While MOOCs do allow a lot of people to take courses that they might not otherwise have access to, the bigger question is can you actually learn enough from them to say that you have training in that subject? Previous posts have commented on the droning lectures, which really don't help, even in person.
So a different question is: can a highly-motivated person, who really wants to know about x, take an online course (MOOC or Kahn Academy or whatever) and actually get something out of it. Sure! But a highly-motivated person is probably already determined to learn about x and will find the information somewhere.
This is awfully cool! According to the article, they used Rosetta@home for some predictions. I wonder if they've also tried fold.it, especially since that project is also out of U of Washington.
There's two primary reasons that math curriculum is dumbed down in the US: 1. the students who didn't get it the previous year but were "socially-promoted" anyway, and the teacher has to compensate; 2. the parents who see their kids not getting it and/or are afraid of their kids' homework and demand that all of the hard math be taken away.
Part of this "improving teachers" problem is that there's no good definition of what a "good" teacher does. Do they know their material? Are they effective communicators? Are they empathetic? Do they help their students pass the state tests (and each state has their own state tests)?
As a teacher, I try to emulate my favorite teachers: the 8th grade geography teacher who, through his personal stories of growing up in our small town, taught us how to be good human beings, as well as the most amazing acrostics to memorize nations and capitols; the 12th grade English teacher who taught us everything from Sir Gwain and the Green Knight to "Death of a Salesman" and the occasional university class, and had a collection of stuffed plushie sheep, the 12th grade physics teacher who showed Penn and Teller movies to debunk magic, measured the speed of light from the exit sign, and created the legends of lab-destroying pixies. Two of these teachers are gone, one frustrated by the administration, one frustrated by fellow teachers (who didn't have her teaching abilities and sued the district to make her share her classes).
As amazing as these teachers are/were, I don't know if I would have passed a state test (which hadn't yet been created) with that material. Would the teachers have been thrown out for my poor performance?
Additionally, having students be responsible for whether a teacher remains/gets higher pay is insane. The student has no incentive to pass most state tests (most states still don't require passing scores to graduate), so effort isn't rewarded. Evaluations of teachers should be done by teachers who have no direct influence on each other (the NYTimes opinions mention a system in Indiana that sounds good).
There's a conflict of interests, for lack of a better term. It's nice that the President is advocating more science education and science literacy for the general population (with which I personally agree). But there's also the state-mandated testing systems, some of which require science tests (thanks to NCLB, all states require math and language arts tests, but some states went above and beyond).
If a state requires science testing, chances are that many of its teachers will teach to that test in an attempt to keep the school afloat. Yes, there are some teachers who do amazing projects and truly inspire students, but many will not. Many teachers will feel (and are feeling) pressure to just get good scores. This atmosphere is not at all condusive to making science (or any other subject taught this way) cool.
As far as getting the public interested in science, the media has to start taking an active interest in science and making it accessible to the general public. Let's face it: a lot of new discoveries are not very simple (LHC, anyone?). Explaining why it's an amazing project and worth funding should be part of a science reporter's job. When I worked at a large public science museum, our job was to take material and bring it down to a 5th-8th grade level, which would help compensate for kids, non-native-English speakers, and non-science-literate parents. Even TV shows like CSI do not make science accessible: the fancy-schmancy machines and lab-coat-clad workers are the ones to determine identities of mysterious materials or vials of evidence.
Which is another reason that kids don't want to go into science... "dude, you'll be a NERD!"
I didn't mean to say that we should throw money at the schools; you're right, that won't solve any problems.
However, if that kind of cash (let's say $250 per kid in a 300-kid school (which is kinda small for a middle school)... that's $75K) is given to a school with the stipulation of... early childhood ed, or extra reading help, or more free/reduced meals, or rebuilding the library, getting up-to-date textbooks, or new gym equipment, or installing a computer lab (etc.), I'm pretty sure it would do some good.
Besides, what is "the problem" that you're trying to solve? Not many people can articulate this in specific terms with good student-centered reasoning (i.e., "raising math scores" isn't specific enough nor does it have a good reason for doing so).
