Limb regeneration in brittle stars [Life Lines]

Image of brittle star by Jerry Kirkhart from Los Osos, Calif. [CC BY 2.0 (http://ift.tt/o655VX)], via Wikimedia Commons

A new study published in Frontiers in Zoology examined the developmental process involved in regulating limb regeneration in brittle stars (Amphiura filiformis) following amputation of an arm. Limb regeneration is a multi-stage process involving initial healing and repair of the wounded site, initial growth of the limb followed by development of more complex layers of cells until ultimately the limb has been fully regenerated. Understanding this process in brittle stars may lead to better understanding of limb regeneration in other echinoderms or at least methodologies that can examine the process in other animals.

The ability for brittle stars to regenerate limbs so readily is more than likely an adaptation to avoid predation.

Source:

A Czarkwiani, C Ferrario, DV Dylus, M Sugni, P Oliveri. Skeletal regeneration in the brittle star Amphiura filiformis. Frontiers in Zoology. 13:18, 2016. DOI: 10.1186/s12983-016-0149-x

 

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1VZJ1fN

Image of brittle star by Jerry Kirkhart from Los Osos, Calif. [CC BY 2.0 (http://ift.tt/o655VX)], via Wikimedia Commons

A new study published in Frontiers in Zoology examined the developmental process involved in regulating limb regeneration in brittle stars (Amphiura filiformis) following amputation of an arm. Limb regeneration is a multi-stage process involving initial healing and repair of the wounded site, initial growth of the limb followed by development of more complex layers of cells until ultimately the limb has been fully regenerated. Understanding this process in brittle stars may lead to better understanding of limb regeneration in other echinoderms or at least methodologies that can examine the process in other animals.

The ability for brittle stars to regenerate limbs so readily is more than likely an adaptation to avoid predation.

Source:

A Czarkwiani, C Ferrario, DV Dylus, M Sugni, P Oliveri. Skeletal regeneration in the brittle star Amphiura filiformis. Frontiers in Zoology. 13:18, 2016. DOI: 10.1186/s12983-016-0149-x

 

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1VZJ1fN

May 2016 guide to the 5 bright planets

Jupiter pops out first thing at dusk. It’s the brightest starlike object in May and lights up the nighttime until the wee hours of the morning. Mars and Saturn ascend in the east at early-to-mid evening. Once Mars and Saturn are up, they’re out for rest of the night, near each other, getting brighter, heading toward their brightest and best in late May and early June, respectively. Mars and Saturn join up with the bright star Antares to form a bright celestial triangle: beautiful and easy to spot. Mercury transits the sun on May 9, 2016, for the first time since November 8, 2006. The brightest planet – Venus – is lost in the glare of sunrise. Follow the links below to learn more about the May planets.

Check out our latest EarthSky visible planet tee available only for a limited time!

Jupiter brightest “star” in early May

Mars, early evening until dawn, reaches opposition this month

Saturn, early evening until dawn, shines near Mars

Mercury transits sun on May 9

Venus, brightest planet, lost in the sunrise

Like what EarthSky offers? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

Astronomy events, star parties, festivals, workshops

Watch for the waxing moon to move eastward in front of the constellation Leo the Lion for several days around May 13, 14 and 15. The green line depicts the ecliptic – the sun and moon’s yearly path in front of the constellations of the Zodiac. Read more.

Jupiter brightest “star” in early May. Jupiter lights up the sky almost immediately after sunset. From mid-northern latitudes, it shines in the southern sky at nightfall. From the Southern hemisphere, look high overhead at nightfall.

This giant planet climbs highest up for the night at roughly 8 to 9 p.m. local time (9 to 10 p.m. local Daylight Saving Time) and sets in the west before dawn.

Jupiter will remain a fine evening object for months to come.

Jupiter is almost impossible to miss. However, from southerly latitudes, it might be possible to confuse it with sparkling, blue-white Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky. At nightfall and early evening, Jupiter is either in the southern sky or high overhead, while Sirius shines to the west of Jupiter, in the western sky. From either the Northern or Southern Hemisphere, you can rely on the famous constellation Orion the Hunter to confirm that you’re looking at Sirius, and not Jupiter, because Orion’s Belt of three stars points right to this star.

But just wait. As the month of May passes, the planet Mars is brightening dramatically. By the month’s end, Mars will have attained Jupiter’s brightness, almost. It’ll be harder to mistake Mars for Jupiter, because Mars will be distinctly reddish.

The moon swings close to Jupiter on the sky’s dome for several days, centered on May 14.

If you have binoculars or a telescope, it’s fairly easy to see Jupiter’s four major moons, which look like pinpricks of light on or near the same plane. They are often called the Galilean moons to honor Galileo, who discovered these great Jovian moons in 1610. In their order from Jupiter, these moons are Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto.

These moons circle Jupiter around the Jovian equator. In cycles of six years, we view Jupiter’s equator edge-on. So, in 2015, we got to view a number of mutual events involving Jupiter’s moons through a high-powered telescope. Click here or here or here for more details.

Although Jupiter’s axial tilt is only 3^o out of perpendicular relative to the ecliptic (Earth’s orbital plane), Jupiter’s axis will tilt enough toward the sun and Earth so that the farthest of these four moons, Callisto, will NOT pass in front of Jupiter or behind Jupiter for a period of about three years, starting in late 2016. During this approximate 3-year period, Callisto will remain “perpetually” visible, alternately swinging “above” and “below” Jupiter.

Click here for a Jupiter moons almanac, courtesy of Sky & Telescope.

Look for the Blue Moon to pair up with Mars on the sky’s dome on May 21. The green line depicts the ecliptic – Earth’s orbital plane projected onto the dome of sky.

Mars, early evening until dawn, reaches opposition this month Mars is not as bright as Jupiter when the month begins, but this is Mars’ month, the best month in two years to watch the red planet!

Mars will brighten throughout May until its opposition on May 22.

By the time Mars reaches its crest of brightness in late May 2016, it will have quadrupled in brilliance since the beginning of April. Mars has greater swings in brilliance than any other solar system planet, except for Mercury, and is a fascinating and beautiful sight in May, 2016.

At is brightest, Mars shines some 80 times more brilliantly than at its faintest.

Why is Mars getting so bright? For most of the past two years, Earth has been fleeing ahead of Mars in orbit. Mars orbits just one step outward from us, and we move slightly faster in orbit, and – about every two years – we catch up to Mars again and pass between it and the sun. That’ll happen next in late May, 2016. Astronomers will say that Mars is in opposition to the sun around that time.

Then, believe it or not, Mars will nearly match Jupiter in brightness!

By late May, as we pass between it and the sun, Mars will be rising in the east as the sun is setting in the west. It’ll be opposite the sun, in opposition.

In early May, Mars rises at about 9 p.m. local time (10 p.m. Daylight Time) at mid-northern latitudes. By the month’s end, Mars – opposite the sun – will ascend above the horizon as the sun is setting in the west.

Looking for a sky almanac? EarthSky recommends…

And here’s the really good news. Mars is near another planet on the sky’s dome, Saturn. Look for Mars and Saturn near Antares, the brightest star in the constellation Scorpius the Scorpion. They make a noticeable triangle on the sky’s dome.

Let the moon help guide your eye to Mars (and Saturn) in the morning sky for several nights, beginning around May 20, and also on May 21 and May 22.

What’s really cool is that you can use the brilliant planet Mars as you guide “star” to the planet Saturn and the star Antares for months to come.

Saturn, early evening until dawn, shines near Mars. And both Mars and Saturn are near a fainter object – still one of the sky’s brightest stars – Antares in the constellation Scorpius.

From mid-northern latitudes, the ringed planet starts the month rising in the east around 9 to 10 p.m. local time (10 to 11 p.m. local Daylight Saving Time). As for temperate latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere, Saturn rises in the east at roughly 7 to 8 p.m. local time in early May. By the month’s end – no matter where you are on Earth – Saturn will be coming up around sunset, just a few days shy of its opposition, when Earth will pass between Saturn and the sun. That will happen on June 3.

Although Saturn shines on par with the sky’s brightest stars, its brilliance can’t match that of Mars. Look for Saturn near Mars. These two worlds form a bright celestial triangle with the star Antares in the May night sky. Mars is brighter than Saturn, which in turn is brighter than Antares.

Mars will eventually catch up with Saturn on August 24, 2016, to present a conjunction of these two worlds in the August evening sky.

Watch for the moon to swing by Saturn for several days, centered on or near May 22. Scroll up to the second sky chart above.

Saturn, the farthest world that you can easily view with the eye alone, appears golden in color. It shines with a steady light. Binoculars don’t reveal Saturn’s gorgeous rings, by the way. For that, you need a small telescope. But binoculars will enhance Saturn’s golden color.

Saturn’s rings are inclined at a little more than 26^o from edge-on in May, 2016, exhibiting their northern face. Next year, in October, 2017, the rings will open most widely, displaying a maximum inclination of 27^o.

As with so much in space (and on Earth), the appearance of Saturn’s rings from Earth is cyclical. In the year 2025, the rings will appear edge-on as seen from Earth. After that, we’ll begin to see the south side of Saturn’s rings, to increase to a maximum inclination of 27^o by May, 2032.

Click here for recommended almanacs. They can help you know when the planets rise, transit and set in your sky

Transit of Mercury on May 9, 2016 from LarryKoehn on Vimeo. Visit Larry’s great website shadowandsubstance.com

Mercury transits the sun on May 9, 2016. Mercury transitions from the evening to morning sky on May 9, 2016. Usually, you can’t see Mercury at this juncture because it swings to the north or south of the solar disk, so is lost in the sun’s glare.

This time around, however, the planet Mercury in its orbit will swing directly in between the Earth and sun on May 9, 2016. Mercury will appear as a small black dot in front of the sun. Warning: A telescope and a proper solar filter is absolutely essential to safely watch this transit, so you might want to seek out an astronomical organization hosting a public presentation of this event.

For the Southern Hemisphere, Mercury might become bright enough to view in the morning sky by late May. However, it’s really the first couple of weeks in June that will feature a good time for catching Mercury before sunrise in the Southern Hemisphere and the northern tropics. It’ll be more of a challenge to spot Mercury as a morning “star” from mid-northern latitudes. Mercury will reach its greatest western (morning) elongation on June 5, 2016.

Photo of the transit of Venus on June 6, 2012, via NASA Goddard Space Flight Center,

Venus, brightest planet, lost in the sunrise. From all over the world, Venus sinks closer to the glare of sunrise all month long. From the Southern Hemisphere, you might be able to glimpse Venus before sunrise in the early part of May. From northerly latitudes, Venus will be extremely hard to catch this month. Venus will pass directly behind the sun on June 6, 2016, as it transitions from the morning to the evening sky.

Exactly four years previous to Venus passing directly behind the sun on June 6, 2016, Venus swung directly in front of the sun on June 6, 2012, to present the last transit of Venus until December 11, 2117. See the photo above.

What do we mean by bright planet? By bright planet, we mean any solar system planet that is easily visible without an optical aid and that has been watched by our ancestors since time immemorial. In their outward order from the sun, the five bright planets are Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. These planets actually do appear bright in our sky. They are typically as bright as – or brighter than – the brightest stars. Plus, these relatively nearby worlds tend to shine with a steadier light than the distant, twinkling stars. You can spot them, and come to know them as faithful friends, if you try.

Bottom line: In May, 2016, Jupiter is the brightest starlike object up when the sun goes down. Earth swings between Mars and the sun on May 22, giving us our best view of the planet in about two years! Saturn and the bright star Antares make a triangle with Mars on the sky’s dome. Mercury, the innermost planet, tranists the sun on May 9. Venus is behind the sun.

Easily locate stars and constellations with EarthSky’s planisphere.

Don’t miss anything. Subscribe to EarthSky News by email

From late January, and through mid-February, 5 bright planets were visible at once in the predawn sky. This image is from February 8, 2016. It’s by Eliot Herman in Tucson, Arizona. View on Flickr.

Awesome month for planets before dawn: October, 2015! Photo taken October 2, 2015 by Mohamed Laaifat Photographies in Normandy, France.

Eastern sky before dawn now. Photo taken September 18, 2015 and submitted to EarthSky by Greg Hogan in Kathleen, Georgia. Thanks, Greg!

View larger. Evening dusk on August 5: Venus at left. Mercury is climbing higher, toward Regulus (at top) and Jupiter (beneath Regulus).

By the evening of July 12, Venus and Jupiter were farther apart and lower in the western sky after sunset. Photo by Robert Kelly. Thanks, Robert!

Photo taken June 13, 2015 by John Nelson at Puget Sound, Washington. Thanks, John!

View larger. | Photo taken in early June, 2015 by Göran Strand in Sweden. He wrote: “One of the last nights during the spring when the stars were still visible … ” Follow Fotograf Göran Strand on Facebook, or @astrofotografen on Instagram. Or visit his website.

Lunar eclipse on the night of October 8, 2014. The object to the left is the planet Uranus! This beautiful photo is by Janey Wing Kenyon of Story, Wyoming.

Debra Fryar in Calobreves, Texas captured this photo of the moon and Jupiter on May 31, 2014. Jupiter was close to the twilight then.

With only a modest backyard telescope, you can easily see Jupiter’s four largest moons. Here they are through a 10″ (25 cm) Meade LX200 telescope. Image credit: Jan Sandberg

Jupiter was rivaling the streetlights, when Mohamed Laaifat Photographies captured this photo in Normandy, France. Visit his page on Facebook.

Venus by Danny Crocker-Jensen

These are called star trails. It’s a long-exposure photo, which shows you how Earth is turning under the stars. The brightest object here is Jupiter, which is the second-brightest planet, after Venus. This awesome photo by EarthSky Facebook friend Mohamed Laaifat in Normandy, France. Thank you, Mohamed.

Skywatcher, by Predrag Agatonovic.

Easily locate stars and constellations with EarthSky’s planisphere.

