Slashdot Mirror

http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/BAA76AE9-F23C-1819-08D80B3BC4D83163_2.jpg

There we go
=Smidge=

The second photo on this link shows the inside of the drive:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=hard-drive-recovered-from-columbia&sc=rss

(Link stolen from another post in this thread)

Here's the link: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=hard-drive-recovered-from-columbia&sc=rss

Here is a picture for you:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=hard-drive-recovered-from-columbia&sc=rss

I'm pretty sure it's the one from the shuttle..

your other arguments seam to be wind power can't make this country self sufficient (agreed.) But their are not enough known nuclear material in the US to be self sufficient in nuclear, so it definitely can't (currently) solve the US energy problems either (unless were willing and able to kick South Africa's ass next.)

Wind can provide provide the US with a lot of energy. And an article in Sciam, "A Solar Grand Plan says that by 2050 solar can provide 69% of the US's energy needs. And while I don't like nuclear power, there's no need to go to Africa, Canada has some rich uranium deposits. According to the World Nuclear Association Canada mines more uranium than any other country.

But thats where putting them on buildings sounds smart. IE supplement the power as close to the demand, and knock down one of the big problems of big buildings (they channel wind) at the same time.

I don't know if you saw it but one of the proposals for a new World Trade Center had a wind generator in between two buildings with other proposals also including wind power.

It seems France is using Fast Breeder Reactors. From "Science Magazine" dated 1980 "Breeder Reactors in France". Ok, Sciam says France shut down it's breeder reactor, but it doesn't say why. However the nuclear waste, or reprocessed fuel, wasn't the only problem the Spectrum article said the French had, they also had all the toxic chemicals left over from reprocessing.

I admit research may solve all the problems with nuclear power, but so can research with alternative energy sources, geothermal, solar, wind, and others. And with these others, whereas nuclear power requires massive centralized plants that when decommissioned can't be used for anything else, they can have distributed and decentralized electrical generation. I think the energy problem comes from centralized power generation. Another is waste, conservation measures can cut the US's energy needs down a lot as well as waste heat going up smoke stacks when it can be recovered. As more and more Off Gridders are showing simple conservation measures can go a long way to satisfying US energy needs.

The disposition of nuclear waste is a political problem, not a technical one.

Tell that to the French where many people support nuclear power.

Nobody's suggesting that we don't use the available wind, geothermal, or tidal power. If that's not sufficient,

Ah but those alternatives are sufficient. Sciam, "Scientific American", published "A Solar Grand Plan" that details how solar power can provide 69% of the US's energy needs by 2050. If that isn't enough the DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory published the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States showing the wind resources the US has, which is a lot. The Rocky has enough potential wind power to provide the 48 contiguous states with most if not all the energy needed. Another good energy source, in some locations, is Geothermal. Fact is is alternative energy sources like those above can provide the US with all of it's energy needs easily, technologically speaking.

If people would just start thinking realistically about these problems and allow the building of Nuclear Power plants, this problem would be solved.

Then you'd just be exchanging one set of problems for another.

And while on the subject, I used to think that these people were simply "NIMBY's", the age old Not In My Back Yard type of folks. But these people aren't NIMBY's, These people are BANANAS! Build Almost Nothing Anywhere Near Anything. They are flat out anti-progress and they do it in the nicest way "we're trying to help".

I and a lot of other people are all for building geothermal and solar power plants as well as wind farms, even in their own back yards. The state I live in, Minnesota, has a number of wind farms and I'm all for building more. Not only is it relatively clean but it also creates a new income stream for farmers. If I lived in California near Yellowstone I'd be just as supportive of building geothermal plants there as is currently done in Hawaii. And if I lived in Cape Cod I'd be just as supportive of building off shore wind farms.

I say BULLSHIT! You have three choices: Nuclear Power, Agrarian Society, Global Warming. Pick one.

