Fishing and refuse disposal are to be banned in the 1st high seas Marine Protected Area (MPA) in the Southern Ocean, an area of the ocean that contains more species than the Galapagos Islands.

This will allow scientists to monitor the effects of climate change in this region. This is only the first of possibly twelve such areas.

Read more of this story »

A team of American and French scientists have just documented the fact that there are a lot of bacteria in cigarettes and that the bacterial population includes some human pathogens.  They don’t actually know if this leads to human disease- after all, these things are BURNED!.  Still it raises interesting issues. But at least the tobacco is not GMO!

OK, I am indulging in some irony here.  If you have shared my experience of having a wonderful dinner in Paris compromised by smoking neighbors at the closely-spaced tables you can relate.  European colonizers might have devastated native American peoples through disease and guns 500 years ago, but the original “Americans” got a little pay-back by introducing the Europeans to an addictive and carcinogenic product they had never known.

I have always found it fascinating that Europeans have mainly avoided GMO crops based on fears of theoretical problems that have not materialized over more than a decade of GMO commercialization, all the while allowing an extremely well-documented source of health problems to be widely used and imposed on non-smokers.  The “precautionary principle” that prevails in Europe does not seem to protect them from “documented risks”, only from “imagined risks”.  This new data on cigarettes should trigger precautionary responses that would say that all tobacco products should be banned until this bacterial risk can be assessed. I’m guessing that won’t happen.  

Read more of this story »

Overall, global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels increased 29% between 2000 and 2008 and 41% from 1990-2008, and the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is now at its highest in at least 2 million years, according to a new study in the journal Nature Geoscience.

The new report published this week by an international team of researchers who are part of the “Global Carbon Project” shows emissions trends through 2008 (including changes in emissions causes and in the amount of emissions remaining in the atmosphere) and brings up some major questions for the future as well.

Read more of this story »

Oceans regulate our climate. They play a key role in keeping the world’s “homeostasis” in tact. However, their ability to absorb carbon & keep the climate in balance is dwindling, a new report shows.

In a year-by-year study from 1765 to 2008, researchers found that the oceans are struggling to meet increasing emissions demands. They cannot take in as much carbon as they used to.

The study, published in the November 19 issue of the journal Nature, found that the percentage of fossil fuel emissions the ocean has been taking in since 2000 has decreased by as much as 10%.

This is the first study of its kind or breadth. One previous study had attempted to measure the oceans’ industrial carbon absorption for one year — 1994. This does so for a period of 200+ years.

Read more of this story »

Move over CO2—you’ve been ousted, along with methane, as the biggest offenders of global climate change. According to a new a study by Purdue University and NASA, the major chemicals most frequently cited as leading to climate change, namely carbon dioxide and methane, are actually outclassed in their warming potential by compounds receiving less attention. The majority of “greenhouse gases” are created by humans.

The results were discovered when researchers studied more than a dozen chemicals, or greenhouse gases as classified by their warming properties defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. From there, the team developed a blueprint for the underlying molecular machinery of global warming. The results appeared in the November 12, 2009 issue of the American Chemical Society’s Journal of Physical Chemistry, just in time for the convergence of world leaders in Copenhagen.

Read more of this story »

Due to the great popularity of “Can Diet Coke Kill You?” combined with a lot of controversy over it, I have decided to write this follow-up post.

Most of the controversy over the last article was around the fact that the documentary I referenced cited data from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) but that organization itself claims there is no proven link between aspartame and cancer.

What was presented previously was a short explanation of why aspartame is expected to cause cancer and other health problems and a summary of some information presented in Sweet Misery, including findings from analyzing NCI and other data. This article, however, cites other scientific findings and discusses the economic-political history of this topic a little bit as well.

Read more of this story »

In what could be a major breakthrough, Joule Biotechnologies announced that it has directly produced fuel from the plentiful carbon dioxide in the air around us using highly engineered photosynthetic microbes.