This will put even more pressure on teachers to teach to the tests. Especially in low-income areas (where these trials are being done), teachers want their students to get what they're worth.
Kids aren't "getting smarter" (by the way, what does "smart" entail?) They're learning to play the game that is the educational system.
Also, if the sponsoringorganizations can afford to pay each kid $250-500, where the heck are they getting those funds, and why aren't they giving it to inner-city schools in the first place?
The reason these districts (and not just in SC) are "low-performing" is NOT because they do not have computers.
If kids can't read in the first place, giving them laptops isn't going to solve that problem. If kids don't want to learn, giving them laptops isn't going to solve that problem either.
I am female and explosives are what got me into chemistry. Just because girls often shriek or shy from explosives doesn't mean they're actually scared or unimpressed. Most of my female students are more into fire than my male students.
Don't you dare dumb-down (girl-down?) chemistry for girls. We'll give you camo-colored knitting needles if that helps you get over it.
Be careful about explosives in today's society. While explosives are what got me into chemistry, they are now very regulated by local, state, and federal governments. Check your local laws (and your administration) regarding definitions of "bombs" and "explosives" before doing them in classroom settings.
Running computer programs is nice, and might help out someone else (if they're watching). Chances are that the kids won't get much from it.
Instead, have them do something they want to do. When I was in high school, there was a program for chemistry and physics (over two years), and the fourth quarter of Year #2 you did independent work on whatever you wanted in the chem/phys realm.
Of course there were rules and regulations. At the beginning of Year #2, we had to submit a list of possible topics, then submit somewhat fleshed-out versions of 5, then finally pick one (with instructor approval, of course). During Year #2, each quarter we had to submit a reading list of possible sources for our projects (10-20 per quarter, I think). If you changed subjects, you had to re-do the reading list. During class, you could do whatever you needed to (read stuff, work on tests, pick the instructor's brain). At the end of the year, you had to submit your write up (with appropriate citations), along with some sort of physical object (model airplanes and the wings you shaped, rusted and cleaned metal plates, videotape of the giant jello pool you were studying for wave actions, etc.) to go with your project.
Teachers are not "promoted" to Principal-status; In every state that I know of, the is a separate (and often very complicated) licensing process to become an administrator.
Math and science people can be paid a heckuva lot more in industry/research than in teaching. This is probably the biggest draw away from teaching. With my higher degrees, I know I'd be earning at least twice my current teaching salary if I just switched into industry. I've actually been turned down for teaching jobs because the extra degrees make me an expensive hire (i.e., they're required to pay me more because of extra education).
By the way, just because someone is brilliant in biochemistry, doesn't mean that they can teach it to someone else. You really don't want the "those who can't, teach" kinds of people in the classroom anyway.
The OP is really a conglomeration of several problems that should be addressed separately:
80% of Americans think science knowledge is 'very important' to our future. Why do they/we think so? Is it because scientists are held up as very smart people, and can therefore pull the collective out of trouble? In the movies, the wacky shunned scientists are always the ones to come up with the nukes for collision-course asteroids.
...most people think it's up to someone else to get knowledgeable. Well, sure. If you poll random adults, they're probably already set on their job-path, which probably doesn't involve science directly. To them, it's probably obvious that a science job is not in their future.
15%...47%... Already discussed in other posts as an English-summary problem.
40% think dinosaurs and humans cavorted together... 50% of Americans won't know how long it takes for the earth to go around the sun. Obviously wrong. Does that make it a problem for today's society? I'm pretty sure you could find an equal number of people who don't know when the War of 1812 was fought, who the Allies were in WWII, and mixing chlorine and bleach is a bad idea.
Teacher merit pay Sure, this will influence teachers to get their students to score higher on tests (teaching to the test, anyone?), but how will paying more to an authority figure make a student "smarter" in science, or any other subject?
Here's what the concerns seem to come to: Finding the value of science in society (point #1); Determining whether certain science facts are absolutely essential for every person to know (i.e., points #3 and 4); Making it a societal value for people to spread science in school systems (#2 and 5).
Why are we trying to promote science to the general public, when the general public doesn't know how it's useful in everyday life?