What's BULLSHIT is this. The Rocky Mountains along have almost enough potential wind power to provide all of the lower 48 states with electricity. And as that Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States shows other states have a lot of potential wind power as well. In "A Solar Grand Plan" Sciam lays out how solar power can provide "69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity" by 2050. In "Hot Rocks: Tapping an Underutilized Renewable Resource" Sciam reports how geothermal power plants can provide a lot of energy as well. Since 2000 "a geothermal power plant in northern California" has been powering 750,000 homes. Yellowstone is capable of generating more. In Hawaii geothermal provides the Big Island (Puna) with 30% of it's electricity.

If people would just start thinking realistically about these problems and allow the building of Nuclear Power plants, this problem would be solved.

Then you'd just be exchanging one set of problems for another.

And while on the subject, I used to think that these people were simply "NIMBY's", the age old Not In My Back Yard type of folks. But these people aren't NIMBY's, These people are BANANAS! Build Almost Nothing Anywhere Near Anything. They are flat out anti-progress and they do it in the nicest way "we're trying to help".

I and a lot of other people are all for building geothermal and solar power plants as well as wind farms, even in their own back yards. The state I live in, Minnesota, has a number of wind farms and I'm all for building more. Not only is it relatively clean but it also creates a new income stream for farmers. If I lived in California near Yellowstone I'd be just as supportive of building geothermal plants there as is currently done in Hawaii. And if I lived in Cape Cod I'd be just as supportive of building off shore wind farms.

I say BULLSHIT! You have three choices: Nuclear Power, Agrarian Society, Global Warming. Pick one.

What's BULLSHIT is this. The Rocky Mountains along have almost enough potential wind power to provide all of the lower 48 states with electricity. And as that Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States shows other states have a lot of potential wind power as well. In "A Solar Grand Plan" Sciam lays out how solar power can provide "69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity" by 2050. In "Hot Rocks: Tapping an Underutilized Renewable Resource" Sciam reports how geothermal power plants can provide a lot of energy as well. Since 2000 "a geothermal power plant in northern California" has been powering 750,000 homes. Yellowstone is capable of generating more. In Hawaii geothermal provides the Big Island (Puna) with 30% of it's electricity.

Congratulations on the new addition to your family! That strange object in the sky must have been a stork.

ps - Sorry I didn't make it to the baby shower, but here's a little present for you guys. Hope it helps.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-secret-to-raising-smart-kids

You'll have to pay for it online (or find a print copy of the original issue) but this was speculated on in an article in Scientific American (Feb 1999): http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=noahs-flood

I just read this Scientific American article on the subject, and it seems a lot farther away than the Slate article is implying. I wonder if some of the funding is going to the researchers who wrote the SciAm article.

The review of Expelled in Scientific American did a lot to debunk many of the claims of "firing" he makes in the film. Many times he'll claim someone was fired when in fact their grant merely ran out, only to be renewed the next week. In one case he claims a teacher who "criticized Darwinism" was fired, but he never actually gets around to repeating what she said, so you can't really decide if the example fits into his argument of "criticizing evolution." In fact the movie never really finds anyone that was fired or demoted for making any scientific claim regarding Evolution.

Stein actually told the people he interviewed for the movie that he was making a completely different film

How do you know this?

Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...

As Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer and other proponents of evolution appearing in Expelled have publicly remarked, the producers first arranged to interview them for a film that was to be called Crossroads, which was allegedly a documentary on "the intersection of science and religion." They were subsequently surprised to learn that they were appearing in Expelled, which "exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy," to quote from the film's press kit.

To say those interviewed expected a 'completely different film' is a bit of a stretch--it's not like they thought they were doing voice-over work for the latest Pixar movie. But it is clear some interviewees were deceived.

Check out the article on Scientific American:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know

If it's true that Ben Stein faked major parts of the show, but people take it as truth, then that is harmful.

It comes down to which camp you trust for accurate and reliable information - the truth - no less.

Except there weren't any real examples of scientific zealotry on display in the movie. For ex. Richard Sternberg wasn't fired because he published the paper(although he received some serious flak for it). He was just an unpaid research associate at the end of his term and they decided not to renew his contract.

What Ben Stein and co. are engaging in here is basically selective data dredging where all they show is the bits and bobs that are in their favour. Objectivity? Bah! We don't need no steenkin' objectivity.

