Gaussling is a senior scientist in the chemical business. He occasionally breaks glassware, spreads confusion and has been known to generate new forms of hazardous waste. Gaussling also digs aerospace, geology, and community theatre.
A very accomplished organic chemist has died. Albert Jakob Eschenmoser, 97, retired professor of chemistry at ETH, Zurich (the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) and The Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology at The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California. ETH Zurich is regarded as one of the best universities in the world. It is focused primarily on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
Eschenmoser is perhaps best known for his work on the synthesis of vitamin B12 along with Robert B. Woodward of Harvard University. Between the two groups this synthesis was accomplished over many years and required the labor of more than 100 students and postdocs grinding through their short times in the lab. This landmark synthesis was published in 1973.
This was perhaps the most complex organic synthesis of the time in 1973. Note that the wedge lines are meant to indicate that the feature is coming up out of the page and the dashed lines are jutting behind the page. Natural B12 has only 1 configuration of chemical bonds. Swapping something with a wedge with a dashed line group produces a different substance called a diastereomer. This all by itself makes the synthesis of B12 very difficult. Not only do the atoms have to be connected properly, but their arrangement in space must be correct also. This is called stereochemistry.
My, my, my. Rober F. Kennedy Jr. really screwed the pooch with his comments on ethnically targeted COVID-19. Reportedly, he said “there is an argument that (COVID-19) is ethnically targeted”, adding “Covid-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese …. we don’t know whether it’s deliberately targeted or not.” If this quote is correct, he did not actually say that COVID-19 was ethnically targeted, but rather that “there is an argument …”. It is much like saying “is Bob still beating his wife? I just don’t know …” Whether he endorses the targeting theory or not isn’t clear, but he was willing to trot out this provocative statement to make his point. There was much blowback. Given the racial undertones, it was a large blunder.
RFK Jr. is well known as an advocate for conspiracy theories, some of which are whoppers. The online news magazine Slate has an article that compiles them. I find that his portfolio of mania is exhausting. The thought of pushing back against such seems like a fool’s errand. It reminds of a line in the movie True Grit: “What have you done when you have bested a fool?” What is the point in debating him?
RFK Jr. is a Harvard grad and went the University of Virginia School of Law to get his JD degree. He had a few slip ups early in his career but recovered. He spent most of his career as an environmental lawyer and has fought many laudable battles for environmental justice. Somewhere along the line he went off the rails and landed in the crackpot ferry to conspiracy land. RFK Jr. is a penetrating anti-vaccine voice who can draw large crowds if for no other reason just to see him.
The substance of concern behind much of the anti-vaccine Sturm und Drang is Thimerosal. It is a synthetic organomercurial compound that is effective against bacteria and fungi. Its biocidal properties have been known since the around 1930. Mercurials have been used since the time of the Swiss alchemist Paracelsus (Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim) in the 1500’s. Paracelsus is known for the pronouncement that “only the dose makes the poison.” This remains a fundamental principle of toxicology.
The early mercurial medicaments used by Paracelsus were simple inorganic salts of mercury(II) like mercuric chloride, HgCl2, or mercury(I) like mercurous chloride, Hg2Cl2, also known as the mineral calomel. Mercuric chloride is prepared by treating liquid mercury with sulfuric acid followed by addition of sodium chloride for anion exchange. Mercurous chloride is prepared by heating mercuric chloride with mercury to do the reduction of Hg++ to Hg+.
Thimerosal is sometimes wrongly compared to methylmercury, a known and tragically toxic compound with the formula CH3Hg+X–. The X anion can be chloride, hydroxide or a thiol, depending on the source. It is an easy comparison to make because of the similarity of methyl (CH3) to the ethyl (CH3CH2) hydrocarbon group in Thimerosal, but research has proven it to be a poor comparison. Methylmercury compounds can be produced by aquatic microorganisms in water bodies in the presence of inorganic mercury. The methylation of natural biomolecules is a well-known process.
Like many metals, mercury has an affinity for sulfur, occurring naturally as mercury (II) sulfide, HgS, as deposits of Cinnabar or as a minor constituent with other minerals. It also has an affinity for sulfur-containing amino acids such as methionine, cysteine and homocysteine found in proteins. In the bloodstream mercury binds with proteins like albumin to the extent of 95-99 %. While in the body and exposed to water it decomposes to thiosalicylate and ethylmercury. Ethylmercury cation (CH3CH2Hg+) disperses widely and can cross the blood-brain and placental barriers.
According to Doria, Farina, and Rocha (2015) in Applied Toxicology, a comparison of effects between methylmercury and ethylmercury gave essentially the same outcomes in vitro for cardiovascular, neural and immune cells. Under in vivo conditions, however, there was evidence of different toxicokinetic profiles. Ethylmercury showed a shorter half-life, compartmental distribution and elimination compared to methylmercury. Methylmercury and ethylmercury toxicity profiles show different exposure and toxicity risks.
For many years, Thimerosal was sold as an antiseptic under the name Merthiolate as a tincture (an ethanol solution) by Eli Lilly and Co. Like most households in the 1960’s, we had it in the medicine cabinet or its cousin Mercurochrome. They were used for topical application to burns, cuts and scratches. Thimerosal has been used as a preservative in many health-related preparations such as vaccines, eye drops and contact lens disinfecting solutions. While the CDC has cleared it of doing harm, anti-vaccine mania hit the fan well before COVID-19 and RFK Jr. put his credibility and name recognition behind it.
