About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
... however stubbornly you stick to it :)
That's an ideological statement, which is why I added the "smiley."
But it is not ideological to respect a scientific consensus that has built up over decades. Some of the weather and climate books reviewed on my Science Shelf website have an ideological bent, but most focus on the evidence and the growing scientific consensus.
Nonscientists who know how scientists build consensus now recognize that there may be huge problems ahead. Not acting can have serious consequences.
In the religious realm that plays out this way: Many scientists and nonscientists espouse conservative religious faiths that place the stewardship of the planet as an important aspect of doing "God's work." Others, such as members of my liberal denomination, include "repairing the world" as one of their central good deeds. That repair is social as well as physical. The sentiment is not ideological, even when ideologues happen to hold it.
If you're having problems accepting the scientific consensus, I suggest that you click the link earlier in this reply and select reading material from the titles you think are least ideological.
I'm afraid that you remain unconvinced because you wish things were different from the way they are. It's almost "magical" thinking, and few things are more dangerous than relying on magic instead of acting on fact.
Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
"People who view this as a left-wing ideological issue" aren't going to be swayed by a bunch of non-scientists jumping on the bandwagon. The reason we think it's an ideological issue is because we're not convinced by the scientific findings, not because we're "right-wing" (although I am :-) ).
This type of thing goes in cycles, like world climate. Going into a panic over a cyclic swing may make good headlines, but it's not smart. Accept the cycles of life and go with them.
Just wanted to say thanks, for your comments. I live in PA and will do all I can to help you replace Rick.
That's an interesting idea. The idea of sinking crop residue already produced by farmers into the deep cold ocean has been suggested in a Wired article, "Confessions of a CO2 Composter" in 2000.
It is surprising little known that coal power stations emit more radiation than modern nuclear plants. Whilst a failure at a nuclear plant is obviously far more dangerous than one at a coal plant, nuclear is far more environmentally friendly than it is allowed to convince people it is. Waste storage is the issue, at coal/gas/oil installations the waste goes into the atmosphere contributing to the problems of the whole planet. Whereas nuclear waste just needs a relatively small storage location, which is the problem, too many fear what they do not understand. Personally, I favour every household having a small (1-3KVA ish) wind turbine this distribution acrosss millions of locations will provide resilience and reduce the wind doesnt always blow problem, add in other renewables and you can reduce the core generating requirement. Nuclear is an important part of the solution for the next 20 years but politically it is being pushed away.
1000 years? The fuel for current, inherent safe, reactors will last more like 100 years (or less) for a full switch. Experimental breeding reactors are more expensive and more polluting and much more expensive. And they do not exist yet in quantity.
Moreover, when decommissioning is accounted for, a real cost, nuclear energy becomes very expensive. Radioactive materials are dangerous to your health.
And the waste problem is actually NOT political. Except if you believe the world can end after you are gone.
Windscale (or however it is called currently) has dumped more than 1 cubic meters of plutonium in the Irish sea. The outlet of the Le Havre plant has been closed to the public because the area has become highly radioactive. The plant itself cannot be approached without protective gear anymore.
Really only a limited option.
Why not just grow tons of grass and bury compressed grass bales instead? Nature has a nice way of converting CO2 into solid carbon...and this is pretty damn stable provided you don't burn it.
The world has about 1000 years of nuclear fuel. Coal and Oil has only been big for the last 250 years.
The waste problem is political, no technical. The French reprocess and glassify their waste every day.
Conservation and renewables supporting nuclear energy is the best path.
What do we do with the nuclear waste?
How does the associated heat will effect the efficiency of the whole project?
How much nuclear fuel do we have? - Not for ever that is for sure!
We need to find ways to maintain and higher our standard of living/quality of life without using more and more energie per capita!
I wonder if people spend the $500 investing in insulating their homes maybe the net effect would be bigger.
I though Sin City was Las Vegas. In either case, yes, there's no way humans could have any effect on the weather or environment.
Yes, we need to stop putting carbon into the atmosphere. I hope you weren't planning on powering your 'barges' with fossil fuels. Solar won't work under 7 meters of ice. This leaves nuclear power. This is a 'band-aid' approach to fixing a broken limb.
Deep well CO2 injection or nuclear power are the only two proactive ways to reduce global CO2 emissions.
Has anyone mentioned that theis "heat island effect" is just a theory, and that this temperature rise is just as easily explained by the hellfire's of satan percolating to the surface of sin city.
I'd love to know more about the effects of TV watching on kids, but it's not entirely obvious from this article how alarmed I should be. Maybe I need to read the original study, but all I get from this story is: more time watching TV = less time for other stuff. Not terrribly earth-shattering. E.g., Did homework quality suffer? or just time spent doing it?
If there were actual behavioral issues, were they tracked separately among kids that watched commercial-free TV vs TV watching with commercials at typical 10-minute intervals?
This probably belongs in Nantoech & Materials (aka Chemistry) :-P
btw, what's up with the new(-ish) icky blog-like commenting. Not that there's ever been too much
commenting around here before but it seems like
there'll be even less now that it doesn't have the
forum feel.
Was there any comment is this article relative to the diffraction limit spot sizes relative to the lens NA (numerical aperature) and the wavelength?
