135 Climate Scientists Urge Prime Minister Theresa May to Challenge President Trump on his Climate Stance during visit to the UK

Source: Slate

Europe has been on the forefront (proactive) of environmental/health measures with regard to regulation.  Reporting from 'Politico Energy' suggests that the proactive measures extend to advising/challenging President Trump of the United States of America on his harsh stance against participating in reducing climate change:

U.K. SCIENTISTS TO MAY: CHALLENGE TRUMP ON CLIMATE: Ahead of Trump's trip to the United Kingdom this week, 135 of its climate scientists wrote to Prime Minister Theresa May urging her to challenge the president on climate change. "As the United States is the world's second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, President Trump's policy of inaction on climate change is putting at risk the U.K.'s national security and its interests overseas," they wrote in the letter.

Any reasonable person would and should challenge President Trump on his ignorant position of withdrawing from the Paris Accord (or planning to).  His stance goes against evidence provided by science and political backing from a whole host of U.S. politicians - not to mention - a large portion of the population.  With this being said, hopefully, Prime Minister Theresa May does follow the advice of scientists below (in the letter) and challenge President Trump during his visit overseas.



Without further ado, here is the letter from 135 climate researchers shown below along with the authors of the letter (and their respective professional affiliations) listed at the end:

Dear Prime Minister,

We are writing as 135 members of the UK’s climate change research community to urge you to challenge President Trump about his policy of inaction on climate change when he visits on 13 and 14 July 2018.

The UK has a strong track record on climate change. Margaret Thatcher was the first world leader to warn of the risks of rising greenhouse gas levels at the United Nations General Assembly in 1989, and the UK became the first country in the world in 2008 to lay down in law, with strong support across the political spectrum, targets for reducing its emissions.

You have also demonstrated leadership on this issue domestically through your continued commitment to implementation of the Climate Change Act and your personal endorsement of the Clean Growth Strategy. Additionally you have shown international leadership through your personal involvement in discussions at, for instance, the One Planet Summit in Paris in December 2017, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in London in April 2018, and most recently at the summit of G7 leaders in Charlevoix, Canada, in June 2018.

In contrast, President Trump has made clear that he does not intend to tackle climate change. He left the G7 summit before the discussion about climate change, and indicated that he would not sign that part of the communiqué. This was the latest signal by President Trump that the United States Government will not contribute to international efforts to manage the substantial risks caused by rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

President Trump announced in June 2017 that he is withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement and he has attempted to stop all financial support for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. With the help of the United States Congress, President Trump has also halted contributions to the Green Climate Fund which supports poor countries in their efforts to cut emissions and to make themselves more resilient to the impacts of climate change, including shifts in extreme weather events and sea level rise.

In addition, President Trump’s administration has attempted to weaken or remove many federal curbs on greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, the latest projections by the United States Energy Information Administration suggest that its annual energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide will rise in 2018 and 2019.

In refusing to take action on climate change, President Trump is ignoring the advice both of international experts and of experts in the United States, such as the Global Change Research Program and the National Academy of Sciences. Since his inauguration as President in January 2017, Mr. Trump has overseen a number of actions to undermine climate researchers in the United States whose findings are used by policy-makers around the world.

As the United States is the world’s second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, President Trump’s policy of inaction on climate change is putting at risk the UK’s national security and its interests overseas. The Government’s ‘National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review’, published in November 2015, identified climate change as a major driver of global risk which threatens stability overseas and the UK’s long-term security. The UK is already being directly affected by the impacts of climate change: from 2000 onwards, it has experienced its nine warmest years and six of its seven wettest years since records began in 1910.

We believe that the UK Government should challenge President Trump about this policy of inaction on climate change. President Macron of France has publicly criticised President Trump’s stance and we believe that the UK should take advantage of its special relationship with the United States to show similar leadership. We do not believe that the best interests of the UK, or the rest of the world, would be best served by attempting to appease President Trump on this issue.

The UK Government is well-placed to draw the attention of President Trump to the case for urgently recognising and managing the risks of climate change. It can demonstrate, for instance, that economic growth does not have to be sacrificed in order to tackle climate change. According to the latest figures, the United States increased its real GDP per capita by 44 per cent between 1990 and 2016, while its annual emissions of greenhouse gases rose by 2.4 per cent. Over the same period, the UK’s real GDP per capita climbed by 46 per cent, while its annual emissions fell by 41 per cent. Hence the UK has shown that it is possible to achieve economic growth while strongly reducing annual emissions of greenhouse gases.

Above all, the UK government should make the argument that policy-making about climate change should be based on the best available evidence. Policy-makers should draw on the findings of the global climate research community, and take account of the risks it poses across the world and to future generations. Climate change should not be treated as if it were just as an issue of partisan domestic politics.

We are signing as individuals, rather than as representatives of our employers, but we list our affiliations as evidence of our membership of the climate change research community.

Yours sincerely (in alphabetical order),

Dr. George Adamson (Lecturer in Geography and Convenor of Climate Research Hub, King’sCollege London)

Professor Richard Allan (Joint Head of the Department of Meteorology, University of Reading)

Professor Chris Armstrong (Professor of Political Theory, University of Southampton)

Professor John Barrett (Professor of Energy and Climate Policy, University of Leeds)

Professor Paul Bates (University of Bristol)

Dr. Anna Belcher (Ecological Biogeochemist, British Antarctic Survey)

Professor Mike Bentley (Department of Geography, Durham University)

Sam Bickersteth (Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford)

Dr. Stephen Blenkinsop (Senior Research Associate, Newcastle University)

Professor Martin Blunt (Shell Professor of Reservoir Engineering, Imperial College London)

Dr. Christian Brand (Co-Director, UK Energy Research Centre and Associate Professor in Transport and Climate Change, University of Oxford)

Dr. Chris Brierley (Senior Lecturer in Climate Science, University College London)

Dr. Stuart Capstick (Research Fellow, Cardiff University)

Professor Andy Challinor (Professor of Climate Impacts, University of Leeds)

Dr. Steven Chan (Research Associate, School of Engineering, Newcastle University)

Professor Peter Clarke FRAS FHEA (Professor of Geophysical Geodesy, Newcastle University)

