scientific opportunities on the horizon, I want to thank this Subcommittee for your sustained commitment to NIH to ensure that our nation remains the global leader in biomedical research and advances in human health.

I want to personally express gratitude to this Subcommittee and its leadership for its support in crafting and passing the FY 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Bill.  The FY 2018 Omnibus provides an incredible increase of $3 billion for NIH, including funding for opioid- and pain-related research, Alzheimer’s disease, antimicrobial resistance, and development of a universal influenza vaccine.  NIH has immediately set to work to invest those additional resources into groundbreaking research.

As the nation’s premier biomedical research agency, NIH’s mission is to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and to apply that knowledge to enhance human health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability.  As some of you have witnessed first-hand on your visits to NIH, our leadership and employees carry out our mission with passion and commitment.  This extends equally to the hundreds of thousands of individuals whose research and training we support, located in every State of this great country, and where 81 percent of our budget is distributed.

The FY 2019 Budget provides $34.8 billion for NIH to fund the highest priority scientific discoveries while also maintaining fiscal stewardship of Federal resources.  This Budget will consolidate research functions across the Department, optimize available grant dollars to fund research, invest in NIH’s buildings and facilities, and support NIH priority areas including combatting the opioid epidemic, advancing Precision Medicine, and investing in translational research.

The FY 2019 Budget consolidates HHS research programs into three new institutes within the NIH.  The Budget provides $380 million for the activities of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), consolidated into the National Institute for Research on Safety and Quality.  The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), including the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Program (EEOCIPA), currently administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR), currently administered by the Administration for Community Living, are also proposed for consolidation into the NIH.

America’s continuing leadership in conducting biomedical research requires infrastructure and facilities that are safe, compliant with all laws and regulations, and conducive to cutting edge research and research support.  NIH owns 281 facilities, including a research hospital, laboratories, and offices.  NIH’s Backlog of Maintenance and Repair exceeds $1.8 billion.  NIH is currently working with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to identify NIH facilities and infrastructure most in need of repair.  We look forward to providing that report to the Committee as soon as it is final.

The FY 2019 Budget makes much needed investments in NIH’s facilities.  The Budget proposes $200 million to support multiple biomedical research infrastructure priorities.  The FY 2019 Budget will allow NIH to continue to repair and upgrade deteriorated infrastructure.  In a recent analysis requested by this Committee, the condition of NIH laboratories ranks near the lowest in the federal government due to the high likelihood of floods, power outages, and mechanical failures.  Items on the backlog list include: install steam and chilled water distribution systems; conduct structural repairs to older buildings; upgrade plumbing systems; repair elevators; upgrade heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems; replace deteriorated electrical systems, and more.  In addition, due to the age and use of NIH facilities, NIH must invest funds in removing contaminants and hazardous waste before construction or capital repairs can begin in most of its buildings.  The Budget will allow NIH to track what contaminants are being cleared from each of our buildings, which will ultimately help NIH do a better job of anticipating the cost and time required to begin new projects in existing buildings.

Truly exciting, world class science is taking place.  I would like to provide just a few examples of the depth and breadth of the amazing research the FY 2019 Budget supports across the Institutes and Centers of NIH.

Over the past 15 years, communities across our Nation have been devastated by increasing prescription and illicit opioid misuse, addiction, and overdose.  This Committee made a historic investment of $500 million in our work in FY 2018, and the FY 2019 Budget builds on that with an investment of $850 million to support a range of activities to advance research on pain and addiction.  NIH has and will continue to support cutting-edge research on pain, opioid misuse, addiction, and overdose.  Drug addiction is a complex neurological condition, driven by many biological, environmental, social, and developmental factors.  Continued research will be key to understanding the crisis and informing future efforts.  Pain is an equally complex condition affecting millions of Americans.  NIH will: explore new formulations for overdose reversal medications capable of combatting powerful synthetic opioids; search for new options for treating addiction and maintaining sobriety; continue to research how best to treat babies born in withdrawal through our ACT NOW trial; develop biomarkers to objectively measure pain; build a clinical trial network for pain research; and attempt to find non-addictive and non-pharmacological approaches to chronic pain.  Thanks to your support, all hands are on deck at NIH for this public health crisis.

Another exciting area of continued investment in FY 2019, building on this Committee’s long-standing support, is Precision Medicine.  On May 6th, NIH officially launched the national roll-out of the All of Us Research Program.  This program will partner with one million or more people across the United States to provide the most diverse biomedical data resource of its kind and gain unprecedented insights into the biological, environmental and behavioral influences of disease.  The FY 2019 Budget, including resources from the 21st Century Cures Act, supports the ramp up of the program. After pilot testing system and forming partnerships with community organizations across the country, national enrollment is about to begin.  All of Us will not focus on only one specific disease.  Rather, it will be a national data resource to inform many research studies on a wide variety of health conditions. The data provided by one million participants will provide opportunities for researchers—including academics and citizen scientists—who want to understand how and why different people experience certain diseases and conditions while others do not, and why many people respond differently to treatments and prevention methods that will help accelerate medical breakthroughs.

