Happy Holidays!!.....Here are some fun facts to share with family about the holidays

Source: Southern Living

With the holidays rapidly approaching, last minute shopping is all around us.  Hysteria at the malls with frantic shoppers trying to wrap up their gift giving expedition.  On top of that weight are the decorations needed for the season.  By now, neighborhoods around the nation are adorned with Christmas lights while Christmas trees are on full display through front windows of houses all around us.  For this year, a couple of fun facts are in order to spread the Christmas cheer.  The two categories will be: Christmas trees and Christmas lights.

How many Christmas Trees are purchased?

Each Christmas season, trees can be spotted on the top of cars as they are transported from the farm to the house to be decorated.  I always have wondered about the number of trees on average which are sold during Christmas.  Therefore, I decided to search Google with the following question: How many Christmas Trees are sold each year?   The answer is shown below:

Source: Google

According to the National Christmas Tree Association, there are between 25 and 30 million Christmas trees sold each year in the United States.  What was fascinating is the total number of Christmas trees grown in the U.S. each year are 350 million.  The information highlighted in the box above comes from the National Christmas Tree Association's website which has a few more fun facts about Christmas trees shown below:

There are approximately 25-30 million Real Christmas Trees sold in the U.S. every year.

There are close to 350 million Real Christmas Trees currently growing on Christmas Tree farms in the U.S. alone, all planted by farmers.

North American Real Christmas Trees are grown in all 50 states and Canada. Eighty percent (80%) of artificial trees worldwide are manufactured in China, according to the U.S. Commerce Department.

Real Trees are a renewable, recyclable resource. Artificial trees contain non-biodegradable plastics and possible metal toxins such as lead.

There are more than 4,000 local Christmas Tree recycling programs throughout the United States.

For every Real Christmas Tree harvested, 1 to 3 seedlings are planted the following spring.

There are about 350,000 acres in production for growing Christmas Trees in the U.S.; much of it preserving green space.

There are close to 15,000 farms growing Christmas Trees in the U.S., and over 100,000 people are employed full or part-time in the industry.

It can take as many as 15 years to grow a tree of typical height (6 - 7 feet) or as little as 4 years, but the average growing time is 7 years.

The top Christmas Tree producing states are Oregon, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Washington.

I immediately wondered why there was such a large difference between the amount of Christmas trees planted each year and those that are sold.  Sounds like there are only 1 in 10 trees which actually make the cut to be sold in order to end up in a living room for display with decorations and lights.  The industry requires a significant workforce to support the retail which comes along with the Christmas celebration.  Just take the amount of trees grown to be sold are staggering by itself.



To understand the magnitude of the number of trees which are planted along with the amount that are sold, let's imagine that each tree is stacked on top of one another.  How high would that stack of trees reach? The analysis below will show the answer to that question.  In order to start, an assumption regarding the average height of a Christmas tree needs to be introduced.  For the purpose of this analysis, the assumption will be made that the average height of a Christmas tree is 6 feet tall.



First, the amount of trees which are sold annually in the United States is large.  Therefore, choosing a 'unit' of measurement which will appropriately shed light on the magnitude of the values is essential.  A common unit of measurement for large distances on Earth is the 'mile'.  If Google is consulted with the following question: 'How many feet are in a mile?'  The answer is shown below:

Source: Google

There are 5,280 feet in every mile.  To begin analyzing the values, let's look at the numbers which we are interested in.  Each year, there are between 25 million and 30 million Christmas trees sold in the United States.  That is out of a total of 350 million Christmas trees growing across 15,000 farms.



First, each of the amount of trees sold (and grown) in the United States must be converted to units of miles -- using the assumption that each tree is on average 6 feet tall.  The unit conversion is shown below:

The results above indicate that the range 25-30 million trees sold equal to the distance of 28,409-34,090 miles.  Additionally, the total number of Christmas trees grown annually would equal a total distance of 397,727 miles.  In order to understand the magnitude of these distances, a metric is needed to compare the distances with.  What if we took the total distance of stacked Christmas trees and wrapped the line around a sphere (the Earth)?  How many times could the line of trees circle around the Earth?



