Labor-law violations and the kind of economic climate we encourage [The Pump Handle]

Last week, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas temporarily enjoined provisions of the Obama Administration’s Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executiv Order (EO 13673), which would require companies bidding on federal contracts worth more than $500,000 to report whether or not they have been cited in the last three years for labor law violations. (In their initial bid, they simply have to check a box to say whether or not this is the case.) This temporary stay will be in effect until the court decides the case brought by Associated Builders and Contractors of Southeast Texas et al., which claimed harm to companies that bid on federal contracts.

As Celeste noted last year when Republican Members of Congress complained about this executive order, nothing in the EO or the related guidance document says firms that disclose such citations will be ineligible to bid on federal contracts. Those that move on to the pre-award stage (i.e., are under consideration for the contract) will have to provide additional information, she explained:

If a company disclosed that they have been cited in the last three years for a labor law violation, they would be asked to provide additional information about the violation(s). The additional information would be items such as a copy of the citation, the docket number, the decision that was rendered, and how they corrected the violation. The proposed guidance acknowledges that a company may have contested or challenged a violation. It says: the Administration understands that a company “may raise good-faith disputes” about labor law violations. A firm could submit such information to the government’s contracting official about their rationale for challenging the violation and status of the contest.

The executive order came in response to an existing problem, wrote Debbie Berkowitz of the National Employment Law Project:

Incredibly, under our broken federal procurement system, the government regularly awards contracts to companies with serious violations of worker protection laws. These include a lack of safety protections in poultry processing plants or chemical plants resulting in amputations and worker fatalities; wage theft where companies fail to pay legally required minimum wage rates or overtime; and sexual harassment and employment discrimination.

Even companies with the most egregious violations continue to receive federal contracts. One such company, where four workers were killed in a horrific incident, was recently blasted by officials at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, who said the workers “would be alive today had their employer taken steps to protect them.”

According to a 2013 U.S. Senate report, almost 30 percent of companies charged with the highest penalties for federal labor law violations are also federal contractors.

An assumption undergirding many US regulations and procurement policies is that we want to support small businesses. Companies are exempt from some requirements or enforcement activities if they’re small, presumably because the potential harm their employees is outweighed by the value to the economy from allowing people to form small businesses. We accept a certain amount of inefficiency in federal procurement – for instance, requiring National Institutes of Health grantees to get multiple bids for new lab equipment rather than just going back to the same company they’ve used before – because we want to give less-established businesses a chance to compete and flourish.

If we’re going to say federal regulations and procurement policies should promote a climate that allows entrepreneurs to build small businesses, I’d like to see us extend that philosophy to allowing businesses with safe workplaces to flourish. There’s an economic as well as ethical rationale for this: occupational injuries and illnesses cost the US billions each year.

The Fifth Circuit may well find that the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order violates existing laws. (Given that District Judge Martha Cone’s injunction contains the statement “it is settled in this circuit that government contractors are entitled to the same First Amendment protections as other citizens,” a judgment against the EO seems likely.) If that’s the outcome, I hope Congress will pass new laws that give as much deference to businesses that respect worker health and safety as we currently give to small businesses.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2fotFE4

Last week, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas temporarily enjoined provisions of the Obama Administration’s Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executiv Order (EO 13673), which would require companies bidding on federal contracts worth more than $500,000 to report whether or not they have been cited in the last three years for labor law violations. (In their initial bid, they simply have to check a box to say whether or not this is the case.) This temporary stay will be in effect until the court decides the case brought by Associated Builders and Contractors of Southeast Texas et al., which claimed harm to companies that bid on federal contracts.

As Celeste noted last year when Republican Members of Congress complained about this executive order, nothing in the EO or the related guidance document says firms that disclose such citations will be ineligible to bid on federal contracts. Those that move on to the pre-award stage (i.e., are under consideration for the contract) will have to provide additional information, she explained:

If a company disclosed that they have been cited in the last three years for a labor law violation, they would be asked to provide additional information about the violation(s). The additional information would be items such as a copy of the citation, the docket number, the decision that was rendered, and how they corrected the violation. The proposed guidance acknowledges that a company may have contested or challenged a violation. It says: the Administration understands that a company “may raise good-faith disputes” about labor law violations. A firm could submit such information to the government’s contracting official about their rationale for challenging the violation and status of the contest.

The executive order came in response to an existing problem, wrote Debbie Berkowitz of the National Employment Law Project:

Incredibly, under our broken federal procurement system, the government regularly awards contracts to companies with serious violations of worker protection laws. These include a lack of safety protections in poultry processing plants or chemical plants resulting in amputations and worker fatalities; wage theft where companies fail to pay legally required minimum wage rates or overtime; and sexual harassment and employment discrimination.

Even companies with the most egregious violations continue to receive federal contracts. One such company, where four workers were killed in a horrific incident, was recently blasted by officials at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, who said the workers “would be alive today had their employer taken steps to protect them.”

According to a 2013 U.S. Senate report, almost 30 percent of companies charged with the highest penalties for federal labor law violations are also federal contractors.

An assumption undergirding many US regulations and procurement policies is that we want to support small businesses. Companies are exempt from some requirements or enforcement activities if they’re small, presumably because the potential harm their employees is outweighed by the value to the economy from allowing people to form small businesses. We accept a certain amount of inefficiency in federal procurement – for instance, requiring National Institutes of Health grantees to get multiple bids for new lab equipment rather than just going back to the same company they’ve used before – because we want to give less-established businesses a chance to compete and flourish.

If we’re going to say federal regulations and procurement policies should promote a climate that allows entrepreneurs to build small businesses, I’d like to see us extend that philosophy to allowing businesses with safe workplaces to flourish. There’s an economic as well as ethical rationale for this: occupational injuries and illnesses cost the US billions each year.

The Fifth Circuit may well find that the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order violates existing laws. (Given that District Judge Martha Cone’s injunction contains the statement “it is settled in this circuit that government contractors are entitled to the same First Amendment protections as other citizens,” a judgment against the EO seems likely.) If that’s the outcome, I hope Congress will pass new laws that give as much deference to businesses that respect worker health and safety as we currently give to small businesses.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2fotFE4

We Don’t Need a ‘War’ on Climate Change, We Need a Revolution? [Stoat]

Way to go, lefties. Via ATTP on Twitter I find Eric S. Godoy and Aaron Jaffe in the Op-Eds of the NYT¹. I think it popped up because of Marx thought of the human body as part of the natural world and called nature an extension of our bodies. Following Marx, contemporary theorists like… and if you’re trying to alienate the right wing – and indeed, almost everyone – invoking Marx is an excellent way of doing it².