NIH is the largest funder of basic biomedical research in the United States, providing a critical research foundation for both the public and private sector.  Building on that solid foundation of basic research, NIH also supports translational research that turns observations in the laboratory, clinic, and community into interventions that improve the health of individuals and the public, whether those interventions be diagnostics, therapeutics, medical procedures, or behavioral changes.  For example, Congress created the Cures Acceleration Network (CAN) at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) to advance the development of high-need cures and to reduce significant barriers between research discovery and clinical trials.  For example, CAN currently supports NCATS’ Tissue Chip for Drug Screening program, which was designed to revolutionize the process for predicting drug safety.  Researchers developing miniaturized platforms that could support miniature models of living organs — such as the lung, liver, and heart — that could be integrated into connected organ systems.  New Tissue Chip initiatives were funded in FY 2017 and this support will continue into FY 2019.  CAN uses flexible research awards using the special authorization called other transaction authority to attract non-traditional government partners, and to expand, modify, and, if needed, discontinue activities to meet program needs.  The FY 2019 Budget will allow NCATS, through CAN, to continue to invest in high-risk, high reward initiatives designed to address significant scientific and technical challenges that hinder translational research. 

One of my personal priorities is developing the next generation of talented biomedical researchers.  Last year, I shared with the Committee NIH’s plans to build on our support for early-stage investigators through a new initiative known as the Next Generation Researchers Initiative.  The FY 2019 Budget includes a dedicated fund of $100 million in the Office of the Director to incentivize additional Institute and Center support for these researchers.  NIH remains committed to the development, support, and retention of our next generation of investigators. 

We have never witnessed a time of greater promise for advances in medicine than right now.  Your support has been critical, and will continue to be.  Thank you again for inviting NIH to testify today. We look forward to answering your questions.

There is a lot to cover since there is a tremendous amount of research done.  Imagine trying to report on all of the new discoveries which have been accomplished over the year which are funded by the government.  Especially given the wide diversity of funding initiatives.  The information gained during the process of research and discovery are wide ranging and some times uncertain in understanding.  New drug targets could be discovered while the technology to bring to market the medicine might not be available yet. 



Additionally, new companies could be emerging looking to invest and take a new drug to market.  The future is exciting yet unknown and Dr. Francis Collins has to stand up before congress to report and justify the funding -- while always looking to increase the annual budget.  The task must seem monumental given the scope and wide range of projects not to mention the needs of the NIH.

Short Videos of Questions

Now that you have seen the opening statement, a couple of videos might be appropriate.  The first video is of the opening remarks from the committee chair - Senator Roy Blunt.  He gives a good overview of the current state of funding and initiatives that have been considered over the past few years in around 6 minutes of speech:

Wow!  That is pretty impressive.  Dr. Collins mentions that the 'ROI' -- 'Return On Investment' from spending money for research at the National Institutes of Health is $8.38 for every $1 spent (over a five year period).  Remember, the money invested goes to research medical disease at the basic science stage along with grants which help pharmaceutical companies bring a drug to market to treat a disease (when success is shown).



For those concerned citizens who worry about spending needless money on projects which 'seem' to produce nothing, I would argue that every project pursued yields fruits of knowledge.  Whether that yield be as small as the realization of the need for newer technology or the realization that the existing projects will really have to be broken up into many smaller components with each a separate funding cut.  Meaning that there is no money which is wasted in research.  I understand that there are scientists who will disagree with me.  That is not to say that money could be better spent from grants coming out of the National Institutes of health.  What always strikes me as amazing is the wide range of projects (under various sub-agencies throughout the NIH) that are undertaken by scientists throughout our nation.



Senator Roy Blunt mentions the newly launched initiative of the National Institutes of Health guided toward precision medicine called "All of Us."  I just wrote a short blog post with a video embedded in the post to give a reader an introduction into the ground breaking initiative toward understanding unique traits among individuals rather than large populations.



The next video shows Senator Jerry Moran questioning

Dr. Richard Hodes, Director of the National Institute on Aging, spoke briefly about identifying various biomarkers of disease.  Recently, I wrote a short blog post with a video on the mission of the National Institute on Aging (NIA) -- which is worth checking out if you are unfamiliar with the NIA and research conducted within the facility and outside (funded by the agency).



For those who are interested in listening/viewing the entire hearing, here is the link to the Senate Appropriations web page with the embedded video of testimony.

Conclusion...

Congress has a difficult job in front of them when dealing with spending issues on behalf of the entire United States of America.  Each geographical region has different spending needs which require different amounts of funding from the government on an annual basis.  What is not different or unique is that each geographical region is filled with human beings.  Each of us eventually will need hospital services within our lifetime.  Each of us will eventually need a medication which was funded by the National Institutes of Health.  And eventually, each of us will realize that money spent on medical research is important.