Secondly, I also don't get why the "believers" want their point of view to be handled with kid gloves. If you are going to present it as evidence to a bunch of scientists, it's subject to the same rules of peer review as any other paper. (which means if it's bullshit they will call it what it is)

In any case, there's tons more information about the movie on Scientific American

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie

Here's another review of the article.

Scientific American has a good review of the movie (from the viewpoint of the evil scientists of course): http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie

Radical scientists are calling the movie dishonest:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled

Wow, I hadn't realized that crop production could be that agile to respond to announcements so quickly.
On the upside, with a market that active and profitable maybe we can end farm subsidies. I just wish they would make the biofuel out of switchgrass instead of corn.

They're working on it.

The distinctive brains of psychopaths.

"But for psychopaths, the word 'cancer' and the word 'table' had the same emotional connotations - which is to say, not very many. It's as if they're emotionally color-blind."

Even more staggering were the findings of a study conducted by New York City psychiatrist Joanne Intrator, with Hare's collaboration, at the Bronx Veterans Administration hospital in 1993. The investigators employed the same language test, this time injecting the subjects with a radioactive tracer and scanning color images of their brains. As normal subjects processed the emotion-laden words, their brains lit up with activity, particularly in the areas around the ventromedial frontal cortex and amygdala. The former plays a crucial role in controlling impulses and long-term planning, while the amygdala is often described as "the seat of emotion." But in the psychopaths, those parts of the brain appeared to remain inactive while processing the emotion-laden words. That, says Hare, helps explain why a psychopath's conscience is only half-formed. "I showed the scans to several neurologists," recalls Hare. "They said that it did not even look like a human brain. One of them asked, 'Is this person from Mars?' "

According to Scientific American.
Not surprisingly, psychopaths are overrepresented in prisons; studies indicate that about 25 percent of inmates meet diagnostic criteria for psychopathy. Nevertheless, research also suggests that a sizable number of psychopaths may be walking among us in everyday life. Some investigators have even speculated that "successful psychopaths" - those who attain prominent positions in society - may be overrepresented in certain occupations, such as politics, business and entertainment. Yet the scientific evidence for this intriguing conjecture is preliminary.

One in 100.
One person in 100 is a psychopath, meaning that they lack a moral compass, sense of responsibility or empathy (this is a personality disorder, not a mental illness). And although they are overrepresented in the prison system, according to research by American psychologist Dr. Paul Babiak, and his Canadian counterpart Dr. Robert Hare, psychopaths are also well-represented in corporate environments.

here's a story about what I'd say is a very black & white likely case of psychopathy, and one at its worst, at least on a small scale.

The above link being pretty heavy, I thought I'd offer this lighter fare; A pseudo-scientific test to measure yourself on the psychopath-meter.

If you're going to navigate your pathway through reality, (down the river of life), you need to know where the rocks are if you're going to be able to avoid crashing into them. Christianity and the like has programmed all kinds of self-destructive behavior into human-kind. "Turn the other cheek" is an example of social programming which makes us food for the psychopathic human-type, --the type which I would guess is generally in charge of countries and most of the most powerful organizations which shape our lives; the psychopath recognizes its own and shapes the rules of the world to benefit itself, and study of the power structures over the centuries, doesn't really ever let go once the seat of power is attained. --Christ's supposed dying on the cross, (which I am doubtful actually happened for a variety of reasons, not the l

And of course your solution to this problem is... less government! But back up a second. That's quite a leap saying that more powerful government gives more opportunity for rent seeking. If that is true, why did the EPA try to claim it didn't have authority to regulate CO2 emissions? Why have fewer species than ever been added to the endangered species list? Maybe the FCC shouldn't have any authority over the electromagnetic spectrum, parts of which were recently reclaimed, repackaged, and auctioned off? Why did the Department of Homeland Security bungle Katrina so badly? Why does DHS insist on spending big $ for radiation detectors that won't reliably detect smuggling and which are subject to false alarms, while barely pursuing other, more promising methods? Maybe they don't have enough people? It couldn't be because consolidating several agencies into one overall smaller agency was a bad idea, could it?