Don’t miss anything. Subscribe to EarthSky News by email

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/IJfHCr

Jupiter pops out first thing at dusk. It’s the brightest starlike object in May and lights up the nighttime until the wee hours of the morning. Mars and Saturn ascend in the east at early-to-mid evening. Once Mars and Saturn are up, they’re out for rest of the night, near each other, getting brighter, heading toward their brightest and best in late May and early June, respectively. Mars and Saturn join up with the bright star Antares to form a bright celestial triangle: beautiful and easy to spot. Mercury transits the sun on May 9, 2016, for the first time since November 8, 2006. The brightest planet – Venus – is lost in the glare of sunrise. Follow the links below to learn more about the May planets.

Check out our latest EarthSky visible planet tee available only for a limited time!

Jupiter brightest “star” in early May

Mars, early evening until dawn, reaches opposition this month

Saturn, early evening until dawn, shines near Mars

Mercury transits sun on May 9

Venus, brightest planet, lost in the sunrise

Like what EarthSky offers? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

Astronomy events, star parties, festivals, workshops

Watch for the waxing moon to move eastward in front of the constellation Leo the Lion for several days around May 13, 14 and 15. The green line depicts the ecliptic – the sun and moon’s yearly path in front of the constellations of the Zodiac. Read more.

Jupiter brightest “star” in early May. Jupiter lights up the sky almost immediately after sunset. From mid-northern latitudes, it shines in the southern sky at nightfall. From the Southern hemisphere, look high overhead at nightfall.

This giant planet climbs highest up for the night at roughly 8 to 9 p.m. local time (9 to 10 p.m. local Daylight Saving Time) and sets in the west before dawn.

Jupiter will remain a fine evening object for months to come.

Jupiter is almost impossible to miss. However, from southerly latitudes, it might be possible to confuse it with sparkling, blue-white Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky. At nightfall and early evening, Jupiter is either in the southern sky or high overhead, while Sirius shines to the west of Jupiter, in the western sky. From either the Northern or Southern Hemisphere, you can rely on the famous constellation Orion the Hunter to confirm that you’re looking at Sirius, and not Jupiter, because Orion’s Belt of three stars points right to this star.

But just wait. As the month of May passes, the planet Mars is brightening dramatically. By the month’s end, Mars will have attained Jupiter’s brightness, almost. It’ll be harder to mistake Mars for Jupiter, because Mars will be distinctly reddish.

The moon swings close to Jupiter on the sky’s dome for several days, centered on May 14.

If you have binoculars or a telescope, it’s fairly easy to see Jupiter’s four major moons, which look like pinpricks of light on or near the same plane. They are often called the Galilean moons to honor Galileo, who discovered these great Jovian moons in 1610. In their order from Jupiter, these moons are Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto.

These moons circle Jupiter around the Jovian equator. In cycles of six years, we view Jupiter’s equator edge-on. So, in 2015, we got to view a number of mutual events involving Jupiter’s moons through a high-powered telescope. Click here or here or here for more details.

Although Jupiter’s axial tilt is only 3^o out of perpendicular relative to the ecliptic (Earth’s orbital plane), Jupiter’s axis will tilt enough toward the sun and Earth so that the farthest of these four moons, Callisto, will NOT pass in front of Jupiter or behind Jupiter for a period of about three years, starting in late 2016. During this approximate 3-year period, Callisto will remain “perpetually” visible, alternately swinging “above” and “below” Jupiter.

Click here for a Jupiter moons almanac, courtesy of Sky & Telescope.

Look for the Blue Moon to pair up with Mars on the sky’s dome on May 21. The green line depicts the ecliptic – Earth’s orbital plane projected onto the dome of sky.

Mars, early evening until dawn, reaches opposition this month Mars is not as bright as Jupiter when the month begins, but this is Mars’ month, the best month in two years to watch the red planet!

Mars will brighten throughout May until its opposition on May 22.

By the time Mars reaches its crest of brightness in late May 2016, it will have quadrupled in brilliance since the beginning of April. Mars has greater swings in brilliance than any other solar system planet, except for Mercury, and is a fascinating and beautiful sight in May, 2016.

At is brightest, Mars shines some 80 times more brilliantly than at its faintest.

Why is Mars getting so bright? For most of the past two years, Earth has been fleeing ahead of Mars in orbit. Mars orbits just one step outward from us, and we move slightly faster in orbit, and – about every two years – we catch up to Mars again and pass between it and the sun. That’ll happen next in late May, 2016. Astronomers will say that Mars is in opposition to the sun around that time.

Then, believe it or not, Mars will nearly match Jupiter in brightness!

By late May, as we pass between it and the sun, Mars will be rising in the east as the sun is setting in the west. It’ll be opposite the sun, in opposition.

In early May, Mars rises at about 9 p.m. local time (10 p.m. Daylight Time) at mid-northern latitudes. By the month’s end, Mars – opposite the sun – will ascend above the horizon as the sun is setting in the west.

Looking for a sky almanac? EarthSky recommends…

And here’s the really good news. Mars is near another planet on the sky’s dome, Saturn. Look for Mars and Saturn near Antares, the brightest star in the constellation Scorpius the Scorpion. They make a noticeable triangle on the sky’s dome.

Let the moon help guide your eye to Mars (and Saturn) in the morning sky for several nights, beginning around May 20, and also on May 21 and May 22.

What’s really cool is that you can use the brilliant planet Mars as you guide “star” to the planet Saturn and the star Antares for months to come.

Saturn, early evening until dawn, shines near Mars. And both Mars and Saturn are near a fainter object – still one of the sky’s brightest stars – Antares in the constellation Scorpius.

From mid-northern latitudes, the ringed planet starts the month rising in the east around 9 to 10 p.m. local time (10 to 11 p.m. local Daylight Saving Time). As for temperate latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere, Saturn rises in the east at roughly 7 to 8 p.m. local time in early May. By the month’s end – no matter where you are on Earth – Saturn will be coming up around sunset, just a few days shy of its opposition, when Earth will pass between Saturn and the sun. That will happen on June 3.

Although Saturn shines on par with the sky’s brightest stars, its brilliance can’t match that of Mars. Look for Saturn near Mars. These two worlds form a bright celestial triangle with the star Antares in the May night sky. Mars is brighter than Saturn, which in turn is brighter than Antares.

Mars will eventually catch up with Saturn on August 24, 2016, to present a conjunction of these two worlds in the August evening sky.

Watch for the moon to swing by Saturn for several days, centered on or near May 22. Scroll up to the second sky chart above.

Saturn, the farthest world that you can easily view with the eye alone, appears golden in color. It shines with a steady light. Binoculars don’t reveal Saturn’s gorgeous rings, by the way. For that, you need a small telescope. But binoculars will enhance Saturn’s golden color.

Saturn’s rings are inclined at a little more than 26^o from edge-on in May, 2016, exhibiting their northern face. Next year, in October, 2017, the rings will open most widely, displaying a maximum inclination of 27^o.

As with so much in space (and on Earth), the appearance of Saturn’s rings from Earth is cyclical. In the year 2025, the rings will appear edge-on as seen from Earth. After that, we’ll begin to see the south side of Saturn’s rings, to increase to a maximum inclination of 27^o by May, 2032.

Click here for recommended almanacs. They can help you know when the planets rise, transit and set in your sky

Transit of Mercury on May 9, 2016 from LarryKoehn on Vimeo. Visit Larry’s great website shadowandsubstance.com

Mercury transits the sun on May 9, 2016. Mercury transitions from the evening to morning sky on May 9, 2016. Usually, you can’t see Mercury at this juncture because it swings to the north or south of the solar disk, so is lost in the sun’s glare.

This time around, however, the planet Mercury in its orbit will swing directly in between the Earth and sun on May 9, 2016. Mercury will appear as a small black dot in front of the sun. Warning: A telescope and a proper solar filter is absolutely essential to safely watch this transit, so you might want to seek out an astronomical organization hosting a public presentation of this event.

For the Southern Hemisphere, Mercury might become bright enough to view in the morning sky by late May. However, it’s really the first couple of weeks in June that will feature a good time for catching Mercury before sunrise in the Southern Hemisphere and the northern tropics. It’ll be more of a challenge to spot Mercury as a morning “star” from mid-northern latitudes. Mercury will reach its greatest western (morning) elongation on June 5, 2016.

Photo of the transit of Venus on June 6, 2012, via NASA Goddard Space Flight Center,

Venus, brightest planet, lost in the sunrise. From all over the world, Venus sinks closer to the glare of sunrise all month long. From the Southern Hemisphere, you might be able to glimpse Venus before sunrise in the early part of May. From northerly latitudes, Venus will be extremely hard to catch this month. Venus will pass directly behind the sun on June 6, 2016, as it transitions from the morning to the evening sky.

Exactly four years previous to Venus passing directly behind the sun on June 6, 2016, Venus swung directly in front of the sun on June 6, 2012, to present the last transit of Venus until December 11, 2117. See the photo above.

What do we mean by bright planet? By bright planet, we mean any solar system planet that is easily visible without an optical aid and that has been watched by our ancestors since time immemorial. In their outward order from the sun, the five bright planets are Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. These planets actually do appear bright in our sky. They are typically as bright as – or brighter than – the brightest stars. Plus, these relatively nearby worlds tend to shine with a steadier light than the distant, twinkling stars. You can spot them, and come to know them as faithful friends, if you try.

Bottom line: In May, 2016, Jupiter is the brightest starlike object up when the sun goes down. Earth swings between Mars and the sun on May 22, giving us our best view of the planet in about two years! Saturn and the bright star Antares make a triangle with Mars on the sky’s dome. Mercury, the innermost planet, tranists the sun on May 9. Venus is behind the sun.

Easily locate stars and constellations with EarthSky’s planisphere.

Don’t miss anything. Subscribe to EarthSky News by email

From late January, and through mid-February, 5 bright planets were visible at once in the predawn sky. This image is from February 8, 2016. It’s by Eliot Herman in Tucson, Arizona. View on Flickr.

Awesome month for planets before dawn: October, 2015! Photo taken October 2, 2015 by Mohamed Laaifat Photographies in Normandy, France.

Eastern sky before dawn now. Photo taken September 18, 2015 and submitted to EarthSky by Greg Hogan in Kathleen, Georgia. Thanks, Greg!

View larger. Evening dusk on August 5: Venus at left. Mercury is climbing higher, toward Regulus (at top) and Jupiter (beneath Regulus).

By the evening of July 12, Venus and Jupiter were farther apart and lower in the western sky after sunset. Photo by Robert Kelly. Thanks, Robert!

Photo taken June 13, 2015 by John Nelson at Puget Sound, Washington. Thanks, John!

View larger. | Photo taken in early June, 2015 by Göran Strand in Sweden. He wrote: “One of the last nights during the spring when the stars were still visible … ” Follow Fotograf Göran Strand on Facebook, or @astrofotografen on Instagram. Or visit his website.

Lunar eclipse on the night of October 8, 2014. The object to the left is the planet Uranus! This beautiful photo is by Janey Wing Kenyon of Story, Wyoming.

Debra Fryar in Calobreves, Texas captured this photo of the moon and Jupiter on May 31, 2014. Jupiter was close to the twilight then.

With only a modest backyard telescope, you can easily see Jupiter’s four largest moons. Here they are through a 10″ (25 cm) Meade LX200 telescope. Image credit: Jan Sandberg

Jupiter was rivaling the streetlights, when Mohamed Laaifat Photographies captured this photo in Normandy, France. Visit his page on Facebook.

Venus by Danny Crocker-Jensen

These are called star trails. It’s a long-exposure photo, which shows you how Earth is turning under the stars. The brightest object here is Jupiter, which is the second-brightest planet, after Venus. This awesome photo by EarthSky Facebook friend Mohamed Laaifat in Normandy, France. Thank you, Mohamed.

Skywatcher, by Predrag Agatonovic.

Easily locate stars and constellations with EarthSky’s planisphere.

Don’t miss anything. Subscribe to EarthSky News by email

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/IJfHCr

Worker Memorial Day 2016: Names, Faces, Places, Data [The Pump Handle]

If only The Pump Handle had a crew of correspondents to report from the many Worker Memorial Day events held this past week. If you attended a Worker Memorial Day event, I’m calling on you to share some highlights from it in the comment section below.

I spent time in Houston, TX where Mayor Sylvester Turner and the City Council issued a proclamation to remember workers who were killed, injured, or made ill because of their jobs. Our event featured remarks by Mr. Joseph Reyna, whose son Steven Reyna died in November 2015 while working for Atlantic Coffee Solutions, four workers from La Espiga De Oro, and a representative of the Seafarers International Union in memory of the 33-person crew of the El Faro who perished at sea in November 2015.

Among my favorite part of Worker Memorial Day are the excellent reports prepared by local and national organizations, including MassCOSH (here), South Florida COSH (here), and National COSH (here.)  MassCOSH’s report impressed me with profiles on the occupational health and safety problems faced today by US workers, from climate-change effects, to guns and trouble with “worksite wellness” programs. The South Florida COSH report makes a special point to provide state-specific data on the hazards and industries in which Florida workers are harmed. National COSH’s report was enhanced by 10 attention-grabbing infographics. A Worker Memorial Day report for the Houston, TX area, which I co-authored, is available in both English (here) and Spanish (here). It features the names and circumstances of 63 Houston-area workers who were killed on-the-job in 2015, including photos for 33 of them.

I credit the AFL-CIO’s Peg Seminario for starting the tradition of Worker Memorial Day reports. Their annual Death on the Job (DOTJ) report marks its 25th anniversary this year. It is the go-to compendium for national and state-level OHS data. Complementing the AFL-CIO’s report are eye-catching infographics like this one:

Some of the biggest Worker Memorial Day events take place outside the U.S.  Hazards magazine and the International Trade Union Confederation provides information about many of them. For example, here’s a photo from a rally in Istanbul:

I’m calling on readers of The Pump Handle to share some highlights in the comment section below from the Worker Memorial Day event(s) you attended this past week.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1rIykCq

If only The Pump Handle had a crew of correspondents to report from the many Worker Memorial Day events held this past week. If you attended a Worker Memorial Day event, I’m calling on you to share some highlights from it in the comment section below.

I spent time in Houston, TX where Mayor Sylvester Turner and the City Council issued a proclamation to remember workers who were killed, injured, or made ill because of their jobs. Our event featured remarks by Mr. Joseph Reyna, whose son Steven Reyna died in November 2015 while working for Atlantic Coffee Solutions, four workers from La Espiga De Oro, and a representative of the Seafarers International Union in memory of the 33-person crew of the El Faro who perished at sea in November 2015.