The ostensible theme of the article – that it might be better to think of climate change in terms of “revolution” rather than “war” – I find uninteresting. The bit worth commenting on is perhaps best summed up by their summing up:

In this light, Exxon and its climate science obfuscation is not so much an enemy as a paradigmatic symptom of the worst kinds of behavior generated by profit-driven systems. The enemy is the violence perpetrated by racial, gendered, political, juridical and existing economic metabolisms with nature. Their exploitative organizations would remain unconcerned with climate justice even if the nation were mobilized to mass produce solar panels and wind turbines. In other words, Climate change demands not only a race to develop and deploy new energy technologies, but a revolution to democratize all forms of power — fossil fuels, wind, solar, but most important, economic and political power.

So – perhaps via Climate science identifies the problem – it can’t tell us what to do in response? – there are two⁴ (have I said this before? It is sounding awfully familiar in my mind. Perhaps I’ve just thought it a lot) contrasting approaches to “solving” Global Warming:

1. Revolution! As exemplified near-perfectly by the above. Capitalists are evil but not only that, our entire society is riddled with violence perpetrated by just about anyone you can think of, except for the Marxists of course. Any solution that leaves people or organisations “unconcerned with climate justice” in unacceptable, regardless of it’s actual effects on climate.
2. Just slap on a carbon tax.

Approach number 1 appeals very strongly to all those people who, for whatever reason, don’t like our society anyway. Or who like it, but can see ways that it could be so much better if they and their nice friends were in charge. As a way of actually solving GW it is a disaster area of course, since it will alienate large numbers of people you need to convinced. If you’re of the Marxist persuasion this is no great problem: you’re writing from an ivory tower, it is all more of an intellectual exercise in speculative world-building, and your life has no real problems to solve anyway other than finding outlets for your wurblings. Plus, of course, it is “your sort” of solution. people like solutions that are within their domain of expertise. Pols like solutions that involve negotiating and talking. Teachers in the department of social science and cultural studies like solutions that involve interesting social and cultural change. None of these people have much of a clue about economics, so the last thing they want is a solution mediated by expertise other than their own, that they don’t really understand, and which if adopted would diminish their ability to write Op-Eds in the NYT.

Approach number 2, alas, appeals to all too few people. Those on the left can’t quite bring themselves to abandon option 1, and those on the right are so busy being riled by people pushing option 1 that they have the perfect excuse not to settle down quietly and think about option 2.

I find I’ve written a rather more cynical and bleak article than I intended.

Notes

1. And I quote: Eric S. Godoy teaches in the department of social science and cultural studies at the Pratt Institute. Aaron Jaffe is an assistant professor of philosophy and liberal arts at The Juilliard School. This is not promising.

2. Ooooh, even better: “Perhaps, as some have suggested, “revolution” is the better path.” And the link is to http://ift.tt/2fou9dq. I am, BTW, largely ignorant of Marx – and intend to stay that way, please don’t bother to try to “educate” me – so I’m prepared to believe he might have said some sensible things. But if you find yourself tempted to say that, you’ve missed the point.

3. I think the stuff about “the poor” is confused, too. “…refers to the world’s poor, who have contributed only a small amount of the total greenhouse gases while richer countries produce higher carbon emissions… solar panels won’t purify Flint’s lead-ridden water or lower asthma rates in the Bronx”. But essentially no-one in the USA is amongst the poor, as measured by world-grade poverty. The two need to be clearly distinguished.

4. Or these are two ends of the spectrum. Or something. Don’t push me too hard on this one.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2f6G63t

Way to go, lefties. Via ATTP on Twitter I find Eric S. Godoy and Aaron Jaffe in the Op-Eds of the NYT¹. I think it popped up because of Marx thought of the human body as part of the natural world and called nature an extension of our bodies. Following Marx, contemporary theorists like… and if you’re trying to alienate the right wing – and indeed, almost everyone – invoking Marx is an excellent way of doing it².

The ostensible theme of the article – that it might be better to think of climate change in terms of “revolution” rather than “war” – I find uninteresting. The bit worth commenting on is perhaps best summed up by their summing up:

In this light, Exxon and its climate science obfuscation is not so much an enemy as a paradigmatic symptom of the worst kinds of behavior generated by profit-driven systems. The enemy is the violence perpetrated by racial, gendered, political, juridical and existing economic metabolisms with nature. Their exploitative organizations would remain unconcerned with climate justice even if the nation were mobilized to mass produce solar panels and wind turbines. In other words, Climate change demands not only a race to develop and deploy new energy technologies, but a revolution to democratize all forms of power — fossil fuels, wind, solar, but most important, economic and political power.

So – perhaps via Climate science identifies the problem – it can’t tell us what to do in response? – there are two⁴ (have I said this before? It is sounding awfully familiar in my mind. Perhaps I’ve just thought it a lot) contrasting approaches to “solving” Global Warming:

1. Revolution! As exemplified near-perfectly by the above. Capitalists are evil but not only that, our entire society is riddled with violence perpetrated by just about anyone you can think of, except for the Marxists of course. Any solution that leaves people or organisations “unconcerned with climate justice” in unacceptable, regardless of it’s actual effects on climate.
2. Just slap on a carbon tax.

Approach number 1 appeals very strongly to all those people who, for whatever reason, don’t like our society anyway. Or who like it, but can see ways that it could be so much better if they and their nice friends were in charge. As a way of actually solving GW it is a disaster area of course, since it will alienate large numbers of people you need to convinced. If you’re of the Marxist persuasion this is no great problem: you’re writing from an ivory tower, it is all more of an intellectual exercise in speculative world-building, and your life has no real problems to solve anyway other than finding outlets for your wurblings. Plus, of course, it is “your sort” of solution. people like solutions that are within their domain of expertise. Pols like solutions that involve negotiating and talking. Teachers in the department of social science and cultural studies like solutions that involve interesting social and cultural change. None of these people have much of a clue about economics, so the last thing they want is a solution mediated by expertise other than their own, that they don’t really understand, and which if adopted would diminish their ability to write Op-Eds in the NYT.

