Author Archives: gaussling

About gaussling

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.

Nerve Agents vs Bombs. Why ban one and not the other?

3 Replies

The recent news footage out of Syria showing victims of a chemical attack is haunting. When I first saw it I couldn’t quite comprehend what I was looking at. But after a minute of increasing discomfort I began to grasp the horror of the situation. Victims lying on the ground in puddles of water or in the midst of being flushed with a stream of water, gasping for air and limbs quivering in wide-eyed disbelief and fear of what they were experiencing. Others were unconscious or dead. Rescuers were moving around the victims not knowing what to do beyond rinsing off the bodies. Those handling the water, I’m sure, were grateful to be giving some kind of aid no matter how small.

It is interesting to see how people, myself included, react to this kind of news. I mean, this shouldn’t be happening. After all, the world has international conventions and treaties banning the use of chemical and biological agents in warfare. Humanity has gone to some length to bar the use of war shots designed to release toxic gas or aerosols over anyone anywhere.

When we shudder and express sincere horror at the barbarity of a chemical attack on civilians, along what track is our thinking guided? What kind of decision process might lead us to believe that a sarin attack is a higher level of depravity than a bomb blast? Could it be true that people who release chemical agents are actually guilty of a higher crime than those who send bombs in the direction of a civilian neighborhood or even just 50 caliber bullets?

Explosives are chemicals that unleash kinetic and thermal violence for a few seconds per explosion. Nerve agents move like the wind, breathing lethal aerosols or gas as they flow and leaving who knows how much contaminated … everything … and for how long. Bombs can be aimed, a gas cloud not so much. Bomb violence is much more common than death by acetylcholinesterase inhibition, yet our attention is always drawn to chemical violence.

We have an industry called show business that exploits bomb violence in its entertainment products. And we the viewing audience have become desensitized to the horrific effects of explosions by sheer repetition of highly staged portrayals. Perhaps it is the very novelty of a chemical attack that captures our attention. If you survive a bomb blast, there is a chance that you can be sewn back together again. If you receive an exposure to sarin, well, what do you do to stop the inhibition of an enzyme? Find a dose of atropine if possible from someone who knows it’s in stock somewhere.

The acceptance of explosives but not chemical agents as legitimate weapons of war is at best a false dichotomy. But, we are a world of men and women and weaponized conflict. If a ban on chemical and biological weapons can be negotiated faster than a ban on the use of explosives, then we take what we can get. But let us not get desensitized to high explosives and the horrific tragedies they produce.

Oh, one pet peeve. They’re not ‘explosive devices”, they are bombs. The former may infer skillful and clinical dispassion. The latter suggests dumb, blunt force. The latter seems more to the point.

An organic chemist looks at evolution

Leave a reply

I wrote this essay a few years ago but did not publish it. I don’t remember why. This is not written for evolutionary biologists. For better or worse, here it is.

On weekends I check in on C-SPAN 1 and 2 to see what folks are talking about. A couple of weekends ago on Earth Day there was a C-SPAN 1 broadcast of an April 19th, 2017, panel discussion on the ” March for Science and Threats to Science.” The segment was hosted by The Heritage Foundation and featured a number of well dressed folks who were quite authoritative and highly skilled in the rhetorical arts. Curious thing that the Heritage Foundation chose this topic to weigh in on.

The discussion followed various lines of conservative analysis of the 4/22/17 March for Science and touched on the New Atheism, Neo-Darwinism, with allusions to a supposed endemic misanthropy of some March for Science participants.

One of the panelists was a fellow named Stephen C. Meyer who is a senior Fellow and founder of the Discovery Institute. Meyer is a very articulate and persuasive proponent of creationism. His contribution to the discussion was a recitation of the pro-creationist argument on the weakness’s of Neo-Darwinism. The thrust of his argument centered on the disagreement among scientists meme in the field of biological evolution and how this delegitimizes the whole concept. This line of argument is a common (dare I say standard?) rhetorical trick used by creationists to cast doubt on the science of evolution.