Among my favorite part of Worker Memorial Day are the excellent reports prepared by local and national organizations, including MassCOSH (here), South Florida COSH (here), and National COSH (here.)  MassCOSH’s report impressed me with profiles on the occupational health and safety problems faced today by US workers, from climate-change effects, to guns and trouble with “worksite wellness” programs. The South Florida COSH report makes a special point to provide state-specific data on the hazards and industries in which Florida workers are harmed. National COSH’s report was enhanced by 10 attention-grabbing infographics. A Worker Memorial Day report for the Houston, TX area, which I co-authored, is available in both English (here) and Spanish (here). It features the names and circumstances of 63 Houston-area workers who were killed on-the-job in 2015, including photos for 33 of them.

I credit the AFL-CIO’s Peg Seminario for starting the tradition of Worker Memorial Day reports. Their annual Death on the Job (DOTJ) report marks its 25th anniversary this year. It is the go-to compendium for national and state-level OHS data. Complementing the AFL-CIO’s report are eye-catching infographics like this one:

Some of the biggest Worker Memorial Day events take place outside the U.S.  Hazards magazine and the International Trade Union Confederation provides information about many of them. For example, here’s a photo from a rally in Istanbul:

I’m calling on readers of The Pump Handle to share some highlights in the comment section below from the Worker Memorial Day event(s) you attended this past week.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1rIykCq

Happy birthday to the GWPF “inquiry” [Stoat]

Moyhu wins the prize for actually bothering to track the GWPF and its waste-of-time “inquiry”. That’s about all there is to say, really. I could take the piss out of them a bit more I suppose but it hardly seems worth the effort. Terence Kealey (chairman) ends up looking like an idiot, which in GW terms he probably is; rapidly heading Emeritus I’d guess.

I must remember to add it to WATN in 2016; speaking of which, has anyone seen any life out of AW’s poor stillborn paper?

NS must be an elephant: he can also remember the OAS.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1TlUIHB

Moyhu wins the prize for actually bothering to track the GWPF and its waste-of-time “inquiry”. That’s about all there is to say, really. I could take the piss out of them a bit more I suppose but it hardly seems worth the effort. Terence Kealey (chairman) ends up looking like an idiot, which in GW terms he probably is; rapidly heading Emeritus I’d guess.

I must remember to add it to WATN in 2016; speaking of which, has anyone seen any life out of AW’s poor stillborn paper?

NS must be an elephant: he can also remember the OAS.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1TlUIHB

Ask Ethan: Can We Use Quantum Entanglement To Communicate Faster-Than-Light? (Synopsis) [Starts With A Bang]

“Trying to understand the way nature works involves a most terrible test of human reasoning ability. It involves subtle trickery, beautiful tightropes of logic on which one has to walk in order not to make a mistake in predicting what will happen.” -Richard Feynman

If you were to send a space probe to a distant star system, gather information about it and send it back to Earth, you’d have to wait years for the information to arrive. But if you have an entangled quantum system — say, two photons, one with spin +1 and one with spin -1 — you could know the spin of the distant one instantly by measuring the spin of the one in your possession.

The quantum mechanical Bell test for half-integer spin particles. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons user Maksim, under a c.c.a.-s.a.-3.0 license.

Are there prospects, then, for entangling quantum particles, placing one aboard a spacecraft and sending it to a distant star, making a measurement at that distant location and then making a measurement here to know what you saw over there? It’s an incredible idea to exploit quantum weirdness. While the laws of physics allow you to indeed know the properties of the other member of the pair by making a measurement here, they conspire to prevent you from transmitting information faster-than-light.

Artist’s impression of a sunset from the world Gliese 667 Cc, in a trinary star system. Image credit: ESO/L. Calçada.

Go get the full story on this week’s Ask Ethan!

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1VZlH1C

“Trying to understand the way nature works involves a most terrible test of human reasoning ability. It involves subtle trickery, beautiful tightropes of logic on which one has to walk in order not to make a mistake in predicting what will happen.” -Richard Feynman

If you were to send a space probe to a distant star system, gather information about it and send it back to Earth, you’d have to wait years for the information to arrive. But if you have an entangled quantum system — say, two photons, one with spin +1 and one with spin -1 — you could know the spin of the distant one instantly by measuring the spin of the one in your possession.

The quantum mechanical Bell test for half-integer spin particles. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons user Maksim, under a c.c.a.-s.a.-3.0 license.

Are there prospects, then, for entangling quantum particles, placing one aboard a spacecraft and sending it to a distant star, making a measurement at that distant location and then making a measurement here to know what you saw over there? It’s an incredible idea to exploit quantum weirdness. While the laws of physics allow you to indeed know the properties of the other member of the pair by making a measurement here, they conspire to prevent you from transmitting information faster-than-light.

Artist’s impression of a sunset from the world Gliese 667 Cc, in a trinary star system. Image credit: ESO/L. Calçada.

Go get the full story on this week’s Ask Ethan!

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1VZlH1C

2016 SkS Weekly News Roundup #18

A chronological listing of the news articles posted on the Skeptical Science Facebook page during the past week.

Sun Apr 24

• Mourning Loomis Reef - the heart of the Great Barrier Reef's coral bleaching disaster by Graham Readfearn, Planet Oz, Guardian, Apr 21, 2016
• "Global Elite's Theater": Paris Deal Is Mere Starting Point for Climate Justice by Deirdre Fulton, Common Dreams, Apr 22, 2016
• Why Even President Trump Won’t Kill The Climate Deal by Casey Williams, Huffington Post, Apr 23, 2016
• New Maps Chart Greenland Glaciers' Melting Risk, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Apr 21, 2016
• Lessons From Underwater Miami, Op-ed by Peter Brannen, Sunday Review, New York Times, Apr 23, 2016
• Carbon Pricing Becomes a Cause for the World Bank and I.M.F. by Coral Davenport, New York Times, Apr 23, 2016
• Tribes have up close perspective on climate change, Op-ed by Fawn Sharp, Seattle Times, Apr 22, 2016
• Climate Change Is Fueling Violence, and Women Bear the Brunt by Daniel Oberhaus, Motherboard, Apr 22, 2016

Mon Apr 25

• Is divesting from fossil fuels the best tactic for tackling climate change? by Suzanne McGee, Guardian, Apr 24, 2016
• World heading for catastrophe over natural disasters, risk expert warns by Sam Jones, Guardian, Apr 24, 2016
• Indigenous leaders seek forest protection role in global climate fight by Nádia Pontes, Thomson Reuters Foundation, Apr 24, 2016
• Heat wave sweeping Southeast Asia hits Myanmar, mizzima, Apr 22, 2016
• Clinton snubs Koch endorsement over climate change denial by Megan Darby, Climate Home, Apr 24, 2016
• We’re Easily Confused About What Experts Really Think, New Research Shows by Carol Linnit, DeSmog Canada, Apr 25, 2016
• UK envoy: Carbon pricing ‘too sluggish’ to meet climate goals by Megan Darby, Climate Home, Apr 25, 2016
• David Attenborough says the Great Barrier Reef is in ‘grave danger’ – it’s time to step up by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg & Tyrone Ridgway, The Convesation US, Apr 24, 2016
• Billionaire green donor launches U.S. millennial voter drive by Valerie Volcovici, Reuters, Apr 25, 2016

Tue Apr 26

• A global coalition mapping and motivating decarbonization by Joseph Robertson, Climate Consensus - the 97%, Guardian, Apr 25, 2016
• The Arctic is melting – and scientists just lost a key tool to observe it by Chelsea Harvey, Energy & Environment, Washington Post, Apr 25, 2016
• New York signing marks a new age in climate cooperation by Emmanuel De Guzman, Climate Home, Apr 25, 2016
• This is an incredible visualization of the world's shipping routes by Brad Plumer, Energy & Environment, Vox, Apr 25, 2016
• Following Temperature Record Announcements, Oil Industry Ads Outpaced Climate-Related Coverage By Almost 5-To-1 by Kevin Kalhoefer, Media Matters, Apr 25, 2016
• Mapped: The climate change conversation on Twitter by John Swain, Right Relevance/Carbon Brief, Apr 26, 2016
• There is no doubt”: Exxon Knew CO2 Pollution Was A Global Threat By Late 1970s by Brendan DeMelle & Kevin Grandia, DeSmog, Apr 26, 2016
• The political hurdles facing a carbon tax — and how to overcome them by David Roberts, Energy & Environment, Vox, Apr 26, 2016

Wed Apr 27

• CO2 fertilization greening the Earth, Phys.org, Apr 25, 2016
• Lawmakers Take Note - Business Community Eager to Tackle Climate Change, Op-ed by Mindy Lubber, Forbes, Apr 26, 2016
• Abandon hype in climate models by Tim Kruger, Oliver Geden & Steve Rayner. Guardian, Apr 26, 2016
• Carbon copy: Are we (Australians) in for another scare campaign over climate change? by Peter Hannam, Sydney Morning Herald, Apr 27, 2016
• Japanese Monks Recorded the Climate for 700 Years by Michelle Nijhuis, National Geographic, Apr 26, 2016
• This Could Be One of the Greatest Hurdles for Cutting Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the US by John Dyer, Tipping Point, Vice News, Apr 26, 2016
• Many More Republicans Now Believe in Climate Change by Evan Lehmann, ClimateWire/Scientific American, Apr 27, 2016
• Labor’s climate policy: back in the game but missing detail by Lynette Molyneaux, John Foster & Karen Hussey, The Conversation US, Apr 27, 2016
• Activists Step Up Long-Running Campaign to Hold Oil Industry Accountable for Climate Damages by Phil McKenna, InsideClimate News, Apr 27, 2016

Thu Apr 28

• Carbon Fee Debate Goes Mainstream in Washington State by John Upton, Climate Central, Apr 26, 2016
• Warren Buffett Faces Pressure to Invest for the Climate, Not Just for Profit by Nicholas Kusnetz, InsideClimate News, Apr 26, 2016
• Climate scientists are now grading climate journalism by Daniel Nethery and Emmanuel Vincent, Climate Consensus - the 97%, The Guardian, Apr 26, 2016
• It May Soon Be Too Late to Save the Seas by Jeff Nesbit, Climate Nexus/US News & World Report, Apr 27, 2016
• Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem? by Dana Nuccitelli, Climate Consensus - the 97%, The Guardian, Apr 28, 2016
• How Climate Deniers Try to Sow Confusion by Jeffrey Kluger, Ideas, Time, Apr 28, 2016
• Identity 2016: 'Global citizenship' rising, poll suggests by Naomi Grimley, BBC News, Apr 28, 2016

Fri Apr 29

• This massive seagrass die-off is the latest sign we’re failing to protect the Everglades by Chris Mooney, Energy & Environment, Washington Post, Apr 27, 2016
• Stanford scientists find Amazon rain forest responds quickly to extreme climate events by Ker Than, Stanford News, Apr 28, 2016
• Great Barrier Reef bleaching would be almost impossible without climate change by Andrew King, David Karolay, Mitchell Black, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg & Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, The Conversation US, Apr 28, 2016
• Greenland ice sheet melting has started early by Peter Hannam, Sydney Morning Herald, Apr 29, 2016
• New evidence shows conservatives are warming up to climate change by John Sutter, two^o, CNN, Apr 29, 2016
• Deadly heat wave is shattering all-time records in Southeast Asia and India by Tyler Essary & Andrew Freedman, Mashable, Apr 29, 2016

Sat Apr 30

• What we’re getting wrong in the carbon tax debate by Clayton Aldern, Grist, Apr 29, 2016
• France goes it alone on carbon price floor by Megan Darby, Climate Home, Apr 26, 2016
• Trump’s foreign policy plan has one giant, baffling hole by Melissa Cronin, Grist, Apr 28, 2016
• 'Perilous': Bureau of Meteorology boss Rob Vertessy exits with climate warning by Peter Hannam, Sydney Morning Herald, Apr 30, 2016
• Brazil losing forest the size of two football fields per minute by Chris Arsenault, Thomson Reuters Foundation, Apr 29, 2016
• A Crusader in the Coal Mine, Taking On President Obama by Jad Mouawad, Energy & Environment, New York Times, Apr 30, 2016

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/1O3qMOF

A chronological listing of the news articles posted on the Skeptical Science Facebook page during the past week.