Approach number 2, alas, appeals to all too few people. Those on the left can’t quite bring themselves to abandon option 1, and those on the right are so busy being riled by people pushing option 1 that they have the perfect excuse not to settle down quietly and think about option 2.

I find I’ve written a rather more cynical and bleak article than I intended.

Notes

1. And I quote: Eric S. Godoy teaches in the department of social science and cultural studies at the Pratt Institute. Aaron Jaffe is an assistant professor of philosophy and liberal arts at The Juilliard School. This is not promising.

2. Ooooh, even better: “Perhaps, as some have suggested, “revolution” is the better path.” And the link is to http://ift.tt/2fou9dq. I am, BTW, largely ignorant of Marx – and intend to stay that way, please don’t bother to try to “educate” me – so I’m prepared to believe he might have said some sensible things. But if you find yourself tempted to say that, you’ve missed the point.

3. I think the stuff about “the poor” is confused, too. “…refers to the world’s poor, who have contributed only a small amount of the total greenhouse gases while richer countries produce higher carbon emissions… solar panels won’t purify Flint’s lead-ridden water or lower asthma rates in the Bronx”. But essentially no-one in the USA is amongst the poor, as measured by world-grade poverty. The two need to be clearly distinguished.

4. Or these are two ends of the spectrum. Or something. Don’t push me too hard on this one.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2f6G63t

Goblin Spiders [Life Lines]

Happy Halloween!
The day just would not be complete without goblin spiders. Check out this neat YouTube video I came across describing species found in Ecuador.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2efYY1o

Happy Halloween!
The day just would not be complete without goblin spiders. Check out this neat YouTube video I came across describing species found in Ecuador.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2efYY1o

Scientists of the Corn

By Susanna Pearlstein

Wandering through a corn field, you might find stillness, quiet, order, perhaps a tassel-lined sky. At our corn field at the Oregon State University Vegetable Research Farm, you will find a hydraulic drill and a team of EPA staff from Oklahoma’s Ground Water and Ecosystems Restoration Division.  The crew brought two hydraulic drills in a semi-truck to Corvallis, Oregon, to bring to life a study that had taken a year to plan.

Aerial view of the completed field installs. Photo by Keith Sawicz

I met them at the corn field, armed with pastries and the excitement of knowing that all the planning, site searching, relationship building, corn planting, and a host of other activities had been successful. The results of the study will help us understand how nitrate moves into groundwater.

 

The team installing a sensor array. Photo: Steve Hutchins

Farmers apply nitrogen to crops like corn to help them grow and supplement the nutrients that they take out of the soil. It is essential to monitor water quality related to farming practices because any extra nitrogen that is not used by the plant may move down through the soil as nitrate. Nitrate is found in some local drinking water supplies, and it can be particularly harmful to infants.

 

The study will help explain how we can protect drinking water by planting crops between corn rows to keep the nitrogen in the field. The crop is left behind after corn harvest as a cover crop rather than leaving the fields bare. Scientists advocate interplanting cover crops to help keep nitrate from leaching into groundwater and surface waters across the U.S

Steve and Susanna enthusiastically display the inner workings of the sensor dataloggers. Photo by Bart Faulkner.

Preparing the site meant that the crew from EPA spent the first part of September patiently guiding the drills through the soil to several depths within the vadose zone, the space between the soil surface and the top of the groundwater. Under the expert eye of the licensed driller James “JR” Cantrall of Northern Lights Drilling, the drill team installed these devices and drilled groundwater wells. In addition to the groundwater wells, which sample below the vadose zone in the actual groundwater, scientists installed lysimeters, soil moisture probes, and tensiometers within the vadose zone. Lysimeters are porous cups that allow water samples to be taken under vacuum as the water infiltrates through the soil. Soil moisture probes will monitor how much moisture is in the soil, and tensiometer sensors will show the soil’s capacity to take up additional moisture. All together, these devices allow for critical evaluation of changes in water quality as it moves through the soil and into groundwater.

With the site up and running now EPA will monitor the soil and groundwater biweekly for the next four years as part of EPA’s Safe and Sustainable Water Resources research program. Please visit our corn field, either in person or by watching for our updates and publications. We’re looking forward to sharing the story these data will tell!

About the Author: Susanna Pearlstein is an Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Postdoctoral Researcher based at the U.S. EPA in Corvallis, OR. She works with Jana Compton and co-leads the Partnership to Improve Nutrient Efficiency, a multi-stakeholder effort in the southern Willamette Valley.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/2f5F7B1

By Susanna Pearlstein

Wandering through a corn field, you might find stillness, quiet, order, perhaps a tassel-lined sky. At our corn field at the Oregon State University Vegetable Research Farm, you will find a hydraulic drill and a team of EPA staff from Oklahoma’s Ground Water and Ecosystems Restoration Division.  The crew brought two hydraulic drills in a semi-truck to Corvallis, Oregon, to bring to life a study that had taken a year to plan.

Aerial view of the completed field installs. Photo by Keith Sawicz

I met them at the corn field, armed with pastries and the excitement of knowing that all the planning, site searching, relationship building, corn planting, and a host of other activities had been successful. The results of the study will help us understand how nitrate moves into groundwater.

 

The team installing a sensor array. Photo: Steve Hutchins

Farmers apply nitrogen to crops like corn to help them grow and supplement the nutrients that they take out of the soil. It is essential to monitor water quality related to farming practices because any extra nitrogen that is not used by the plant may move down through the soil as nitrate. Nitrate is found in some local drinking water supplies, and it can be particularly harmful to infants.

 

The study will help explain how we can protect drinking water by planting crops between corn rows to keep the nitrogen in the field. The crop is left behind after corn harvest as a cover crop rather than leaving the fields bare. Scientists advocate interplanting cover crops to help keep nitrate from leaching into groundwater and surface waters across the U.S

Steve and Susanna enthusiastically display the inner workings of the sensor dataloggers. Photo by Bart Faulkner.