...especially high schools, for those seniors trying to write final, massive papers, and (now fairly late) college essays. A school I worked at had a sign-out sheet for them, so kids could take their half-typed papers home.
As a high school teacher, I appreciate the opportunity you're trying to offer: not many schools have computer programming classes, so that's pretty neat.
If your school is going to require this class, be very careful to think about different learning styles and learning disabilities. Programming goes well for very linear, sequential thinkers. It may not go well for abstract free-spirits. How about kids with dyslexia, dyscalculia, and/or dysgraphia? Will you have different levels of programming for different students' abilities? How about the kids who have already done some programming? How about your non-native-English speakers?
Additionally, think about what you want kids to get out of this class. Will they use it in other classes (sure, ideally they will, but look at the other teachers at your school and be realistic)? Do the kids need a typing/word processing/spreadsheet class more than programming?
I teach in K-12 schools (specifically, the 9-12 region).
Consider how most teachers use computers in school. If you live in a relatively wealthy area, they might offer a computer-based class or two (or require typing/etc.). If you go to the majority of schools, there are public labs available for typing papers, "researching" online, and such.
In the former case, where you have a computer-literate teacher with learning/literate-students, go for the open source ideas. It's definitely good skills to have if the kids are going to continue in computer-oriented stuff.
In the latter case, teachers NEED the computers to 1) work, and 2) work in a way familiar to the students so that they don't have to teach kids how to navigate an operating system, use an unfamiliar (and slightly different) word processor/spreadsheet/whatever. It's really time-consuming and frustrating for the teacher to have something not work AND not know how to fix it.
Also consider the kinds of things the computers are needed for, ESPECIALLY standardized tests (which are required thanks to No Child Left Behind). I'd wager that most standardized tests are now given via computer and probably run on Windows-based platforms only.
I think you first need to figure out whether what you want is for everyone to follow a certain procedure (bio labs have set protocols) or just to have a record of what work people have done (like lab notebooks). Here are some brief (and incomplete) thoughts:
Protocols, pro: - high consistency, as long as people actually follow them - can be easily edited and everyone will be able to follow the improvements Protocols, con: - little flexibility, depending on how they're written
Lab notebooks, pro: - allows flexibility for all situations, allows for worker's ingenuity - accurate record for worker's actions, as long as they write it down Lab notebooks, con: - no consistency from person to person - no structure or prompts for person to follow
I am a science teacher in the U.S., and I have used the laptop carts and the computer labs. I also have a good friend who teaches in a school where they give each student a laptop.
The efficacy of computers in the classroom depends on what you expect students to do with them, AS WELL AS how willing the teachers are in using them.
My friend who teaches with middle schoolers (ages 12-14ish) helps them learn to research plants and anatomy online, distinguishes between reliable sources and illegitimate sources, and instructs how to cite webpages in bibliographies. She also has to go through kids' internet histories once per month and give "violations" to those who looked at porn (against the signed agreement at the beginning of the year).
I have used the computer carts. For me, that's enough time. I don't want laptops anywhere near chemistry experiments unless the lab is set up for that purpose (which I have also used). In that case, the laptops had a special shelf away from the lab bench, and we used probes to test experiment variables. Those particular students, however, didn't understand what the computers were measuring; only that the numbers went up and down.
It is, however, valuable to teach kids how to use spreadsheets and work processors so that they won't be clueless in high school or college when printed papers, including graphs or charts, are expected.
Take another look at the second article in the original post. Their tests were measured in pg/cm^2. Picograms. As in 10^-12 grams. It's gonna take a while for the compounds to accumulate to toxic levels (on the order of mg/kg body weight).
Also, remember that the PBDEs are primarily used as cleaners and anti-flammability agents in the manufacturing processes of many electronics. They're not being created by your monitors (i.e., there's a finite amount of them per piece of computer equipment, so they'll eventually run out). Your computer won't be "infectious" forever.
The big problem with prions (the things that cause mad cow disease (or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE), as well as scrapie in sheep and some other diseases) is that there is no microorganism to blame, like a virus or bacteria.