Sun Apr 24

• Mourning Loomis Reef - the heart of the Great Barrier Reef's coral bleaching disaster by Graham Readfearn, Planet Oz, Guardian, Apr 21, 2016
• "Global Elite's Theater": Paris Deal Is Mere Starting Point for Climate Justice by Deirdre Fulton, Common Dreams, Apr 22, 2016
• Why Even President Trump Won’t Kill The Climate Deal by Casey Williams, Huffington Post, Apr 23, 2016
• New Maps Chart Greenland Glaciers' Melting Risk, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Apr 21, 2016
• Lessons From Underwater Miami, Op-ed by Peter Brannen, Sunday Review, New York Times, Apr 23, 2016
• Carbon Pricing Becomes a Cause for the World Bank and I.M.F. by Coral Davenport, New York Times, Apr 23, 2016
• Tribes have up close perspective on climate change, Op-ed by Fawn Sharp, Seattle Times, Apr 22, 2016
• Climate Change Is Fueling Violence, and Women Bear the Brunt by Daniel Oberhaus, Motherboard, Apr 22, 2016

Mon Apr 25

• Is divesting from fossil fuels the best tactic for tackling climate change? by Suzanne McGee, Guardian, Apr 24, 2016
• World heading for catastrophe over natural disasters, risk expert warns by Sam Jones, Guardian, Apr 24, 2016
• Indigenous leaders seek forest protection role in global climate fight by Nádia Pontes, Thomson Reuters Foundation, Apr 24, 2016
• Heat wave sweeping Southeast Asia hits Myanmar, mizzima, Apr 22, 2016
• Clinton snubs Koch endorsement over climate change denial by Megan Darby, Climate Home, Apr 24, 2016
• We’re Easily Confused About What Experts Really Think, New Research Shows by Carol Linnit, DeSmog Canada, Apr 25, 2016
• UK envoy: Carbon pricing ‘too sluggish’ to meet climate goals by Megan Darby, Climate Home, Apr 25, 2016
• David Attenborough says the Great Barrier Reef is in ‘grave danger’ – it’s time to step up by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg & Tyrone Ridgway, The Convesation US, Apr 24, 2016
• Billionaire green donor launches U.S. millennial voter drive by Valerie Volcovici, Reuters, Apr 25, 2016

Tue Apr 26

• A global coalition mapping and motivating decarbonization by Joseph Robertson, Climate Consensus - the 97%, Guardian, Apr 25, 2016
• The Arctic is melting – and scientists just lost a key tool to observe it by Chelsea Harvey, Energy & Environment, Washington Post, Apr 25, 2016
• New York signing marks a new age in climate cooperation by Emmanuel De Guzman, Climate Home, Apr 25, 2016
• This is an incredible visualization of the world's shipping routes by Brad Plumer, Energy & Environment, Vox, Apr 25, 2016
• Following Temperature Record Announcements, Oil Industry Ads Outpaced Climate-Related Coverage By Almost 5-To-1 by Kevin Kalhoefer, Media Matters, Apr 25, 2016
• Mapped: The climate change conversation on Twitter by John Swain, Right Relevance/Carbon Brief, Apr 26, 2016
• There is no doubt”: Exxon Knew CO2 Pollution Was A Global Threat By Late 1970s by Brendan DeMelle & Kevin Grandia, DeSmog, Apr 26, 2016
• The political hurdles facing a carbon tax — and how to overcome them by David Roberts, Energy & Environment, Vox, Apr 26, 2016

Wed Apr 27

• CO2 fertilization greening the Earth, Phys.org, Apr 25, 2016
• Lawmakers Take Note - Business Community Eager to Tackle Climate Change, Op-ed by Mindy Lubber, Forbes, Apr 26, 2016
• Abandon hype in climate models by Tim Kruger, Oliver Geden & Steve Rayner. Guardian, Apr 26, 2016
• Carbon copy: Are we (Australians) in for another scare campaign over climate change? by Peter Hannam, Sydney Morning Herald, Apr 27, 2016
• Japanese Monks Recorded the Climate for 700 Years by Michelle Nijhuis, National Geographic, Apr 26, 2016
• This Could Be One of the Greatest Hurdles for Cutting Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the US by John Dyer, Tipping Point, Vice News, Apr 26, 2016
• Many More Republicans Now Believe in Climate Change by Evan Lehmann, ClimateWire/Scientific American, Apr 27, 2016
• Labor’s climate policy: back in the game but missing detail by Lynette Molyneaux, John Foster & Karen Hussey, The Conversation US, Apr 27, 2016
• Activists Step Up Long-Running Campaign to Hold Oil Industry Accountable for Climate Damages by Phil McKenna, InsideClimate News, Apr 27, 2016

Thu Apr 28

• Carbon Fee Debate Goes Mainstream in Washington State by John Upton, Climate Central, Apr 26, 2016
• Warren Buffett Faces Pressure to Invest for the Climate, Not Just for Profit by Nicholas Kusnetz, InsideClimate News, Apr 26, 2016
• Climate scientists are now grading climate journalism by Daniel Nethery and Emmanuel Vincent, Climate Consensus - the 97%, The Guardian, Apr 26, 2016
• It May Soon Be Too Late to Save the Seas by Jeff Nesbit, Climate Nexus/US News & World Report, Apr 27, 2016
• Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem? by Dana Nuccitelli, Climate Consensus - the 97%, The Guardian, Apr 28, 2016
• How Climate Deniers Try to Sow Confusion by Jeffrey Kluger, Ideas, Time, Apr 28, 2016
• Identity 2016: 'Global citizenship' rising, poll suggests by Naomi Grimley, BBC News, Apr 28, 2016

Fri Apr 29

• This massive seagrass die-off is the latest sign we’re failing to protect the Everglades by Chris Mooney, Energy & Environment, Washington Post, Apr 27, 2016
• Stanford scientists find Amazon rain forest responds quickly to extreme climate events by Ker Than, Stanford News, Apr 28, 2016
• Great Barrier Reef bleaching would be almost impossible without climate change by Andrew King, David Karolay, Mitchell Black, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg & Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, The Conversation US, Apr 28, 2016
• Greenland ice sheet melting has started early by Peter Hannam, Sydney Morning Herald, Apr 29, 2016
• New evidence shows conservatives are warming up to climate change by John Sutter, two^o, CNN, Apr 29, 2016
• Deadly heat wave is shattering all-time records in Southeast Asia and India by Tyler Essary & Andrew Freedman, Mashable, Apr 29, 2016

Sat Apr 30

• What we’re getting wrong in the carbon tax debate by Clayton Aldern, Grist, Apr 29, 2016
• France goes it alone on carbon price floor by Megan Darby, Climate Home, Apr 26, 2016
• Trump’s foreign policy plan has one giant, baffling hole by Melissa Cronin, Grist, Apr 28, 2016
• 'Perilous': Bureau of Meteorology boss Rob Vertessy exits with climate warning by Peter Hannam, Sydney Morning Herald, Apr 30, 2016
• Brazil losing forest the size of two football fields per minute by Chris Arsenault, Thomson Reuters Foundation, Apr 29, 2016
• A Crusader in the Coal Mine, Taking On President Obama by Jad Mouawad, Energy & Environment, New York Times, Apr 30, 2016

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/1O3qMOF

Late April sun pillar

View larger. | Photo credit; Jesse Jackson

Jesse Jackson shared his photo with us. Jesse wrote:

Talk about a ray of sunshine. I was near Sentinel Peak [southwest of Tucson, Arizona] when the sun was about to set, and decided to take a brief detour before the end of my day. It was a cloudy evening but the horizon was clear, so I knew it had to be promising. I took the chance, and I was fortunate to have a rare sighting of a sun pillar!

Sun pillars, or light pillars, are shafts of light extending from the sun or other bright light source. They’re caused by ice crystals drifting in Earth’s air. More info (and pics!) here.

Here’s another April 2016 sun pillar. This one was taken in southwest England by Jacquie Russell.

Photo credit: Jacquie Russell

Enjoying EarthSky? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1r51ivg

View larger. | Photo credit; Jesse Jackson

Jesse Jackson shared his photo with us. Jesse wrote:

Talk about a ray of sunshine. I was near Sentinel Peak [southwest of Tucson, Arizona] when the sun was about to set, and decided to take a brief detour before the end of my day. It was a cloudy evening but the horizon was clear, so I knew it had to be promising. I took the chance, and I was fortunate to have a rare sighting of a sun pillar!

Sun pillars, or light pillars, are shafts of light extending from the sun or other bright light source. They’re caused by ice crystals drifting in Earth’s air. More info (and pics!) here.

Here’s another April 2016 sun pillar. This one was taken in southwest England by Jacquie Russell.

Photo credit: Jacquie Russell

Enjoying EarthSky? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1r51ivg

News digest – e-cigarettes, Chernobyl, ‘moonshots’ and… canned food?

• The big news this week was the Royal College of Physicians’ report, which concluded that smokers would be better off switching to e-cigarettes as a safer source of nicotine. The BBC, Guardian and Wired were among the many media outlets to cover this, and we blogged about the potential e-cigarettes have as part of the solution to tobacco-related harm.
• This week marked 30 years since the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. We blogged about what’s been learnt since, to try to put radiation risks into perspective.
• A new over-the-counter cancer gene test launched in the US this week. Wired took a closer look, concluding that just because you can test for a gene fault doesn’t mean it will tell you much. We’ve also blogged about a similar type of test available in the UK.
• Measuring the levels and changes in a molecule in the blood could help indicate whether breast cancer has come back or spread, reports the Express. But, as the researchers point out, larger studies will be needed before this could be developed into any kind of routine test (and it certainly can’t be ‘done at home’).
• Profiling a person’s gut bacteria could identify those at risk of blood infections after chemotherapy, write two scientists for the BioMed Central blog. But as they make clear, larger studies in more types of cancer will be needed to pin down how reliable the link is.

Number of the week

30

The number of years since the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Find out more in this blog post.

• With the recent US launch of several high-profile (and high-value) efforts to tackle cancer – aka ‘moonshots’ – Nature asked whether the money is going to be spent efficiently.
• Scientists at Hong Kong University have engineered a non-infectious form of salmonella bacteria that can deliver cancer drugs to tumours in mice, reports International Business Times.
• This thought-provoking Huffington Post article questioned the language used when talking and writing about cancer, something we’ve discussed here.
• The Express reported on a study linking irregular periods and an increased risk of ovarian cancer. But while it’s known that other hormonal factors (such as HRT and the Pill) can influence a woman’s risk, it’s still not clear from this study exactly what role irregular periods might play – more research will be needed to find out.
• Can manipulating electric currents inside cells stop them developing into cancer? US researchers engineered frog embryos so that they could fiddle with the electrical signals inside their cells by shining a flashing blue light at them. Those that carried a cancer-causing gene were prevented from developing into cancer. It’s really early-stage but fascinating research – Reuters has the details.

And finally

• The Telegraph asked ‘Does canned food cause cancer?’, in a report focusing on a chemical  found in some food packaging called Bisphenol A (BPA). But in short, the answer is no – there’s no good evidence that BPA increases cancer risk in humans.

Nick

from Cancer Research UK - Science blog http://ift.tt/1O2uUyu

• The big news this week was the Royal College of Physicians’ report, which concluded that smokers would be better off switching to e-cigarettes as a safer source of nicotine. The BBC, Guardian and Wired were among the many media outlets to cover this, and we blogged about the potential e-cigarettes have as part of the solution to tobacco-related harm.
• This week marked 30 years since the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. We blogged about what’s been learnt since, to try to put radiation risks into perspective.
• A new over-the-counter cancer gene test launched in the US this week. Wired took a closer look, concluding that just because you can test for a gene fault doesn’t mean it will tell you much. We’ve also blogged about a similar type of test available in the UK.
• Measuring the levels and changes in a molecule in the blood could help indicate whether breast cancer has come back or spread, reports the Express. But, as the researchers point out, larger studies will be needed before this could be developed into any kind of routine test (and it certainly can’t be ‘done at home’).
• Profiling a person’s gut bacteria could identify those at risk of blood infections after chemotherapy, write two scientists for the BioMed Central blog. But as they make clear, larger studies in more types of cancer will be needed to pin down how reliable the link is.

Number of the week

30

The number of years since the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Find out more in this blog post.

• With the recent US launch of several high-profile (and high-value) efforts to tackle cancer – aka ‘moonshots’ – Nature asked whether the money is going to be spent efficiently.
• Scientists at Hong Kong University have engineered a non-infectious form of salmonella bacteria that can deliver cancer drugs to tumours in mice, reports International Business Times.
• This thought-provoking Huffington Post article questioned the language used when talking and writing about cancer, something we’ve discussed here.
• The Express reported on a study linking irregular periods and an increased risk of ovarian cancer. But while it’s known that other hormonal factors (such as HRT and the Pill) can influence a woman’s risk, it’s still not clear from this study exactly what role irregular periods might play – more research will be needed to find out.
• Can manipulating electric currents inside cells stop them developing into cancer? US researchers engineered frog embryos so that they could fiddle with the electrical signals inside their cells by shining a flashing blue light at them. Those that carried a cancer-causing gene were prevented from developing into cancer. It’s really early-stage but fascinating research – Reuters has the details.

And finally

• The Telegraph asked ‘Does canned food cause cancer?’, in a report focusing on a chemical  found in some food packaging called Bisphenol A (BPA). But in short, the answer is no – there’s no good evidence that BPA increases cancer risk in humans.

Nick

from Cancer Research UK - Science blog http://ift.tt/1O2uUyu

Shareholders push DuPont on worker safety, not $130 billion merger [The Pump Handle]

There was an amazing scene this week at the annual meeting of DuPont shareholders. The reporting by Jeff Mordock of the The News-Journal made me feel like I was in the room witnessing it for myself.

Mordock writes:

“DuPont Co.’s safety record – not its upcoming $130 billion merger with The Dow Chemical Co. – was the focus of shareholder’s ire at the company’s annual meeting in New York City Wednesday. Not one shareholder asked DuPont CEO Ed Breen a question about the merger…Instead, shareholders grilled Breen about recent deaths at DuPont plants, including that of four workers killed at its LaPorte, Texas, facility in November 2014.”

The shareholders included Roy Reed an employee at that DuPont LaPorte plant. He held photos of Wade Baker, 60, Manuel Tisnado, 48, Robert Tisnado, 39, and Crystle Wise, 53 who were the victims of the company’s defective safety program.  Reed is also president of Local 900 of the International Chemical Workers Union Council (ICWUC) in LaPorte, TX.

Ken Henley, an attorney representing the International Brotherhood of DuPont Workers (IBDW) also addressed the DuPont CEO and board of directors. Mordock reports what Henley told the Board about its distorted priorities:

“The [Board’s] safety committee met a grand total of two times in 2015. In contrast, the [Board’s] compensation program met 11 times.”

At least two shareholder groups had more than just talk planned for the meeting. The IBDW introduced a resolution to create an employee advisory position. The person’s role would be bringing safety concerns directly to the DuPont board of directors. The United Steelworkers had a more modest proposal. They wanted the board to report back to shareholders at the next annual meeting on specific steps taken by the company to address safety hazards at its facilities.  Both proposals were defeated.

John Morawetz with the ICWUC  told Mordock why he was at the shareholders’ meeting. Mordock writes:

“… to represent those who couldn’t be here,’ a reference to the four deceased. LaPorte workers. He said he was not surprised the proposals were defeated, but hoped the company would revisit the ideas at a later date.”

Roy Reed, John Morawetz, and the others representing DuPont workers were participating in company’s shareholder meeting at the most opportune time. Across the globe and in cities throughout the U.S., workers, labor unions, health professionals, and safety advocates were commemorating Worker Memorial Day. More than a hundred events that took place this week in the US are listed here and at least another hundred are listed here.  The DuPont shareholder’s meeting was every bit a Worker Memorial Day event.