Preparing the site meant that the crew from EPA spent the first part of September patiently guiding the drills through the soil to several depths within the vadose zone, the space between the soil surface and the top of the groundwater. Under the expert eye of the licensed driller James “JR” Cantrall of Northern Lights Drilling, the drill team installed these devices and drilled groundwater wells. In addition to the groundwater wells, which sample below the vadose zone in the actual groundwater, scientists installed lysimeters, soil moisture probes, and tensiometers within the vadose zone. Lysimeters are porous cups that allow water samples to be taken under vacuum as the water infiltrates through the soil. Soil moisture probes will monitor how much moisture is in the soil, and tensiometer sensors will show the soil’s capacity to take up additional moisture. All together, these devices allow for critical evaluation of changes in water quality as it moves through the soil and into groundwater.

With the site up and running now EPA will monitor the soil and groundwater biweekly for the next four years as part of EPA’s Safe and Sustainable Water Resources research program. Please visit our corn field, either in person or by watching for our updates and publications. We’re looking forward to sharing the story these data will tell!

About the Author: Susanna Pearlstein is an Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Postdoctoral Researcher based at the U.S. EPA in Corvallis, OR. She works with Jana Compton and co-leads the Partnership to Improve Nutrient Efficiency, a multi-stakeholder effort in the southern Willamette Valley.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/2f5F7B1

Saturn’s hexagon brings new, colorful mysteries (Synopsis) [Starts With A Bang]

“Cassini is different — it’s a mission of enormous scope and is being conducted in grand style. It is much more sophisticated than Voyager, … I can’t say it’s got that flavor of romance, though. Voyager was very romantic. Cassini is spectacular.” -Carolyn Porco

It was a big enough mystery when Saturn’s hexagon was first discovered by going back to archival Voyager data, and then confirmed by Cassini. Over the past 36 years, Saturn’s hexagon has not only persisted, it’s remained completely unchanged in size, extent and speed over that time. An artifact of fluid dynamics and the wind speeds at the northern latitudes, the hexagon is a quasi-stable structure that will likely outlive us all.

Cassini’s true-color view of the north pole before the color change occurred. Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / Space Science Institute.

But the color of Saturn’s hexagon has changed over time, and not even over very long timescales. Since the north pole came back into sunlight in 2009, it was observed to be blue in color. But from 2012 to 2016, it gradually yellowed, having now achieved a color almost in sync with the rest of the planet. As solstice approaches next year, this effect should only intensify.

As Saturn approaches solstice in its orbit, the yellows are expected to intensify, but the hexagon should remain unchanged in structure. Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / Space Science Institute.

Find out — and see — why on this edition of Mostly Mute Monday!

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2e5npuV

“Cassini is different — it’s a mission of enormous scope and is being conducted in grand style. It is much more sophisticated than Voyager, … I can’t say it’s got that flavor of romance, though. Voyager was very romantic. Cassini is spectacular.” -Carolyn Porco

It was a big enough mystery when Saturn’s hexagon was first discovered by going back to archival Voyager data, and then confirmed by Cassini. Over the past 36 years, Saturn’s hexagon has not only persisted, it’s remained completely unchanged in size, extent and speed over that time. An artifact of fluid dynamics and the wind speeds at the northern latitudes, the hexagon is a quasi-stable structure that will likely outlive us all.

Cassini’s true-color view of the north pole before the color change occurred. Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / Space Science Institute.

But the color of Saturn’s hexagon has changed over time, and not even over very long timescales. Since the north pole came back into sunlight in 2009, it was observed to be blue in color. But from 2012 to 2016, it gradually yellowed, having now achieved a color almost in sync with the rest of the planet. As solstice approaches next year, this effect should only intensify.

As Saturn approaches solstice in its orbit, the yellows are expected to intensify, but the hexagon should remain unchanged in structure. Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / Space Science Institute.

Find out — and see — why on this edition of Mostly Mute Monday!

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2e5npuV

The Electoral College Map One Week Out: Clinton Victory Likely But Not Assured [Greg Laden's Blog]

A couple of weeks ago, it was impossible to find a pundit or poll maven who saw a Trump victory as a possibility. I made the audacious claim at the time that this was incorrect, and I’ve been taking heat from it since then. Much of this widespread misunderstanding is ironically caused by the good work of the folks at FiveThirtyEight and their imitators such as the New York Times, who have been publishing probability statements about the outcome.

If I know for near certain that Mary is going to beat Joe in an election, then I can say something like this:

Probability of winning

Mary: 97%
Joe: 3%

But, it is quite possible that I can say that with the following as my estimate for the vote distribution in in this race:

Mary: 50%
Joe: 50%

(Rounded off to the nearest percent. Not rounded, the values are Mary: 50.1%, Joe: 49.9%.)

So, statements like “Clinton has a 75.6% chance of winning, Trump has a 24.2% chance” can go along with an estimate of the popular vote of 49:44.5, and electoral vote estimate of 310.2:226.4 (those numbers are taken right off the FiveThirtyEight site at the moment I’m writing this, Monday AM).

This, in combination with a lot of happy arm waving during a period of about five days, when many very strong Clinton numbers were coming out of Poll Land, has resulted in widespread incredulity over any suggestion that Trump may win.

Let’s have a look at some sobering facts. The following are major source projections of the outcome of the race, giving only Clinton and Trump’s certain numbers. These are the states that those making the projections are putting in the strong Blue or the strong Red column.

Source	Clinton	Trump
CNN	200	157
NBC	182	71
NPR	190	98
538	187	154
AP	213	106
ABC	197	157

Here is a map I produced, using my model, providing my estimate of these numbers:

You will notice that my numbers are higher than the major outlets for both candidates. I guess I have more certainty in my model than they do. But, I imagine you do as well, dear reader, because those of you who have kindly commented here or on Facebook have generally been saying that you think certain states will a certain wahy, for sure. States like Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin, even Minnesota are given less certainly in those mainstream models than most of us seem to think.

In all cases, of course, neither candidate has the requisite minimum of 270 electoral votes, so in theory, either candidate can lose. “No, wait, that’s not true,” you say. “Clinton has way more votes to start with than Trump, so that’s just not true.”

And you may be right, but not for any good reason. It is totally possible for one candidate to have a base set of states, states that can not be lost, that totals to more electoral votes than another candidate, but for the remaining states to lean towards the second, smaller-base candidate. This is especially true in a heterogenous environment, like this one.