Thimerosal was first prepared by chemist Morris Kharasch at the University of Maryland in 1927. An interesting technical summary of the substance can be found on Drugbank Online.
Kharasch is known for his pioneering work in free radical chemistry in the 1930’s at the University of Chicago but before that began his work with organomercury chemistry during the 1920’s while at the University of Maryland. His development of Thimerosal was a result of his organomercury work. He is also credited with opening the door to organic free radical chemistry leading to improvements in rubber polymer chemistry and manufacture. His work led to the use of peroxides to reliably induce the so-called anti-Markovnikov addition of a protic acid (HX) to olefins. The presence of trace peroxides was behind the unexpected “reverse” Markovnikov addition of seen in work with the addition of hydrogen bromide to bromopropene.
Kharasch’s early work in organomercury chemistry led to the invention (and patenting) of what became known as Merthiolate (thimerosal). Kharasch later worked as a successful consultant for Eli Lilly, the Du Pont Company, US Rubber, the US Army and others. In many cases these companies were the assignees of the patents.
Little mention is made of Morris Kharasch as a prolific and wide-ranging inventor with, by my count, 117 US patents with him as the inventor. So, why did Kharasch bother to patent Thimerosal? Did he anticipate its biocidal and preservative properties?
Kharasch references make mention of a 1931 patent regarding Thimerosal. That patent is STABILIZED BACTERICIDE AND PROCESS OF STABILIZING IT, US 1862896, appln. filed August 22, 1931, assignee: no party disclosed. The patent claims a process for and claims of water-soluble solution compositions. Numerous additives include antioxidants, alkyl amines, ethanolamine and borax. Claim 19 is telling. It claims the composition of sodium ethyl mercurithiosalicylate (Thimerosal), monoethanolamine, borax as a buffer and enough sodium chloride to make the composition sufficiently isotonic with the body fluids. In this patent the Thimerosal composition itself is not claimed, but as a component of a stabilized water solution. Claim 14 claims a water solution composition of sodium ethyl mercurithiosalicylate and an antioxidant which tends to “inhibit the acquisition” (odd choice of words) of burning properties by the solution. This plus the claim of an isotonic composition strongly suggests anticipated medicinal applications.
STABILIZED ORGANO-MERCUR-SULFUR COMPOUNDS, US 2012820, appln. Feb 17, 1934, assignee: Eli Lilly and Company. Claims a stabilized solution of alkyl mercuric sulfur compounds in water with aliphatic 1,2-diamines. Also claims Ethylenediamine ethylmercurithiosalicylate composition. This is similar to the ‘896 patent but specified ethylenediamines.
As mentioned above, the biocidal nature of inorganic mercurials had been known for a long time. There was actually limited success in the treatment of syphilis. But they were long known for being very harsh on the patient and grew out of favor when better treatments came along.
The antiseptic properties of Mercurochrome were discovered in 1918 at Johns Hopkins Hospital by urologist Hugh H. Young. Mercurochrome is essentially a dye molecule with an attached mercury warhead. There are three groups on the organic structure that aid in its solubility in water- NaO, CO2Na, and HgOH. Water solubility is often an important attribute in medicinal substances.
Given that antiseptic properties of organomercurials were known, it is perhaps not surprising that an enterprising Ukrainian immigrant with an interest in organomercurials like Morris Kharasch might want to patent his invention.
The history of the present Ukrainian territory is not a happy one. The land has been soaked with Ukrainian blood by Hitler and Stalin. Not being a historian, I’ll defer to my betters for a more cogent account of the timeline of that territory.
I’m completely behind the Ukrainians in their resistance to Putin’s brutal war machine. Putin’s view is that Ukraine has been an administrative district of Russia all along and is now infested with NAZI brutes. That Ukraine fell under the control of NAZIs is absurd on its face, but to a Russian public trapped in a deep information silo, it is apparently plausible.
According to Ukrainian historian Serhii Plokhii at the Ukrainian Research Institute at Harvard, from 1918 there were repeated failed attempts by the Bolsheviks to gain control of Ukraine. Lenin relented and concluded that it was necessary to grant Ukraine formal independence by 1922. This was necessary for the Bolsheviks to maintain control over Ukraine. Ukraine was granted autonomy as an independent state within the Soviet Union.
In the recent 2023 meeting in Vilnius, NATO declined to accept Ukraine joining the organization. Russia has long made a show of believing that NATO wants to commit aggression against them. That NATO is a defensive pact somehow never sunk in. Ukraine joining NATO will only be seen by Putin as the latest and largest threat to Russian state security. Given how well the conventional military apparatus has performed in the attack on Ukraine, it isn’t safe to conclude that steady hands are hovering over the nuclear button.
With the violent history of Russia in eastern Europe, why would anyone want to start a war of aggression against Russia there? Let’s say that the West waged war against Russia and won. They are not a nation of people begging for western-style democracy. Russia resents the cultural, military and political dominance of the West, that is, Western hegemony. The collapse of the USSR was a major loss of face for a great many in the Soviet Union, especially for Lieutenant Colonel and later FSB director Vladimir Putin. Putin openly seeks to “Make Russia Great Again,” and like Trump, is surfing on a wave of fear and nationalism.