 

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1pQyTIv

There was an amazing scene this week at the annual meeting of DuPont shareholders. The reporting by Jeff Mordock of the The News-Journal made me feel like I was in the room witnessing it for myself.

Mordock writes:

“DuPont Co.’s safety record – not its upcoming $130 billion merger with The Dow Chemical Co. – was the focus of shareholder’s ire at the company’s annual meeting in New York City Wednesday. Not one shareholder asked DuPont CEO Ed Breen a question about the merger…Instead, shareholders grilled Breen about recent deaths at DuPont plants, including that of four workers killed at its LaPorte, Texas, facility in November 2014.”

The shareholders included Roy Reed an employee at that DuPont LaPorte plant. He held photos of Wade Baker, 60, Manuel Tisnado, 48, Robert Tisnado, 39, and Crystle Wise, 53 who were the victims of the company’s defective safety program.  Reed is also president of Local 900 of the International Chemical Workers Union Council (ICWUC) in LaPorte, TX.

Ken Henley, an attorney representing the International Brotherhood of DuPont Workers (IBDW) also addressed the DuPont CEO and board of directors. Mordock reports what Henley told the Board about its distorted priorities:

“The [Board’s] safety committee met a grand total of two times in 2015. In contrast, the [Board’s] compensation program met 11 times.”

At least two shareholder groups had more than just talk planned for the meeting. The IBDW introduced a resolution to create an employee advisory position. The person’s role would be bringing safety concerns directly to the DuPont board of directors. The United Steelworkers had a more modest proposal. They wanted the board to report back to shareholders at the next annual meeting on specific steps taken by the company to address safety hazards at its facilities.  Both proposals were defeated.

John Morawetz with the ICWUC  told Mordock why he was at the shareholders’ meeting. Mordock writes:

“… to represent those who couldn’t be here,’ a reference to the four deceased. LaPorte workers. He said he was not surprised the proposals were defeated, but hoped the company would revisit the ideas at a later date.”

Roy Reed, John Morawetz, and the others representing DuPont workers were participating in company’s shareholder meeting at the most opportune time. Across the globe and in cities throughout the U.S., workers, labor unions, health professionals, and safety advocates were commemorating Worker Memorial Day. More than a hundred events that took place this week in the US are listed here and at least another hundred are listed here.  The DuPont shareholder’s meeting was every bit a Worker Memorial Day event.

 

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1pQyTIv

Should Teens Be Allowed to Buy E-Cigarettes?

Featured Media Resource [VIDEO]: “Are Electronic Cigarettes Safe?” (BBC News)
As e-cigarettes and vaping grow in popularity among teens, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to regulate their distribution. Researchers are still determining the health risks associated with the popular product. In Read More …

Source:: DoNow Science

from QUEST http://ift.tt/24b2KOJ

Featured Media Resource [VIDEO]: “Are Electronic Cigarettes Safe?” (BBC News)
As e-cigarettes and vaping grow in popularity among teens, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to regulate their distribution. Researchers are still determining the health risks associated with the popular product. In Read More …

Source:: DoNow Science

from QUEST http://ift.tt/24b2KOJ

This Week in EPA Science

By Kacey Fitzpatrick

Today is Arbor Day—a day to plant, care for, and celebrate trees! Don’t have a shovel handy? Well you can still read about the latest in EPA science to get your environmental fix.

Visualize Your Water Challenge
The winners of the Visualize Your Water challenge were announced last week! High school students were challenged to use open government data sources to create compelling, innovative, and comprehensible visualizations that inform individuals and communities about nutrient pollution. Read about it all straight from the teachers of the winning students in the blog Recognizing Winners of EPA’s Visualize Your Water Challenge.

Doing it for the Kids: Engaging Students on Energy and Climate Change
Got a minute to listen to EPA’s latest Science Bite podcast? EPA scientist Dr. Rebecca Dodder describes her research on climate change and why engaging students on energy issues is important to her. Listen to the Science Bite podcasts.

New Way to Track Everyday Exposure
EPA scientists are excited about the flurry of research under way using silicone wristbands for monitoring everyday exposures to chemicals. This research could complement EPA’s ongoing effort to develop computer models that generate high-throughput exposure predictions for thousands of chemicals. Read more about this wristband research in the article A Simple Way to Track Your Everyday Exposure to Chemicals.

Don’t Flush! Why Your Drug Disposal Method Matters
April 30^th is National Drug Take-Back Day. What do you usually do with your unwanted or expired pharmaceuticals? If you flush them down the toilet or throw them in the trash, they can end up in our coastal ecosystems and negatively impact aquatic animals. Read more about what happens and how you can safely discard your pharmaceuticals in the blog Don’t Flush! Why Your Drug Disposal Method Matters.

Next Week is Air Quality Awareness Week!
EPA will be hosting a Twitter Chat with CDC on air quality issues on May 5^th, from 1-2 p.m. ET. This chat will talk about topics like the impacts of air pollution on human health and how you can use air quality tools to reduce your exposure to pollution. Join the conversation at #AirQualityChat.

About the Author: Kacey Fitzpatrick is a student contractor and writer working with the science communication team in EPA’s Office of Research and Development.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1TayV5d

By Kacey Fitzpatrick

Today is Arbor Day—a day to plant, care for, and celebrate trees! Don’t have a shovel handy? Well you can still read about the latest in EPA science to get your environmental fix.

Visualize Your Water Challenge
The winners of the Visualize Your Water challenge were announced last week! High school students were challenged to use open government data sources to create compelling, innovative, and comprehensible visualizations that inform individuals and communities about nutrient pollution. Read about it all straight from the teachers of the winning students in the blog Recognizing Winners of EPA’s Visualize Your Water Challenge.

Doing it for the Kids: Engaging Students on Energy and Climate Change
Got a minute to listen to EPA’s latest Science Bite podcast? EPA scientist Dr. Rebecca Dodder describes her research on climate change and why engaging students on energy issues is important to her. Listen to the Science Bite podcasts.

New Way to Track Everyday Exposure
EPA scientists are excited about the flurry of research under way using silicone wristbands for monitoring everyday exposures to chemicals. This research could complement EPA’s ongoing effort to develop computer models that generate high-throughput exposure predictions for thousands of chemicals. Read more about this wristband research in the article A Simple Way to Track Your Everyday Exposure to Chemicals.

Don’t Flush! Why Your Drug Disposal Method Matters
April 30^th is National Drug Take-Back Day. What do you usually do with your unwanted or expired pharmaceuticals? If you flush them down the toilet or throw them in the trash, they can end up in our coastal ecosystems and negatively impact aquatic animals. Read more about what happens and how you can safely discard your pharmaceuticals in the blog Don’t Flush! Why Your Drug Disposal Method Matters.

Next Week is Air Quality Awareness Week!
EPA will be hosting a Twitter Chat with CDC on air quality issues on May 5^th, from 1-2 p.m. ET. This chat will talk about topics like the impacts of air pollution on human health and how you can use air quality tools to reduce your exposure to pollution. Join the conversation at #AirQualityChat.

About the Author: Kacey Fitzpatrick is a student contractor and writer working with the science communication team in EPA’s Office of Research and Development.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1TayV5d

Who’s to blame for Sci-Hub? Librarians, of course! [Confessions of a Science Librarian]

And by blame, I mean “blame.”

Yesterday the flagship journal of the AAAS, Science, published a series of feature and editorial articles on Sci-Hub, the unauthorized article sharing site.

• Who’s downloading pirated papers? Everyone
• The frustrated science student behind Sci-Hub
• My love-hate of Sci-Hub
• It’s a Sci-Hub world data set

Overall, the articles are pretty good descriptions of the Sci-Hub phenomenon and relatively even-handed, especially coming from one of the big society publishers like AAAS.

There was one bit in the main article, Who’s downloading pirated papers? Everyone, that really stuck in my craw. Basically, Sci-Hub — and all that article piracy — is librarians’ fault.

And for all the researchers at Western universities who use Sci-Hub instead, the anonymous publisher lays the blame on librarians for not making their online systems easier to use and educating their researchers. “I don’t think the issue is access—it’s the perception that access is difficult,” he says.

Fortunately it was countered, in the true “give both sides of the story” style of mainstream journalism, by another quote, this time from a librarian.

“I don’t agree,” says Ivy Anderson, the director of collections for the California Digital Library in Oakland, which provides journal access to the 240,000 researchers of the University of California system. The authentication systems that university researchers must use to read subscription journals from off campus, and even sometimes on campus with personal computers, “are there to enforce publisher restrictions,” she says.

But of course, I couldn’t let it go. Anderson’s response is perfectly fine but somehow there just wasn’t enough rage and exasperation in it. So I stewed about it over night and tweeted up a tweetstorm of rage this morning, with the idea that if the rant was well-received I would capture the text as part of a blog post.

For what it’s worth, the tweets did go viral, or at least “viral” in the sense that anything in the library/scholarly communications world can go viral. At last check, there were several hundred Twitter notifications generated by the tweets and Twitter Analytics tells me that my day’s tweeting has generated well over 100,000 impressions.

So, here it is, cleaned up a bit for readability.

Twitter rant on Sci-Hub article “Who’s downloading pirated papers? Everyone” in recent @sciencemagazine initiating in 3…2…1…

Do you want to know who’s my Worst Person in the World right now? (OK, not really worst person in the world, that would be Donald Trump, but schol comm/libraries microcosm worst person)?

It’s the Anonymous Publisher quoted in this Science article by John Bohannon: Who’s downloading pirated papers? Everyone.

The problem? They basically blame the Sci-Hub debacle (or at least debacle from the publishers’ perspective) on librarians. Yes, librarians are causing massive piracy of paywalled articles.

Let me quote:

And for all the researchers at Western universities who use Sci-Hub instead, the anonymous publisher lays the blame on librarians for not making their online systems easier to use and educating their researchers “I don’t think the issue is access—it’s the perception that access is difficult,” he says.

What an Anonymous Coward. If you’re going to piss all over the people who sign the checks that keep your business running, you should at least have the guts to sign your name and take some responsibility.

Are our systems difficult? Aren’t you publishers the ones that “break” the hyperlink ethos of the web by creating the paywalls in the first place? And aren’t you the ones who have a different interface created by each company that people have to learn?

Google and Google Scholars are the tools most scholars use to find papers and they bypass searching systems. What those researchers are finding hard to deal with is YOUR set of barriers and Tower of Babel systems across publishers. We’re trying to make it better, you’re trying to make it worse because that’s how you make your money.

As for educating our researchers — we do, or at least we try to. You try explaining to a young researcher how the one thing that doesn’t work like the rest of the web is finding journals. Proxy servers, VPNs, Interlibrary Loans systems, content aggregators, library discovery systems, one hack or barrier after another imposed by YOU.

No wonder they use Sci-Hub, which does work like the rest of the web.

And let’s talk about, “it’s the perception that access is difficult.” No, the perception isn’t that access is difficult, it’s the reality that the friction your exploitative business model imposes on the scientific enterprise is what makes access more difficult than it should be.

Do librarians share some of the blame for the mess that is scholarly communications? Of course we do. All the stakeholder groups share some of the blame. But targeting librarians, easily the least powerful stakeholder group, as the main cause of piracy is the pinnacle of hubris and a classic blame-deflection strategy.

“Look, it’s the fault of the people least able to defend themselves or actually effect change!”

Bullshit.

Dear Anonymous Coward, please reveal yourself so we can discuss when academia put librarians in charge.

By the way, my more complete thoughts on Sci-Hub and a list of links here: The Sci-Hub story so far: Main event or sideshow?

Unhinged rant ended.

I would like to re-iterate that my beef here isn’t so much with the set of articles in Science as a whole, but rather with the Anonymous Publisher themselves. While the Anonymous Publisher is perhaps not representative of anything or anyone other than themselves, the spirit of their remarks has certainly struck a chord with librarians and scholars and seems to be at least somewhat indicative of how librarians see their relationships with publishers.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/24asL0r

And by blame, I mean “blame.”

Yesterday the flagship journal of the AAAS, Science, published a series of feature and editorial articles on Sci-Hub, the unauthorized article sharing site.

• Who’s downloading pirated papers? Everyone
• The frustrated science student behind Sci-Hub
• My love-hate of Sci-Hub
• It’s a Sci-Hub world data set

Overall, the articles are pretty good descriptions of the Sci-Hub phenomenon and relatively even-handed, especially coming from one of the big society publishers like AAAS.

There was one bit in the main article, Who’s downloading pirated papers? Everyone, that really stuck in my craw. Basically, Sci-Hub — and all that article piracy — is librarians’ fault.

And for all the researchers at Western universities who use Sci-Hub instead, the anonymous publisher lays the blame on librarians for not making their online systems easier to use and educating their researchers. “I don’t think the issue is access—it’s the perception that access is difficult,” he says.

Fortunately it was countered, in the true “give both sides of the story” style of mainstream journalism, by another quote, this time from a librarian.

“I don’t agree,” says Ivy Anderson, the director of collections for the California Digital Library in Oakland, which provides journal access to the 240,000 researchers of the University of California system. The authentication systems that university researchers must use to read subscription journals from off campus, and even sometimes on campus with personal computers, “are there to enforce publisher restrictions,” she says.

But of course, I couldn’t let it go. Anderson’s response is perfectly fine but somehow there just wasn’t enough rage and exasperation in it. So I stewed about it over night and tweeted up a tweetstorm of rage this morning, with the idea that if the rant was well-received I would capture the text as part of a blog post.

For what it’s worth, the tweets did go viral, or at least “viral” in the sense that anything in the library/scholarly communications world can go viral. At last check, there were several hundred Twitter notifications generated by the tweets and Twitter Analytics tells me that my day’s tweeting has generated well over 100,000 impressions.

So, here it is, cleaned up a bit for readability.

Twitter rant on Sci-Hub article “Who’s downloading pirated papers? Everyone” in recent @sciencemagazine initiating in 3…2…1…

Do you want to know who’s my Worst Person in the World right now? (OK, not really worst person in the world, that would be Donald Trump, but schol comm/libraries microcosm worst person)?

It’s the Anonymous Publisher quoted in this Science article by John Bohannon: Who’s downloading pirated papers? Everyone.