However, in this case, it does happen to be true that the remaining states tend to fall out in a way that favors Clinton on average, but not in all cases.

I’ve descried my model many times. It is calibrated with polling data that is most recent and from the highest quality sources. The presumed outcome in some states, based on that polling data, is the dependent variable in a multi-variable regression analysis where the independent variables are the ethnic breakdown of each state, and the relative Romney vote for each state in that election, to indicate Republican vs. Democratic trend. For the first time, because of a LOT of recent polling, and in a few cases using FiveThityEight’s estimate to stand in for some mediocre polling, I have used most of the states rather than fewer than half. One would think that this would simply spit back out the same polling numbers others have used, but it does not, because of the ethnic and Republicanosity factors, and some of the results are a bit surprising. For example, my model is not that happy about North Carolina voting for Clinton, and it is not that happy about Iowa voting for Trump.

Nor does my model have to be happy. The whole point of doing this model is to include a perspective that, while linked to polling, glosses over low quality or old polls (by not using them) and is not slave to a state-by-state analysis of polls, but rather, heeds lager scale and more general trends that we know are reasonable. The fact that my model puts the same states near the 50%-50% line as the polls do suggests (unsurprisingly) that we are all on the same page, but the fact that some details are different … well, that’s why they invented popcorn.

Anyway, having said that, I have a projection for the entire country based on my model, which I offer in competition (but subject to change before election day) against all the other models. Here it is:

There are a few things to notice here. First, as discussed elsewhere, there is no Clinton Landslide. This is mainly because Democrats can’t have landslides, because there are so many Yahoo states like Kansas and Oklahoma, and much of the deep south. Another thing to note is that I’ve left off three states. Much to my surprise, New Hampshire is not predictable. I thought it was going to fall out blue this year. Many people will complain about North Carolina not being blue, but face it: nobody had North Carolina as certain. Only one of the above cited (in the table) predictions has North Carolina leaning blue, the others all say nothing. Notice that Ohio is uncertain.

These three states leave a mere 37 electoral votes off the table, and give Clinton a resounding win with 310 Electoral votes.

But what if the Democrats end up putting into effect the greatest ever Get Out The Vote scheme, besting even those done by Obama? “Not likely,” you say? “Because people were more excited about Obama than Clinton,” you say?

You may be wrong. First, people are excited about Clinton. But people have more ways to comfortably be openly opposed to a woman than they have ways to comfortably be openly opposed to a black man. That, and the GOP hate machine has been running longer on Clinton than on Obama. So, yes, this will effect overall feelings but it does not effect the ground game, which is being run, on the ground, by people who don’t really care about those messages. They are busy being excited Democrats.

Another reason you might be wrong for thinking that is that the Clinton GOTV effort will be better than the Obama GOTV effort, all else being equal, because it is not based on excitement, but rather, methodology, data, and professional strategy. And, these things get better every election. So, it is quite possible that the Democrats will outperform the the Republicans in relation to the polls.

After consulting my advisors, I decided that a two point advantage could be given to the Democrats if they do the best they can do on the ground to trounce the Republicans. When we re-calculate on this basis, we get this map:

Sorry, Democrats, you don’t get Texas. But you do get Georgia and all the swing states! And a respectable win. Almost, but not quite, an arguable mandate. What you’ve got here, really, is a map of future wildlife refuge takeovers. And, a respectable Electoral College win.

But what if it goes the other way, the same amount? What if the monster under the bed (more accusations about email?) comes out. And at the same time, what if there is a real turnout among angry white males, energized by a victory in Idaho? What if men who are really worried about someone taking away their guns and locker room talk make their move?

There’s a map for that:

Ruh roh.

In this case, Trump wins. Trump wins by taking the swing states, all of them.

Notice that if all this happens, BUT Clinton takes Pennsylvania, OR, North Carolina OR Ohio, OR Florida, Trump loses. The chance of the map shown here being realized is very small. But possible.

Also, remember, that somewhere between this Trump win map and the smallest possible victory for Clinton (270) is that one odd combination where each candidate gets 269 votes, and the Electoral College ends the day having selected no one as president. In that case, the House of Representatives decides, and the way that is done, in combination with the way the numbers are (even if the Democrats actually take the House) is such that a Republican majority will prevail in that decision.

That would be the Republican Party’s last chance to stop Trump. But, will they allow a woman to be president as the only alternative that will be open to them?

Of course not. They’ll select the nuclear option, elect trump, and anyone who is still guessing at their motivations will know what the Republican Party is really all about. Ending civilization, because civilization can not exist without taxes and regulation.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eMslc1

A couple of weeks ago, it was impossible to find a pundit or poll maven who saw a Trump victory as a possibility. I made the audacious claim at the time that this was incorrect, and I’ve been taking heat from it since then. Much of this widespread misunderstanding is ironically caused by the good work of the folks at FiveThirtyEight and their imitators such as the New York Times, who have been publishing probability statements about the outcome.

If I know for near certain that Mary is going to beat Joe in an election, then I can say something like this:

Probability of winning

Mary: 97%
Joe: 3%

But, it is quite possible that I can say that with the following as my estimate for the vote distribution in in this race:

Mary: 50%
Joe: 50%

(Rounded off to the nearest percent. Not rounded, the values are Mary: 50.1%, Joe: 49.9%.)

So, statements like “Clinton has a 75.6% chance of winning, Trump has a 24.2% chance” can go along with an estimate of the popular vote of 49:44.5, and electoral vote estimate of 310.2:226.4 (those numbers are taken right off the FiveThirtyEight site at the moment I’m writing this, Monday AM).

This, in combination with a lot of happy arm waving during a period of about five days, when many very strong Clinton numbers were coming out of Poll Land, has resulted in widespread incredulity over any suggestion that Trump may win.

Let’s have a look at some sobering facts. The following are major source projections of the outcome of the race, giving only Clinton and Trump’s certain numbers. These are the states that those making the projections are putting in the strong Blue or the strong Red column.

Source	Clinton	Trump
CNN	200	157
NBC	182	71
NPR	190	98
538	187	154
AP	213	106
ABC	197	157

Here is a map I produced, using my model, providing my estimate of these numbers:

You will notice that my numbers are higher than the major outlets for both candidates. I guess I have more certainty in my model than they do. But, I imagine you do as well, dear reader, because those of you who have kindly commented here or on Facebook have generally been saying that you think certain states will a certain wahy, for sure. States like Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin, even Minnesota are given less certainly in those mainstream models than most of us seem to think.