Read more of this story »

In many ways plastics are simply synthetic compounds that mimic and try to improve upon substances we find widespread in nature—polymers such as you might find in wood, leaves, seeds and fur. Bio-based plastics (those derived from biological sources other than fossil fuels) have been around for more than 100 years. In fact, celluloid, the first synthetic plastic ever made was invented in the mid 1800s, and—you guessed it—was bio-based.

Read more of this story »

US Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu

Arizona State University professor Cody Friesen thinks he can make a metal-air battery with up to 11 times the energy density of lithium batteries at potentially half the cost. Now the US Department of Energy’s advanced research incubator ARPA-E has just given his spin-off company, Fluidic Energy, a $5.13 million research grant to try and do just that.

Read more of this story »

In 1877 Russian scientist Dimitri Mendeelev suggested that the large deposits of oil and gas we find under the surface of the Earth could be made without the decay of long-dead organisms in a process called abiotic synthesis of methane.

Since then the theory has been relegated to the back shelf due to a lack of evidence and the prevailing conventional wisdom that all deep oil and gas deposits arise from decaying prehistoric animal and plant material.

While it’s no doubt that the decay of dead animals and plants is one pathway to the creation of Earth’s oil and natural gas deposits (potentially the largest), new research done with high-tech equipment simulating the conditions of deep earth suggests that Mendeelev’s theory is correct.

Read more of this story »

Combining the brilliance of nature with some top-notch engineering, these two scientists are on to something and getting the funding for it.

The researchers are breaking ground with this and looking to raise water monitoring to another level.

Read more of this story »

The discussions following my two last posts about climate change opinion shifts and about an anti-science coalition have made it clear that one of the reasons people distrust science is that “Science” fails to speak with one voice.  There are definitely forces from the outside of Science that erode trust, but there are also internal issues.

The problem is that Science will not ever “speak with one voice.”  Scientists often have different opinions about a given topic.  Often that simply represents a healthy part of the scientific process.  When I hear someone say, “scientists don’t even agree about this!” I want to say, “you don’t know many scientists, do you!”  We are trained to questions assumptions and scrutinize analytical methods.  We are taught how to spot artifacts and how to come up with alternate hypotheses.  Some scientists get a little aggressive about this (there is usually at least one curmudgeon in every department).

There are definitely some topics that are so complex that it is impossible to be 100% sure about conclusions.  There are questions that are not amenable to running a controlled experiment.  These are all factors that make a topic like climate change so controversial.  These are legitimate reasons for the lack of a single “answer from science.”

All the above said, there are plenty of examples of scientific disagreements that arise from what can only, honestly be called bad science. Doing science well is non-trivial.  It requires a good deal of mental rigor and comprehensive information acquisition.  If we scientists are honest we all have to admit that we can fall short of the ideal “scientific method” at times.  Trust in “Science” ultimately means trusting “Scientists” and thats sometimes where the trouble starts.  There are 5 main ways that I can think of that scientsts can “behave badly.”  Maybe you can add some more.

Read more of this story »

A wise Nebraska farmer I know taught me this saying: “It’s what you know for certain that keeps you from learning.”   This principle is at the core of why certain groups and entities are rejecting good science.

As a scientist, and particularly as a scientist involved in agricultural and environmental issues, I’m increasingly aware of this trend.  In some cases this involves open hostility to science, in others it is just a matter of ignoring the scientific input. What is disturbing is how many different “voices” are in this unlikely “coalition” and the extent to which they are coloring the views of the broader society  (as seen in the recent Pew survey of American attitudes about climate change). 

At acknowledged risk of offending people, I will try to describe factions in the groups that tend to reject things that science would tell them.  I know that what I am talking about does not apply to everyone, or even most people in these groups, but it is still a potent force in our society. 

Read more of this story »

Without pavement and parking lots we would still be traveling cross-country in Conestoga wagons on 6-inch deep ruts and be breathing lungfulls of dust every time a vehicle drove by at the Kwik-E-Mart. Needless to say, pavement is one of the many things that makes modern life possible.

But, like everything else in our modern life, the more advanced we get in our ability to collect and analyze data, the more we realize that the good stuff always seems to have its awful consequences too. It’s the same story with pavement.