We need to determine the total distance around the Earth.  If we consult Google with the following question: What is the circumference of Earth?  The answer is shown below:

Source: Google

One trip around Earth (at the center) is equal to traveling a total distance of 24,901 miles.  The three distances of Christmas trees can be divided by the circumference of the Earth -- 24,901 miles as shown below:

The answers indicate that the amount of Christmas trees sold in the United States each year would stack up to a range of 28-34 thousand miles -- which would equal just over 1.4 trips around the Earth.  Additionally, the total number of Christmas trees grown in the United States would stack up to a distance equal to 16 trips around the Earth.  These numbers really drive home the magnitude of the amount of Christmas trees needed for the Christmas holiday.  Here is a great idea for recycling parts of the Christmas tree -- click here.



How about Christmas light?



In the next section, an analysis will be carried out to highlight the total number of Christmas lights which are purchased each year in the United States.

How about Christmas Light?

On top of all of the Christmas trees which are sold annually and would wrap around the circumference of Earth are Christmas lights -- at the very least to provide the minimum amount of decoration.  In order to wrap a few strands of Christmas lights around a given tree, either one must store Christmas lights in the garage or choose to purchase new strands.  There is nothing wrong with purchasing new lights in a given year.  Especially when the old lights break or strands of bare exposed wire show -- which could easily cause danger when voltage is applied to them (i.e. plugged into the wall socket).  How many strands are sold in the United States each year?



If a Google search is conducted with the question above, the following answer appears below:

Source: Google

According to our search, there are 150 million strands of Christmas lights sold each year in the United States.  If the same analysis from above is used, the first step will be to convert the strands of lights into a distance.  For this, an online store needs to be consulted to find out the distance sold.  The Christmas lights (clear, no color) sold at Target are shown below:

Source: Target

The length of the Christmas lights in the picture above (100 count) is 24.7 feet.  If the total number of strands of Christmas lights is multiplied by the length (in feet) of a single strand, the total distance would be yielded:

The answer indicates that the total number of strands of Christmas lights would add up to a total distance of 701,704 miles in length.    Last, if the total distance of Christmas lights sold is divided by the circumference of the Earth, the total number of trips around Earth will be yielded as shown below:

The total amount of Christmas lights sold in the United States each year would equal traveling around the Earth 28 times.  Wow!  That is an enormous amount of Christmas light sold each year.  The enormous number made me question the total amount of Christmas lights which are sitting in boxes in closets, attics, and garages in American houses across the country.  Additionally, a certain percentage of this enormous amount of purchased Christmas lights must be recycled.



If the Wikipedia page for Christmas Lights is consulted regarding the recycling of Christmas lights, the following information can be found:

Christmas lighting does lead to some extensive recycling issues. Every year, more than 20 million pounds of discarded holiday lights are shipped to Shijiao, China (near Guangzhou), which has been referred to as "the world capital for recycling Christmas lights".[28] The region began importing discarded lights around 1990 in part because of its cheap labor and low environmental standards.[28] As late as 2009, many factories would simply burn the lights to melt the plastic and retrieve the copper wire, releasing toxic fumes into the local environment.[28] A safer technique was then developed that involved chopping the lights into a fine sand-like consistency, mixing it with water and vibrating the slurry on a table causing the different elements to separate out, similar to the process of panning for gold.[28] Everything is recycled: copper, brass, plastic and glass.

More and more cities in the U.S., for example, are setting up sensible alternatives and schemes to recycle Christmas lights, with towns organizing drop-off points for handing in old or discarded lights.[29][30]

Installing holiday lighting may also be a safety hazard when incorrectly connecting several strands of lights, repeatedly using the same extension cords, or using an unsafe ladder during the installation process.

The total amount of Christmas lights (in weight) which are shipped to China each year is around 20 million pounds.   I wonder how much material (copper, brass, plastic, and glass) -- percentages of each are recovered.  And used for what?  The process of recycling is interesting and worth reading about for further information.

Conclusion...

The Christmas holiday is a time of celebration.  At the same time, the holiday is an opportunity for families to gather together and catch up on life.  The fun facts calculated and gathered surrounding the Christmas holiday are perfect to add into a trivia game or dinner conversation.  The analysis above showed that the enormous amount of Christmas trees would add up (stack up to) to enough miles to equal 1.4 times traveling around the Earth.  Further, the total number of Christmas trees planted on farms would equal a distance equivalent to traveling around the Earth 16 times.  That is amazing to say the least.  That is a large amount of wood to recycle or burn.