In all cases, of course, neither candidate has the requisite minimum of 270 electoral votes, so in theory, either candidate can lose. “No, wait, that’s not true,” you say. “Clinton has way more votes to start with than Trump, so that’s just not true.”

And you may be right, but not for any good reason. It is totally possible for one candidate to have a base set of states, states that can not be lost, that totals to more electoral votes than another candidate, but for the remaining states to lean towards the second, smaller-base candidate. This is especially true in a heterogenous environment, like this one.

However, in this case, it does happen to be true that the remaining states tend to fall out in a way that favors Clinton on average, but not in all cases.

I’ve descried my model many times. It is calibrated with polling data that is most recent and from the highest quality sources. The presumed outcome in some states, based on that polling data, is the dependent variable in a multi-variable regression analysis where the independent variables are the ethnic breakdown of each state, and the relative Romney vote for each state in that election, to indicate Republican vs. Democratic trend. For the first time, because of a LOT of recent polling, and in a few cases using FiveThityEight’s estimate to stand in for some mediocre polling, I have used most of the states rather than fewer than half. One would think that this would simply spit back out the same polling numbers others have used, but it does not, because of the ethnic and Republicanosity factors, and some of the results are a bit surprising. For example, my model is not that happy about North Carolina voting for Clinton, and it is not that happy about Iowa voting for Trump.

Nor does my model have to be happy. The whole point of doing this model is to include a perspective that, while linked to polling, glosses over low quality or old polls (by not using them) and is not slave to a state-by-state analysis of polls, but rather, heeds lager scale and more general trends that we know are reasonable. The fact that my model puts the same states near the 50%-50% line as the polls do suggests (unsurprisingly) that we are all on the same page, but the fact that some details are different … well, that’s why they invented popcorn.

Anyway, having said that, I have a projection for the entire country based on my model, which I offer in competition (but subject to change before election day) against all the other models. Here it is:

There are a few things to notice here. First, as discussed elsewhere, there is no Clinton Landslide. This is mainly because Democrats can’t have landslides, because there are so many Yahoo states like Kansas and Oklahoma, and much of the deep south. Another thing to note is that I’ve left off three states. Much to my surprise, New Hampshire is not predictable. I thought it was going to fall out blue this year. Many people will complain about North Carolina not being blue, but face it: nobody had North Carolina as certain. Only one of the above cited (in the table) predictions has North Carolina leaning blue, the others all say nothing. Notice that Ohio is uncertain.

These three states leave a mere 37 electoral votes off the table, and give Clinton a resounding win with 310 Electoral votes.

But what if the Democrats end up putting into effect the greatest ever Get Out The Vote scheme, besting even those done by Obama? “Not likely,” you say? “Because people were more excited about Obama than Clinton,” you say?

You may be wrong. First, people are excited about Clinton. But people have more ways to comfortably be openly opposed to a woman than they have ways to comfortably be openly opposed to a black man. That, and the GOP hate machine has been running longer on Clinton than on Obama. So, yes, this will effect overall feelings but it does not effect the ground game, which is being run, on the ground, by people who don’t really care about those messages. They are busy being excited Democrats.

Another reason you might be wrong for thinking that is that the Clinton GOTV effort will be better than the Obama GOTV effort, all else being equal, because it is not based on excitement, but rather, methodology, data, and professional strategy. And, these things get better every election. So, it is quite possible that the Democrats will outperform the the Republicans in relation to the polls.

After consulting my advisors, I decided that a two point advantage could be given to the Democrats if they do the best they can do on the ground to trounce the Republicans. When we re-calculate on this basis, we get this map:

Sorry, Democrats, you don’t get Texas. But you do get Georgia and all the swing states! And a respectable win. Almost, but not quite, an arguable mandate. What you’ve got here, really, is a map of future wildlife refuge takeovers. And, a respectable Electoral College win.

But what if it goes the other way, the same amount? What if the monster under the bed (more accusations about email?) comes out. And at the same time, what if there is a real turnout among angry white males, energized by a victory in Idaho? What if men who are really worried about someone taking away their guns and locker room talk make their move?

There’s a map for that:

Ruh roh.

In this case, Trump wins. Trump wins by taking the swing states, all of them.

Notice that if all this happens, BUT Clinton takes Pennsylvania, OR, North Carolina OR Ohio, OR Florida, Trump loses. The chance of the map shown here being realized is very small. But possible.

Also, remember, that somewhere between this Trump win map and the smallest possible victory for Clinton (270) is that one odd combination where each candidate gets 269 votes, and the Electoral College ends the day having selected no one as president. In that case, the House of Representatives decides, and the way that is done, in combination with the way the numbers are (even if the Democrats actually take the House) is such that a Republican majority will prevail in that decision.

That would be the Republican Party’s last chance to stop Trump. But, will they allow a woman to be president as the only alternative that will be open to them?

Of course not. They’ll select the nuclear option, elect trump, and anyone who is still guessing at their motivations will know what the Republican Party is really all about. Ending civilization, because civilization can not exist without taxes and regulation.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eMslc1

October Pieces Of My Mind #3 [Aardvarchaeology]

• Leonard Cohen got from the used books store to the cake shop ahead of me. /-:
• Wish somebody would demolish all the modern houses on top of the ruins of Visborg Castle.
• The ruin of St. Olav’s church in Visby is a protected ancient monument. It is being damaged by the ivy that covers it. Sadly the ivy is a protected plant.
• Ny Björn points out something interesting about St. Olav’s ruin in Visby and its super ivy. An important reason that the ruin and the ivy survive today is that both fit well with Romantic ideas about picturesque ruins. Thus they were both preserved, and both for the same reason, when the Botanical Garden was laid out in 1855.
• Many of my colleagues don’t understad the distinction between being methodical and being methodological.
• Kadzic the genius carpenter recently switched out one of our room doors. It wasn’t a trivial job as he had to reuse the 1972 hinges. One thing in particular impressed me. Upon arrival Kadzic went straight to work without pausing to survey the situation. It’s such a simple immediate thing to him.
• Helping Cousin E decode northern working-class English in the movie This Is England.
• Jrette and I cleaned out an enormous quantity of comics, other children’s mags, jigsaw puzzles, fluffy animals and other toys from her room. Most of it had gone onto those shelves of hers when she was five, and it wasn’t useful to her any more now that she’s an unusually mature thirteen. None of these things can be sold other than at low price and with a huge investment of work. Yet I didn’t want to throw them away. So I took out an ad for free on the give-stuff-away site bortskankes.se. I was very pleased when it took only a few hours for a couple to arrive in their car and take them all off our hands.
• In a software context, Pat Murphy writes “subroutines” when she means multitasking.
• It’s 2016 and I’m making the acquaintance of The Smiths.
• Project: reconstruct as much as possible of the Finnish language using only bilingual packaging in Swedish grocery stores.
• March 1495: twelve men swear to Stockholm’s town council that whoever shat in one of the municipal cannon, it wasn’t Eric Finesmith.