It seems certain that once Ukraine is in hand, Putin will continue with his murderous land-grab. The Baltic states, Poland, Georgia and a land corridor through Poland to Kaliningrad are all at risk and they know it. It is what was called the “Domino Theory” back in the cold-war days of the Viet Nam war. It was used to justify many military responses by the west to Russian expansionism.
For the West, the challenge is to keep Putin’s Russia contained and yet away from the nuclear precipice. It is a game of who can outlast who.
American apathy with foreign affairs has long been a common affliction. Sadly, the US Republican party is making a virtue out of admiring Putin and the burgeoning autocracy in Hungary. Since World War II, the US and Europe (formerly Western Europe) have had hegemony in the areas of dominant currency, finance, English language, military power projection and general commerce around the world. Today, Russia and China are quite clear that they wish to bring down this historical Western hegemony as soon as they can.
Definition: Hegemony, \hih-JEM-uh-nee\ noun. 1 : preponderant influence or authority over others : domination. 2 : the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group.
Wikipedia.
Definition: Liberal democracy is the combination of a liberal political philosophy that operates under a representative democratic form of government. It is characterized by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property, universal suffrage, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either codified or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract.
Under Chinese or Russian hegemony the world order will be very different than that held by the US and Europe. The US and Europe have various versions of liberal democracy and support other nations who do as well. To view the future, just have a look at how these two countries conduct government in their own countries. Care to live under the Chinese Communist Party’s or under Putin’s world order? As an American, the English lingua franca, for better or worse, seems to work fairly well. Imagine Westerners switching to written and spoken Mandarin. At least Russian is based on an alphabet. Am I biased towards alphabetic languages? Definitely.
Jupiter is quite old like the rest of the solar system. But even this far down the timeline, it is still a banded, multicolored gas giant. The same goes for Saturn. How is it that these planets are not some shade of brown or grey? The planet has an active atmosphere with complex circulation patterns. After a few billion years of atmospheric mixing, how is it that Jupiter still has a banded and bespotted atmosphere?
Ever wonder what substances are responsible for the colored features on Jupiter? Molecular hydrogen and helium make up the vast majority of atmospheric components but these gases are not colored in the visible spectrum. Other gases found in the atmosphere include the noble gases argon, krypton, and xenon; ammonia (NH3); methane (CH4); hydrogen sulfide (H2S); water (H2O); phosphine (PH3) are all colorless as well. Ammonium sulfide ((NH4)2S, CAS# 12135-76-1) and ammonium hydrosulfide (NH4SH, CAS# 12124-99-1) are thought to exist there. These last two could arise from a simple acid/base reaction between hydrogen sulfide and ammonia. A more comprehensive view can be had here. From the looks of it, Jupiter is a very stinky place.
The gaseous substances above are certainly colorless when free of suspended particles. Their respective pure condensates while colorless would be expected to produce whitish vapors or liquid/solid condensates. According to one source, ammonium hydrosulfide is a yellow fuming liquid with a boiling point of 51.6 oC at one atmosphere and forms white rhombic crystals under anhydrous conditions. Ammonium hydrosulfide is at equilibrium with its components ammonia and hydrogen sulfide.
Ammonium sulfide is a yellow crystalline solid that decomposes at ambient temperature (and presumably at 1 atmosphere on earth).
Organic compounds like methane, ethane, acetylene, and diacetylene found in trace amounts in the Jovian atmosphere could be activated by UV sunlight in the upper atmosphere into higher molecular weight unsaturated substances that could have visible chromophores present. This would be an ongoing process as circulation moves the substances around so there should be accumulation.
Given the optical opacity of the visible clouds on Jupiter, whatever colors are there must be due to suspended liquid aerosols and solid particulates. The colorful photo below, glorious though it may be, is an enhanced image in the optical wavelengths and possibly suggests there may be a higher concentration of colored substances than really exist.
In fairness, with all imagery, be it chemical photography or digital photography, decisions have to be made about color balance, saturation and contrast. In both cases, be it dyes or silver halide or semiconductor chips, these photosensitive materials won’t be sensitive across the color spectrum in the same way that our eyes are. It is hard to say by just looking at the photos how much image enhancement has been done to them. In particular, how is the color balance established? Well, NASA has made the Juno raw images available to the public so a lot of image enhancement by various people has been done based on aesthetics without regard to visual accuracy.
NASA has a piece of software used for color correction at the link here.
Even more fundamental than the limitations of the sensor chip on board Juno is the matter of “what is color anyway?” In this universe, the color of the spectrum as humans perceive it exists only in the convoluted neural pathways of our brains. In reality, the visible color spectrum is comprised of a band of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) ranging from 380 to 700 nanometers. Every other range of EMR like gamma rays, x-rays, ultraviolet, infrared, microwave and longwave “radio” light could be thought of as having their own “color” spectrum, albeit invisible to our eyes.
A Bit O’Chemistry
Color is a sensation that comes to our consciousness as a result of (bio)chemical mechanisms. Chemistry is generally about what can happen with the outer valence level electrons that buzz around atoms and molecules. We Earthlings are composed of chemicals and because EMR (photons) can interact with substances in ways that depend on the wavelength of the EMR. Our light perception begins with the ability of our chemical building blocks to absorb a certain band of wavelengths. Light can do two things in an encounter with matter- it can undergo absorption/emission or scattering with matter.