Professor Mat Collins FRMetS (Exeter Climate Systems, University of Exeter)

Professor Peter Convey (British Antarctic Survey)

Dr. Kevin Cowtan FHEA (Research Fellow, University of York)

Professor Peter Cox (Professor of Climate System Dynamics, University of Exeter)

Dr. Christina Demski (Lecturer, School of Psychology, Cardiff University)

Professor Simon Dietz (Co-Director, ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science)

Dr. Alix Dietzel (Lecturer in Global Ethics, School of Sociology, Politics and International Relations, University of Bristol)

Dr. Paul Dodds (Senior Lecturer in Energy Systems, University College London)

Professor Andy Dougill (Executive Dean of Faculty of Environment, University of Leeds)

Dr. Gareth Edwards FRGS (School of International Development, University of East Anglia)

Professor Paul Ekins FEI OBE (Professor of Resources and Environmental Policy and Director of the Institute for Sustainable Resources, University College London)

Dr. Marie Ekström (Research Fellow in Climate Change Impacts, Cardiff University)

Professor Nick Eyre (Professor of Energy and Climate Policy, University of Oxford)

Dr. Robert Falkner (Research Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science)

Professor Sam Fankhauser (Co-Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science)

Professor Paul Fennell FIChemE (Professor of Clean Energy, Imperial College London)

Professor Piers Forster FRMetS (Director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate, University of Leeds)

Dr. Nathan Forsythe (Newcastle University Research Fellow, School of Engineering, Newcastle University)

Professor Gavin Foster (Professor of Isotope Geochemistry, University of Southampton.

Professor Hayley Fowler (Professor of Climate Change Impacts and Royal Society Wolfson Research Fellow, Newcastle University)

Professor Pierre Friedlingstein (Professor of Mathematical Modelling of Climate Systems, University of Exeter)

Professor Alberto Naveira Garabato (Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton)

Dr. Antonio Gasparrini (Associate Professor of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)

Alyssa Gilbert (Director of Policy and Translation of the Grantham Institute - Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London)

Dr. Philip Goodwin (Lecturer in Oceanography and Climate, University of Southampton)

Professor Andrew Gouldson (Professor of Environmental Policy and Deputy Director of the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, University of Leeds)

Professor Ben Groom (Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science)

Dr. Robert Gross (Director, Centre for Energy Policy and Technology, Imperial College London)

Professor Michael Grubb (Professor of Energy and Climate Change, Institute for Sustainable Resources, University College London)

Professor Dabo Guan (Director of the Water Security Research Centre, University of East Anglia)

Dr. Selma Guerreiro (Researcher in Hydrology and Climate Change, School of Engineering, Newcastle University)

Prof. G. Hilmar Gudmundsson (Professor of Glaciology and Extreme Environments, Northumbria University)

Professor Joanna Haigh CBE FRS (Co-Director of the Grantham Institute - Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London)

Professor Sir Andy Haines FMedSci (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)

Dr. Thomas Hale (Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford)

Professor Ian Hall FLSW (Head of School and Research Professor, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Cardiff University)

Professor Jim Hall FREng (Director of the Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford)

Dr. Catherine Happer (Lecturer, Media and Communications, University of Glasgow)

Professor Barbara Harriss-White FAcSS (Emeritus Professor of Development Studies, Oxford University of Oxford)

Professor Ed Hawkins FRMetS (Professor of Climate Science, National Centre for Atmospheric Science, University of Reading)

Professor Gabriele Hegerl FRS FRSE (Professor of Climate System Science, University of Edinburgh)

Dr. William Homoky FCMS (Independent Research Fellow of the Natural Environment Research Council and Junior Research Fellow, St Edmund Hall, University of Oxford)

Dr. Scott Hosking (Climate Scientist, British Antarctic Survey)

Professor Sir Brian Hoskins CBE FRS (Chair, Grantham Institute – Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London)

Professor John Huthnance FRMetS MBE (Emeritus Fellow, National Oceanography Centre and Visiting Professor, University of Liverpool)

Dr. Keith Hyams (Associate Professor, University of Warwick)

Dr. Ruza Ivanovic (Lecturer in Climate Science, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds)

Professor Tahseen Jafry (Director of The Centre for Climate Justice, Glasgow Caledonian University)

Dr. Helen Johnson (Associate Professor in Climate and Ocean Modelling, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford)

Dr. Dan Jones (Physical Oceanographer, British Antarctic Survey)

Professor Philip Jones HonFRMetS (University of East Anglia)

Dr. Sam Krevor (Senior Lecturer, Department of Earth Science & Engineering, Imperial College London)

Professor Christine Lane (University of Cambridge)

Professor Caroline Lear (Head of The Centre for Resilience and Environmental Change, Cardiff University)

Dr. Alicia Ledo (Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Aberdeen)

Dr. Elizabeth Lewis (Research Associate, School of Engineering, Newcastle University)

Professor Simon Lewis (Professor of Global Change Science, University College London and University of Leeds)

Dr. Xiaofeng Li (Research Scientist, School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Newcastle University)

Dr. Lorenzo Lotti (Energy Institute and Institute for Sustainable Resources, University College London)

Dr. Niall Mac Dowell FIChemE (Imperial College London)

Professor Georgina Mace DBE FRS (Professor of Biodiversity & Ecosystems, University College London)

Professor Anson Mackay (Professor of Environmental Change, University College London)

Professor Geoffrey Maitland FREng FIChemE FRSC FEI (Professor of Energy Engineering, Imperial College London)

Professor Yadvinder Malhi FRS (Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford)

Professor David Marshall FRMetS FInstP (Head of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, University of Oxford)

Dr. John Marsham (Associate Professor, University of Leeds)

Professor Mark Maslin FRGS FRSA (Department of Geography, University College London)

Dr. Juerg Matter (Associate Professor in Geoengineering, Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton)

Dr. Amanda Maycock (Associate Professor, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds)

Professor Catriona McKinnon (Director of the Centre for Climate and Justice, University of Reading)

Dr. Jim McQuaid FRMetS CChem (School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds)

Dr. Dann Mitchell (Lecturer in Climate Physics, University of Bristol)