And what about the Christmas lights which are sold each year in the United States?  The total distance of all of the strands of lights sold in the United States each year would be equivalent to traveling around the Earth 28 times.  My goodness that is quite a large amount of Christmas lights sold each year.  Imagine the total amount of Christmas lights which are sitting in boxes in closets, attics, and garages around the United States.  To add to that, 701,704 miles are purchased each year.  Christmas time is a very popular holiday of the year.  Have a great holiday celebration!!



Related Blog Posts:


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


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

South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster asks lawmakers for $1,228,000,000 For Recovery from Hurricane Florence?

Boston Natural Gas Explosion Reveals Old Piping Needs Replacement - Enough To Travel To Colorado?

A Forecaster Predicts That Hurricane Florence Will Drop Enough Rain To Fill 18,400 Mercedes-Benz Superdomes

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

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

Storm Raises Water Level In Lake Cachuma By 31 feet, How Much Water Is That?

How To Make Sense Of Water Flowing At 100,000 Cubic Feet Per Second

Can 11 Trillion Gallons Of Water Fill 14,000 Dallas Cowboys Stadiums?

How Much Rain Did The East Coast Receive From Hurricane Matthew?


How Much Rain Did Haiti Really Receive?

How Much Rainfall Has Dropped On Louisiana?


How Big Was The "Water Bomb" Of Rainfall In Macedonia?

How Much Rain Did Huauchinango (Mexico) receive?

How Much Rain Did Elliot City (Maryland) Really Receive?

If The Mosul Dam Breaks, The City Of Mosul Would Be Under 65 Feet Of Water?

What is the volume of water in a few inches of rain?


Volume of Waste in the Mine Spill (in Brazil) Equivalent to 78 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spills

Was Enough Coal Ash Spilled Into A Local Lake To Fill Up 2/3 Of An Olympic Sized Swimming Pool?

Source: The Daily Beast

Hurricane Florence has no doubt had a devastating and long lasting impacts on the East Coast which will unveil themselves over time.  Already at the outset, a forecaster predicted that nearly 17 trillion gallons of rain would fall over four states - which has partially come true.  The damage has caused lawmakers to call or write elected politicians in Washington D.C. for around $1.2 billion - just for South Carolina alone.  Unknown to most, is that additionally, other potentially dangerous spills have occurred which have not made the popular news cycle.  As noted in an e-mail from Politico Energy, a coal ash pit broke and spilled a fair amount of toxic solution into a lake as stated below:

Coal ash collapse: Duke Energy said Saturday that heavy rains from Florence had caused the collapse of a slope in the coal ash landfill at a closed plant outside Wilmington. About 2,000 cubic yards of the toxic waste was displaced, the company said in a statement — roughly enough to fill two-thirds of an Olympic-sized swimming pool — although it could not say how much reached a lake that the plant used as a cooling pond or if any coal ash reached the Cape Fear River. Environmental groups that have been fighting in court to force the cleanup of coal ash pits pointed out that the lake is used for recreation and fishing. "After this storm, we hope that Duke Energy will commit itself to removing its ash from all its unlined waterfront pits and, if it refuses, that the state of North Carolina will require it to remove the ash from these unlined pits," Frank Holleman with the Southern Environmental Law Center said in a statement.

In the blog post below, we will verify the statement: "About 2,000 cubic yards of the toxic waste was displaced, the company said in a statement -- roughly enough to fill two-thirds of an Olympic-sized swimming pool..."  Additionally, another potential disaster -- a coal ash spill will be analyzed at the very end of the blog post from South Carolina.

What Is The Volume Of An Olympic-sized Swimming Pool?

In a recent blog post regarding the amount of oil flowing through a pipeline in Canada, the Olympic-sized swimming pool was used as a metric -- i.e. a volume which to compare other large volumes too.  A typical Olympic-sized swimming pool is shown in the picture below:

Source: Spring Pool Builder

The volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool is 660,430 gallons as noted in the previous blog cited above.  With the metric -- i.e. Olympic-sized swimming pool -- defined in terms of volume, we can proceed to verify the statement above -- to prove that the amount of coal ash spilled would fill nearly 2/3 of an Olympic-sized pool.  Let's get on with the analysis...