Just ask a person with a rare disease for which there is no treatment available.  What would you say to that person from a spending perspective?  Although, just because money is thrown at a project (research problem) does not guarantee positive results.  Unfortunately, the answer may be beyond the reach of our current research capabilities or understanding.  If we do not continue to promote research and discovery across a wide range of fields, then we will never know our limits of understanding.  Research is not an area from which we (as a nation) should be trying to save money.  If anything, an annual increase should be without question.  This statement is backed by a great return on investment as stated above by Dr. Francis Collins.






Related Blog Posts:



Parameters: What is the 'mission' of the National Institute for Aging?


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

NIH Director Updates Congress On Research Progress


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


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


Is Disease Or Treatment Different In Women?


Unraveling The Resistance Of Antibiotics!

How Do Chemists Discover New Drugs? A Brief Introduction!

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

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

Source: SlidePlayer

Last week, I wrote a blog about an emerging controversy surrounding a report about the two dangerous chemicals -- PerfluoroOctanoic Acid (PFOA) and PerfluoroOctaneSulfonic Acid (PFOS) which has been suppressed by the Administration.  As a result of learning about that report and the suppression by the Trump Administration, Congress informed by the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that an explanation is needed about this critical issue.  Why is this critical?  Do you like turning the tap on to get 'clean' drinking water? If the answer is yes, then the emerging information will be of critical importance to you.



This morning, emails which were obtained through the Freedom Of Information Act by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) shows the initial problems with the emerging issue.  The following introduction to the information obtained by the EDF was emailed out this morning by 'Politico Energy' - shown below:

PRUITT'S CHEMICALS PROBLEM GETS BIGGER: Several major chemical companies have told federal regulators they planned to have hundreds of pounds of hot-button chemicals dumped daily into rivers that an environmental group warns could be used as drinking water sources. The Environmental Defense Fund obtained documents showing that chemicals companies estimated that paper mills making pizza boxes and other food packaging would be discharging as much as 225 pounds of the chemicals into nearby waterways each day. Companies such as Chemours and Daikin America submitted those estimates to the Food and Drug Administration to support applications to sell chemicals related to PFOA, which is linked with thyroid disease and certain cancers, for use in food packaging. The FDA has approved applications from six companies in recent years and the dumping could now be taking place at paper mills across the country.

But here's the catch: EDF says discharges of the PFOA-related chemicals are likely unregulated, and there is no public information about which plants are using these chemicals and which waterways they're being discharged into. That means that drinking water utilities that draw their water just downstream might not know to treat for the contaminants, and state regulators wouldn't know to set limits for the chemicals in the permits they issue the mills. EDF estimates that in many major waterways with pulp mills along them, like the Cape Fear River in North Carolina, those discharges would put concentrations of the chemicals well above EPA's health advisory level for PFOA. "If you're not told that these chemicals are used in the facility, you don't know to set a limit, you don't know to do testing," said Tom Neltner, EDF's chemicals policy director.

The revelations come as EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt faces fierce questions from lawmakers on his top lieutenant's efforts to block a health study produced by HHS that was poised to find that PFAS chemicals can pose a danger at lower levels than EPA has previously said were safe. On Friday, three Republicans, including a member of House GOP leadership and a key ally of President Donald Trump, joined with 10 Democrats to demand that Pruitt release the study and explain the brouhaha. A planned leadership summit on PFAS chemicals kicks off Tuesday at EPA's headquarters.

The information obtained by the EDF tells a different story than just suppressing a 'report about dangerous chemicals.'   Dumping cancer causing chemicals into potential water sources should set off 'red alarms' at the EPA.  Just look at the response so far -- not much concern after receiving e-mails about dumping large amounts (high concentrations) of dangerous chemicals into water sources. 



The other disturbing news contained in the excerpt has to do with 'who is in charge?' of the water sources.  As noted in the excerpt above, the EPA did nothing in response to the information obtained/sent by the corporations regarding the discharging of high concentrations of chemicals into water sources.  In the event that is the case, who can local water districts turn to in order to ensure that the water coming into a source is safe.



Luckily, congress is reaching out and asking questions on our behalf.  Don't be afraid to reach out to your local politician (elected senator) and express concern for this issue.  Providing safe access to water should be each politician's top priority as a public health issue.  Each of us deserve safe drinking water.  As I find more information out regarding this issue, I will keep providing more updates on the important matter.



Related Blog Posts:


Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals


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


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


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


Why Is The Science March Important?


Write Your Elected Official And They Will Write Back?


Should Pollution Concern Us?


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


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


The Biotech Industry Takes A Stance Against Immigration Ban


The Biotech Industry Takes A Stance Against Immigration Ban


STEM Outreach Is Useful For All Participants!


20 Questions Politicians Answer Regarding Science Issues


How Do Chemists Discover New Drugs? A Brief Introduction!


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