Pro-creationist adherents have learned that they do not have to prove evolution is incorrect. They need only make a case for disagreement in the scientific community of its veracity or infer scientific misconduct. As a friend once quipped, they stir up a dust cloud and then complain because they can’t see anything.

Darwin and the story of the expedition of the HMS Beagle is a tale of 19th century discovery that is inspirational and iconic. Too often, however, Darwin’s writings on natural selection is not portrayed in the historical context relative to modern molecular biology. When I hear creationists discuss evolution, the discussion seems to remain with the work of Darwin. I would maintain that if Darwin and Lamarck had not developed their work on natural selection, modern molecular biologists would have had to postulate evolution themselves.

Public discussion of evolution in the limited context of Darwin is frequently burdened with misinterpretations and half-truths by adherents and deniers alike. It is not unusual for people to become confused by the use of imprecise language when discussing evolution-as-Darwinism. For instance, I’ve heard knowledgeable people assert “… the species evolved (such and so) in order to adapt …”. Well, yes and no. The species may well have over time evolved some adaptation. However, the words “… the species evolved …” may be misinterpreted by some as meaning that a species, when presented with some survival challenge, may have taken the chance to unsheath some mechanism to respond by rejiggering its genetics in a way that would lead to survival of subsequent generations. A more accurate description might be that fortuitous genetic mutations in the past have allowed the organism to survive challenges presented by a changing environment. There is a critical qualifier, however. The lucky mutation must be survivable and facilitate the continued reproduction of the critical trait to subsequent generations. Mutations occurring after the possibility of reproduction lead only to an evolutionary dead end.  Evolution is blind going forward. Descriptive language must be built around that concept.

Rather than consuming time and bandwidth reciting the history and elements of Darwinism, the reader is invited to pick this up elsewhere. Instead, I would like to throw an idea on the table. Perhaps writers and public figures should deemphasize Darwin’s work and emphasize the mutability of the genome.

If we consider that the large scale structural morphologies of organisms are an emergent phenomenon and arise as a result of molecular and cellular scale structures, then we can begin to see evolution much like a performing symphony orchestra is comprised of many instruments, each with characteristic effects. The overall effect is the sum total of all the contributing instruments. Evolution then becomes a matter of changing the score a bit here and there to produce variants. The notion of life as an emergent phenomenon is itself evolving to a high level of theory. See: Pier Luigi Luisi, The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology 2nd Edition, 2016, Cambridge University Press.

With 19th century Darwinian theory, we are limited to observing evidence of change at the macroscopic level but with no credible mechanism for the manner of change or a cause for initiating a change. Without a mechanism, plausibility is a tough sell to students, teachers, and the rest of the lay public. Darwinism is a tidy package with an appealing story. However, without mention of its mechanism it resembles magic. Evolution at the molecular scale can offer mechanisms and measurements. I would offer that Darwinism could be treated in a historical context, but a transition to the level of  molecules appropriate to the intended audience should happen. Evolution rests on the mutability of genes.

Another troublesome aspect of explaining evolution is the plausibility of random change leading to organisms of greater complexity. The notion that the human eye or hand is the result of random change is simply too incredible for non-sciency people to accept. For them, it is an intellectual cul-de-sac that, in parallel with their religion, only validates “creation implies creator”. To folks firmly affixed in concrete reasoning, the notion of non-living, disorganized matter somehow spontaneously organizing to form elaborate life forms is beyond comprehension. This argument is often brought up as a coup de grace against evolution. Randomness as a successful driver seems so implausible.

Perhaps Darwinism is better expressed as only an introduction to the story of  molecular evolution.

Standing in the way of a mature understanding of evolution is the plausibility of random change giving way to greater complexity. What exactly do we mean by random? Does random change imply an infinite range of categories of influence and outcome? What exactly is it that is random? This is difficult even for scientists, let alone the lay public. Let’s consider some relevant aspects of the world of the molecule.

Axiom 1: The initiation of life may be a quite different chemical mechanism from the reproduction of life.