Professor Hugh Montgomery FRCP MD FRSB FRI FFICM (Professor of Intensive Care Medicine, University College London and Co-Chair of the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change)

Professor Stephen de Mora FRSA FRSB FRSC CChem (Chief Executive, Plymouth Marine Laboratory)

Professor Richard Morris (Professor in Medical Statistics, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol)

Professor Benito Müller (Convener of International Climate Policy Research, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford)

Professor David Newbery FBA CBE (Director, Cambridge Energy Policy Research Group)

Professor Dan Osborn (Department of Earth Sciences, University College London)

Professor Tim Osborn FRMetS (Director of Research, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia)

Professor Jouni Paavola (Director of the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, University of Leeds)

Dr. James Painter (Research Fellow, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford)

Professor Richard Pancost (Director of the Cabot Institute, University of Bristol)

Professor Douglas Parker FRMetS (Met Office Professor of Meteorology, University of Leeds)

Professor Martin Parry OBE ( Imperial College London)

Professor Paul Pearson FGS (School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Cardiff University)

Dr. Wouter Peeters (Lecturer in Global Ethics, Centre for the Study of Global Ethics, University of Birmingham)

Professor Arthur Petersen FIET FRSA (Professor of Science, Technology and Public Policy, University College London)

Professor Nick Pidgeon MBE (School of Psychology, Cardiff University)

Dr. Jeff Price (Senior Researcher, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia)

Prof Chris Rapley CBE (Professor of Climate Science, Department of Earth Sciences, University College London)

Dr. Tim Rayner (Research Fellow, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia)

Professor Dave Reay (Assistant Principal, University of Edinburgh)

Dr. Merten Reglitz (Lecturer in Global Ethics, University of Birmingham)

Professor Judith Rees DBE (Vice-Chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science)

Professor Andrea Sella (Department of Chemistry, University College London)

Prof Daniela Schmidt FRSB FYAE (Professor in Palaeobiology, School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol)

Dr. Tim Schwanen (Director of the Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford)

Professor Nilay Shah (Director of the Centre for Process Systems Engineering, Imperial College London)

Professor John Shepherd CBE FRS (Emeritus Professor of Earth System Science, School of Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton)

Dr. Emily Shuckburgh FRMetS OBE (Darwin College, University of Cambridge)

Professor Henry Shue (Senior Research Fellow, Centre for International Studies, University of Oxford)

Professor Martin Siegert FRSE (Co-Director, Grantham Institute – Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London)

Professor Pete Smith FRS FRSE (University of Aberdeen)

Dr. Thomas Smith FRGS (Assistant Professor in Environmental Geography, London School of Economics and Political Science)

Dr. Julia Steinberger (Associate Professor in Ecological Economics, University of Leeds)

Professor Philip Stier (Academic Convener of the Oxford Climate Research Network and Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Oxford)

Professor Lindsay Stringer (ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, University of Leeds

Dr. Carol Turley OBE (Senior Scientist, Plymouth Marine Laboratory)

Professor Paul Valdes (Director, NERC Great Western Four+ Doctoral Training Partnership, University of Bristol)

Professor Tina van de Flierdt (Professor of Past Climate and Oceans, Grantham Institute - Climate Change and the Environment and Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London)

Bob Ward FGS FRGS (Policy and Communications Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science)

Professor Rachel Warren (Professor of Global Change and Environmental Biology, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia)

Professor Jim Watson (Professor of Energy Policy, Institute of Sustainable Resources, University College London and Director of the UK Energy Research Centre)

Dr. Matthew Watson (Reader in Natural Hazards, School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol)

Professor Lorraine Whitmarsh (School of Psychology and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Cardiff University)

Professor Ric Williams (Chair in Ocean Sciences and Associate Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research & Impact, University of Liverpool)

Dr. Judith Wolf (National Oceanography Centre and Visiting Professor, School of Engineering, Liverpool University)

Professor Philip Woodworth MBE (Emeritus Fellow, National Oceanography Centre and Visiting Professor, University of Liverpool)

Professor Tim Woollings (Department of Physics, University of Oxford)

Related blog posts:



French President Macron Calls On U.S. Congress To Save The Planet


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

Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals


Scientists compare Misinformation In Mainstream News to a Viral Infection


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

Parameters: Shells Oil Corporation Invests In Renewable Energy Infrastructure


Thoughts: Trump Administration Realizes Renewable Energy Is Here To Stay?


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


Environmental Entrepreneurs Weigh In On Repealing The Clean Power Plan


EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?


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


How Can The Paris Climate Agreement Be "More Favorable To The U.S."???


Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future

Should Pollution Concern Us?

The title is simple right?


Easy question, should the amount of pollution over major cities concern the citizens of this planet?



Depending on who you ask, the answer might differ.  Why does this have to be the case?



Recently, I found a great short video by California's previous Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on the adverse effects of pollution.  I thought that I would bring the contents of the video to your attention just in case you were too busy to take out a minute and a half to watch the video below:

If you did not watch the video, here are the highlights of the important video:



1) 7 million people die world-wide because of pollution related illnesses


2) That is more than the following combined: suicides, traffic fatalities, and war casualties!


3) Politicians take the stand that the problem is "too costly to fix" -- imagine that politicians love to spend money to get results which promote votes from their constituents.


4) Politicians are trying to shut down the EPA's ability to regulate carbon.


5)  Arnold's Solution: strap their mouths (politicians) to the tailpipe of a truck exhaust pipe and then turn on the engine and see how long it takes for them to "tap out".


6) In California, politicians have shown that the possibility exists to protect the environment and the economy at the same time.


7) After California passed strict climate change laws, the economy grew by 12.4%


8) If the biggest economy in the country can thrive under the strictest environmental laws, that means the same is possible all over the country as a whole.


9) California has outpaced Texas in GDP growth since 2011.






Pictures of Air Pollution Around The World:





1) United States of America (USA):

Source: RT.com

Source: Wikipedia

Source: USAtoday.com

2) India:

Source: Map of India

Source: airpollutioninda

Source: Washington Post

Source: Times of India

3) China

Source: SoftPedia

Source: Bored Panda

Source: Bored Panda

Source: Bored Panda

5) Russia:

Source: worstpolluted.org

Source: TESteach

Source: DW.com

There are many more pictures available for your viewing online with a search of the topic: "air pollution in .... images" where "..." stands for the country of interest (Russia, USA, China, India, etc.).



