Radiation Sense

A lot of people, especially in this country, are frightened and paranoid about anything that has the words "atomic" or "nuclear" associated with it. The same goes for anything associated with the word "radiation".

It shouldn't be that way. We all get some radiation dose. Some of that is from dental and medical x-rays. More is from naturally occurring doses. Those at lower altitudes get lower doses unless they live in an area of radioactive bedrock or similar materials. The higher the altitude, the less atmosphere shielding us from radiation prodoced above us.

In fact, — Remember Three Mile Island? There was no one who was in that nuclear plant through the entire time of the crisis there. If there had been someone in the control room throughtout the crisis, however, that person would have received less radiation dose than did every person living at 1 mile altitude (such as Denver and Albuquerque) during that same time period. But, somehow, this natural dose never seems to reach anyone's consciousness.

Now there has been an item or two published in the newspaper suggesting that radiation may not be so bad, even in much higher doses than commonly considered safe.

Maybe over time more people will develop a more realistic view of radiation. One can only hope.

The Last Shuttle Landing

With the pre-dawn landing of the space shuttle Atlantis in Florida this morning, this thirty year long program of manned space flight has come to an end. This mission was the 135^th space shuttle mission, and was officially designated STS-135 (STS is short for Space Transportation System).

This is the end of an era of manned space flight that began with the challenge issued by President John F Kennedy on May 25, 1961. "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth," President Kennedy said at the time. Work toward that goal progressed through the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. President Kennedy's challenge was fulfilled on July 16, 1969, when Neil Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the moon. Flights under the Apollo program continued through 1975.

The space shuttle program first reached into space on April 12, 1981, with a flight of just over two days. Subsequent missions have carried a variety of satellites into orbit (including the Hubble Space Telescope), carried various orbital experiments and technology developments, and performed a number of more mundane missions including satellite repair and carrying modules and supplies for the International Space Station.

The space shuttle program was originally conceived to involve many more launches, and much more frequent launches, than have actually occurred. The idea was to have up to 50 shuttle launches per year, with the reusable vehicle intended to drive down launch and operating per-mission costs. (The space shuttle is the only reusable vehicle ever launched into space.) Each shuttle was designed to have a working life of 100 flights over a 10 year period. The three surviving shuttles (of the five that were built — not counting the non-space-qualified Enterprise test vehicle) have all had longer working lives with many fewer launches; Atlantis ended its career today at the close of its 33^rd flight.

With today's end of the space shuttle program, the United States has no manned space flight capability.

Space Shuttle Program
First Launch — April 12, 1981
Final Landing — July 22, 2011
135 Total Flights

Turning Sunlight Into Oil

About 14 months ago, I posted the following:

There was an interesting article in POPSCI last month [November 2009] about a new technology to make fuel/oil from carbon dioxide and sunlight — effectively making fuel out of thin air.

• Making fuel/oil
• Using sunlight
• Consuming CO₂
      This news is GREENER than GREEN.

This is HUGE, even as it stands. If it pans out at a larger scale, then it's HISTORIC.

UPDATE: A Technology Review article confirms the demonstration of a prototype device, the first step out of the laboratory and toward full-scale operation.

Now there's word of another technology in this area. (See this, too.) This one holds promise of being more easily scalable, and therefore more likely to produce a large-scale economic breakthrough. This technology, its proponents claim, should be able to produce fuel at $30/barrel. At that price, if they can achieve it, OPEC will be put out of business.

One must hope that one or both of these technologies (and/or one or more others) succeeds, and produces — SOON. That may be the best way to save the world's economies, as the Middle East goes (even more) insane.

Germs

History is full of events waiting for someone to notice the connection between one piece and another. That's one of the things that makes history so interesting — there's always something new to learn, to notice.

Here's an example, taken from an article about historian William H. McNeill in the University of Chicago Magazine:

McNeill first noticed disease lurking in the shadows of historical documents when he was researching The Rise of the West. Like accounts of the Antonine Plague, historical records made passing mention of disease. But there was little analysis of their role in shaping history. "I read the story of Cortéz and couldn't believe it," McNeill says. The conventional story of how Tenochtitlan [modern-day Mexico City] fell to Hernán Cortéz and a small band of Spaniards in 1521 seemed to contradict common sense. At one point, the Aztecs had beaten the Spaniards back but did not press their advantage. "A considerable number of the Spanish were wounded in the retreat but there was no follow-up," McNeill says. "I couldn't figure out why the nephew of Montezuma, who organized the attack, didn't surround the Spaniards and bring them up to the top of that temple and cut their hearts out the next day. It's what should have happened."

And yet, it didn't. Instead, the Spaniards conquered Mexico and converted millions of Aztecs to Christianity. "I was sort of mulling this over in my head," McNeill recalls, "and somebody casually remarked that smallpox had broken out in Mexico City the night of the noche triste"—the night of the Spaniards' retreat—"and Montezuma's nephew died of it that same night."

The plague struck only the Aztecs. The Spaniards, who had developed an immunity to smallpox during repeated childhood exposures, were spared. The implication in the eyes of everyone who lived through the Aztec epidemic, McNeill argues, was the superior power of the Spaniards' God over the Aztecs' deities. "The whole history of the New World hinged on that episode," McNeill says. Suddenly he realized "there was a whole history that had to be written.

Sometimes you just need one more piece of information for an event to make sense.

Amazing!

Snow on the ground in all 50 states! All at the same time!

Turning Sunlight Into Oil

There was an interesting article in POPSCI last month about a new technology to make fuel/oil from carbon dioxide and sunlight — effectively making fuel out of thin air.

• Making fuel/oil
• Using sunlight
• Consuming CO₂
      This news is GREENER than GREEN.

This is HUGE, even as it stands. If it pans out at a larger scale, then it's HISTORIC.

UPDATE: A Technology Review article confirms the demonstration of a prototype device, the first step out of the laboratory and toward full-scale operation.

Consensus vs. Science

Jay Nordlinger passed along an excerpt from a Michael Crichton lecture:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

Nordlinger comments:

And I was reminded of a story I learned from Tony Daniels (a.k.a. Theodore Dalrymple). It’s sometime in the 1930s, I believe, before the Reich has really gotten going. A hundred “Aryan” scientists sign a letter against Einstein, saying that the theory of relativity is a Jewish hoax (or whatever). Asked for his response, Einstein says, “If what they are saying were true, one signature would have been enough.”

That is my favorite story about majorities or mobs.

Consensus is often claimed where it does not actually exist. Even when a consensus exists, it represents only what is believed, not what is true. And what is believed always is — and must be — subject to change.