The origin of life and the evolution of life are different processes. The physical conditions and available substances amenable to evolution necessarily diverge from those present when and where life arose.  Origins and subsequent evolution must be pulled apart into separate arguments for the sake of clarity.

Axiom 2: Evolution is a molecular phenomenon.

In order to have macroscopic change there must be microscopic change. The DNA molecule is well established as the repository of stable organizational information necessary for the construction and operation of living things. If change characteristics are to be passed along through successive generations, then DNA has to change accordingly. DNA is ordinary matter and subject to the constraints of chemistry and physics. A part of being subject to chemical change is the effect of adverse conditions to contend with in general (bio)chemical synthesis. Biochemistry is largely aqueous chemistry with all of the constraints and degrees of freedom that follow: Solubility, Gibbs free energy, transition states, polarity, acidity, concentration, catalysis, stability in an aqueous environment, reaction rates, stoichiometry, time, temperature, and reduction/oxidation potential.

All of the parameters listed above represent variables with their own range of values that must be in alignment in order for life to happen. Rather than be overwhelmed by them, they could be considered as a finite number of channels in which a limited range of inputs give rise to a limited range of outputs.

Axiom 3: Atoms and molecules must collide in order to react.

A generalization in chemistry is that atomic and molecular interactions require the components to collide at some range of favorable trajectories. The mobility necessary for atomic and molecular interactions to occur is available in fluids but not solids. If molecules are held in place in a bulk solid phase, then they don’t have the opportunity to bump into one another just right and interact. The most abundant element in the universe is hydrogen. Water, H2O, is comprised of the most cosmically abundant element bonded to oxygen, the most abundant terrestrial heavy element.  A planet that has water with a climate and pressure amenable to the liquid phase is a planet that has a start on supporting life. Life is substantially a solution phase phenomenon.

Axiom 4: There is a menu of limitations in the behavior of molecules.

  1. The set of atoms necessary for constructing life on earth is of limited number and variety
  2. The behavior and properties of a given atom is based on the physics of electric charges and the best description of how and where electrons spend their time. This is successfully described by quantum mechanics.
  3. Because of physics and more to the point, quantum mechanics, the electrons which do the chemistry are capable of a finite variety of allowed states according to selection rules.
  4. There is a limited set of ways that a given atom can attach to other atoms to make chemical bonds under ordinary terrestrial conditions.
  5. Molecules are made of atoms. These atoms naturally form a set of characteristic groupings within a molecule that are energetically preferred and thus common. The groupings are called moieties or functional groups. Examples are stable 5 and 6 member rings of atoms (pentagons and hexagons), carbon chains long and short, single, double, and triple chemical bonds. The variety of connected atoms in living systems include carbon-oxygen, carbon-carbon, carbon-nitrogen, carbon-sulfur, carbon-phosphorus, oxygen-phosphorus, oxygen-hydrogen, carbon-hydrogen, nitrogen-hydrogen, sulfur-hydrogen, and maybe a few more. Atoms can connect or disconnect, but in a finite number of ways. The atoms that make up “biomolecules” have certain features that make them amenable to dissolution in water. In particular nitrogen and oxygen have non-bonding electron pairs that attract certain hydrogen groups to make something called a hydrogen bond. This behavior lends water solubility to biomolecules.
  6. Certain groupings of molecules can intimately comingle indefinitely in the liquid state, but other groupings spontaneously separate into separate “phases” or layers to minimize contact. Consider oil and vinegar and how they spontaneously separate for minimum contact in salad dressing. Molecules that have a charged end and a long water insoluble end may form organized structures called micelles in water. It bears a resemblance to the cell wall. It is an example of spontaneous organization because it is energetically favorable.
  7. The assembly, behavior, and disassembly of biomolecules follows finite, definable chemical interactions. Synthetic biomolecules are indistinguishable from the biological version.
  8. A limited number of liquids are compatible with living systems. Life as we know it requires that molecules are mobile during certain periods. Living things reproduce and grow. This requires changes that are only possible if molecules can move within the system. Movement happens within a fluid system.