Below is a satellite image of the particulate matter (of size 2.5 micrometer) distribution across of the globe.  USA is quite blue -- meaning relatively lower levels compared to other parts of the world.

 Source: NASA

As the pictures still portray above of air pollution around the world, there is still work to be done.  The overarching take home message to all residents of the world should be the following:

Each of us breathe the same air in the world.  Working together, the world would be a healthier place to live.  As it stands now, we are on a deadly trajectory for the future.

Action is needed!



Until next time, Have a great day!

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

Of the many unanswered questions that exist around the current election cycle, very few are as important than questions surrounding current scientific research and the funding for the future.



Why should the public vote/influence an increase in science funding?


Why do I suggest the importance of such research is so high?  


The range of issues that are tied to science funding is enormous.  Most people do not realize what issues are encompassed by science funding.  If you (the reader) are one that ties research funding only to important issues like - space or defense - then I ask you to please read everything below.  The reason is that the range of issues affected by science include climate science (flooding from Hurricane Matthew) to research into better treatments for eradicating the Zika Virus or Ebola Virus.



Additionally, what about the homeless problem that plagues the United States which includes many victims to serious mental health issues and impact the veterans among others roaming the streets without help.  Before you go to the voting polls tomorrow, please read the information below which might or might not influence your vote.  Either way, after reading the blog post below, you will definitely be better informed.  Last but not least, I will provide direct evidence of the wonderful job that artists such as Beyonce, Jay Z, and Leonardo DiCaprio are doing to elevate science and the need to get out and vote -- which is super inspirational.



Note: various words or phrases are hyperlinked to earlier posts on the subject or other research articles.  Please read widely and inform yourself on Science Issues.

Pending Issues Which Need To Be Addressed

Just look at the current state of affairs around the nation and the world along with the issues raised in the blog post below.  Then we can talk about the importance of such issues.  Currently, the entire East Coast of the United States is recovering from the dramatic flooding and winds which struck when Hurricane Matthew swept through and wreaked havoc on the region.



Any discussion of the funding for the destruction and the recovery?  



Has the East Coast rebuilt all of the damaged structures?  



Not in the least.  Why not?  If the same lack of attention toward science research into the issues exist today, where will we be as a nation in 4 or 8 years?  This is why the issues of science are serious and need to be entertained before we head to the voting polls next week.  At this point, you might be wondering the following question:


What are the most critical issues at hand that are associated with science for the candidates to express their views toward?



In a recent post, I simply cut and pasted the "Top 20 Questions from Science Debate" with the answers from the candidates.  The purpose was to give you (the reader) a sense of what the critical issues were through questions offered up by millions of scientist.  Those questions raised commentary within the scientific commentary within the community.  Below I offer a few articles which highlight the commentary from those questions.



A recent article from the website "BioscienceTechnology" titled "Coalition Presses US Presidential Candidates to Address Science Issues" offered commentary on the "Top 20 Questions" from the nonprofit organization "ScienceDebate."  The author chose to offer up six of the 20 questions as necessary to provide an example.  The six sample questions are shown below:

1) Many scientific advances require long-term investment to fund research over a period of longer than the two, four, or six year terms that govern political cycles. In the current climate of budgetary constraints, what are your science and engineering research priorities and how will you balance short-term versus long-term funding?

2) Mental illness is among the most painful and stigmatized diseases, and the National Institute of Mental Health estimates it costs America more than $300 billion per year. What will you do to reduce the human and economic costs of mental illness?

3) Strategic management of the US energy portfolio can have powerful economic, environmental and foreign policy impacts. How do you see the energy landscape evolving over the next 4 to 8 years, and, as President, what will your energy strategy be?

4) Public health efforts like smoking cessation, drunk driving laws, vaccination, and water fluoridation have improved health and productivity and save millions of lives. How would you improve federal research and our public health system to better protect Americans from emerging diseases and other public health threats, such as antibiotic resistant superbugs?

5) Science is essential to many of the laws and policies that keep Americans safe and secure. How would science inform your administration’s decisions to add, modify, or remove federal regulations, and how would you encourage a thriving business sector while protecting Americans vulnerable to public health and environmental threats?

6) Evidence from science is the surest basis for fair and just public policy, but that is predicated on the integrity of the evidence and of the scientific process used to produce it, which must be both transparent and free from political bias and pressure. How will you foster a culture of scientific transparency and accountability in government, while protecting scientists and federal agencies from political interference in their work?

The author seem to want to suggest that the above issues just did not impact science funding, but were of significance to the public at large.  I found the paragraph below fascinating:

“Some politicians think science issues are limited to simply things like the budget for NASA or NIH, and they fail to realize that a President’s attitude toward and decisions about science and research affect the public wellbeing, from the growth of our economy, to education, to public health,” Rush Hold, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said in a prepared statement. He said that Americans should have the opportunity to know where Presidential candidates stand on these issues. 

All issues that are researched from a scientific standpoint are important.  Just because the public does not see the ramifications of such research does not disqualify funding.  Of course, there are certain areas that are of immediate importance than others.

Science Lessons For Next President

According to a recent article in the Journal "Science" titled "Science lessons for the next president" there are certain issues that need definite support.  Here is a short video of the issues stated succinctly (less than 4 minutes in length):

Below are the critical science lessons that are of upmost importance for the next President:



1) "Pathogens Change Faster Than Our Defenses"


Our ability to stay ahead of deadly pathogens relies on our ability to understand how to dismantle a virus or deadly bacteria.  I wrote a blog about new research that recently was uncovered in which scientists discovered a site (a part of the molecule) that is responsible for disabling the effectiveness of the antibiotic.  Meaning, if a target molecule hits this site, then the antibiotic is rendered ineffective (useless) and will not work.