Instead, prions are just mis-folded proteins. Take your normal protein, fold it wrong, and suddenly it acts funny because it can't do its normal job correctly. It also induces other proteins to fold incorrectly (that whole replication thing). Because this misfolding has to start somewhere, there are (very, very rare) cases of spontaneous Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (the human equivalent of mad cow disease).
Now, because the protein itself is technically correct, the body doesn't see anything wrong with it, so it doesn't kill it (like it would if it saw a mutated cell). This also means that cooking prions won't change anything.
Because a prion is a single incorrect protein, the transmission rate is really pretty low, especially between species. That is, eating a single wrong protein probably won't infect you. However, your hamburgers are probably a bit larger than single proteins.
There is no evidence of prions in muscle meat. The largest concentration of prions is in the brain/nervous system. Stay away from brains and ground meat (since you don't know exactly where the ground stuff comes from) and you're probably fine, even if the animal was infected.
Try this page for some info, slightly technical, from the UK.
This is all true, except I'd change "must be neutralized for disposal" to "should be neutralized for disposal." And I'm not quite sure what fiori means by "remaining organic material," since neither NaOH nor NaOCl nor the neutralization of them would (most likely) have to do with organic substances. Ideal worlds, nitpicky, blah blah.
Moreover, the chlorine from the chlorine bleach is very, very bad for the environment, and is not nearly as easy to get rid of as other bases (like NaOH).
One problem with NaOH will be salt buildup from neutralized sodium ions, but this will also be true if using bleach (NaOCl).
Assume the sensors work. Great, so you catch a pollutor... what next? They get a citation or recommendation in the mail. Is there a recourse or punishment for non-compliance, or do they just collect citations until their required emissions test?
Further, what about vehicles that are exempt from current emmisions tests, like Mack trucks. Semis and other large vehicles produce a lot more emmisions than smaller cars, and they're often exempt from emmisions tests (I'm not sure about California).
There are also diesel-fueled vehicles. They produce less emissions pound-wise, but the types of chemicals they produce are worse for the environment. Different grading scheme?
Wouldn't the money spent on researching the sensors be better spent on improving current fuel usage?
Here's a link to a Sci. Am. article on super-absorbing stuff. At the bottom is a picture of water molecules associating with the polymer chain.
It'll help to remember that the water/polymer association is just that: an association. This isn't a 1:1 bonding situation, so the carboxyl groups can attract more than one water molecule.
Slashdot Mirror
While MOOCs do allow a lot of people to take courses that they might not otherwise have access to, the bigger question is can you actually learn enough from them to say that you have training in that subject? Previous posts have commented on the droning lectures, which really don't help, even in person.
So a different question is: can a highly-motivated person, who really wants to know about x, take an online course (MOOC or Kahn Academy or whatever) and actually get something out of it. Sure! But a highly-motivated person is probably already determined to learn about x and will find the information somewhere.
This is awfully cool!
According to the article, they used Rosetta@home for some predictions. I wonder if they've also tried fold.it, especially since that project is also out of U of Washington.
There's two primary reasons that math curriculum is dumbed down in the US: 1. the students who didn't get it the previous year but were "socially-promoted" anyway, and the teacher has to compensate; 2. the parents who see their kids not getting it and/or are afraid of their kids' homework and demand that all of the hard math be taken away.
Part of this "improving teachers" problem is that there's no good definition of what a "good" teacher does. Do they know their material? Are they effective communicators? Are they empathetic? Do they help their students pass the state tests (and each state has their own state tests)?
As a teacher, I try to emulate my favorite teachers: the 8th grade geography teacher who, through his personal stories of growing up in our small town, taught us how to be good human beings, as well as the most amazing acrostics to memorize nations and capitols; the 12th grade English teacher who taught us everything from Sir Gwain and the Green Knight to "Death of a Salesman" and the occasional university class, and had a collection of stuffed plushie sheep, the 12th grade physics teacher who showed Penn and Teller movies to debunk magic, measured the speed of light from the exit sign, and created the legends of lab-destroying pixies. Two of these teachers are gone, one frustrated by the administration, one frustrated by fellow teachers (who didn't have her teaching abilities and sued the district to make her share her classes).