The list above sketches out some limitations that atoms and molecules are subject to. It is useful to note that the atoms and molecules of life are subject to constraints that prevent them from behaving in a completely random fashion. Molecules in general will not form in every conceivable connective permutation under terrestrial conditions. Particular routes and end-states are energetically preferred. Things that have only specific behaviors are things that will always behave or react in a particular set of ways to give a limited range of products. Products from molecules that react along alternative pathways will favor the end-state of the fastest pathway. That means that there is exclusion of some molecular products. This is another loss of randomness overall.

Contrary to your camp counselor’s advice, not just anything is possible. What makes the universe sensible and relatively stable is the fact that objects and events interact or unfold in ways characteristic to their building blocks. What follows from the limitations of objects and events is that many forms of behavior or channels of interaction are therefore excluded. That is, there are not an infinite number of ways that a biomolecule can behave. The interactions in which a biomolecule can behave is channeled through a limited number of pathways due to the nature of the chemical pathways that are energetically favorable. The universe is surely chaotic, but not entirely so. Organization in biomolecules, or should we say a finite number of energetically favored structures, are the result of the limited number of ways that molecules can interact under terrestrial conditions.

Is is a common assertion by creationists that the odds of a hand or eyeball spontaneously forming could result from random interactions is 1 in some extremely large number. To the contrary, there is a case to be made that the hand or eyeball is the result of a series of natural molecular collisions, each constrained to a limited range of reaction possibilities over a very, very long period of time. What’s more, a molecule at room temperature is colliding with another molecule at maybe a frequency of 10^12 or 10^14 per second*. Scale that up to 1 million years and you have a tremendous number of opportunities to produce change.

* These frequencies may be off a bit, but it is what I seem to remember.

Lamar, my boy, show ’em how it’s done.

2 Replies

Dear Rep. Lamar Smith,

Yer a smart feller there, Lamar. Ya have a BA from Yale and that JD from SMU. Ya passed the bar exam and started private practice in San Antone. In 11 years ya worked yer way up ta national ‘lected office.  It’s an accomplishment no matter how’ya look at it. And that America Invents Act piled on some mighty fine improvements ta the patentin’ process. That was good work there boy.

As chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Tech-nology, ya been perty skeptical ’bout them snooty climate science boys with their jar-gon and their uppity attitudes actin’ all high’n mighty-like ’bout climate n’such. A good ole’ boy from the Hill Country ought ta be able to pick up on that fancy c’mputer modelin’, right?

I think that ya ought ta throw some of yer many talents inta climate modelin’ yerself. You’d be doin’ the scientific folks a favor. You’d roll up yer sleeves an’ dig in ta clean’n up that po-litically correct climate data. Darn tootin’ you would. I’m sure the folks at NOAA would give ya a desk er somethin’ ta do yer cipherin’.

Give it some thought, Lamar. Shouldn’t take more’n a few Saturday afternoons ta make a big dent innit. Don’tcha think? Keep yer head on a swivel.

Th’ Gausslin’

 

(Texican language services provided by Elroy)

 

 

 

 

A fossil fuel job justifies X units of pollution

9 Replies

A lot of science is about trying to find the best questions. Because the best questions can lead us to better answers. So, in the spirit of better questions here goes.

By loosening environmental regulations aimed at pollution prevention or remediation, the mandarins reporting to POTUS 45 have apparently made the calculation decided that some resulting uptick in pollution is justified by the jobs created thereby.

Question 1: For any given relaxation in regulations that result in an adverse biological, chemical or physical insult to the environment, what is the limit of tolerable adverse effect?

Question 2: How will the upper limit of acceptable environmental insult be determined?

Question 3: Will the upper limit of acceptable environmental insult be determined before or after the beginning of the adverse effect?

For a given situation there should be some ratio of jobs to acceptable environmental damage.

Example: By relaxing the rules on the release of coal mining waste into a river, X jobs are created and, as a result, Y households are denied potable drinking water. What is an acceptable ratio of X to Y?

Those are enough questions for now. Discuss amongst yourselves.

The Amateur Scientist by C.L. Stong: A Remembrance.