In order to compare the amount of coal ash which spilled to the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool, both values (statistic and metric) need to be defined in uniform (the same) units of measurement.  The author states the volume of coal ash in units of 'cubic yards' whereas the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool was cited above in units of 'gallons'.  Therefore, to proceed forward, a unit conversion is necessary: change units from 'cubic yards' to 'gallons'.



To determine the unit conversion factor from units of 'cubic yards' to 'gallons', first we consult Google with the following question: How many gallons are in a cubic yard?   The answer is shown below:

The answer indicates that there are 201.974 gallons in a single cubic yard.  With this unit conversion factor in hand, the conversion from 'cubic yards' to 'gallons' is accomplished below:

Now that both statistics (coal ash spill and metric) are expressed in the same units of measurement, a simple division of the two values will yield the number of Olympic-sized swimming pools which could be filled with 2,000 cubic yards of coal ash as shown below:

How do we make sense of the answer shown above?  Comparing the amount of coal ash which spilled to the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool yields the number 0.61 -- but remember the author states that the amount which spilled is around 2/3 of an Olympic-sized swimming pool.  Therefore, compare 0.61 to 2/3 -- a fraction computed below:

The answer indicates that the two numbers -- calculated 0.61 and 0.67 (2/3) are within 10% of one another -- which is good.  The author was good in his assertion in the excerpt above.  Readers of this blog site might inspect the answer and think critically about the size of the spill relative to other spills discussed in previous blogs.  Why worry about a volume of coal ash equivalent to 2/3 the size of an Olympic-sized swimming pool?



The fact of the matter is that any sizable amount of coal ash which leaks into a natural waterway could harm the public and future damage down the line.  Which is unacceptable.  As you will learn below, the analysis goes further and identifies a much larger volume of coal ash which could potentially cause an unbelievable amount of damage to waterways.

South Carolina - Potential Spill?

Recently, in the news, the statistic was reported from South Carolina which caused me to wonder how the reported number compares to the reported one above.  The article was titled "SC coal ash pit with 200,000 tons of waste could start taking on water Tuesday":

A pit of coal ash holding some 200,000 tons of toxic sludge in Conway could start taking on water Tuesday as the Waccamaw River sloshes over its banks.

How does the reported number or value of 200,000 tons compare to 2,000 cubic yards?  To start the analysis, a unit conversion factor is needed.  We can consult Google with the following question: How many grams are in 200,000 tons?  The answer is shown below:

In previous blog posts, the methodology follows that above, which is to determine a 'unit conversion factor' then convert initial numbers to the desired units.  For the purposes of brevity, taking a slightly different route, we just asked Google to help us convert from units of 'ton' to 'gram'  directly.



With the mass determined in units of 'grams', the proper way to extract a volume of a given mass of a substance is to use the density of a substance.  Using the density, a volume can be determined as shown below:

The answer is expressed in units of 'milliliters'.  A couple remaining steps are needed to arrive at a final answer.  First, we need to consult Google with the following question: How many milliliters are in a gallon?  The answer is shown below:

Next, the desired units are 'gallons' which can be determined using the conversion factor above.  The number of gallons in 200,000 tons is where we would like to travel towards in the present analysis.  To get there, the conversion of mass to a volume needs to be accomplished.  This can be done by using the concept of a substances' density -- amount of mass per volume.  Below, the conversion of the mass of coal ash (mass) is converted to a volume (milliliters) is shown:

The approximation above is that the density of water was used in place of the density of 'coal ash' which is closer to 1.6 gram/mL.  Readers might be slightly disappointed, although, the final value will not change dramatically.  The conversion from 'milliliter' to 'gallon' is shown below:

Last but not least, the total amount of Olympic-sized swimming pools which could be filled with 47.9 million gallons of coal ash - potentially which might spill in South Carolina is shown below:

The answer indicates that the potential spill of 200,000 tons would have been equivalent to 73 Olympic-sized pools.  Compared to the amount which spilled in North Carolina, the above value is very large and could cause an unbelievable amount of damage to the environment.  The analysis above has shed light on two very different volumes of coal ash.  At the same time, the analysis gives the reader the ability to analyze the amount of coal ash which could damage the environment and is reported in two different news articles.