More money should be devoted toward understanding and developing ways to counter that pathway toward disabling the antibiotic -- which is commonly termed as "Antibiotic Resistance."  Additionally, this relies on funding to develop drugs that will be effective and can be tuned to treat evolving pathogens.  In a blog post that I wrote recently, there was a short video outlining with an explanation the drug development process which is worth looking at and reading.  If you are still not convinced after reading the blogs, then read below the excerpt from the Journal 'Science' on critical issues which offers an alternative explanation of the importance of such research:



Importance:

Why it matters: Evolving pathogens can threaten our food and water supplies, natural resources, and health. In the United States, 2 million people develop antibiotic-resistant infections each year, and 23,000 die. Globally, the World Health Organization estimates that in 2015 there were 580,000 new cases of tuberculosis resistant to the two most powerful drugs used against this disease. Increasing drug resistance in malaria, HIV, and other major diseases threatens to undermine control efforts. And recently emerged threats, such as the Zika and Ebola viruses, are certain to evolve in ways that can be hard to predict. To develop treatments, scientists often must work with the most dangerous pathogens in laboratories, and sometimes even engineer new strains; this creates the possibility of accidental or intentional releases that could have dire consequences.

With the emergence of stories surrounding the spread of diseases throughout the world, research into these diseases is critical.  The issues above are due to evolving chemical systems that are natural and are constantly challenging us to keep ahead of the game to fight new pathogens.  If we switch gears and look at issues that are brought on by our own actions, we find challenges that definitely need to be addressed immediately.  One such issue is 'genetic engineering.'  The question is raised below:



What about potential problems brought by our own actions?



2)  "CRISPR Raises Tough Ethical Issues"



Recently, the field of 'genetic modification' has been getting alot of attention and rightly so.  The prospect of changing an organisms "genetic code" seems strange and straight out of a science fiction book.  Although, if I were to tell you that certain foods you eat have been genetically modified and you still love them -- what would you do?  Furthermore, if the so called 'genetic modification' was to help the crop avoid destruction -- i.e., preserve a given crop in order to provide you food, would your opinion change?  The current benchmark (among other methods) is the rising CRISPR-Cas9 method.  You can read more about the method on the 'Wikipedia' page if you wish.  In order to understand the importance of funding such research along with the potential implications, lets turn to the same article from the Journal 'Science' with the following explanation shown below:



Importance:

Why it matters: A powerful tool for basic research, CRISPR could also lead to new treatments for genetic disease in humans, pest-resistant crops with higher yields, and disease-resistant livestock. But uses of CRISPR could also raise profound ethical and regulatory concerns. It could allow the creation of human embryos with modified genes in their germ line—eggs and sperm—meaning the changes would be passed on to future generations. And, in an approach known as gene drive, CRISPR could be used to permanently alter the genome of an entire species in ways that could shift its evolutionary path and ecological role, or even wipe it off Earth. In principle, gene drive could give an endangered species a boost, wreck the genetic defenses that allow some weeds to resist herbicides, or drive a disease-carrying mosquito to extinction.

The promises are huge as well as the payoffs if the CRISPR method is perfected.  And I say "perfected" -- why?  Because, according to a certain part of the science community, the method does not work "perfectly."  Professor Karmella Haynes at Arizona State University is performing research that investigates which environments where the CRISPR method works well.  The method does not work well in human embryo cells.  The DNA is coiled differently (slightly as a defense mechanism) which presents a large challenge.  Of course, in the popular science news, positive results are published rather than discouraging results.  Nonetheless, the method is still a strong method.



As an example, here is a short video of a reporter trying to perform the CRISPR method and failing shown below:

The above video shows the extent to which science is a profession of tireless effort.  Time is put into get results and verify the methodology of a given experiment.  Often, people think that scientists have an easy job -- but in fact, the development of research that is reproducible and clear to the public is a difficult task which takes time and money.



Certain areas require more time than others to delve into a given research inquiry.  How about the atmosphere?  The time scale of global warming is seemingly long.  Although, according to current reports, action is needed immediately.  The danger associated with the lack of immediate action is catastrophic.  I find the fact that certain politicians are in denial a terrible observation and can only exacerbate the problem and solution.



3)  "Sea Levels Rising"



As a nation, the United States public has been engulfed by the current chatter on the television along with the myriad devices that each of us carry around.  Not too long ago, their were three presidential debates.  Did you watch the debates?  Were you able to watch the debates?  Why do I ask such questions?



Because, while some were watching the debates, other East Coast residents were in the midst of cleaning up their lives which were ripped apart by Hurricane Matthew.  The depth of the destruction along with the cost of the damage to the U.S. has not yet been realized.  What is realized is that there have been some crazy weather patterns lately.  Further, the seas have been rising.  Both situations are not good indicators for the future.   The amount of rain that dropped during Hurricane Matthew was insane compared to other large storms around the globe.  You can read about the comparison here.



In order to fully understand the importance of such rising sea levels, lets turn to the article (series) we have been citing about the six lessons for the next president.  Here is the "importance" stated below:



Importance:

Why it matters: Nearly 40% of the U.S. population lives near the coast, and shorelines host extensive infrastructure—including roads, rail lines, ports, military bases, and energy, water, and sewer plants—that will cost billions of dollars to protect or replace. Already, shorefront communities in hot spots of sea level rise, such as Hampton Roads, Virginia, and Miami Beach, Florida, are seeing tidal floods—even on sunny days—that clog traffic, poison lawns, and corrode utilities. Key ecosystems are also at risk of inundation, such as wetlands and aquatic grass beds that help protect coastlines from storms and provide important nursery grounds for economically important fish. This rising stage also allows stormwaters to surge deeper and higher inland, exacerbating their damage.

Based on the destruction that we have seen this year in the United States as a result of a rising sea level (flooding rain), there is no question that the above research is vitally important.  One candidate (Donald Trump) would like to take funds away from research concerning global warming and fight ISIS.  Ask yourself if this is a good idea?  Is that where you want your money spent?  Money is already available for the Department of Defense for such adventures.  If any money should be diverted toward research in defense, then how about toward mental health for veterans returning from war with invisible wounds?



4)  "Brain Health Should Be Top Of Mind"



Dr. James Watson once posed the following question regarding the human brain:



Can the brain understand itself?



The above question at first sight appears to be quite simple.  Yet, over the decades that have past coupled with the advancing digital age, science still appears to be in the dark age to an extent.  At the other end of this logic, the computational power needed to understand the brain is said to not yet exist.  If the second statement is correct, then we need not stop funding research just yet.