9 Replies

Of the 1332 posts I have polluted cyberspace with, the most frequently visited is a post on the topic of neutron lethargy written in May of 2008. The post is titled Neutron Lethargy- This Weeks Obscure Dimensionless Quantity. My intent was to write about some of the obscure yet interesting factoids and concepts that I run into in my daily travails.

I’ve been drawn to nuclear topics since junior high school. Sometime in 8th grade I began to to build several scientific projects as described in the Scientific American column The Amateur Scientist written by C.L. Stong. Stong published a collection of articles in a book titled The Scientific American Book of Projects for the Amateur Scientist, 1960, Simon and Shuster. This book was (is) a treasure trove of information on how to assemble equipment for scientific investigation.

In jr high I spent some time trying to assemble an “Atom Smasher” (p 344). It was an evacuated glass tube with filament electron source a meter away from the positively charged target. The target was a 3 x 1/4 inch disk of aluminum with many perforations over which aluminum foil would serve to seal in the vacuum. The aluminum foil was to serve as a window through which electrons could collide with a sample on the exterior. Sadly the project eventually ended due to the lack of access to a McLeod gauge, bulk mercury, and a diffusion pump. The required Van de Graff generator was available for a few hundred dollars. The failure was perhaps fortuitous because even if I had managed to assemble the thing, I might have been exposed to x-rays during the accelerator’s operation.

Turning my attention to more feasible projects I did manage to do some biology experiments. The most interesting was growing protozoans from an infusion of grass and soil in standing water. After several days the water would turn cloudy and fetid. Using a decent Christmas microscope we were able to view a magical world of microorganisms scooting around in their herky-jerky manner. It was mesmerizing.

A glove box project afforded a place for growing microorganisms with petri dishes purchased at a hobby shop. I was able to grow mold and some blend of bacteria on Jello in the petri dishes, but the microscope didn’t have the resolution for bacteria. Since I had no interest in pathogens, the glove box was not really needed. But it looked cool.

By 10th grade I did manage to successfully build the cloud chamber project (p 307). Unfortunately I only witnessed stray cosmic rays and background radiation. As it turned out, the polonium 210 alpha source loaned to me by a physics teacher had long since decayed to inactivity. Building the chamber was a tremendous learning experience made possible through the use of the metal shop at school. It was of sheet metal construction with a dry ice and methanol coolant chamber built in. The actual chamber was made from  the bottom quarter of a Folgers coffee can cut and fitted with a glass viewing port and Plexiglass illumination ports. As I recall, the most problematic aspect of the construction was finding an adhesive that would not detach at dry ice temperature.

An electromagnet was built in an attempt to bend the path of the particles by a magnetic field, but was wholly inadequate for the job. Learned another lesson there too.

The book by Stong was something that lit up my curiosity and put a fire in the belly to explore. This was the beginning of what turned out to be life-long career in science. Strangely, the total lack of interest by the adults around me only strengthened my resolve to build and learn.

In support of the US Chemical Safety Board

3 Replies

A grim message from Chairperson Vanessa Allen Sutherland of the US Chemical Safety Board reads-

“The U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) is disappointed to see the President’s budget proposal to eliminate the agency.  The CSB is an independent agency whose sole mission is to investigate accidents in the chemical industry and to make recommendations to prevent future accidents and improve safety.  For over 20 years, the CSB has conducted hundreds of investigations of high consequence chemical incidents, such as the Deepwater Horizon and West Fertilizer disasters.  Our investigations and recommendations have had an enormous effect on improving public safety.   Our recommendations have resulted in banned natural gas blows in Connecticut, an improved fire code in New York City, and increased public safety at oil and gas sites across the State of Mississippi.  The CSB has been able to accomplish all of this with a small and limited budget.  The American public is safer today as a result of the work of the dedicated and professional staff of the CSB.  As this process moves forward, we hope that the important mission of this agency will be preserved. ”     -posted 3/20/17

I want to voice my support generally for this elite group of accident investigators. As a chemical safety professional myself I am disappointed to see the CSB regarded low enough by the President’s budget writers to warrant being in the proposal for elimination. The job of the CSB is to investigate the cause(s) of chemical, petrochemical, or other facilities that handle materials having the potential to produce serious accidents. Having done accident investigations myself, albeit at much reduced scale from a petrochemical refinery, I appreciate what a difficult job this is and the great value of the disseminating findings to the industry.