Read more of this story »

Last Monday the popular show “CSI: Miami” ran a segment in which a young woman dies and it turns out to be because of a GMO corn developed by a rogue company called “Bixton Organic Foods.”  In the plot, the company willingly puts people at risk.  This fictional scenario bears no plausible tie to reality, but it fits well with the simplistic, good guys/bad guys image in the Myth that many people believe about farming.  To see how it feels to be the brunt of a distortion like this, I recommend you read a post from a real corn farmer.  

So why is it possible for CBS writers to generate fictional “drama” about the “danger of GMO” when in fact GMO technology has been used with complete safety for more than a decade on a gigantic scale?  (Having witnessed first-hand the thought and care that went into developing this technology over the past 30 years, I’m not surprised by that safety record).  There is an abundance of good information available about this technology including many confirmations of its safety by panel after panel of highly qualified, science and medical experts around the world.  I think the reason that the fear of GMO persists in certain extreme circles is the same reason that there are still “birthers” and people who are sure that health reform will lead to “death panels.”  Its not that there is much overlap between these demographics but rather that the same mechanism of “selective knowing” is involved.

Read more of this story »

Surely after so many embarrassing meals I would have learned not to order the spiciest thing on the menu by now, but there’s something about a chili pepper that I can’t resist.

That something, it turns out, is capsaicin, a chemical compound produced by chilies to ward off unwanted consumers. The higher the concentration of capsaicin in a chili, the hotter it is.

Read more of this story »

They don’t know how it works, but it does.

A team of researchers at Georgia Tech has developed a new high-tech ceramic material that could make solid oxide fuel cells less costly and less finicky, and much more durable and efficient. The material is called Barium-Zirconium-Cerium-Yttrium-Ytterbuim Oxide. [Ed note: Say that three times fast and you get a gold star.] I don’t know if it’s any less of a tongue twister, but it’s known as BZCYYb for short.

Solid oxide fuel cells are of interest because they can generate energy without the need for an expensive catalyst such as platinum, which is typically used in hydrogen fuel cells. While nanotechnology is enabling the development of hydrogen fuel cells that use less platinum, with BZCYYb the prospects look good for ditching the precious metal entirely in favor of more sustainable technology—if solid oxide systems can be developed in a commercially viable form, that is.

Read more of this story »

Can you imagine anything worse than being somewhere in public and realizing your breath is loaded with a smell so pungent that it’s offending everyone in a one mile radius from you?

It may be fair to say that garlic tops the list there.

Yikes. I’ve nightmares about this and think having a constant supply of a combination of mouthwash and chewing gum in my bag would be a great idea, but the fact remains that licking some grrr-lick can work nothing short of wonders for you, despite its grrrr factor.

Plus with a reputation for preventing everything from the common cold to aging, garlic is as much known for its versatility as for its effectiveness.

Hey, it can even be effective as a repellent - and not just for mosquitoes.

The word garlic comes from  garleac, meaning “spear leek” in Old English. It is reported to be native to Central Asia, and dates back over 6000 years.

But it was the Egyptians historically that took garlic to the next level. They worshipped it and placed clay garlic bulb models  in the tomb of none else than Tutankhamen. Can you believe, they even used it as currency? Who would’ve thought that money could stink so bad?

Egyptian folklore holds that garlic repelled vampires and ghosts, protected against the “Evil Eye”, and warded off nymphs said to terrorize pregnant women and engaged maidens. Garlic was also considered an aphrodisiac in Egypt. Nature decided to enshrine this super-substance in stink.

Researchers have known that the distinct aroma, flavor and healing properties of garlic come from an organic compound in garlic called allicin, which is also a powerful antioxidant or something that stop the damaging effects of radicals that can accelerate certain diseases.

Like a lot of other herbal medicines though, garlic was not subjected to a vigorous scientific study until earlier this year.

In a Science News report,Queen’s University Chemistry professor Derek Pratt, who led a study on how garlic does it said “We didn’t understand how garlic could contain such an efficient antioxidant, since it didn’t have a substantial amount of the types of compounds usually responsible for high antioxidant activity in plants, such as the flavanoids found in green tea or grapes.”