As amazing as these teachers are/were, I don't know if I would have passed a state test (which hadn't yet been created) with that material. Would the teachers have been thrown out for my poor performance?
Additionally, having students be responsible for whether a teacher remains/gets higher pay is insane. The student has no incentive to pass most state tests (most states still don't require passing scores to graduate), so effort isn't rewarded. Evaluations of teachers should be done by teachers who have no direct influence on each other (the NYTimes opinions mention a system in Indiana that sounds good).
There's a conflict of interests, for lack of a better term. It's nice that the President is advocating more science education and science literacy for the general population (with which I personally agree). But there's also the state-mandated testing systems, some of which require science tests (thanks to NCLB, all states require math and language arts tests, but some states went above and beyond).
If a state requires science testing, chances are that many of its teachers will teach to that test in an attempt to keep the school afloat. Yes, there are some teachers who do amazing projects and truly inspire students, but many will not. Many teachers will feel (and are feeling) pressure to just get good scores. This atmosphere is not at all condusive to making science (or any other subject taught this way) cool.
As far as getting the public interested in science, the media has to start taking an active interest in science and making it accessible to the general public. Let's face it: a lot of new discoveries are not very simple (LHC, anyone?). Explaining why it's an amazing project and worth funding should be part of a science reporter's job. When I worked at a large public science museum, our job was to take material and bring it down to a 5th-8th grade level, which would help compensate for kids, non-native-English speakers, and non-science-literate parents. Even TV shows like CSI do not make science accessible: the fancy-schmancy machines and lab-coat-clad workers are the ones to determine identities of mysterious materials or vials of evidence.
Which is another reason that kids don't want to go into science... "dude, you'll be a NERD!"
Gever Tulley really impressed me in this talk at TED: http://www.ted.com/talks/gever_tulley_on_5_dangerous_things_for_kids.html
Here's his blog on the Tinkering School: http://www.tinkeringschool.com/blog/
I didn't mean to say that we should throw money at the schools; you're right, that won't solve any problems.
However, if that kind of cash (let's say $250 per kid in a 300-kid school (which is kinda small for a middle school)... that's $75K) is given to a school with the stipulation of... early childhood ed, or extra reading help, or more free/reduced meals, or rebuilding the library, getting up-to-date textbooks, or new gym equipment, or installing a computer lab (etc.), I'm pretty sure it would do some good.
Besides, what is "the problem" that you're trying to solve? Not many people can articulate this in specific terms with good student-centered reasoning (i.e., "raising math scores" isn't specific enough nor does it have a good reason for doing so).
This will put even more pressure on teachers to teach to the tests. Especially in low-income areas (where these trials are being done), teachers want their students to get what they're worth.
Kids aren't "getting smarter" (by the way, what does "smart" entail?) They're learning to play the game that is the educational system.
Also, if the sponsoring organizations can afford to pay each kid $250-500, where the heck are they getting those funds, and why aren't they giving it to inner-city schools in the first place?
The reason these districts (and not just in SC) are "low-performing" is NOT because they do not have computers.
If kids can't read in the first place, giving them laptops isn't going to solve that problem. If kids don't want to learn, giving them laptops isn't going to solve that problem either.
I am female and explosives are what got me into chemistry. Just because girls often shriek or shy from explosives doesn't mean they're actually scared or unimpressed. Most of my female students are more into fire than my male students.
Don't you dare dumb-down (girl-down?) chemistry for girls. We'll give you camo-colored knitting needles if that helps you get over it.
Be careful about explosives in today's society. While explosives are what got me into chemistry, they are now very regulated by local, state, and federal governments. Check your local laws (and your administration) regarding definitions of "bombs" and "explosives" before doing them in classroom settings.
Running computer programs is nice, and might help out someone else (if they're watching). Chances are that the kids won't get much from it.
Instead, have them do something they want to do. When I was in high school, there was a program for chemistry and physics (over two years), and the fourth quarter of Year #2 you did independent work on whatever you wanted in the chem/phys realm.