The value of any given CSB report is the story of how an accident is initiated, how it propagates, and how it may couple with diverse systems. As a crucial part of the report is a detailed dissection of the relevant operational systems and human/machine interfaces and how they may have coupled to the event. It is educational and very useful for the safety community to learn how unfamiliar failure modes initiate and how knock-on effects may steer the accident in directions that are difficult to predict.

Planning for process safety involves input from the fields of chemistry, engineering and operations. Importantly, it requires imagination because planning safe operations is about predicting the future. Shutting down CSB investigations will deprive the engineering and safety community of a valuable resource detailing subtle or non-obvious ways in which complex systems can fail.

Recall the Apollo 1 fire or the Challenger explosion and how inquiry into those events lead to better appreciation of failure modes and the layers of protection that can be put in place to prevent the failure. If this kind of investigation is kept confidential, the advance of safe system design will stagnate.

Panic in Greenhouse Community

2 Replies

Guapo, AZ. The American Greenhouse Association (AGA) released a statement Friday in response to the Trump Administration’s denial that greenhouse warming is not based on established science. The spokesperson for the AGA, Mr. Harlan Stamen, announced that the greenhouse industry has begun a fundamental reexamination of the science behind the greenhouse effect. The AGA was one of many organizations meeting last week at their industry’s annual conference at Pultroon University.

Mr. Stamen, standing before a packed room of reporters, bluntly stated “we thought we understood how the greenhouse effect worked. Honestly, we thought that problem was solved. Then we hear from the new administration in Washington that as many as a few percent of scientists were unsure.” Stamen went on to say that greenhouse researchers were working feverishly to understand how certain substances, CO2 among them, in fact just do not absorb solar energy as believed. “Clearly”, Stamen allowed, “we have to figure this thing out. We have no clue how our greenhouses get warm in sunlight.”

The spokesperson for the White House Office of Inquisitions,  Olivia Gastly, Esq., released a statement saying that the Office is “aware of many individuals in Democrat science who think they understand these issues of climate- I mean, who knew it was so complicated-  but our belief .. our belief … is backed by many years of assurances by the very best people that using fossil fuels cannot possibly produce global warming.”

Trump’s wrecking crew. The beginning of a new confederacy?

1 Reply

President 45 has chosen a cabinet, with senate confirmation, that outwardly seems chosen specifically to deconstruct the large scale structure of the federal government. This has come out in the open by admission from the likes of Steve Bannon, but serious dialog about the consequences of this has only just started.

If you step back a bit and think about what role the federal government has had in modern US culture, you might realize that the federal governmental superstructure has provided a framework and a shelter for many things citizens and businesses have come to rely on.

Some science oriented services the federal government has provided-

  • Funds for industrial expansion in 2 world wars
  • DARPA, which funds for the development of advanced military hardware, including aviation, communications, orbital platforms, electronics, robotics, computer technology, and more. All of this has spillover benefits to the nation at large.
  • A military establishment that countless young men and women joined that helped them build a career for life after enlistment
  • The GI bill post WWII credited with aiding the formation of the American middle class
  • The FAA regulates the operation of a large scale civilian aviation system, including organizing the airways, aviation safety, air traffic control
  • NIST, which provides for common weights and measures as well as the definition and standardization of many other units of measure for science and industry
  • CDC, which monitors and aids in the identification and containment of diseases
  • NOAA, which provides a large array of satellites and computer capacity for weather forecasting
  • EPA, that agency much maligned by pollution-generating industry, is charged with oversight of surface waters of all kinds as well as the purity of the air we breath.
  • The NIH which serves as an effective national resource for the advancement of medicine in research and in practice
  • The NSF has for many years funded basic scientific research, and in doing so provided many generations of scientists and engineers for industry and academics
  • NTSB is charged with investigating transportation accidents and promoting transportation safety
  • you get the picture …

I am not entirely sure what the slogan “Make America Great Again” really means. It is a brilliant piece of propaganda in the sense that it stirs the emotions of voters, but cannot be pinned down to any one meaning. The image of greatness is in the eye of the beholder.