The problem? They basically blame the Sci-Hub debacle (or at least debacle from the publishers’ perspective) on librarians. Yes, librarians are causing massive piracy of paywalled articles.

Let me quote:

And for all the researchers at Western universities who use Sci-Hub instead, the anonymous publisher lays the blame on librarians for not making their online systems easier to use and educating their researchers “I don’t think the issue is access—it’s the perception that access is difficult,” he says.

What an Anonymous Coward. If you’re going to piss all over the people who sign the checks that keep your business running, you should at least have the guts to sign your name and take some responsibility.

Are our systems difficult? Aren’t you publishers the ones that “break” the hyperlink ethos of the web by creating the paywalls in the first place? And aren’t you the ones who have a different interface created by each company that people have to learn?

Google and Google Scholars are the tools most scholars use to find papers and they bypass searching systems. What those researchers are finding hard to deal with is YOUR set of barriers and Tower of Babel systems across publishers. We’re trying to make it better, you’re trying to make it worse because that’s how you make your money.

As for educating our researchers — we do, or at least we try to. You try explaining to a young researcher how the one thing that doesn’t work like the rest of the web is finding journals. Proxy servers, VPNs, Interlibrary Loans systems, content aggregators, library discovery systems, one hack or barrier after another imposed by YOU.

No wonder they use Sci-Hub, which does work like the rest of the web.

And let’s talk about, “it’s the perception that access is difficult.” No, the perception isn’t that access is difficult, it’s the reality that the friction your exploitative business model imposes on the scientific enterprise is what makes access more difficult than it should be.

Do librarians share some of the blame for the mess that is scholarly communications? Of course we do. All the stakeholder groups share some of the blame. But targeting librarians, easily the least powerful stakeholder group, as the main cause of piracy is the pinnacle of hubris and a classic blame-deflection strategy.

“Look, it’s the fault of the people least able to defend themselves or actually effect change!”

Bullshit.

Dear Anonymous Coward, please reveal yourself so we can discuss when academia put librarians in charge.

By the way, my more complete thoughts on Sci-Hub and a list of links here: The Sci-Hub story so far: Main event or sideshow?

Unhinged rant ended.

I would like to re-iterate that my beef here isn’t so much with the set of articles in Science as a whole, but rather with the Anonymous Publisher themselves. While the Anonymous Publisher is perhaps not representative of anything or anyone other than themselves, the spirit of their remarks has certainly struck a chord with librarians and scholars and seems to be at least somewhat indicative of how librarians see their relationships with publishers.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/24asL0r

How do we know the age of the Universe? (Synopsis) [Starts With A Bang]

“Nobody grows old merely by living a number of years. We grow old by deserting our ideals. Years may wrinkle the skin, but to give up enthusiasm wrinkles the soul.” -Samuel Ullman

When it comes to the Universe, there are some dead giveaways as to what its age is. Its elemental composition changes, the types of stars that are present evolve, the large-scale structure visible to us morphs, grows and ceases, and the temperature of the cosmic microwave background drops, among many other signs.

Image credit: Suzuki et al. (The Supernova Cosmology Project), accepted for publication, Ap.J., 2011., via http://ift.tt/1iUvdNJ.

Yet when we put them all together, there are only two methods available to measure the age of the Universe: the measurement of its expansion history and the measurement of the age of the oldest stars. The first is by far the more accurate, at 13.81 billion years (plus or minus just 120 million), while the second validates that picture, with a maximum age of 13-to-14 billion years.

Image credit: Joel D. Hartman, Princeton University, via http://ift.tt/26AYHtC.

Go learn the full story, plus how we arrive at that number, over on Forbes today!

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/26AYHtE

“Nobody grows old merely by living a number of years. We grow old by deserting our ideals. Years may wrinkle the skin, but to give up enthusiasm wrinkles the soul.” -Samuel Ullman

When it comes to the Universe, there are some dead giveaways as to what its age is. Its elemental composition changes, the types of stars that are present evolve, the large-scale structure visible to us morphs, grows and ceases, and the temperature of the cosmic microwave background drops, among many other signs.

Image credit: Suzuki et al. (The Supernova Cosmology Project), accepted for publication, Ap.J., 2011., via http://ift.tt/1iUvdNJ.

Yet when we put them all together, there are only two methods available to measure the age of the Universe: the measurement of its expansion history and the measurement of the age of the oldest stars. The first is by far the more accurate, at 13.81 billion years (plus or minus just 120 million), while the second validates that picture, with a maximum age of 13-to-14 billion years.

Image credit: Joel D. Hartman, Princeton University, via http://ift.tt/26AYHtC.

Go learn the full story, plus how we arrive at that number, over on Forbes today!

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/26AYHtE

Climate Or Bust: Sanders and Clinton Should Step Up Now [Greg Laden's Blog]

This is a guest posts by Claire Cohen Cortright.

Claire Cohen Cortright is a mother, climate activist, and biology teacher living in upstate New York. She

is an active member of Citizens Climate Lobby and moderator at Global Warming Fact of the Day.

______________________________________________

It is time, now, for climate activists to get vocal.

As it becomes more clear that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party’s nominee for President, there is increasing talk about the importance of unifying the party. Negotiations are on the horizon … for Vice President and for the Party’s policy platforms.

Now, we must be sure climate change and carbon cutting policy are part of those negotiations.

Consider, for a moment, as Bernie Sanders begins to make demands in exchange for his support, what he will insist upon. What are the key policies will he insist be incorporated into the Democratic Party platform?

His campaign’s latest email provides a likely answer to this question:

“What remains in front of us is a very narrow path to the nomination. In the weeks to come we will be competing in a series of states that are very favorable to us – including California. Just like after March 15 – when we won 8 of the next 9 contests – we are building tremendous momentum going into the convention. That is the reality of where we are right now, and why we are going to fight for every delegate and every vote. It is why I am going to continue to speak to voters in every state about the very important issues facing our country. Our country cannot afford to stop fighting for a $15 minimum wage, to overturn Citizens United, or to get universal health care for every man, woman, and child in America.” (Emphasis mine).

Notice what is missing?

The single most important issue of our day. The single biggest threat to national security.

Climate change.

Climate activists have been insisting that climate change be made the top level priority for all campaigns and all elected officials. It is possible that this activism has failed to varying degrees with respect to both the Sanders and Clinton campaigns. That means it comes down to us to insist that meaningful carbon cuts are at the top of the platform.

Hillary Clinton critics are right. Hillary has wrongly called gas a bridge fuel. She absolutely needs to be pushed to make it her goal, and that of the Democratic Party, to END the use of gas and all other fossil fuels. She has good solid plans to regulate fracking. Those policies will drive up the cost of gas and therefore send price signals that, in the absence of a price on carbon, will drive us toward other sources of energy. But it is essential that we have the stated goal of ending gas. That will set the stage for the essential conversations about how we will replace that gas without turning off the lights and heat. Efficiency, lifestyle changes, renewables, and, yes, nuclear.

Bernie Sanders’ stated policy is allow nuclear plant licenses to lapse. If nuclear plants close now, they are likely to be replaced with gas. He has said that he isn’t closing the plants now, just allowing for them to close by attrition. However, the reality is that nuclear plants are already closing now, before their licenses lapse, because electricity is so cheap that regular maintenance is economically unfeasible. Part of that calculation is lifetime return. If you know you won’t be relicensed in 2025, it is all the more reason not to do 2017’s maintenance and instead close down. And once a nuclear plant is mothballed, it’s done. You can’t just refurbish and turn it back on, like you can with gas and coal. Unfortunately, there is little political will to take on the nuclear issue within the party at this point. Maybe that means we can simply accept Hillary’s approach to leave nuclear alone. Perhaps her political calculation on nuclear was simply on target.

Perhaps the one thing all climate activists can agree to demand in these negotiations is a carbon tax. Hillary Clinton has had, for many months, a vague, buried reference to carbon markets in her policy platform.* People have made little mention of it, simply saying she doesn’t support carbon taxes. Why not highlight that she seems to support carbon pricing, insist that she become more vocal about it, and push her to explain why she is supporting cap and trade over taxes? As that conversation unfolds, she will be forced to address the distinctions, and, at the same time, the electorate will become more knowledgeable about carbon pricing. At the end of the day, the party platform may end up with a clear carbon price plan.

Whatever climate policies end up in the Democratic Party Platform, it is clear that climate activists must put aside the horse race between Clinton and Sanders and remember that neither of them go far enough. Neither is prepared to get to zero emissions by 2050. Neither sees climate as the single most important issue to address.

It is time for climate voters and climate activists to demand that the Democratic Party serve up more than fiery rhetoric from Sanders and more than visionless bridge fuels from Clinton.

It is time to demand the best from each of them and ensure they don’t simply offer up their worst on climate.

______________________________________________

*Here is her vague buried reference to clean energy markets:

“Clean Power Markets: Build on the momentum created by the Clean Power Plan, which sets the first national limits on carbon pollution from the energy sector, and regional emissions trading schemes in Canada, Mexico, and the United States to drive low carbon power generation across the continent, modernize our interconnected electrical grid, and ensure that national carbon policies take advantage of integrated markets.” source

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1Ta7Y1w

This is a guest posts by Claire Cohen Cortright.

Claire Cohen Cortright is a mother, climate activist, and biology teacher living in upstate New York. She

is an active member of Citizens Climate Lobby and moderator at Global Warming Fact of the Day.

______________________________________________

It is time, now, for climate activists to get vocal.

As it becomes more clear that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party’s nominee for President, there is increasing talk about the importance of unifying the party. Negotiations are on the horizon … for Vice President and for the Party’s policy platforms.

Now, we must be sure climate change and carbon cutting policy are part of those negotiations.

Consider, for a moment, as Bernie Sanders begins to make demands in exchange for his support, what he will insist upon. What are the key policies will he insist be incorporated into the Democratic Party platform?

His campaign’s latest email provides a likely answer to this question:

“What remains in front of us is a very narrow path to the nomination. In the weeks to come we will be competing in a series of states that are very favorable to us – including California. Just like after March 15 – when we won 8 of the next 9 contests – we are building tremendous momentum going into the convention. That is the reality of where we are right now, and why we are going to fight for every delegate and every vote. It is why I am going to continue to speak to voters in every state about the very important issues facing our country. Our country cannot afford to stop fighting for a $15 minimum wage, to overturn Citizens United, or to get universal health care for every man, woman, and child in America.” (Emphasis mine).

Notice what is missing?

The single most important issue of our day. The single biggest threat to national security.

Climate change.

Climate activists have been insisting that climate change be made the top level priority for all campaigns and all elected officials. It is possible that this activism has failed to varying degrees with respect to both the Sanders and Clinton campaigns. That means it comes down to us to insist that meaningful carbon cuts are at the top of the platform.

Hillary Clinton critics are right. Hillary has wrongly called gas a bridge fuel. She absolutely needs to be pushed to make it her goal, and that of the Democratic Party, to END the use of gas and all other fossil fuels. She has good solid plans to regulate fracking. Those policies will drive up the cost of gas and therefore send price signals that, in the absence of a price on carbon, will drive us toward other sources of energy. But it is essential that we have the stated goal of ending gas. That will set the stage for the essential conversations about how we will replace that gas without turning off the lights and heat. Efficiency, lifestyle changes, renewables, and, yes, nuclear.

Bernie Sanders’ stated policy is allow nuclear plant licenses to lapse. If nuclear plants close now, they are likely to be replaced with gas. He has said that he isn’t closing the plants now, just allowing for them to close by attrition. However, the reality is that nuclear plants are already closing now, before their licenses lapse, because electricity is so cheap that regular maintenance is economically unfeasible. Part of that calculation is lifetime return. If you know you won’t be relicensed in 2025, it is all the more reason not to do 2017’s maintenance and instead close down. And once a nuclear plant is mothballed, it’s done. You can’t just refurbish and turn it back on, like you can with gas and coal. Unfortunately, there is little political will to take on the nuclear issue within the party at this point. Maybe that means we can simply accept Hillary’s approach to leave nuclear alone. Perhaps her political calculation on nuclear was simply on target.

Perhaps the one thing all climate activists can agree to demand in these negotiations is a carbon tax. Hillary Clinton has had, for many months, a vague, buried reference to carbon markets in her policy platform.* People have made little mention of it, simply saying she doesn’t support carbon taxes. Why not highlight that she seems to support carbon pricing, insist that she become more vocal about it, and push her to explain why she is supporting cap and trade over taxes? As that conversation unfolds, she will be forced to address the distinctions, and, at the same time, the electorate will become more knowledgeable about carbon pricing. At the end of the day, the party platform may end up with a clear carbon price plan.

Whatever climate policies end up in the Democratic Party Platform, it is clear that climate activists must put aside the horse race between Clinton and Sanders and remember that neither of them go far enough. Neither is prepared to get to zero emissions by 2050. Neither sees climate as the single most important issue to address.

It is time for climate voters and climate activists to demand that the Democratic Party serve up more than fiery rhetoric from Sanders and more than visionless bridge fuels from Clinton.

It is time to demand the best from each of them and ensure they don’t simply offer up their worst on climate.

______________________________________________

*Here is her vague buried reference to clean energy markets:

“Clean Power Markets: Build on the momentum created by the Clean Power Plan, which sets the first national limits on carbon pollution from the energy sector, and regional emissions trading schemes in Canada, Mexico, and the United States to drive low carbon power generation across the continent, modernize our interconnected electrical grid, and ensure that national carbon policies take advantage of integrated markets.” source

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1Ta7Y1w

Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem?

There’s a widespread misconception about science denial – that on issues like the safety vaccines and genetically modified foods (GMOs), denial is found predominantly on the political left, mirroring the denial of evolution and climate science on the political right. This assumption has even been presented on The Daily Show, but it’s supported by precious little evidence. In fact, as Chris Mooney documented in great detail in 2014:

[The data] do not support the idea that vaccine denial is a special left-wing cause. As for GMOs, while resistance may be strongest on the far left, worries on this issue are quite prominent across the spectrum as well.

In neither case are these beliefs a mirror image, on the left, of climate change or evolution denial [on the political right].