Graphics courtesy of me.
Absorption of a photon of visible or ultraviolet light by an organic molecule happens because there is something that can be acted upon to absorb the energy. Absorption of a photon of visible light by a molecule is limited to its valence electrons. In particular, a valence electron can be stimulated to jump to a higher energy level orbital around the organic molecule. This can result in a chemical change in the receiving molecule.
Absorption of infrared light causes vibration in the structure of the molecule. X-rays can cause ejection of inner electrons. Gamma rays can be absorbed or scatter off the nucleus. Microwave photons induce rotational motion or torsion in a polar molecule. Cosmic radiation is often so energetic that molecules are indiscriminately broken at the chemical bond level into neutral or charged pieces, leaving an ion channel along the path of the particle. However, new molecules may form when the reactive fragments recombine. Cosmic ray collisions with atomic nuclei form narrow sprays or showers of nuclear particles as is what happens in earth’s atmosphere. This is called secondary cosmic radiation and is comprised of x-rays, protons, alpha particles, pions, muons, neutrons, neutrinos and electrons.
Note the carbon bonds above with two lines between carbon atoms. They are called “double bonds” and they can absorb visible and ultraviolet EMR. When several of them are alternating as in Retinal, they are capable of visible light absorption. Roughly speaking, the longer the chain the longer the wavelength that can be absorbed, not unlike an antenna. Absorption of a photon can cause one of the two bonds to break and allow the remaining carbon chain to rotate about the remaining single bond. In this case the cis form rotates into the trans form which is a bit more stable due to reduced strain energy. The double bond can reestablish in the trans form and lock into place.
In changing from cis to trans, the elemental composition has not changed but the shape and certain chemical and physical properties have. When the shape of a molecule is changed, the manner in which the molecule interacts by contact with other molecules changes, particularly with proteins. This triggers the chain of biochemical events that follow, leading to light perception in our consciousness.
In living systems, some biomolecules have features that lend them the ability to absorb photons, sometimes to a useful end and sometimes to a destructive end (i.e., as with UV light and x-rays). Here, a chemical change would be the rearrangement of an electron around the molecule or a change in molecular shape or both. Receptor molecules in the retina are a particularly good example of a useful result of light absorption.
The result of this change from cis to trans is ultimately communicated from the retina to the brain via depolarization waves moving along nerve fibers and releasing neurotransmitters across synaptic gaps. Importantly, the change that caused the polarization wave is not permanent.
The visible spectrum of light waves, a bit under 1 octave wide, just so happens to be the band of light that can interact with valence electrons absent the destructive excitation that UV and x-rays cause. Infrared light causes vibration of chemical bonds and microwaves cause rotation of polar molecules. Longer radio waves pass right through us.
Rather than go into the biochemistry of this I will invite the reader to surf the interwebs for more. When you examine the chemical mechanism of light perception, think about what it took to figure this out.
Back to Jupiter.
Well, something opaque and colored is swirling around Jupiter persistently- just what the heck is it? The above example of Retinal was of a carbon-based, organic substance. The way carbon-based molecules interact with light is somewhat different than inorganic complexes. Whereas organic molecules can have double bonds and lone electron pairs that can interact with EMR, inorganic substances are largely absent this bonding feature. Instead, absorption and excitation of valence electrons and the net charge of a metal ion are involved. Inorganic substances as a group have a very broad range of colors.
What is of interest here is why the atmosphere hasn’t mixed into a single color over cosmic time. By visual inspection of the Juno images, Jupiter’s atmosphere is covered with abundant turbulent flows in the atmosphere.
The answer must relate to the unseen vertical flows. A colorless gas that condenses into clouds transitions from colorless to opaque as it rises, cools and condenses just like on Earth. Jupiter is famous for its colored stripes and the persistent Great Red Spot. These stripes render visual certain flows around the planetary axis. Due to the spherical shape of the rotating planet and heating from the sun, there will be a temperature gradient with altitude, a gradient pole to equator and Coriolis effect. All of this with varying amounts of vertical mixing as well.
There must be the possibility of non-gaseous material being lofted into the atmosphere from some liquid or solid surface below into a stable but complex system of circulation patterns. The process would self-select the finer particulates that are small enough to remain suspended in the atmosphere. But this in itself does not explain the presence of the colored bands or swirls.
Perhaps the colored bands and swirls infer a solid or liquid surface below that is inhomogeneous, that is, there are localized enriched “deposits” of particular substances. These surface deposits may or may not be “locked” into the latitude by the prevailing winds according to the physical properties of the material.
The apparent longevity of the multicolored atmosphere could be because the striped, large-scale circulation features are of sufficient strength that their inertia carries them around the planetary axis and directs them away from latitudinal flow. This would not prevent vortex formation at the interface or even within the band.
Enough. This is where I get off the hamster wheel of wild scientific speculation.
The above image is spectacular but is not what the human eye would perceive. Below is a comparison of a simulated human eye view vs a processed image with increased color saturation and contrast.