Check out my eductional website: http://www.units-of-measure.com
"Perspectives on Science & Technology... Lessons in Units of Measure."
I think there is a lesson to be learned here. Whenever we scientists roll our eyes at an old wives tale we are demonstrating how close minded we are. What often at first seems ridiculous can often turn out to be true.
IS "SPELT" AN ENGLISH WORD? IN THE STATES IT IS "SPELLED"
I BELIEVE "SPELT" IS A GRAIN.
Hey, hey, hey! This, like a lot of stories here, is a press release. this one from the British Medical Journal. I don't think Science Blog is endorsing it, just posting it to encourage debate.
Being pro-choice myself, I can understand where the author and the ScienceBlog editor are coming from. However, I think it philosophically shallow for a "science" blog to be posting such drivel. I do not believe in moral OR ethical absolutes, and the term "should" in the article title is a dead give away that this rant is not scientific. The original purpose of science was to minimize dogma into a compact method, the scientific method, in which we can referee arguments and evidence and revise theories. Many, including the author of this article, instead use pseudo-science as a tool to justify public policy.
On a more practical note, if a doctor feels that abortion is "doing harm" to a fetus, and you believe that withholding the morning-after pill is "doing harm", then who can put forth an ABSOLUTE standard to decide? No one; that's why this debate is still raging.
Having an "ethics expert" reinforce your views may give you comforting certitude, but it's not science or logic. All values and ultimate goals are founded on our instinctual urges; logic only helps us achieve those goals. For example, logic alone cannot tell us whether we should work toward world peace, or blow up the earth: it depends on our goal. Only our "un-rational" emotions and primal sympathies can guide us toward some kind of world peace (if such a thing is even possible).
ScienceBlog, please stick to what you're good at: science.
This is an outragous article.
Conscience choice is all that seperates free men and slaves. No doctor should be a slave to his practice. Nor should a so-called Ethics Professional with no values be allowed to force his lack of vision onto others. There is no credibility in his darkness.
All the 'what ifs' postulated in the article are so much smoke, carefully disguising the real issue that is not spoken of, that of abortion on demand, carefully omitted to disguise intent. No doctor should be required to take the life of a fetus if it conflicts with their values. Perhaps the Doctor takes serious his responsibilities to protect life. Just because a law is passed does not lessen the value of that life, nor the conscience of a true professional.
If anything, this article points out the dangers of Socialized medicine, where doctors lose freedoms in their practice because they in effect become employees of the State, ergo, property of the State. This is slave metality.
At all counts, a doctor must be free to decline work. The life of the doctor is no less than the patient.
Any emergency responder is required to evaluate an emergency scene for personal danger. To not do so puts the victim and the responder at greater risk. A doctor must also. This is sometimes a difficult thing, involving the possible lives of the patient or the doctor and the doctors' family. What doctor would want to bring home some deadly disease to those whom they love because someone else was so afflicted and they were 'required' to treat and through some innocent mistake, easily made unknowingly, became infected? How is that thinking rational?
One of the most important safeguards to our societies is a doctor that has values. Can you imagine a lawyer with no values? Or a politician? (No giggles here!)
Doctors are trained and educated to make proper medical decisions. They understand their roles. Leave them free to determine their own values, to accept their own level of risk. We have fashioned laws where we don't want them to go, but let's not drag them where they don't want to go.
Perhaps if they would not perform, you wouldn't either, given the same variables. Perhaps you would, to your own harm or shame. Perhaps you should be free to make that choice. So should they.
Some dangers are self evident, some are a matter of conscience. Doctors have to live with the results of their work, and should not be force to do something they find morally repulsive, regardless if the laws allow for it. Perhaps the laws are corrupt! (Remember the lawyers and politicians with no morals? It wasn't a doctor with principles making some of these laws!)
He (the Ethics Professional?) " . . . believes the door to 'value-driven medicine'(substitute Law for medicine if you will, just for contrast) is a door to a Pandora's box (with lots of derisive descriptors of those evil values). Public servants (slaves) must (because they are fellow slaves, after all) act in the public interest, not their own.
The so-called professional from Oxford is 180 degrees wrong. But he can't be blamed. He received a Socialized miss-education, proving to be yet another victim of a slave State with a fixed slave mentality.
Perfectly rational, but absolutely incorrect.
Not all viruses act the same for all people. Some could be carriers.
You forgot Hitler. It's an internet requirement when you launch an anonymous, factless, unthinking, self-righteous, ad homen attack on someone you disagree with that you have to compare them to Hitler. Nice touch with Chavez, tho, the swarthy boogie-man down south for right wing tools.
Wow, reading his line of garbage, you would think that the world is full of doctors with ethics and compassion. Shame on their parents and churches.
Someone needs to get off the high horse and grab a hot cup of reality. There is no shortage of doctor going about their jobs like mindless drones... doing procedures that many would say are ethically questionable.
Doctors are human beings not machines... although I really wonder what goes on in Medical school. It must be something similar to boot camp where young minds are honed to be capable of the most hateful acts... In the face of death everyday, doctors are trained to be emotionless and the bedside manner of a lump of coal. It's a dirty job but someone has to do it.