When I think of this greatness business, my mind naturally goes to the source of our vast science and engineering prowess. The US evolved a unique and effective system of research and development.  The American university/government R&D machine has over many years provided breakthroughs in technology, but also it provides a constant supply of valuable scientific and engineering talent for any and all who need it.

Another benefit of our scientific establishment is the treasure trove of knowledge it leaves behind for posterity. Working in an R&D heavy manufacturing environment, I have at my finger tips the largest collection of international scientific references in the world. This is the CAS registry at the Chemical Abstracts Service and it is in fact national treasure.

I use this resource almost daily to uncover known technology and substances dating back to the late 19th century. A great resource to have because in business, you can’t afford to reinvent the wheel. And a lot of wheels have already been invented. Highly detailed information can be retrieved to provide the knowhow to solve problems encountered in industrial R&D today. Information that is in the public domain. Even better, because of the practice of peer-review, the information usually can be considered highly reliable.

Our government/university R&D complex is the goose that laid the golden egg. It is part of the engine of ingenuity that drives our economy.

Industry benefits from tremendously from a constant supply of talented engineering and scientific talent graduation from the best university research establishment in the world. It is this way in large part because of financial input from federal government funding agencies. Yes, there are monies available from private organizations. But I don’t think it compares in magnitude and breadth to funding from DoE, NSF, NIH, etc.

When I see that the present crew of republican elected officials and their appointees gunning for the large scale teardown of government agencies and reductions in force, I am naturally worried about the future of our education and R&D apparatus. I have trouble believing that the present congressional majority and the White House have the knowledge and intellectual bandwidth to comprehend the consequences of their actions.

This whole deconstruction of the federal government in favor of state control has the smell of a return to confederacy. Ask yourself how a confederate states of America would function when challenged by China or Russia militarily. How would the disunity by strong state control of resources respond in the case of an incremental land grab like the Russian takeover of Crimea. What if China takes over Taiwan and threatens hegemony of the Pacific?

The present political regime in DC threatens to do great harm to a civilization that used to be the envy of the world. Opportunity, wide open spaces, modernity were an attribute of a productive, unified nation. Do a majority of the citizens want what amounts to the libertarian dream of personal responsibility in the form of isolated bubbles of humanity? Does every aspect of our lives have to be a potential profit center for someone? Competition thrives with individual choice. But civilization requires cooperation. I vote for civilization.

 

 

Scott Pruitt- A man without scientific credentials. Yet, he speaks.

2 Replies

EPA administrator Scott Pruitt has made clear by his comments that he knows little about science generally, let alone those areas that EPA is charged to oversee. If the Wikipedia site is to be believed, Pruitt’s education and career track in no way qualifies him to direct or make assertions on behalf of the EPA.

I would say that Pruitt does not have the credentials to speak authoritatively on the matter of climate science. This contention should be printed everywhere 24/7.

Plainly, he is the boss man of a wrecking crew for dismantling environmental protection.

 

 

The Deconstruction of American Public Spaces and Institutions

2 Replies

I have concluded that we are witnessing in the political sphere today the wholesale deconstruction of our national public spaces and civic institutions by elected officials responsive to influences substantially unknown. And unknown by design. The last few decades have seen erosion of public support of public education, both emotional and financial. Plainly, conservative media have been gradually beating down public support by sheer repetition of slogans and falsehoods. Legislatures have withdrawn funding or applied unfunded mandates to public schools to the effect that when they fail to meet absurd goals, they congratulate themselves on their prescience. The claim that they want more accountability from teachers is a thinly vailed attempt to disband teachers unions. Teachers, being optimists and educated, are frequently of liberal disposition.  This is the application of propaganda and it works. Republicans are good at it because they know how to apply sustained fear in the hearts of voters too preoccupied in their own lives to research issues. The right owns the left side of several population bell curves and are advantaged by it greatly.