New polling further debunks the science denial symmetry myth

A new YouGov poll provided yet more data, asking, “Do you think it is generally safe or unsafe to eat genetically modified foods?”. There was little difference in answers across political affiliations – Democrats and Republicans were evenly split on the question of safe/unsafe, and Independents were more likely to consider GMOs unsafe. Gender and family income best predicted the answers, with men and higher-income individuals more likely to consider GMOs safe.

Those surveyed were also asked if the science supporting the safety of childhood vaccination is indisputable. In this case, Democrats were the most likely to answer yes (68%) rather than no (21%), followed by Independents (53% to 33%), with Republicans expressing the least confidence in the science supporting vaccine safety (47% yes, 42% no). Contrary to The Daily Show clip, these data show that vaccine science denial is more prevalent among conservatives than liberals.

A 2013 paper by Stephan Lewandowsky and colleagues investigated the links between ideology and science denial. The study similarly found no evidence of symmetrical science denial between liberals and conservatives on different issues. The authors concluded that conspiratorial thinking and free market support - both prevalent on the political right - were most strongly related to science denial:

Free-market worldviews are an important predictor of the rejection of scientific findings that have potential regulatory implications, such as climate science, but not necessarily of other scientific issues. Conspiracist ideation, by contrast, is associated with the rejection of all scientific propositions tested.

The study found that libertarian objections to government intrusion arising from mandatory vaccination programs explained the prevalence of anti-vaccine views among conservatives. They also found that those on the liberal side of the spectrum are more likely to distrust the pharmaceutical industry, and thus also oppose vaccinations, but as borne out by the YouGov poll data, this appears to be a smaller effect. On GMOs, the Lewandowsky study found no link between trust in science and ideology, again, consistent with the latest polling data.

Conservative trust in science has steadily declined

The YouGov poll also asked respondents “Generally speaking, how much trust do you have that what scientists say is accurate and reliable?”. There was little difference between various ethnicities, ages, geographical regions, or genders. However, Democrats were far more likely to trust scientists than Republicans, with Independents falling in the middle, but closer to Republicans.

These results are consistent with a 2012 paper by Gordon Gauchat, which found:

public trust in science has not declined since the 1970s except among conservatives and those who frequently attend church.

Public trust in science broken down by ideology. Illustration: Gauchat (2012), American Sociological Review.

This rising distrust of science is particularly high among higher-educated conservatives, in what’s been coined the “smart idiot” effect. Essentially, on complicated scientific subjects like climate change, more highly-educated ideologically-biased individuals possess more tools to fool themselves into denying the science and rejecting the conclusions of experts.

Chris Mooney has attributed these trends to the growth of the ‘religious right’ and other changes in the Republican Party:

Clearly, The Republican War on Science’s politicization thesis is being strongly validated—a thesis that attributes the problem to the growth of a modern conservative movement, its need to appease its core interest groups and constituencies (corporate America, conservative Christians), its need to have its own alternative expertise and journalism (think tanks, Fox, Limbaugh), and so on … as the “New Right” emerged in the U.S. in the wake of the cultural battles of the 1960s and 1970s, it mobilized strong forces of authoritarianism–e.g., psychological rigidity and closed-mindedness.

Indeed, authoritarians favor Donald Trump, whose supporters have considerable overlap with climate science denial. Robert Brulle’s research into the ‘dark money’ funding climate denial also helps explain the problem. The Republican Party has become increasingly dependent upon corporate funding and support, which is heavily skewed in the direction of climate denial. The near-total abandonment of party leadership on the climate issue has sent a signal to Republican voters – climate change isn’t a concern, and anyone saying otherwise is part of the hoax.

A glimmer of hope for Republicans

The growth of this anti-science strain of the Republican Party thus seems to stem from multiple sources: increased party reliance on the religious right and corporate interests, and the growth of a right-wing media echo chamber that feeds anti-science conspiratorial thinking.

However, there is good news.

Click here to read the rest

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/1QF8SSh

There’s a widespread misconception about science denial – that on issues like the safety vaccines and genetically modified foods (GMOs), denial is found predominantly on the political left, mirroring the denial of evolution and climate science on the political right. This assumption has even been presented on The Daily Show, but it’s supported by precious little evidence. In fact, as Chris Mooney documented in great detail in 2014:

[The data] do not support the idea that vaccine denial is a special left-wing cause. As for GMOs, while resistance may be strongest on the far left, worries on this issue are quite prominent across the spectrum as well.

In neither case are these beliefs a mirror image, on the left, of climate change or evolution denial [on the political right].

New polling further debunks the science denial symmetry myth

A new YouGov poll provided yet more data, asking, “Do you think it is generally safe or unsafe to eat genetically modified foods?”. There was little difference in answers across political affiliations – Democrats and Republicans were evenly split on the question of safe/unsafe, and Independents were more likely to consider GMOs unsafe. Gender and family income best predicted the answers, with men and higher-income individuals more likely to consider GMOs safe.

Those surveyed were also asked if the science supporting the safety of childhood vaccination is indisputable. In this case, Democrats were the most likely to answer yes (68%) rather than no (21%), followed by Independents (53% to 33%), with Republicans expressing the least confidence in the science supporting vaccine safety (47% yes, 42% no). Contrary to The Daily Show clip, these data show that vaccine science denial is more prevalent among conservatives than liberals.

A 2013 paper by Stephan Lewandowsky and colleagues investigated the links between ideology and science denial. The study similarly found no evidence of symmetrical science denial between liberals and conservatives on different issues. The authors concluded that conspiratorial thinking and free market support - both prevalent on the political right - were most strongly related to science denial:

Free-market worldviews are an important predictor of the rejection of scientific findings that have potential regulatory implications, such as climate science, but not necessarily of other scientific issues. Conspiracist ideation, by contrast, is associated with the rejection of all scientific propositions tested.

The study found that libertarian objections to government intrusion arising from mandatory vaccination programs explained the prevalence of anti-vaccine views among conservatives. They also found that those on the liberal side of the spectrum are more likely to distrust the pharmaceutical industry, and thus also oppose vaccinations, but as borne out by the YouGov poll data, this appears to be a smaller effect. On GMOs, the Lewandowsky study found no link between trust in science and ideology, again, consistent with the latest polling data.

Conservative trust in science has steadily declined

The YouGov poll also asked respondents “Generally speaking, how much trust do you have that what scientists say is accurate and reliable?”. There was little difference between various ethnicities, ages, geographical regions, or genders. However, Democrats were far more likely to trust scientists than Republicans, with Independents falling in the middle, but closer to Republicans.

These results are consistent with a 2012 paper by Gordon Gauchat, which found:

public trust in science has not declined since the 1970s except among conservatives and those who frequently attend church.

Public trust in science broken down by ideology. Illustration: Gauchat (2012), American Sociological Review.

This rising distrust of science is particularly high among higher-educated conservatives, in what’s been coined the “smart idiot” effect. Essentially, on complicated scientific subjects like climate change, more highly-educated ideologically-biased individuals possess more tools to fool themselves into denying the science and rejecting the conclusions of experts.

Chris Mooney has attributed these trends to the growth of the ‘religious right’ and other changes in the Republican Party:

Clearly, The Republican War on Science’s politicization thesis is being strongly validated—a thesis that attributes the problem to the growth of a modern conservative movement, its need to appease its core interest groups and constituencies (corporate America, conservative Christians), its need to have its own alternative expertise and journalism (think tanks, Fox, Limbaugh), and so on … as the “New Right” emerged in the U.S. in the wake of the cultural battles of the 1960s and 1970s, it mobilized strong forces of authoritarianism–e.g., psychological rigidity and closed-mindedness.

Indeed, authoritarians favor Donald Trump, whose supporters have considerable overlap with climate science denial. Robert Brulle’s research into the ‘dark money’ funding climate denial also helps explain the problem. The Republican Party has become increasingly dependent upon corporate funding and support, which is heavily skewed in the direction of climate denial. The near-total abandonment of party leadership on the climate issue has sent a signal to Republican voters – climate change isn’t a concern, and anyone saying otherwise is part of the hoax.

A glimmer of hope for Republicans

The growth of this anti-science strain of the Republican Party thus seems to stem from multiple sources: increased party reliance on the religious right and corporate interests, and the growth of a right-wing media echo chamber that feeds anti-science conspiratorial thinking.

However, there is good news.

Click here to read the rest

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/1QF8SSh

Tracking the 2°C Limit - March 2016

The first three months of 2016 have now all been blow-out months, all rising above 1°C anomaly over the GISS mid-century baseline. This month came in at 1.28°C. In fact, all of the past 6 months have come in at an unprecedented >1°C over their baseline. In terms of our anomaly over our 1880-1909 preindustrial baseline, this clocks in at 1.528°C and we've now marked 13 months where the 12 month average has remained over 1°C. We first crossed that point in February of 2015. (Full size image.)

Reliable sources are telling me April 2016 is coming in about the same, around 1.2°C in the GISS data. The 2015/16 super El Nino is continuing to wane but we probably have a few more months of these extreme global anomalies to come before the surface station data begins to fall back to the long term mean trend line.

The Ocean Nino Index (ONI) data is still just off its peak of 2.3, coming in at 2.0 for JFM (Jan/Feb/Mar). The satellite temperature data tends to lag the ENSO by about 6 months, so we will probably see those data sets also remain near their peak for another 6 to 8 months. (Full size image.)

Much noise is being made about the expected la Nina that will follow this current El Nino. John Abraham has a good article in the Guardian explaining how the ENSO cycles operate much like a battery; gaining heat in the oceans and then releasing that heat to the atmosphere. Many contrarians seem to think the la Nina is going to somehow wipe out the El Nino, but that's far from the case. They are essentially grasping for straws. This super El Nino and the resulting surface and satellite temperature responses have been nothing short of spectacular, and very concerning.

You simply cannot look at the recent anomalies on my first chart (small grey diamonds) in relation to all the other anomalies and not be struck by how dramatically they standout. Sou at HotWhopper also has a really good post about this year's anomalies in the GISS record that's well worth a read. 

This is some crazy stuff, and we likely will have several more months of the same or similar coming.

Expect 2016 to be the third year in a row that we beat the record for global mean temperature.

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/1N6Q7wx

The first three months of 2016 have now all been blow-out months, all rising above 1°C anomaly over the GISS mid-century baseline. This month came in at 1.28°C. In fact, all of the past 6 months have come in at an unprecedented >1°C over their baseline. In terms of our anomaly over our 1880-1909 preindustrial baseline, this clocks in at 1.528°C and we've now marked 13 months where the 12 month average has remained over 1°C. We first crossed that point in February of 2015. (Full size image.)

Reliable sources are telling me April 2016 is coming in about the same, around 1.2°C in the GISS data. The 2015/16 super El Nino is continuing to wane but we probably have a few more months of these extreme global anomalies to come before the surface station data begins to fall back to the long term mean trend line.

The Ocean Nino Index (ONI) data is still just off its peak of 2.3, coming in at 2.0 for JFM (Jan/Feb/Mar). The satellite temperature data tends to lag the ENSO by about 6 months, so we will probably see those data sets also remain near their peak for another 6 to 8 months. (Full size image.)

Much noise is being made about the expected la Nina that will follow this current El Nino. John Abraham has a good article in the Guardian explaining how the ENSO cycles operate much like a battery; gaining heat in the oceans and then releasing that heat to the atmosphere. Many contrarians seem to think the la Nina is going to somehow wipe out the El Nino, but that's far from the case. They are essentially grasping for straws. This super El Nino and the resulting surface and satellite temperature responses have been nothing short of spectacular, and very concerning.

You simply cannot look at the recent anomalies on my first chart (small grey diamonds) in relation to all the other anomalies and not be struck by how dramatically they standout. Sou at HotWhopper also has a really good post about this year's anomalies in the GISS record that's well worth a read. 

This is some crazy stuff, and we likely will have several more months of the same or similar coming.

Expect 2016 to be the third year in a row that we beat the record for global mean temperature.

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/1N6Q7wx

Army Researchers Explore Future Rotorcraft Technologies

By David McNally, ARL Public Affairs

The U.S. Army is moving ahead with research on potential new component-level technologies for future rotorcraft.

A team from the U.S. Army Research Laboratory completed the first-ever live-fire test of a rotor blade with individual blade control technology in mid-January.

Army research engineer Matthew L. Wilbur, U.S. Army Research Laboratory (left), explains the experiment to a team from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology Air Portfolio at Aberdeen Proving Ground’s Phillips Army Airfield, March 4, 2016. (U.S. Army photo by Conrad Johnson)

Researchers fired three shots representative of typical ground fire on a 7-foot span, 10-inch chord rotor blade section with a 4-foot long Continuous Trailing Edge Flap, or CTEF, at ARL’s Survivability and Lethality Analysis Directorate’s Airbase Experimental Facility 6 and 7.

“The purpose of this program is to generate some limited ballistic data that could reduce risk and/or encourage Future Vertical Lift designers to consider CTEF technology,” said Brian G. Smith, ARL-SLAD aviation analysis team leader.

“We wanted to know what would happen to vehicle performance, or the rotor blade structural integrity, if it is hit by live fire in combat,” said Matthew L. Wilbur, ARL Vehicle Technology Directorate senior research engineer working at the NASA Langley Research Center. “This technology may provide reduced noise signature, reduced vibration, enhanced rotor performance and also offer a lighter and more efficient technology for flight control of the helicopter.”

The CTEF experiments are being conducted under the Science and Technology Red Teaming initiative sponsored by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, or ASA (ALT). This initiative provides early, in-depth vulnerability assessments of emerging technologies across laboratory, table-top, and live field environments.

Artist’s conception of a future vertical lift aircraft concept. (U.S. Army illustration)

Specifically, the live fire CTEF experiments explore the ballistic vulnerability of emerging individual blade control technologies and promote the development of components that are threat ready.

A team from ASA (ALT) visited researchers March 4 to observe another round of test firings and to speak with researchers.

“We want to understand how this technology might be applied to future aircraft,” said Todd M. Turner, ASA (ALT) Air Portfolio director. “Our goal is to design, develop and demonstrate the next generation of technologies that will provide unmatched vertical lift aircraft performance to meet future operation capabilities.”

Investments made by the ASA (ALT) Air Portfolio fund research in advanced air vehicles, aircraft and occupant survivability and manned/unmanned teaming.