Local laws mandating that 10 minute water breaks be given to construction workers every 4 hours have been eliminated by Tejas Governor Greg Abbott and the legislature under HB2127 titled “Texas Regulatory Consistency Act.” The bill was put forward by Rep. Dustin Burrows, R-Lubbock. The bill is seen as an effort to push back on progressive local laws by cities like liberal-leaning Austin and Dallas where ordinances have been put into place to protect construction workers against the oppressive heat of Texas. Abbott said the bill will “provide a new hope to Texas businesses struggling under burdensome local regulations.”
Hyperbole, /haɪˈpɝː.bəl.i/, noun; a way of speaking or writing that makes someone or something sound bigger, better, more, etc. than they are
In Section 2 of the bill, it says the legislature finds that: “(1) the state has historically been the exclusive regulator of many aspects of commerce and trade in this state; (2) in recent years, several local jurisdictions have sought to establish their own regulations of commerce that are different than the state’s regulations; and (3) the local regulations have led to a patchwork of regulations that apply inconsistently across this state.“
The State claims to be the exclusive regulator of commerce and trade in the state pursuant to Section 5, Article XI, Texas Constitution. HB2127 was written to more closely define what kinds of codes local governments are free to do.
Given the state’s interest in commerce and trade, Section 6 removes any ambiguity in that regard. Labor regulations come under the heading of commerce and trade, so the state is the only lawgiver here.
HB 2127, SECTION 6.
Subchapter A, Chapter 1, Business & Commerce Code, is amended by adding Section 1.109 to read as follows:
Sec. 1.109. PREEMPTION. Unless expressly authorized by another statute, a municipality or county may not adopt, enforce, or maintain an ordinance, order, or rule regulating conduct in a field of regulation that is occupied by a provision of this code. An ordinance, order, or rule that violates this section is void, unenforceable, and inconsistent with this code.
Backers of the bill say that under OSHA, employers already have a duty to provide a safe workplace work place. A spokesman for the Associated Builders and Contractors of Texas said that “local rules impose a rigid scheme that, unlike OSHA guidelines, does not allow the flexibility needed to tailor breaks to individual job site conditions.”
However, according to David Michaels who led OSHA from 2009 to 2017, “Under OSHA law, it is employers who are responsible to make sure workers are safe,” said Michaels, now a professor at the George Washington University School of Public Health. “And we have compelling evidence that they are doing a very poor job because many workers are injured on the job, especially in Texas.”
Michaels also said that OSHA can issue a citation for a heat-related injury or death, but only after it has taken place. He also points out that OSHA has no national standard for heat related injury.
However, OSHA does have the General Duty Clause for situations where there are no specific standards applicable.
29 U.S.C. § 654, 5(a)1: Each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.”
29 U.S.C. § 654, 5(a)2: Each employer shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this act.
29 U.S.C. § 654, 5(b): Each employee shall comply with occupational safety and health standards and all rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this Act which are applicable to his own actions and conduct.
The legislation to remove local laws regarding construction labor hazards was apparently motivated by the desire of the GOP to slap down islands of liberalism in Texas.
The chart above shows that known heat-related deaths in Tejas are up sharply in the last 2 years. Migrants and the homeless are hit particularly hard by hyperthermia.
I can understand the desire to smooth out the spotty nature of regulatory sovereignty across any state. It is really a matter of state vs local control and there shouldn’t be any confusing overlap of authority. Texas has chosen primacy over commerce and trade, of which labor is a part of. Somewhere in the process of this, someone noticed that regulations on water breaks mandated by municipal statute will be invalidated.
News stories came out with the shocking news that people working outdoors will not be guaranteed water breaks. The absence of statutory regulation on water breaks does not mean that workers will be denied water. Any employer who wants to retain employees will not deny water to employees. What has been invalidated are mandatory 10-minute water breaks every 4 hours. A workday is usually broken down into a break midmorning and midafternoon with lunch at around noon. These are 3 opportunities to grab a drink of water. A mandatory break after 4 hours past arrival places the break around lunch and quitting time anyway for an 8-hour day, so it is hard to imagine what advantage it gives for an 8-hour day. For longer days it would be beneficial. Employers who would deny water to employees should be punished.
Construction site managers object to rules that would interfere with things like concrete deliveries and crane work. Both are time sensitive activities. Even in the rough and tumble construction field, most companies will do the right thing and allow access to water at all times.
Texas HB2127 itself is silent on the matter of water breaks for workers. It simply reasserts authority already provided in the state constitution, namely as the, ” … exclusive regulator of many aspects of commerce and trade … ” and supersedes local statutes that overlap with what the state sees as its sovereignty. It seems a little sly, but not fundamentally corrupt.
So, the question becomes, will the State of Texas legislate mandatory water breaks for workers in hot environs? Given the rabid pro-business leanings of the state, it seems doubtful.
Am I taking the side of the Republicans on this? Goddammit, I hate to say it, but I suppose I am.
I’m running out of words to describe the deplorable ex-president #45. Just when you think he can’t add to his steaming heap of manure called a legacy, he shovels on more. It seems like there is no limit to the falsehoods he is willing to declare in public and no limit to what his supporters are willing to accept.
In regard to his indictments, he was recorded as saying something to the effect of “They’re not after me, they’re after you … I’m just standing in their way!” He is turning his indictments into the image of him sacrificing himself on the cross for the millions of Americans. A blood sacrifice for his beloved followers. If you supposed that this vaudevillian stunt was transparently phony to everyone, you’d be wrong.