Each and every one of us has either experienced or been touched by a person with a mental health issue.  Even if we did not realize it at the time.  Mental health is an extremely complicated issue that plagues parts of the entire population from the homeless to the ultra rich.  Mental Illness is blind to income and wealth.  With the new initiative to study the brain put forth by President Obama, we are headed in the correct direction.  He has the BRAIN initiative - which can be understood in greater detail by reading more about here.  Why is the health of the brain so important?  Here is an excerpt from the article in 'Science' below:



Importance:

Why it matters: Brain health touches us from cradle to grave, and when brain disease strikes, the costs—personal and budgetary—are staggering. By 2025, at least 7 million Americans are expected to suffer from Alzheimer's disease, which causes memory loss, personality changes, impaired reasoning, and, eventually, death. This year alone, treating and caring for Americans with Alzheimer's and other less common dementias cost $236 billion, with government health programs shouldering two-thirds of the cost. At the other end of life, the prevalence of autism, a disorder of language and social communication, rose by 123% between 2002 and 2012. That year, one in 68 U.S. children was affected; costs to each affected family are estimated at about $60,000 annually.

Other brain health issues abound. Learning disabilities are a big issue in classrooms; mental illness is common in the homeless, in addicts, and in prison inmates; and concussions have become a major concern in sports. The military faces the burden of treating traumatic brain injuries and the psychological aftereffects of combat. Effective diagnostics and treatments could make a huge difference.

As I mentioned above, the amount of computational power needed to fully understand the brain is just being realized.  Think about current research just published which shed light on the way proteins behave in their natural environment -- inside a human cell.  If research carried out at the current level sheds light on the onset of diseases, then imagine the requirement to understand diseases inside the entire brain (different parts of the brain acting together).  The point is that research into the disease causing aspects of the brain as well as our ability to comprehend the world around us is extremely important.



With the rise of the machine in understanding the world around us come other advances of the same technology.  Artificial intelligence has been speculated to be around and supposedly proposed to play a large role in our lives in the coming decades.  For now, what about simple machines -- drones? self driving cars, etc?



5) "Machines Are Getting Much, Much Smarter"



Elon Musk has been in the news lately for a variety of reasons.  His space initiative has cost the private sector of the space industry a pretty penny.  He has shown a complete lack of regard for the loss of life in his Tesla cars while operating on autopilot.  How?  He cannot admit that his technology is not nearly where technology needs to be at in order to let everyone have an autonomous car.  I write about this here.   In order to have completely autonomous cars, advancements in artificial intelligence will have to be taken toward a whole new level.  Currently, we are not there yet.  Science can shed light on potential issues that prevent us from proceeding to 'go' just yet -- which are shown below:



Importance:

Why it matters: Although experts say we are still decades away from machines that truly think like humans, narrower applications of AI are already having an impact on society. Products and services from self-driving cars to systems that guide medical care and treatment could bring major benefits, including increased labor productivity, lucrative new markets, and fewer deaths from traffic accidents and medical mistakes. But AI brings worries, too. It will enable employers to automate more tasks and displace workers, and economists predict that some low-wage jobs will be among the first to be eliminated, possibly increasing economic inequality. Letting machines make their own decisions also raises profound ethical, legal, and regulatory questions. Who is responsible if an autonomous car crashes, a piece of software wrecks an investment portfolio, or a sensor switches a stoplight to green at the wrong time? The stakes are even higher on the battlefield, where the military is exploring the possibility of fielding autonomous lethal weapons that would make their own decisions about when to fire.

Advancing forward, a fair amount of research needs to be conducted.  From the machine programming and execution standpoint, current research is quite advanced.  Just this week, research about a world record was set for NASA surrounding the precision of a satellite with GPS technology.  A satellite traveling at a distance of 43,500 miles travels the slowest, whereas at a distance of just under 5 miles from Planet Earth -- the satellite can travel at speeds of 22,000 miles per hour.  The precision offered in orbit has allowed very precise 3-dimensional images of different aspects of Earth.  This is just one of many reasons why space funding is extremely important.  Better precision, better time, new technologies.



Although, with space research comes risk.  Over the decades, risk has been studied and worked on by scientists over various scales within various problems.  From the small scale - quantum error correction to the enormous scale of space flight - risk remains a crucial area of need to study in greater detail.



6) "We Aren't So Great At Assessing Risk"



Communicating risk to the public without posing great fear is extremely complicated.  In many areas of research, communication of results is equated with great fear surrounding the research which leads to reductions in funding and possible cancellations of investigations all together.  This highlights the demand to understand how to greater understand risk and the ability to convey risk to the greater public.  Two areas seem to be polarized with regard to risk: 'genetic engineering' and 'climate change'.  These two areas stand at opposite ends of the spectrum, but are equally important.  In the area of 'genetic engineering' - the scare lies in the unknown product and effect toward civilization.  Whereas in the other area -- climate science, the scare lies in the incomprehensible.  Thinking on the global scale couple with temperatures rising to the point of civilization not being able to occupy the Earth is unfathomable and science fiction -- as far as some are concerned.



Therefore, understanding how to communicate and assess risk is crucial.  Science says:



Importance:

Why it matters: Misperception of risk can push a president to overreact to lesser threats and underreact to greater problems, or to embrace policies that may make people feel good but end up being costly and ineffective—or even counterproductive. And how a president communicates with the public about risk can mean the difference between sowing panic and maintaining calm. Talking realistically about risks in advance—as opposed to promising absolute protection—may help prepare people for the inevitable disasters and minimize calls for a policy response that's out of proportion to the actual threat. To do this effectively, the president will have to maintain the public's trust, which is much harder to earn than it is to lose. Understanding the basic psychology of risk can help avoid missteps.

Again, transmitting the unfathomable to the public is complicated.  The best hope is that the communicator is a good communicator (patient, humble, and intelligent) with a great audience (patient, humble, and intelligent).  Yes, each of us need to do our part to achieve transmission of information (i.e. communication) between one another.  Hollywood does this quite well.  Science is a work in progress.

Celebrities Elevate STEM and Voting!