The problem is not the size of the government, it's the size of the corruption, incompetence, and stupidity in government and in corporations. It's the extent to which these organizations and systems allow problems to be hidden and covered up. In some cases, government authority has been used for rent seeking, but in many other cases, lack of government authority has been used to put together monopolies and to get away with short changing the people. Just look at the subprime mess, and the way the telcos have not provided services, even going so far as to sue government entities set up to provide services where the telcos would not. If Bush and Cheney had less government to work with, they'd have fewer secrets to keep! Yeah. Transparency, not size, is the key.

Scientific American has a good article on how these detectors work. The detector doesn't have to see the radiation from the isotope involved.

But the fact is, we do a fair amount of radiation scanning at all border crossings and seaports into the United States. And they go "false positive" all the time: kitty litter, ceiling tile, some welding rods, ceramics ... you'd be very surprised at how much natural radiation is out there. I think it's a little under 5% of all cargo is detectably above the background level.

Medical patients are screaming hot, and they alarm all the time. Pity the poor truck driver who has a regular route between Vancouver and Seattle, and just got a Tc-99m stress test ... he will ring off the detectors every time for the next two weeks. Lucky for him, most hospitals give you a card that says, "Yes, I'm radioactive; I just got a medical treatment." It happens fairly often now, so it doesn't make local news. But the cat is pretty funny, so it makes the news, I guess.

See also here.

That's not a fair comparison. Intelligent design cannot _ever_ hope to partake in a scientific discussion, because there's no science behind it, and that's _it_. No point in debating something that's completely wrong in any way you look at it.

And with all the NIMBYs out there, nobody is willing to build new and needed Hydro Electric, Nuclear, Coal powered plants anytime soon.

Neither more nuclear nor coal plants are needed. In December 2007 SciAm had an article, "A Solar Grand Plan" saying that by 2050 solar power can provide 69% of the USA's electricity and 35 percent of its total energy. Then the Rocky Mountains alone has enough potential wind power to supply the lower 48 states with electricity. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States details the potential wind power of sites throughout the 48 states. TFA "The Unsung Solution" in "Orion Magazine" goes over waste heat that can be used to produce more electricity. But you're right about NIMBYs, they are working to stop offshore wind farms. Though the Mid Atlantic states have good sites for offshore wind farms NIMBYs are doing what they can to stop wind farms in places like Cape Hatteras. Geothermal energy also offers good energy potential.

Wow, you guys really know how to miss a point. On one hand we have you dumbasses saying "we can't possibly alter the earth in any signficant way." Then there are the rest of us that remember that we can blow up the earth, every square inch, 20 times over with the nuclear weapons we have. Kinda flies in the face of your theory doesn't it?

I'd be willing to bet that in 10 or maybe 20 years global warming won't even be in the news... kinda like the last world-ending apocalypse Al Gore was predicting from the ozone hole... which was also never concretely linked to anything man was doing.

Actually it was; since CFCs were banned, the ozone hole has slowed in its growth.

But please ignore whatever you want.

In about 2 billion years the Milky Way could already collide with the Andromeda Galaxy, which will more than likely change earth's cozy equilibrium that enables human life in a sub-optimal way.

I thought that current solar cells have efficiencies of up to 40%. So how is this better?

It allows energy storage (in the form of hydrogen) for later use. Maybe it's not as efficient as using compressed air, as was described in the cover story in January's issue of Scientific American, but it's still worth investigating.

Turning Plants into Plastic--And Replacing Oil in the Process

Ballooning Demand for Plastic Made from Vegetable Resin

Plastic without the petroleum

Starch based plastic 3d printer

Right, because Einstein wasn't just a math-loving, nobody patent clerk when he published some of the most important papers in the history of physics.

Beware of making universal generalizations.

Eyes rolling...

I believe the actual argument is that under normal operation coal burning plants put more radioactive elements in the air than nuclear plants do. This is because the fly ash they produce is very slightly radioactive and some of it gets into the air. In any case, it's very small amounts for either type plant.