Of course there were rules and regulations. At the beginning of Year #2, we had to submit a list of possible topics, then submit somewhat fleshed-out versions of 5, then finally pick one (with instructor approval, of course). During Year #2, each quarter we had to submit a reading list of possible sources for our projects (10-20 per quarter, I think). If you changed subjects, you had to re-do the reading list. During class, you could do whatever you needed to (read stuff, work on tests, pick the instructor's brain). At the end of the year, you had to submit your write up (with appropriate citations), along with some sort of physical object (model airplanes and the wings you shaped, rusted and cleaned metal plates, videotape of the giant jello pool you were studying for wave actions, etc.) to go with your project.
Teachers are not "promoted" to Principal-status; In every state that I know of, the is a separate (and often very complicated) licensing process to become an administrator.
Math and science people can be paid a heckuva lot more in industry/research than in teaching. This is probably the biggest draw away from teaching. With my higher degrees, I know I'd be earning at least twice my current teaching salary if I just switched into industry. I've actually been turned down for teaching jobs because the extra degrees make me an expensive hire (i.e., they're required to pay me more because of extra education).
By the way, just because someone is brilliant in biochemistry, doesn't mean that they can teach it to someone else. You really don't want the "those who can't, teach" kinds of people in the classroom anyway.
The OP is really a conglomeration of several problems that should be addressed separately:
Here's what the concerns seem to come to: Finding the value of science in society (point #1); Determining whether certain science facts are absolutely essential for every person to know (i.e., points #3 and 4); Making it a societal value for people to spread science in school systems (#2 and 5).
Why are we trying to promote science to the general public, when the general public doesn't know how it's useful in everyday life?
...especially high schools, for those seniors trying to write final, massive papers, and (now fairly late) college essays. A school I worked at had a sign-out sheet for them, so kids could take their half-typed papers home.
As a high school teacher, I appreciate the opportunity you're trying to offer: not many schools have computer programming classes, so that's pretty neat.
If your school is going to require this class, be very careful to think about different learning styles and learning disabilities. Programming goes well for very linear, sequential thinkers. It may not go well for abstract free-spirits. How about kids with dyslexia, dyscalculia, and/or dysgraphia? Will you have different levels of programming for different students' abilities? How about the kids who have already done some programming? How about your non-native-English speakers?
Additionally, think about what you want kids to get out of this class. Will they use it in other classes (sure, ideally they will, but look at the other teachers at your school and be realistic)? Do the kids need a typing/word processing/spreadsheet class more than programming?
I teach in K-12 schools (specifically, the 9-12 region).
Consider how most teachers use computers in school. If you live in a relatively wealthy area, they might offer a computer-based class or two (or require typing/etc.). If you go to the majority of schools, there are public labs available for typing papers, "researching" online, and such.
In the former case, where you have a computer-literate teacher with learning/literate-students, go for the open source ideas. It's definitely good skills to have if the kids are going to continue in computer-oriented stuff.
In the latter case, teachers NEED the computers to 1) work, and 2) work in a way familiar to the students so that they don't have to teach kids how to navigate an operating system, use an unfamiliar (and slightly different) word processor/spreadsheet/whatever. It's really time-consuming and frustrating for the teacher to have something not work AND not know how to fix it.
Also consider the kinds of things the computers are needed for, ESPECIALLY standardized tests (which are required thanks to No Child Left Behind). I'd wager that most standardized tests are now given via computer and probably run on Windows-based platforms only.
I think you first need to figure out whether what you want is for everyone to follow a certain procedure (bio labs have set protocols) or just to have a record of what work people have done (like lab notebooks). Here are some brief (and incomplete) thoughts:
Protocols, pro:
- high consistency, as long as people actually follow them
- can be easily edited and everyone will be able to follow the improvements
Protocols, con:
- little flexibility, depending on how they're written
Lab notebooks, pro:
- allows flexibility for all situations, allows for worker's ingenuity
- accurate record for worker's actions, as long as they write it down
Lab notebooks, con:
- no consistency from person to person
- no structure or prompts for person to follow
I am a science teacher in the U.S., and I have used the laptop carts and the computer labs. I also have a good friend who teaches in a school where they give each student a laptop.
The efficacy of computers in the classroom depends on what you expect students to do with them, AS WELL AS how willing the teachers are in using them.