Beyonce (the singer) recently promoted the presidential candidate Hillary Clinton along with her husband Jay Z.  With good reason.  It has taken over a hundred years to achieve equality (and we are still fighting for it) - a work in progress.  Having the first female president would be a major step in the right direction.  Furthermore, this would reinforce the idea that any woman can go as far as she is willing to work to go.  My wife is a scientist and I encourage her to be the best she can be -- break all barriers.



Although, the fields -- Science Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) still need more women and minorities engaging in them for careers.  Each of us is smart in our own unique way.  There are plenty of women and minorities out there to help take science and society to the next advanced level.  Having celebrities elevate science is critical.  Science usually gets a bad rap.  Why?  Movie portrayals (such as "The Accountant") portray scientists as strange with disorders but super smart.  Not all are strange.  I promise.



Recently, the actor Leonardo DiCaprio became the 'Messenger of Peace' for the United Nations -- an honor he holds dearly and sincerely.  He speaks about the role in a documentary he recently released investigating the state of global warming and explored all possible solutions.  We need more people like him with the unparalleled ability to communicate to a large audience the importance of research and world problems.  Here is the video below (just over an hour and a half in length) - but worth watching before or after the election:

I think that I have provided you (the reader) with an eyeball full of information to think about before you hit the voting polls. Get out and vote. Listen to the stars, listen to your family, just be sure to vote. Exercise your place in our democratic society. Yes, your vote does count.

Conclusion ...

Science funding impacts all areas of our lives.  If you do not believe me, just try to think of an area which has nothing to do with science.  Leave the answer in the comments below and I will try to provide a rebuttal to your answer.  There is no rebuttal for the issues that can be solved with science but lack funding.  We need all of the help that is possible to educate the public about the importance of science.  How do you help?



The most important learning begins at home.  What about science do you not understand?  Why don't you care?  What kind of world are you leaving to your children?  These questions do have answers.  The unknown is centered around how those answers will surface in the days and years to come.  Whether we find out the answers through your vote, your children, your family, the answers will become apparent.  Why not educate yourself and others on critical issues for a better society?



I hope that each of you go out and vote tomorrow. Further, I hope that each of you are inspired to educate yourself more after reading this post.  Until next time, Have a great day!!!

How Do We See The Invisible (sub-atomic particles) In The Visible Region?

How is the invisible to the naked eye made visible to the naked eye?  Today, with the advancement of technologies many can view the invisible into the visible region through a microscope.  An electron  microscope allows us to see molecular frameworks with the use of electrons -- amazing.  Other forms of measurement involve indirect detection like looking for a "green fluorescent protein"(GFP) tag which lights up when a given expression or event occurs.  Of course, in the last case, the sample has to be exposed to light in order for the GFP tag to fluoresce.



The radioactive decay of the element Radon can be made visible through the use of a "Cloud Chamber."  Recently, I ran across a video demonstrating the visibility of radioactive decay and could not stop thinking about how cool the demonstration was.  Therefore,  I decided to share the demonstration with you.  Additionally, I will draw parallels with the "trails" that are visible after flying aircraft leave the sky.

Visualizing Radiative Decay!

Most of us have an idea of what radioactivity is - right?  Something along the lines of 'sub-atomic' particles being given off which are highly energetic?  Sound familiar?  Maybe not.  Lets consult our good friend 'Wikipedia' to help us out with a definition of 'radioactive decay'.  Here is an excerpt:

Radioactive decay (also known as nuclear decay or radioactivity) is the process by which the nucleus of an unstable atom loses energy by emitting radiation, including alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, and conversion electrons. A material that spontaneously emits such radiation is considered radioactive.

Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay,[1][2][3][4] regardless of how long the atom has existed. For a collection of atoms however, the collection's decay rate can be calculated from their measured decay constants or half-lives. This is the basis of radiometric dating. The half-lives of radioactive atoms have no known lower or upper limit, spanning a time range of over 55 orders of magnitude, from nearly instantaneous to far longer than the age of the universe. A radioactive source emits its decay products isotropically (all directions and without bias)[5] in the absence of external influence.

Couple the description above to the picture below to get a full visualization:

Source: Inductiveload

How does a person measure radiation decay?



Hollywood offers a visual representation commonly depicted in movies surrounding the release of a 'nuclear weapon' or threat of exposure to radioactive compounds like the following shown below:

Source: Associated Press

A common instrument used to measure the amount of radiation that is being emitted off of a given sample is the 'Geiger Counter' and is shown below:

Source: TimVickers 

The instrument can sample a range of intensities.  But, what if the radiation that we are trying to measure is that of the natural background from the sky.  The background radiation is supposedly orders of magnitude than a release of a 'nuclear weapon' (which is true).



How does a scientist measure background radiation?



How about using a cloud chamber?



An instrument that is commonly used to measure radiation is called the 'Cloud Chamber' or 'Wilson Chamber' after the founder -- the Scottish physicist Charles Thomson Rees Wilson.   The structure of a cloud chamber is relatively simple.  A chamber is couple with a heater/cooler which has access to introduce a radioactive source into the interior space.  This will be demonstrated in the video below.  A picture of a cloud chamber from 'Wikipedia' is shown below:

Source: Cloudylabs

They are easily constructed and instructions for science projects involving the construction of a 'Cloud Chamber' can be found here.



As I mentioned in the introduction, I found a video which showed precisely and beautifully the radioactive decay of various elements.  The video on 'YouTube' is titled "Large Diffusion Cloud Chamber With Radon Gas Double-Decaying" and is broken down into frames below.  During frames, I commented or narrated on the content in each frame.  The overall message to take home from viewing the frames below is that the video allows us to see atoms precisely in their position from the 'alpha decay' leaving the nucleus.  The demonstration is absolutely amazing.



One more note is that the chamber is cooled at the bottom and heated slightly at the top to produce a temperature gradient.  The temperature gradient is similar to the temperature gradient in the sky as one goes to higher altitudes.  Therefore, after I show the video frames, I will draw an analogy with the "trails" from condensation commonly seen after an airplane flies across the sky.



First, lets start with a frame from the video which shows the chamber without any radioactive compound inserted.  As shown below, this is the natural background radiation that each of us are experiencing without noticing it at any given moment.