#45 has been referring to “… radical-left Democrats, Marxist, communists and fascists …” in his gimmie-all-yer-lovin’ rallies. How absurd. Leftists aren’t fascists- they are antifascists. And by the way, what is wrong with being against fascism? #45 is using his usual mirror tactic of taking accusations against him and aiming it back at his critics. He knows very well that he isn’t being held accountable for truthfulness by the people he counts on. He tells big lies and repeats them over and over. It works for him. The very boldness of his lies somehow validates them in the minds of his followers.
Marxism and socialism have been in the scrapyard of history for a decades. The Soviet experiment with using socialism to get to communism was an abject failure. Stalin’s USSR was a brutal, murderous dictatorship tarted up to appear as a people’s paradise for those outside the iron curtain.
China today is a single party communist dictatorship that practices centralized control and nationalistic state capitalism. Previously, however, under the command of Chairman Mao Zedong, it is estimated that 40 to 80 million people died as a result of starvation, persecution, prison labor and execution in order to achieve his personal dream of a communist paradise.
It is difficult to find a communist state where people have the liberties that we in the US take for granted. It seems that to compel people to hand over their belongings to the state, a good bit of muscle is needed. Stalin found this out when he tried to collectivize Ukraine in the early 1930s. He ended up causing mass starvation and sending people to the gulags. The notion that the US is under threat from communist influence is without credibility. The odd communist may pop up now and then but they are little more than a curiosity not worthy of concern.
It is hard to know what Republicans regard as radical about Democrat ideals. Could it be that anyone who disagrees with today’s GOP is a “leftist radical”? If there are actual living, breathing Marxists among liberals in the US, they are likely to be lonely. There is Richard D Wolff at UMass, Amherst. Wolff is against capitalism and makes some fair points, but the momentum of history won’t be going his way any time soon. People still remember the Soviet experiment with Marxism-Leninism which was a disaster.
So·cial·ism: noun; a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Source: Google
Will citizens of the US ever acquiesce to turning over private property to a socialist government? Clearly, there is not a chance. The accusation that US liberals harbor socialistic desires is a Republican fever dream. The same with communism. The current population of US citizens would never embrace communism. Too many past instances of communist or socialist dictatorships in the world, and besides, Americans love their private property and would defend it with the umpteen hundred million guns under their pillows.
It is a Republican fantasy that only they are the true patriots in the US. This gives them license to posture as the only “real” Americans worthy of the title. This froze out as axiomatic for them many years ago, especially since the years of Mr. “trickle-down economics” Reagan.
Having social services is not the same as having socialism. A capitalist economy that provides a social safety net through taxation is not socialism. The capitalists still own their means of production, distribution and exchange.
Ordinary citizens in the US pay taxes to support the Army, Air Force, Space Force, Marines, Navy and Coast Guard. We also pay taxes and fees for upkeep on state and national infrastructure like roads, bridges, air traffic control and many other things. All of this goes to support our capitalist means of production, distribution and exchange.
Citizens pay exorbitant tuition to educate themselves to a level where they can contribute to operating our capitalistic enterprises. Payment for the common good isn’t borne exclusively by business. Both citizens and our capitalist enterprises benefit from this arrangement.
The business side should recall that citizens contribute to their corporate existence by funding their government contracts and by purchasing products that they off-shored to China to the detriment of US workers and security.
Now that we are well into tornado season in North America, I thought I’d dredge this old 2007 post up out of the cobwebs in the dungeon. As Uncle Al pointed out in the comments, Middle Easterners did have dust devils so a vortex of wind was not unknown there. These, however, are no match for a full-blown F4 tornado.
==========
One has to wonder what the original inhabitants of North America thought of the tornado (how do you say “WTF” in Lakota?). Without a doubt, Native Americans were visited by tornadoes. The experience must have certainly left an impression. It would be interesting to hear any stories that may be out there. This topic has been the subject of scholarly study.
Little record of native American lore remains regarding their experiences with the tornado.
“The Cheyenne language has several words for tornadoes and their related storms: hevovetaso (tornado), ma’xehevovetaso (big whirlwind), ehohaatamano’e (threatening weather). For the Cheyenne, the tornado is not some kind of evil predatory force or a random assault from a blind and dumb atmospheric soup with no concern for human life. A tornado has a job, Yellowman told me, and that is to restore balance to the environment. The tornado speaks to the native people, in their respective tribal languages, in a voice that sounds like fire. Before it reaches the tribal land, the tornado tells the elders how big it’s going to be, not in the technical language of the EF scale but in colloquial terms: small, medium, big, huge.“
North America is geographically privileged in that there is the possibility that overland southerly flows of cold dry air from the north can readily contact flows of warm moist air from the Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, or the Atlantic. Vertical mixing of unstable humid air results in convection cells that are further driven by the latent heat of condensation. These humid flows are spun up by the Coriolis effect and wind shear to afford monster anvil storm cells that can tower to 50,000 ft or higher.
Diagram of an anvil cloud. Source: NOAA
Like many places, here in Colorado we often see isolated storm cells in the early evenings of summer, red in color at low altitude changing to a billowy yellow-white at altitude near sunset. Very often you can see mammatocumulous features signifying violent mixing activity. It’s no place for an airplane.