My friend who teaches with middle schoolers (ages 12-14ish) helps them learn to research plants and anatomy online, distinguishes between reliable sources and illegitimate sources, and instructs how to cite webpages in bibliographies. She also has to go through kids' internet histories once per month and give "violations" to those who looked at porn (against the signed agreement at the beginning of the year).
I have used the computer carts. For me, that's enough time. I don't want laptops anywhere near chemistry experiments unless the lab is set up for that purpose (which I have also used). In that case, the laptops had a special shelf away from the lab bench, and we used probes to test experiment variables. Those particular students, however, didn't understand what the computers were measuring; only that the numbers went up and down.
It is, however, valuable to teach kids how to use spreadsheets and work processors so that they won't be clueless in high school or college when printed papers, including graphs or charts, are expected.
Take another look at the second article in the original post. Their tests were measured in pg/cm^2. Picograms. As in 10^-12 grams. It's gonna take a while for the compounds to accumulate to toxic levels (on the order of mg/kg body weight).
Also, remember that the PBDEs are primarily used as cleaners and anti-flammability agents in the manufacturing processes of many electronics. They're not being created by your monitors (i.e., there's a finite amount of them per piece of computer equipment, so they'll eventually run out). Your computer won't be "infectious" forever.
Try these sites for more info on PBDE:
Good theory, but very doubtful... N2 is way too stable to just react with another molecule.
However, very concentrated NaOH sorta smells ammonia-like... if you smell it, it'll probably burn your nose (don't try sniffing Drano at home).
The big problem with prions (the things that cause mad cow disease (or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE), as well as scrapie in sheep and some other diseases) is that there is no microorganism to blame, like a virus or bacteria.
Instead, prions are just mis-folded proteins. Take your normal protein, fold it wrong, and suddenly it acts funny because it can't do its normal job correctly. It also induces other proteins to fold incorrectly (that whole replication thing). Because this misfolding has to start somewhere, there are (very, very rare) cases of spontaneous Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (the human equivalent of mad cow disease).
Now, because the protein itself is technically correct, the body doesn't see anything wrong with it, so it doesn't kill it (like it would if it saw a mutated cell). This also means that cooking prions won't change anything.
Because a prion is a single incorrect protein, the transmission rate is really pretty low, especially between species. That is, eating a single wrong protein probably won't infect you. However, your hamburgers are probably a bit larger than single proteins.
There is no evidence of prions in muscle meat. The largest concentration of prions is in the brain/nervous system. Stay away from brains and ground meat (since you don't know exactly where the ground stuff comes from) and you're probably fine, even if the animal was infected.
Try this page for some info, slightly technical, from the UK.
Try this page from NOVA
Good, simple info from NIH
This is all true, except I'd change "must be neutralized for disposal" to "should be neutralized for disposal." And I'm not quite sure what fiori means by "remaining organic material," since neither NaOH nor NaOCl nor the neutralization of them would (most likely) have to do with organic substances. Ideal worlds, nitpicky, blah blah.
Moreover, the chlorine from the chlorine bleach is very, very bad for the environment, and is not nearly as easy to get rid of as other bases (like NaOH).
One problem with NaOH will be salt buildup from neutralized sodium ions, but this will also be true if using bleach (NaOCl).
Assume the sensors work. Great, so you catch a pollutor... what next? They get a citation or recommendation in the mail. Is there a recourse or punishment for non-compliance, or do they just collect citations until their required emissions test?
Further, what about vehicles that are exempt from current emmisions tests, like Mack trucks. Semis and other large vehicles produce a lot more emmisions than smaller cars, and they're often exempt from emmisions tests (I'm not sure about California).
There are also diesel-fueled vehicles. They produce less emissions pound-wise, but the types of chemicals they produce are worse for the environment. Different grading scheme?
Wouldn't the money spent on researching the sensors be better spent on improving current fuel usage?
Here's a link to a Sci. Am. article on super-absorbing stuff. At the bottom is a picture of water molecules associating with the polymer chain.
It'll help to remember that the water/polymer association is just that: an association. This isn't a 1:1 bonding situation, so the carboxyl groups can attract more than one water molecule.