Background Radiation:

Relatively few interactions compared to the expected large amount of a concentrated decay like a 'nuclear weapon' or a 'radioactive source'.




Point Source:

Right after exposure to the cloud chamber.  Notice initially, there is a huge force of alpha decay pushing out from the source toward the other side of the chamber.  The pressure wave of alpha decay resembles the shape of the source -- a half spherical shape -- as shown below.



Point Source - 3 seconds after:

Notice the exponential diffusion of particles throughout the chamber. After a series of collisions producing further alpha decays, the motion becomes unpredictable -- as shown below.


Point Source - 9 seconds:

Still going.  Actually, the secondary decay is occurring at this moment.  The picture below shows the extent of the energetic alpha particles still colliding with more nuclei to produce (secondary) radioactive decay -- as shown still below.



Point Source - 19 seconds:

Crazy!  I wonder how long the team had to wait until the entire chamber came back to equilibrium.  The state of equilibrium would have resembled the 'background' still frame above.

Visualizing Temperature Gradients!

In the last section, the amazing demonstration of 'alpha' radioactive decay was made clear using a cloud chamber filled with ethanol gas.  I pointed out before presenting the 'still frames' of the diffusion of radiation that there exists an equivalent analogous situation that occurs on the 'macroscale'.  Not only does the event happen on the scale of everyday occurrences, the event is visible to a large audience of viewers from the ground.



The idea of 'chemtrails' is a popular conspiracy put forth to account for the seeming long white trails which follow an aircraft traversing the sky.  Here is an excerpt to describe such phenomenon taken from the 'Wikipedia' page on 'Chemtrails':

Chemtrail conspiracy theory is an unproven suspicion that long-lasting trails, so-called "chemtrails", are left in the sky by high-flying aircraft and that they consist of chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed for sinister purposes undisclosed to the general public.[1] Believers in the theory argue that normal contrails dissipate relatively quickly and that contrails that do not dissipate must contain additional substances.[2][3] These arguments have been dismissed by the scientific community: such trails are normal water-based contrails (condensation trails) that are routinely left by high-flying aircraft under certain atmospheric conditions.[4] Although proponents have attempted to prove that the claimed chemical spraying does take place, their analyses have been flawed or based on misconceptions.[5][6]

Because of the widespread popularity of the conspiracy theory, official agencies have received many inquiries from people demanding an explanation.[2] Scientists and government officials around the world have repeatedly needed to confirm that supposed chemtrails are in fact normal contrails.[7]

With the corresponding visual description taken also from the 'Wikipedia' page for 'chemtrails' shown below:

Source: No machine

The conspiracy theorists are fascinating in their endeavor to seek an answer to this phenomenon.  Implying that the government is actively pursuing dumping chemicals into the environment in order to create such trails is non-sense.  Any particle growth with water vapor in the atmosphere will diffract light -- look at clouds.



The real culprit in the case of the so called 'trails' across the sky come from 'contrails' -- short for condensation trails -- made up of water vapor that has crystallized.  Here is the description from 'Wikipedia' for 'contrails' below:

Contrails (/ˈkɒntreɪlz/; short for "condensation trails") or vapor trails are line-shaped clouds sometimes produced by aircraft engine exhaust, typically at aircraft cruise altitudes several miles above the Earth's surface. Contrails are composed primarily of water, in the form of ice crystals. The combination of water vapor in aircraft engine exhaust and the low ambient temperatures that often exists at these high altitudes allows the formation of the trails. Impurities in the jet exhaust from the fuel, including sulfur compounds (0.05% by weight in jet fuel) provide some of the particles that can serve as sites for water droplet growth in the exhaust and, if water droplets form, they might freeze to form ice particles that compose a contrail.[1] Their formation can also be triggered by changes in air pressure in wingtip vortices or in the air over the entire wing surface.[2]

Depending on the temperature and humidity at the altitude the contrails form, they may be visible for only a few seconds or minutes, or may persist for hours and spread to be several miles wide, eventually resembling natural cirrus or altocumulus clouds.[1] Persistent contrails are of particular interest to scientists because they increase the cloudiness of the atmosphere.[1] The resulting cloud forms may resemble cirrus, cirrocumulus, or cirrostratus, and are sometimes called cirrus aviaticus. Persistent spreading contrails are thought by some, without overwhelming scientific proof, to have a significant effect on global climate.[3][4] Persistent contrails are sometimes called chemtrails in reference to the conspiracy theory regarding the undisclosed spraying of chemical or biological agents by various high-flying aircraft.

Again, as I just mentioned -- the crystals grow from water vapor attaching themselves to a 'seed molecule' and growing to the point of diffracting light.  I will give you a little known fact about 'contrails' that is not commonly known by the world.  This is in regards to the aircraft that you see at airshows.  Now that you know that the condensation has a role to play with 'contrails' -- you might be wondering the following question -- regarding air shows with fighter jets:



How do the jets make 'contrails' at a precisely given point in space in the sky?



The answer lies in the fact that the gun bay in a fighter jet where the ammunition is stored is emptied out -- for show jets.  In the space (gun bay), there is an oil container filled with oil.  There is a delivery system (via veins or tubes) that deliver the oil onto the exhaust of the jets to produce a 'contrail'.



Bet you did not know that!

Conclusion!

The ability to view the invisible is absolutely amazing.  In the paragraphs above, the size of the particle that has been shown to be visible spans from the sub-atomic of a radon nucleus to the particles (aggregates of ice crystals) in the sky.  When we look up and see a cloud, that is evidence of a particle grown from a 'seed molecule' with water vapor.  The diffraction of light gives way to the opaque (cloud) that is seen in the sky above.



Whereas, on the sub-atomic scale, the ejection of an alpha particle decaying off of a nucleus is seen as the trail from the thermal gradient.  Each is a representation of an indirect interaction.  Science offers us an explanation to a wide range of such situations.  Further, with these explanations, better decisions regarding science policy are possible in government.  Ranging from the international level to the local level, science plays a large role in the decisions.  If it does not, maybe in the future it should.  Having examples like the two above, give us an idea regarding the safety of radiation and chemicals in the sky.



Until next time, Have a great day!