The CTEF experiment represents a leap in technology from an active rotor standpoint, Wilbur said.

“The actuators used in the CTEF are not your typical motors — they are solid-state devices that change shape when an electric current is applied,” Wilbur said. “They work great, but if they are damaged they tend to short circuit, which means that the remaining healthy actuators no longer receive the power they need to function. To defeat this failure mode, we devised a method where each actuator has a small fuse in-line with its connection to the power source. For this particular test, that meant fabricating a blade in which each actuator was individually wired and the fuses were external to the blade at the point where the electrical power was distributed.”

Wilbur said in a follow-on activity they hope to start later this year, small surface-mount fuses will be embedded directly on the actuators, so that no outside electrical power distribution or extensive wiring will be necessary.

“The big active-rotor breakthrough associated with this was the fact that the insertion of the fuses in-line with each actuator worked perfectly,” he said. “We acquired high-speed blade performance data during each of the shots, and in each case it is clear that the blade continued to actuate with no degradation in performance other than that attributable to the loss of the damaged actuators.”

Funding to conduct this research is the enabling factor, he said.

“When we don’t have money, we do a lot of analysis and we come up with great ideas, but then at some point you have to start building some hardware and sometimes that gets a little harder to do when there’s not enough money flowing,” he said. “Without the Red Teaming funding this critical vulnerability assessment would not happen early in the applied research phase.”

Follow Armed with Science on Twitter!

Disclaimer: Re-published content may have been edited for length and clarity. The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the Department of Defense. For other than authorized activities, such as, military exchanges and Morale, Welfare and Recreation sites, the Department of Defense does not exercise any editorial control over the information you may find at these locations. Such links are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this DoD website.

from Armed with Science http://ift.tt/1pOAy18

By David McNally, ARL Public Affairs

The U.S. Army is moving ahead with research on potential new component-level technologies for future rotorcraft.

A team from the U.S. Army Research Laboratory completed the first-ever live-fire test of a rotor blade with individual blade control technology in mid-January.

Army research engineer Matthew L. Wilbur, U.S. Army Research Laboratory (left), explains the experiment to a team from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology Air Portfolio at Aberdeen Proving Ground’s Phillips Army Airfield, March 4, 2016. (U.S. Army photo by Conrad Johnson)

Researchers fired three shots representative of typical ground fire on a 7-foot span, 10-inch chord rotor blade section with a 4-foot long Continuous Trailing Edge Flap, or CTEF, at ARL’s Survivability and Lethality Analysis Directorate’s Airbase Experimental Facility 6 and 7.

“The purpose of this program is to generate some limited ballistic data that could reduce risk and/or encourage Future Vertical Lift designers to consider CTEF technology,” said Brian G. Smith, ARL-SLAD aviation analysis team leader.

“We wanted to know what would happen to vehicle performance, or the rotor blade structural integrity, if it is hit by live fire in combat,” said Matthew L. Wilbur, ARL Vehicle Technology Directorate senior research engineer working at the NASA Langley Research Center. “This technology may provide reduced noise signature, reduced vibration, enhanced rotor performance and also offer a lighter and more efficient technology for flight control of the helicopter.”

The CTEF experiments are being conducted under the Science and Technology Red Teaming initiative sponsored by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, or ASA (ALT). This initiative provides early, in-depth vulnerability assessments of emerging technologies across laboratory, table-top, and live field environments.

Artist’s conception of a future vertical lift aircraft concept. (U.S. Army illustration)

Specifically, the live fire CTEF experiments explore the ballistic vulnerability of emerging individual blade control technologies and promote the development of components that are threat ready.

A team from ASA (ALT) visited researchers March 4 to observe another round of test firings and to speak with researchers.

“We want to understand how this technology might be applied to future aircraft,” said Todd M. Turner, ASA (ALT) Air Portfolio director. “Our goal is to design, develop and demonstrate the next generation of technologies that will provide unmatched vertical lift aircraft performance to meet future operation capabilities.”

Investments made by the ASA (ALT) Air Portfolio fund research in advanced air vehicles, aircraft and occupant survivability and manned/unmanned teaming.

The CTEF experiment represents a leap in technology from an active rotor standpoint, Wilbur said.

“The actuators used in the CTEF are not your typical motors — they are solid-state devices that change shape when an electric current is applied,” Wilbur said. “They work great, but if they are damaged they tend to short circuit, which means that the remaining healthy actuators no longer receive the power they need to function. To defeat this failure mode, we devised a method where each actuator has a small fuse in-line with its connection to the power source. For this particular test, that meant fabricating a blade in which each actuator was individually wired and the fuses were external to the blade at the point where the electrical power was distributed.”

Wilbur said in a follow-on activity they hope to start later this year, small surface-mount fuses will be embedded directly on the actuators, so that no outside electrical power distribution or extensive wiring will be necessary.

“The big active-rotor breakthrough associated with this was the fact that the insertion of the fuses in-line with each actuator worked perfectly,” he said. “We acquired high-speed blade performance data during each of the shots, and in each case it is clear that the blade continued to actuate with no degradation in performance other than that attributable to the loss of the damaged actuators.”

Funding to conduct this research is the enabling factor, he said.

“When we don’t have money, we do a lot of analysis and we come up with great ideas, but then at some point you have to start building some hardware and sometimes that gets a little harder to do when there’s not enough money flowing,” he said. “Without the Red Teaming funding this critical vulnerability assessment would not happen early in the applied research phase.”

Follow Armed with Science on Twitter!

Disclaimer: Re-published content may have been edited for length and clarity. The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the Department of Defense. For other than authorized activities, such as, military exchanges and Morale, Welfare and Recreation sites, the Department of Defense does not exercise any editorial control over the information you may find at these locations. Such links are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this DoD website.

from Armed with Science http://ift.tt/1pOAy18

Don’t Flush! Why Your Drug Disposal Method Matters

By Sara Ernst

Have you ever participated in a drug take-back program?  If not, what do you typically do with leftover medications after you defeat a bacterial infection or find an old bottle of Tylenol?  Many people may flush unwanted or expired pharmaceuticals down the toilet or throw them in the trash, but those methods can actually harm our environment.

When flushed or thrown-out, these drugs can end up in our coastal ecosystems; and all the chemicals in those little pills that were once working together to make us feel better, are now dissolving in our waterways where they can negatively impact aquatic animals.

Scientists throughout EPA continue to evaluate the potential toxicity of different drugs to determine what specific effects they have on aquatic wildlife, and to develop new ways to detect if an organism has been exposed to those drugs.

I recently spoke with EPA scientists Bushra Khan and Theresa Johnston to learn about some of the specific effects they have observed in their research.

Bushra talked to me about the effects that beta blockers (medication prescribed to patients with high blood pressure or chest pain) have on shellfish such as oysters, clams, and mussels.  She explained that when shellfish become exposed to beta blockers, it can interfere with the organism’s physiological pathways, cellular integrity, and their growth and development.

Theresa explained that drugs that are designed to disrupt our endocrine system, like oral contraceptives and hormone replacement therapies, also disrupt the endocrine system of fish and other aquatic organisms. EPA scientists have found that hormones called progestins, often used in oral contraceptives, affect the number of eggs that female cunner fish produce.  They also interfere with the way hormones function within females and males.

By improperly disposing of pharmaceuticals, we further contribute to the amount of chemical exposure aquatic animals are subjected to, and potentially threaten the population sustainability of shellfish, fish, and other aquatic animals.

The best thing you can do to help lessen the problem is to utilize Drug Take-Back Programs.  These programs allow you to drop off any unwanted medications at a designated facility where the drugs will then be disposed of in a safe and environmentally-conscious manner.

April 30^th is the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s National Drug Take-Back Day.  All over the country there will be facilities accepting any unwanted or expired medications from 10:00 AM – 2:00 PM – it is the perfect opportunity to clean out your medicine cabinet while simultaneously helping to protect aquatic animals and their environment from chemical exposure!

Visit the National Take Back Initiative Collection Site Search page to find a participating collection site near you, and encourage your friends and family to join.

About the Author:  Sara Ernst is an Oak Ridge Associated Universities contractor and works as the Science Communications Specialist in the Atlantic Ecology Division of EPA’s Office of Research and Development.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/26AFSXs

By Sara Ernst

Have you ever participated in a drug take-back program?  If not, what do you typically do with leftover medications after you defeat a bacterial infection or find an old bottle of Tylenol?  Many people may flush unwanted or expired pharmaceuticals down the toilet or throw them in the trash, but those methods can actually harm our environment.

When flushed or thrown-out, these drugs can end up in our coastal ecosystems; and all the chemicals in those little pills that were once working together to make us feel better, are now dissolving in our waterways where they can negatively impact aquatic animals.

Scientists throughout EPA continue to evaluate the potential toxicity of different drugs to determine what specific effects they have on aquatic wildlife, and to develop new ways to detect if an organism has been exposed to those drugs.

I recently spoke with EPA scientists Bushra Khan and Theresa Johnston to learn about some of the specific effects they have observed in their research.

Bushra talked to me about the effects that beta blockers (medication prescribed to patients with high blood pressure or chest pain) have on shellfish such as oysters, clams, and mussels.  She explained that when shellfish become exposed to beta blockers, it can interfere with the organism’s physiological pathways, cellular integrity, and their growth and development.

Theresa explained that drugs that are designed to disrupt our endocrine system, like oral contraceptives and hormone replacement therapies, also disrupt the endocrine system of fish and other aquatic organisms. EPA scientists have found that hormones called progestins, often used in oral contraceptives, affect the number of eggs that female cunner fish produce.  They also interfere with the way hormones function within females and males.

By improperly disposing of pharmaceuticals, we further contribute to the amount of chemical exposure aquatic animals are subjected to, and potentially threaten the population sustainability of shellfish, fish, and other aquatic animals.

The best thing you can do to help lessen the problem is to utilize Drug Take-Back Programs.  These programs allow you to drop off any unwanted medications at a designated facility where the drugs will then be disposed of in a safe and environmentally-conscious manner.

April 30^th is the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s National Drug Take-Back Day.  All over the country there will be facilities accepting any unwanted or expired medications from 10:00 AM – 2:00 PM – it is the perfect opportunity to clean out your medicine cabinet while simultaneously helping to protect aquatic animals and their environment from chemical exposure!

Visit the National Take Back Initiative Collection Site Search page to find a participating collection site near you, and encourage your friends and family to join.

About the Author:  Sara Ernst is an Oak Ridge Associated Universities contractor and works as the Science Communications Specialist in the Atlantic Ecology Division of EPA’s Office of Research and Development.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/26AFSXs

This Spring, Show How You Care About the Air

By Jenny Noonan

What do our kids need to know about air quality? How can we teach them about the links between health and air pollution?  With a pre-kindergartener and a 3^rd grader at home, my husband and I are always looking for ways to engage them about the fragility and resilience of the natural world. My job at EPA helps me do that and Asthma Awareness Month and Air Quality Awareness Week (May 2-6, 2016) give me a focus each spring.

This year’s Air Quality Awareness Week theme, Show How You Care About the Air, is a great opportunity to take to social media to share the importance of clean air to my family and yours.

For 10 years, we have sought out state and local partnerships to raise awareness about the connections between air quality and health. We’re highlighting events sponsored by our partners on our website. Show How You Care About the Air is a coordinated theme with a special focus each day of the week, including:

Monday, May 2                 Highlighting State and Local Events

Tuesday, May 3                 Asthma and Air Quality (World Asthma Day)

Wednesday, May 4            Air Quality Around the World

Thursday, May 5               Air Quality Trends

Friday, May 6                    Citizen Science

As part of Asthma Awareness Month, we will be sponsoring two Twitter chats to increase awareness. The first will discuss topics such as the environmental triggers of asthma – both indoors and out – and how you can develop a personal asthma plan to help manage these triggers. You can follow along or participate in this chat, co-sponsored with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on May 3, from 2-3 pm by following #AsthmaChat, or leave a question below.

We will also be hosting a Twitter chat with CDC on air quality issues on May 5, from 1-2 pm. This chat will talk about topics like the impacts of air pollution on human health, and how you can use air quality tools to reduce your exposure to pollution. Join the conversation at #AirQualityChat, or leave a question below.

Finally, everyone has an opportunity to take a selfie or other photo showing how you care about the air during Air Quality Awareness Week 2016 and share it on the AirNow Facebook page.

 

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1T9St9Z

By Jenny Noonan

What do our kids need to know about air quality? How can we teach them about the links between health and air pollution?  With a pre-kindergartener and a 3^rd grader at home, my husband and I are always looking for ways to engage them about the fragility and resilience of the natural world. My job at EPA helps me do that and Asthma Awareness Month and Air Quality Awareness Week (May 2-6, 2016) give me a focus each spring.

This year’s Air Quality Awareness Week theme, Show How You Care About the Air, is a great opportunity to take to social media to share the importance of clean air to my family and yours.

For 10 years, we have sought out state and local partnerships to raise awareness about the connections between air quality and health. We’re highlighting events sponsored by our partners on our website. Show How You Care About the Air is a coordinated theme with a special focus each day of the week, including:

Monday, May 2                 Highlighting State and Local Events

Tuesday, May 3                 Asthma and Air Quality (World Asthma Day)

Wednesday, May 4            Air Quality Around the World

Thursday, May 5               Air Quality Trends

Friday, May 6                    Citizen Science

As part of Asthma Awareness Month, we will be sponsoring two Twitter chats to increase awareness. The first will discuss topics such as the environmental triggers of asthma – both indoors and out – and how you can develop a personal asthma plan to help manage these triggers. You can follow along or participate in this chat, co-sponsored with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on May 3, from 2-3 pm by following #AsthmaChat, or leave a question below.

We will also be hosting a Twitter chat with CDC on air quality issues on May 5, from 1-2 pm. This chat will talk about topics like the impacts of air pollution on human health, and how you can use air quality tools to reduce your exposure to pollution. Join the conversation at #AirQualityChat, or leave a question below.

Finally, everyone has an opportunity to take a selfie or other photo showing how you care about the air during Air Quality Awareness Week 2016 and share it on the AirNow Facebook page.

 

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1T9St9Z