I found the plaster original of Christian Eriksson’s “The Skater” in Karlstad County Museum. The bronze cast is in front of the Grand Hotel in Saltsjöbaden where I grew up.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eTIVEC

• Leonard Cohen got from the used books store to the cake shop ahead of me. /-:
• Wish somebody would demolish all the modern houses on top of the ruins of Visborg Castle.
• The ruin of St. Olav’s church in Visby is a protected ancient monument. It is being damaged by the ivy that covers it. Sadly the ivy is a protected plant.
• Ny Björn points out something interesting about St. Olav’s ruin in Visby and its super ivy. An important reason that the ruin and the ivy survive today is that both fit well with Romantic ideas about picturesque ruins. Thus they were both preserved, and both for the same reason, when the Botanical Garden was laid out in 1855.
• Many of my colleagues don’t understad the distinction between being methodical and being methodological.
• Kadzic the genius carpenter recently switched out one of our room doors. It wasn’t a trivial job as he had to reuse the 1972 hinges. One thing in particular impressed me. Upon arrival Kadzic went straight to work without pausing to survey the situation. It’s such a simple immediate thing to him.
• Helping Cousin E decode northern working-class English in the movie This Is England.
• Jrette and I cleaned out an enormous quantity of comics, other children’s mags, jigsaw puzzles, fluffy animals and other toys from her room. Most of it had gone onto those shelves of hers when she was five, and it wasn’t useful to her any more now that she’s an unusually mature thirteen. None of these things can be sold other than at low price and with a huge investment of work. Yet I didn’t want to throw them away. So I took out an ad for free on the give-stuff-away site bortskankes.se. I was very pleased when it took only a few hours for a couple to arrive in their car and take them all off our hands.
• In a software context, Pat Murphy writes “subroutines” when she means multitasking.
• It’s 2016 and I’m making the acquaintance of The Smiths.
• Project: reconstruct as much as possible of the Finnish language using only bilingual packaging in Swedish grocery stores.
• March 1495: twelve men swear to Stockholm’s town council that whoever shat in one of the municipal cannon, it wasn’t Eric Finesmith.

I found the plaster original of Christian Eriksson’s “The Skater” in Karlstad County Museum. The bronze cast is in front of the Grand Hotel in Saltsjöbaden where I grew up.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eTIVEC

Sellafield, radiation and childhood cancer – shedding light on cancer clusters near nuclear sites

When an ITV documentary in 1983 revealed a high number of childhood leukaemia cases between 1955 and 1983 in the village of Seascale, in north-west England, it caused a public outcry.

That’s because the village is just a few miles south of the Sellafield nuclear site.

The documentary, which found 7 cases of leukaemia (when less than 1 would have been expected), prompted a series of investigations into what was happening. And ever since, the question of what caused the Seascale cancer cluster has been a matter of much debate.

Now, a report by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) – a group of independent experts that provides advice to the government about issues relating to radiation and health – confirms that the cancer cluster is no longer present, and suggests that radiation wasn’t to blame.

So what was?

What’s a cancer cluster?

A cancer cluster is the name given to a situation where more cases occur than would normally be expected for a type or group of cancers. And it could be in a group of people, in a certain area or over a period of time.

While it can be worrying if someone notices several cases of one type of cancer in their community, most suspected cancer clusters actually turn out to be chance coincidences.

Imagine you took a pen, closed your eyes, and randomly made 100 dots on a piece of paper.

Just by chance, there may be some areas on the paper that have more dots than others – the dots are unlikely to be evenly distributed. It’s the same with cases of cancer.

But that doesn’t mean that clusters can always be safely explained as random. In fact, when cancer clusters do appear, it’s important that scientists investigate to find out what caused them.

And that’s exactly what happened with Seascale.

The Seascale cancer cluster

The combination of more cases of childhood leukaemia and a nearby nuclear site formed a perfect storm for speculation.

The main finding of the new report was that there was no significantly increased leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma around Sellafield or Dounreay for the period 1991‐2006

– Dr Chris Gibson, chair of COMARE

Unsurprisingly, some suggested that radioactive discharges from Sellafield may be to blame. And residents, politicians and the public were shocked and understandably worried.

The 1983 documentary led to COMARE being set up, which has since carried out a whole series of investigations confirming that between the 1950s and the year 1990, rates of two types of childhood cancer, leukaemia and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL), were significantly higher in Seascale than expected.

And investigations of childhood cancers near the nuclear site in Dounreay, on the north coast of Scotland, revealed a similar cluster there.

The good news, according to the recent COMARE report, is that since the early 1990s these clusters have disappeared.

“The main finding of the new report was that there was no significantly increased leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) around Sellafield or Dounreay for the period 1991‐2006,” says Dr Chris Gibson, chair of COMARE. “And no new cases of leukaemia or NHL in children were registered close to either site for the same period,” he adds.

So it seems that whatever caused the earlier increased rate of childhood cancers is no longer happening.

While that’s reassuring, the question of what was to blame for the higher rate of these cancers up to 1990 remains.

What’s the evidence so far?

When researchers started to investigate the cancer rates in Cumbria they found that, weirdly, the rise in childhood cancer rates wasn’t mirrored in other nearby areas, including around the Sellafield site.

It was suggested that if radiation from Sellafield was to blame, then there should be higher childhood cancer rates in other areas too.