A murus, or wall cloud forms at the bottom interface where cold, water-saturated downdraft air is pulled into the adjacent column of rising air. The moisture condenses quickly and at low altitude to form the wall cloud. On occasion a tornado will drop out of a wall cloud.
It is interesting to speculate as to how our modern mythologies and iconographies might have been different if the tornado phenomenon had been common in the Mediterranean and the middle east. Would Charleton Heston have summoned a tornado to smite Yule Brynner’s Egyptians rather than parting the Red Sea and drowning the buggers? Perhaps the Pharaohs might have built great stone helices rather than obelisks. Aristotle might have written a treatise on the handedness of helical flows or whether the air flowed radially into or out of a tornado.
If the tornado had been a common phenomenon in the middle east during the iron age would the “Big Three” Abrahamic religions today feature tornadic themes in their texts and monuments? If so, perhaps the great cathedrals of Europe might today have relief sculptures or stained glass windows portraying the Israelites or Philistines being driven hither and thither by the swirling wrath of the Almighty’s cyclone.
Some vocabulary from bad old days of the Cold War has come back to haunt us. Russia has announced that it has deployed its RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) in Belarus. The 112 ft long, 211 ton missile is said to carry 15 Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs). As new and scary as this sounds, the US first conceived of the MIRV in the early 1960’s and deployed its first MIRV’d ICBM (Minuteman III) in 1970 and the first MIRV’d SLBM (Poseiden Sea Launched Ballistic Missile) in 1971. The USSR followed suit in 1975 and 1978, respectively.
In the early 1960’s it was believed in the US that it was behind the USSR in what was called the “Missile Gap”. It turns out this was incorrect and that, in fact, the US had a large advantage in the number of ICBM strategic delivery vehicles. For a long while we in NATO thought the Soviets were 10 feet tall and that turned out to be an exaggeration. From their performance in conventional battle, they have diminished in stature just a bit. However, their nuclear triad is to be respected.
The initial purpose of the MIRV concept was to compensate for inaccurate delivery. It has evolved to include decoys and multiple target delivery. There is a good deal of non-classified information on MIRV systems on the interwebs.
Putin’s threat of a new MIRV’d missile is just more nuclear bluster to frighten NATO citizens. For the present time his nuclear weapons are more valuable in storage as they have been all along with the Mutual Assured Destruction policy. That said, they have a policy of using nukes if the security of the state itself is under threat. I would guess that Putin sees himself as the state.
I wonder if it has dawned on the Russians that nobody in their right mind would actually make a preemptive attack on Russia or its former Soviet satellites. Who actually wants the place? What benefit is there in trying to subdue 140 million angry Russians and their huge frozen taiga? That’s nuts.
I’ve long had difficulty with the validity of advice that says “always stand up for what you believe.” Superficially, it is inspirational to those working in a difficult and discouraging situation. It is meant to convey encouragement that a person should strive not to give up on a difficult goal. Keep chipping away at the problem. You can eat an elephant, but only by one bite at a time. There are many aphorisms that tie into this sentiment. A crisp analysis of this is not like a problem in algebra, you know, a problem with a unique solution. If you share the person’s subjectivity, then perhaps there is no problem.
Standing up for what you believe is often used to proclaim a refusal to give up some action or view. It can telegraph moral clarity and devotion to an ideal.
What are we to think when a leader stands up and proclaims that they intend to stand firm on their convictions? Irrespective of whether or not you agree with them, doesn’t their proclamation to stand fast say something about flexibility in the face of contrary evidence or logic? If new thinking comes along, wouldn’t we want a leader who can turn the boat around to a better heading?
We don’t want wishy-washy or indecisive leaders- don’t we really want action based on the best thinking? In a democracy it is our job to put the best thinkers in the important slots.
The weakness of this advice comes into view when you consider whether any given goal is “worthy” or not. Is there objective information or reason supporting going after a goal or maintaining a belief? Even if a belief or goal is objectively valid, is it something worth committing your life to? Will it really lead to the desired end? On the personal level, someone may be convinced that a goal is indeed worthy and is backed with good intentions, tight reasoning or what appears to be justifying evidence.
A person may be genuinely convinced that their goal or belief is worthy irrespective of objective fact or analysis. They would be making a subjective decision to stay on the path for reasons of comfort or aesthetics. As long as your path is not harmful to those around you, why not?
People possessed of divine certitude in their politics or religion, for example, will often claim that a particular hill really is worth dying on. They are willing to defend their beliefs to their last breath, a few in the literal sense but most metaphorically speaking. Righteous though they may seem, are we obliged to stand by and let the firmly held but baseless or insane beliefs of others swerve our democracy into an autocratic swamp of fringe beliefs and looney political theories?
The societal problems are supposed to be addressed by voting based on rational thought and conveyed through freedom of speech. Today in the US, large and well-funded forces are focused on eliminating time-tested elements of democracy based on firmly held beliefs.
The practical difficulty in the US is that monied interests have the cash to buy media time to persuade the masses. Repetition of untruthful assertions and fearmongering are highly effective. Recruiting and inciting people into the dark side of politics is all too easy as the GOP has shown for decades. And yes, I’m taking sides.
This is my theory: From the view at 30,000 feet we can broadly divide thinking into two manifolds- analytical thinking and devotional thinking. Analytical thinking is that in which conclusions or practices are based on consideration of established secular principles, measurable evidence and the science behind cause and effect.