Here's a link: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Claiming that coal plants put more radioactivity in the air than the total amount of all waste from a nuclear plant (implying air release and solid waste) seems like a complete misrepresentation. I'd like to see on that too.

While I think it would be great to invest heavily in alternative energy (Scientific American has a plan for solar energy), I don't necessarily think that it make us ignore the Middle East. (The U.S. military is not ignoring Africa, by the way, since the United States Africa Command was recently established.) The threat of terrorism (real or imagined) will probably keep us in the Middle East for a long time to come.

Oddly enough, I hold the opposite opinion as you, but for the same reason. I think people characterize genius as an innate ability in order to excuse themselves from working that hard. If they believe that no matter how hard they work, they could never attain the level of proficiency that geniuses attain, then they have an excuse not to try.

Also, the view that genius (and innovation) are the result of hard work is supported by the research:
The Secret to Raising Smart Kids
How Not to Talk to Your Kids
How to Grow a Super Athlete

Technically you're right, there is no "risk" of contamination from coal, it just plain contaminates everyday. There is enough uranium and thorium in most coal that if you could extract it economically would produce more power than the coal itself. Coal is somewhat radioactive, how do you think they do carbon dating?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, fly ash--a by-product from burning coal for power--contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste.

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.

I'm pretty sure you are right, as just earlier this year there was an example of the very rapid evolution in an insect population you describe. It was with butterflies and on an island, and the disease in question only affected the male half of the population. The disease in question was very virulent, and this lead to a very strong selection of those with immunity and almost zero competition from those who were not. The immunity spread throughout the population within a few generations.

In this case, there are already many mosquitoes that would not be effected by this. Though in the short term it would likely have some effect, unless it was repeated every single year, pretty much forever, the mosquito population would likely rebound rapidly. It, of course, is not the same exact situation, but it does point to the resilience of insect populations, and the ability of highly beneficial genetic traits to rapidly spread within them.

link

If you were not such an asshat you would have read a bit about the Space Pen and the risk of using pencils in zero-g. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=9CF01C5C-E7F2-99DF-3EEFFCD06138AEC4

The approach discussed works on "... a simple premise: driving somewhere usually requires crossing major intersections that are sparsely interconnected. "

Done, where's my prize? http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=screening-for-terrorism

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=is-there-really-an-autism-epidemic&print=true AND http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1576829,00.html

Nuclear isn't needed. SciAm has a good article in the January 2008 issue. "A Solar Grand Plan" details how solar power can provide 69% of the US's electricity and 35% of it's energy by 2050. And that doesn't use any sort of speculation or pie in the sky dreams (except under Bush and maybe the next president of the USA). It uses current technology and incremental advances in technology. But right now EVs in every driveway and garage, heck just 10% is unrealistic.

Hopefully Tesla Motors will finish their car soon, I'd love to hear how they run in real conditions.

Agreed!

Instead of a blog post about the article, you can also read the article.

Of course this /. article is a blog post about the article, but it doesn't need to be a blog post about a blog post about an article...

Am I supposed to equate a pound of steel with a pound of highly refined and processed silicon? Or is there some alternative that is dead simple to make and works really well, one that I don't know about(or perhaps your point is that we burn so much oil that the mind boggles)?

If we assume that this is credible, even starting *right now* means that the 'switch' happens in 20 or 30 years:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

My read is that there really isn't a whole lot to be gained by intensively focusing lots of new money on solar, as the amount of investment already present is pretty huge, and it is going to hit an inflection point real-soon-now, as it is actually going to become competitive with fossil plants from a capital investment perspective. (that is, they will make economic sense without taking their environmental advantages into account)

sorry, I gotta say this...you learn that some meteors make it to 47,000 feet and hit planes hehehe. In fact, a lot of small ones hit the ground.

The probability of a meteor strike on a plane is so low it's almost negligible, but still possible. Mind you, flights over the North Pole occur regularly when taking a great circle route and the airlines don't adjust their schedules or routes around meteor showers.