An AG from Oklahoma will soon be administrator of the EPA. For decades Republicans and conservative media have chanted the same message that regulations are bad with the subtext that they are inherently bad. They are bad for business and inhibit job creation they say. If discharging persistent pollutants into the air or waterways is bad for business, then tough shit. We do not need that kind of business.

Not a peep is uttered on the events that lead to the rule making by the agency. I lay this omission squarely on corporate media. Water pollution doesn’t make good television. Apparently even the success stories of agencies like EPA do not make compelling television. If you want to see a world unimpeded by environmental protection, go visit some of the industrial districts in China, Southeast Asia, or India. Tell me how the free market is working there. China by the way has gotten religion on environmental protection due to decades of rampant pollution.

 

Chaffetz withdraws bill, slinks back into hole

 

Representative Jason Chaffetz [R-UT-3] has introduced H.R. 621 which aims to direct the sale of 3.3 million acres of federal public land in the west. The bill is titled “H.R.621 – Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act of 2017”.  Below is a copy of the bill.

115th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 621

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to sell certain Federal lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, previously identified as suitable for disposal, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 24, 2017

Mr. Chaffetz introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL To direct the Secretary of the Interior to sell certain Federal lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, previously identified as suitable for disposal, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Sale of certain Federal lands previously identified as suitable for disposal.

 (a) Short title.—This Act may be cited as the “Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act of 2017”.

(b) Competitive sale of lands.—The Secretary shall offer the identified Federal lands for disposal by competitive sale for not less than fair market value as determined by an independent appraiser.

(c) Existing rights.—The sale of identified Federal lands under this section shall be subject to valid existing rights.

(d) Proceeds of sale of lands.—All net proceeds from the sale of identified Federal lands under this section shall be deposited directly into the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.

(e) Report.—Not later than 4 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate—

(1) a list of any identified Federal lands that have not been sold under subsection (b) and the reasons such lands were not sold; and

(2) an update of the report submitted to Congress by the Secretary on May 27, 1997, pursuant to section 390(g) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–127; 110 Stat. 1024), including a current inventory of the Federal lands under the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary that are suitable for disposal.

(f) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) IDENTIFIED FEDERAL LANDS.—The term “identified Federal lands” means the parcels of Federal land under the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary that were identified as suitable for disposal in the report submitted to Congress by the Secretary on May 27, 1997, pursuant to section 390(g) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–127; 110 Stat. 1024), except the following:

(A) Lands not identified for disposal in the applicable land use plan.

(B) Lands subject to a Recreation and Public Purpose conveyance application.

(C) Lands identified for State selection.

(D) Lands identified for Indian tribe allotments.

(E) Lands identified for local government use.

(2) SECRETARY.—The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Interior.

SEC. 2. Clarification regarding State laws.

Nothing in this Act shall affect the implementation of State laws, including State enabling Acts.

Suddenly we have a bill seeking to sell federal land “suitable for disposal, and for other purposes“.  I’ll add four comments:

1) federal land is public land, and not just for taxpayers, but all citizens,

2) the word “disposal” is a rhetorical kicker that is suggestive of salvage, and

3) the phrase and for other purposes is far too vague.

4) there is no language barring sale to foreign interests.

This bill is too shadowy and too soon. Citizens should have a chance to see for themselves what kind of land this is. We need transparency and some idea of who could buy and what is likely to happen to these lands. But more importantly, there should be some deliberation on the matter of what responsibility we have to future generations to maintain wild spaces for their use. Our public spaces in America set us apart from other nations who, because of their long and complex histories, were unable to plan for public spaces.

Do you really believe that you’ll be better off when this land is snatched up by monied interests?

A parting thought. Much of the land now occupied in the west was settled by homesteaders who developed the land and made a living from it. Why can’t that happen today? This land formed a basis for the inheritance of wealth for future generations. Did Mr. Chaffetz even consider this? Doubtful.