Devotional thinking is rationale based on adherence to doctrine- be it religious or political. A particular doctrine guides a person’s beliefs, emotions and actions or conclusions, maybe even in the face of contrary evidence.
Analytical thinking is my preference but it can go awry. Conclusions may be drawn from faulty evidence or previous thinking that is factually incorrect or poorly conceived. Worse, human thinking is subject to stranding in the cul-de-sac of confirmation bias. Many of us get stuck in this appealing comfort zone indefinitely. Beliefs or opinions are often cherished and difficult to release.
So, what do you say to a person who adheres to a belief that can be objectively contradicted with arguments based on data or rational analysis? How far along are we obliged to indulge a person in a faulty belief? Should we be supportive and encourage them to “stand up for what you believe” knowing full well that they are on a fool’s errand or their belief leads to actions troublesome for others?
This is where politics comes in as useful. In principle, poor thinking can be outvoted. A majority of poor thinkers with bad ideas is a problem as history shows. Assuring the survival of liberal democracy takes continual monitoring. Oh yes, the continuance of liberal democracy is axiomatic in my view.
No doubt this ground has been plowed by philosophers for centuries. But, I don’t call myself a philosopher.
Is it really our place to correct a person’s belief? Who am I to reset an adult’s thinking? If someone is operating on the basis of incorrect information, like a definition or a piece of data, it could be argued that correcting them would be an act of kindness. If someone is just full of harmless baloney, then perhaps they should be left to wander through life as is.
This situation has been part of the human condition forever. Everyone has the right to be an idiot now and then. But what happens when their idiocy becomes a problem for others or too self-destructive to stand by and watch in civil society?
Speaking for myself only, I’m inclined to ignore those who espouse ignorant or magical beliefs. I’ll steer clear of the flat-earthers or Baptists, for instance, as not worth the effort to engage. With homeopathy believers, in a moment of weakness I might engage with some words about basic chemical principles relating to dose/response relationships. With the anti-vaccine crowd … this a tough one. All too frequently I go non-linear and become scornful of those harboring misplaced fear or anger towards vaccination. I’ll start gibbering and sputtering if I don’t quit thinking about it.
Speaking of goofy beliefs, I’ve had a longstanding issue with most religions, the big 3 in particular. To me, standing up for something that derives from magical thinking and no evidence seems foolish. Writings of dubious origin and translated or edited over the millennia could be as source of fiction or a mixture of truth and fiction. Followers of religion operate under the belief that their religious doctrines are set in stone and are the basis for all moral behavior.
Religion finally boils down to being a theory of the universe. The big 3 religions have always struck me as transparently anthropomorphic rationalizations of the universe using iron age thinking. I used to engage with others on this for fun but it’s nothing but aggravation now.
Does science give us the ultimate view of the universe? We only get pieces of it directly. The universe most of us know is substantially based on our what our brains perceive via stimulation of the nervous system. What we can see is limited to a very narrow slice of the electromagnetic spectrum, maybe one octave wide. Light waves exist many octaves distant on either side of the visible range. On the high energy side, there is the gamma ray universe shining brightly from nuclear reactions in stars and other objects. On the low energy side is the radio universe shining away by larger scale mechanisms. Adjacent to the visible spectrum is the x-ray and ultraviolet spectrum. On the opposite side are infrared and microwaves. All can reveal insights based on how they interact with matter. We exploit imaging, spectroscopy and mathematics to understand the universe outside of the solar system.
But maybe the reality we experience is just a type of baseline hallucination that we think of as our “normal” consciousness.
Science is unable to help with the desire to know the supernatural. Science requires observation, quantification, measurement and analysis. I suppose that if you could start classifying and counting miracles per square kilometer, you could begin to understand the effects of location and type of miracle. Anyway …
Gosh. It seems that I’ve painted myself into a corner.
This caught me by surprise. I have long suspected that Putin would establish a base in Cuba. Instead, the Chinese are working on it. According to the Financial Times, the Biden administration has disclosed that China has been conducting electronic espionage from Cuba since 2019. (This was reported by the Wall Street Journal 6/8/23, but the article is behind a paywall).
China’s spy balloon overflight of the US recently, if actually planned, was quite bold. They retort that US spy planes frequently fly along their borders. Setting up a spy base in Cuba has invaded what we have normally thought of as our back yard. What if China decides to conduct military training in the Gulf of Mexico? US territorial waters extend 12 nautical miles from shore. How should we react? The US supports Taiwan and has conducted military exercises in the waters between China and Taiwan. What would we have to stand on when we object?
China has been cooperating with Cuba in terms of increasing trade including telecom and biotech. They are reportedly spending big money in the Port of Mariel.
Plainly, China is aiming for economic and military hegemony around the world. Putin’s Ukrainian invasion blunder will take many years for Russia to recover from. What a post-Putin Russia looks like isn’t clear. Given the widespread intimidation and apathy of the population, the hope for a non-authoritarian Russia seems remote.
Meanwhile, as America dithers in its toxic pool of domestic politics and fratricide, China is moving to make the 21st century as China’s century. China must believe that we Americans are a bunch of f*ckin’ idiots. Maybe they’re right. Political conflict in the US has become too intoxicating and financially lucrative for rational governance.
Lamentations on Chemistry 