The  team experimented with synthetically-produced allicin, they found that an acid produced when allicin decomposes rapidly reacts with radicals, more than the allicin itself, explaining its effects better.

According to Dr. Pratt, who is Canada Research Chair in Free Radical Chemistry, no one has ever seen compounds, natural or synthetic, react this quickly as antioxidants.

“The reaction between the sulfenic acid and radicals is as fast as it can get, limited only by the time it takes for the two molecules to come into contact,” he told Science News.

That’s all for the science part. From the personal angle, I wonder why Nature wraps extremely good things in extremely bad packages. Maybe the rock band, The Verve, got it right when they sang that life is a bittersweet symphony. And sometimes it’s easier to appreciate the sweet, when you’ve had a taste of the bitter.

(Images courtesy of www.braquiplan.com & www.britannica.com)

Revered in India as “holy” this golden-yellow colored powder is worth its weight in gold, that too nutritionally, but not monetarily.

Any guesses what I’m talking about?

This ingredient has been hailed for centuries for its ability to treat wounds, infections and other health problems. But until recently, the science of the healing remained a mystery.

We’re talking, of course, about turmeric. None else can fill its yellow shoes.        The Turmeric Plant

The use of turmeric as a coloring and healing agent for food  dates back to as far as 600 B.C. Amongst the other oldest recorded references to turmeric is an account by Marco Polo in his travels to China in 1280. Repeated historical references to turmeric across communities ensured it crossed over from folklore into everyday use.

Curios researchers that flocked to test the powder in the last few decades, identified curcumin as the chief active ingredient in turmeric. This said little though, apart from changing the alphabets that carried the mystery from turmeric to curcumin. But it added specificity to the “magical” effect of turmeric, by labeling curcumin an antioxidant, anti-cancer, antibiotic, antiviral and other properties has been revealed.

It wasn’t until March this year that University of Michigan researchers led by Ayyalusamy Ramamoorthy discovered the scientific basis of curcumin’s activities in human cells.

It turns out that cucurcmin is somewhat of a Nazi. The molecule inserting itself into the cell membranes, somehow making them more orderly. And somehow being lined up straight makes cells more resistant to infection and malignancy.

If you ask me, while the curcurmin is doing everything it’s supposed to in cells, the scientists need to do some more explaining.

Ramamoorthy, the lead Professor of chemistry and biophysics behind this work told Science News that the cell membrane goes from being crazy and floppy to being more disciplined and ordered, so that information flow through it can be controlled.

Wow.

With no science education to her credit, my grandmother just knew that  giving me turmeric in milk when I had a cold as a child growing up in India, would work wonders for me. It did.

Natural antibiotics like turmeric exemplify what I think should be a larger trend. It is this larger trend that Michel Pollan is advocating throughout the country in his talks. His book, aptly titled “In Defense of Food” argues, that nature has everything we ever needed for healthy living and that it is time society took a step towards a more natural form of living. His argument that there are cultures all over the world today that are closer o nature and healthier than the more affluent, but more artificial societies of the west also points us in the same direction.

In fact, if anything, it is unnaturalness that is the primary cause of  unhealthy lifestyles today. The sheer change in levels of human activity in the last few decades are probably nothing less than an evolutionary shock to the human body, which was programmed for far higher levels of activity. From forging for our own food, to moving less than a few feet to reach into the fridge, is a spectacular change and one that definitely comes with implications.

It may be useful for us to realize that biggest experiments with food were for earlier times, and those times solved the major questions. Ours may be to stick to that and interestingly, this makes me think that progress can sometimes mean regressing, but intelligently.

According to Science News, Ramamoorthy too was given turmeric laced milk to drink when he had a cold as a child, (not by my grandmother though.)

Lithium-ion batteries are great and all—having heralded in a new age of portable electronics and allowed for the possibility of mass-market electric cars—but they have a few major drawbacks. For instance, they have a propensity to catch fire and explode and, although they have a much better energy storage capacity than say lead-acid or nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries, they still weigh too much to pack more than a couple hundred miles of range into a passenger car.

Read more of this story »