Conclusion...

Looking at this value might not seem large compared to the total quantity of rain which fell as a result of Hurricane Florence.  Although, the toxic nature of coal ash could have much greater damage than flooding.  Not to say that flood damage is not bad too to residents.  Contaminating the local water supply for decades could be a much greater risk.  For the present time being, the dams have held up.  That could be temporary given the tremendous amount of rain which has already fallen.



Never the less, the spill in Wilmington is dangerous enough to have potentially damaging effects which might not be realized for quite a while.  The potential amount under threat in other areas should be concerning.  Mining companies should be regulated to a greater extent regarding the large storage pools of coal ash which are commonly stored near mining sites.  The analysis above drives home the point which is that the potential spills along with those already occurring can be quite devastating to the surrounding ecosystems and natural resources on which residents rely.



Related Blog Posts:


South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster asks lawmakers for $1,228,000,000 For Recovery from Hurricane Florence?

Boston Natural Gas Explosion Reveals Old Piping Needs Replacement - Enough To Travel To Colorado?

A Forecaster Predicts That Hurricane Florence Will Drop Enough Rain To Fill 18,400 Mercedes-Benz Superdomes

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

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

Storm Raises Water Level In Lake Cachuma By 31 feet, How Much Water Is That?

How To Make Sense Of Water Flowing At 100,000 Cubic Feet Per Second

Can 11 Trillion Gallons Of Water Fill 14,000 Dallas Cowboys Stadiums?

How Much Rain Did The East Coast Receive From Hurricane Matthew?


How Much Rain Did Haiti Really Receive?

How Much Rainfall Has Dropped On Louisiana?


How Big Was The "Water Bomb" Of Rainfall In Macedonia?

How Much Rain Did Huauchinango (Mexico) receive?

How Much Rain Did Elliot City (Maryland) Really Receive?

If The Mosul Dam Breaks, The City Of Mosul Would Be Under 65 Feet Of Water?

What is the volume of water in a few inches of rain?


Volume of Waste in the Mine Spill (in Brazil) Equivalent to 78 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spills

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

Source: LinkedIn Learning

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

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

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

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

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

The answers are outlined and solutions shown below.  Enjoy!

Line up 291 billion Goodyear blimps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Trips around planet Earth

2) Trips from planet Earth to the Moon

3) Trips from planet Earth to the planet Mars

Lets see how these distances compare to 13.6 billion miles.

1) Trips around planet Earth:

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

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

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

2) Distance from Earth to the Moon:

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



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

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

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



3) Distance between Earth and Mars:



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

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

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

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

Conclusion...

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



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



Related blog posts:



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


What is dimensional analysis?


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


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

What Is Dimensional Analysis?


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

Scientists should find similarities rather than focus on differences

Source: Kinsky-STEM

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

I am a chemist not a biologist!

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



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




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

He responded "What conference?"

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

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


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


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



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

Chemists do not talk to each other?

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



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



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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion....

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



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


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



Related Blog Posts:


Why Chemistry Matters from the mouths of Nobel Laureates!


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


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


Does your brain move throughout the day?


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


What Is Going On Inside That Cell?


How Do Scientists Think?


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

Chemistry Reactions Are Amazing - See For Yourself

NIH Director Updates Congress On Research Progress

Chemistry Videos Unveil Problems With Battery Technology

A Virtual Tour Of A Plant Cell? Really?

A Virtual Tour Of A Human Cell?

A Good Start: Republicans Accept Climate Change As Real

New Chemistry Could Reduce Plastic Waste In Landfills

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

What Molecules Make Up Your Lifestyle Fingerprint?

How Do Chemists Discover New Drugs? A Brief Introduction!

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

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

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

Source: Flying magazine

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

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

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

How Much Gas Occupies a GoodYear Blimp?

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

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



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

Source: EAA

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

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



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



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

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

Conclusion...

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



Related Blog Posts:



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


What is dimensional analysis?


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


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

What Is Dimensional Analysis?


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

Why Chemistry Matters from the mouths of Nobel Laureates!

Source: TED Fellows

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

Source: Science

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

Source: ShutterStock

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


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

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

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



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



Related Blog Posts:



How Do Scientists Think?


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


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