Researchers also worked out the extra radiation doses children and young people born in Seascale and Thurso (a village near Dounreay) could have been exposed to as a result of living near the sites.

And they found that the amount of extra radiation from the sites was dwarfed by the amount of radiation from natural sources – such as radon gas from the ground and naturally occurring radioactivity in foods, such as brazil nuts and bananas.

This suggests, again, the nuclear sites weren’t to blame.

“The best estimates of the radiation doses to both the Seascale and Thurso populations are much too small to account for the observed numbers of cases of leukaemia and NHL that occurred in the young people in these areas,” explains Gibson. “And current radioactive discharges are substantially lower than historic levels.”

But what if the damage was done far earlier, before the children were even born? The experts also looked at this possibility in detail and found no evidence that the amount of radiation parents were exposed to before getting pregnant was responsible for the cases observed.

So from all this evidence, COMARE’s experts think it seems less and less likely that radiation from nuclear sites was to blame.

So if it wasn’t radiation, what else could it have been?

Nearly 100 years ago, in 1917, Gordon Ward suggested a possible alternative explanation for the cause of childhood leukaemia: infection.

Childhood leukaemia and many other types of childhood cancers do not occur evenly within the population of Great Britain

– Dr Chris Gibson

There is evidence to support the suggestion that, while leukaemia is not an infectious disease, infections may play a part in its development. Firstly, cases of infectious diseases often cluster in different locations and over periods of time. Evidence from the UK found several clusters of childhood leukaemia throughout history that follow this sort of pattern. And not just near nuclear sites.

“Childhood leukaemia and many other types of childhood cancers do not occur evenly within the population of Great Britain,” says Gibson. “There are a variety of incidence rates in different geographical and social circumstances and these differ more than would be expected from simple random or chance variations.”

Secondly, stimulation of the immune system early in life, for example by attending day-care, seems to help protect against childhood leukaemia – possibly hinting at the fact that this type of cancer may be linked to an infection.

Thirdly, evidence has been accumulating that a process called population-mixing could be playing a role.

This process occurs when relatively large numbers of people from urban areas move into previously isolated rural communities, exposing the people already living there to new infections. “The population-mixing hypothesis proposes that childhood leukaemia can be a rare response to a common but, as yet, unidentified infection,” says Gibson.

But does this tally with what happened at Seascale?

Population-mixing – a possible explanation?

In the cases of Seascale and Thurso, an influx of workers who moved to the villages to work at the nuclear sites could have led to population-mixing. Potentially exposing long-term residents and their families to new infections, which could have played a role in the rise in childhood cancer rates.

This kind of effect had been observed before. During the Second World War, three ordnance factories were built in west Cumbria, leading to an influx of workers which coincided with a rise in childhood leukaemia deaths in the area.

And on the remote Scottish islands of Orkney and Shetland, there was a sudden rise in deaths from childhood leukaemia when hundreds of soldiers were stationed there.

Gibson also points to British and German studies that looked at the risk of leukaemia around proposed nuclear sites where construction never actually took place. These studies found similar risk levels in some of those sites to risks seen around active nuclear sites. “This is suggestive of a risk associated with factors other than the operation of the plant, such as the nature of the location itself,” says Gibson.

According to COMARE, population-mixing could have been a key factor leading to the rise in childhood cancer rates in Seascale and Thurso. “Given the highly unusual conditions experienced in Seascale and around Dounreay, it is likely that infectious agents are responsible, at least in part, for the excesses of leukaemia and NHL among young people there,” explains Gibson.

What’s next?

While the COMARE report strongly suggests that radiation from the nuclear sites doesn’t explain the cancer clusters in Seascale and around Dounreay, we don’t have all the answers yet.

And Gibson cautions that further research is still needed.

While there may be some evidence of a possible infectious element, there still isn’t a clear explanation of the role that infection and population-mixing might have played. Or whether it alone can explain why these cancer clusters occurred.

That’s why research into these possible explanations must continue. Because the people directly, or indirectly, affected by these cancers, and those still living in the area, deserve answers.

Jana Witt is a health information officer at Cancer Research UK

from Cancer Research UK – Science blog http://ift.tt/2eehAil

When an ITV documentary in 1983 revealed a high number of childhood leukaemia cases between 1955 and 1983 in the village of Seascale, in north-west England, it caused a public outcry.

That’s because the village is just a few miles south of the Sellafield nuclear site.

The documentary, which found 7 cases of leukaemia (when less than 1 would have been expected), prompted a series of investigations into what was happening. And ever since, the question of what caused the Seascale cancer cluster has been a matter of much debate.

Now, a report by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) – a group of independent experts that provides advice to the government about issues relating to radiation and health – confirms that the cancer cluster is no longer present, and suggests that radiation wasn’t to blame.

So what was?

What’s a cancer cluster?

A cancer cluster is the name given to a situation where more cases occur than would normally be expected for a type or group of cancers. And it could be in a group of people, in a certain area or over a period of time.

While it can be worrying if someone notices several cases of one type of cancer in their community, most suspected cancer clusters actually turn out to be chance coincidences.

Imagine you took a pen, closed your eyes, and randomly made 100 dots on a piece of paper.

Just by chance, there may be some areas on the paper that have more dots than others – the dots are unlikely to be evenly distributed. It’s the same with cases of cancer.

But that doesn’t mean that clusters can always be safely explained as random. In fact, when cancer clusters do appear, it’s important that scientists investigate to find out what caused them.

And that’s exactly what happened with Seascale.

The Seascale cancer cluster

The combination of more cases of childhood leukaemia and a nearby nuclear site formed a perfect storm for speculation.

The main finding of the new report was that there was no significantly increased leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma around Sellafield or Dounreay for the period 1991‐2006

– Dr Chris Gibson, chair of COMARE

Unsurprisingly, some suggested that radioactive discharges from Sellafield may be to blame. And residents, politicians and the public were shocked and understandably worried.

The 1983 documentary led to COMARE being set up, which has since carried out a whole series of investigations confirming that between the 1950s and the year 1990, rates of two types of childhood cancer, leukaemia and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL), were significantly higher in Seascale than expected.

And investigations of childhood cancers near the nuclear site in Dounreay, on the north coast of Scotland, revealed a similar cluster there.

The good news, according to the recent COMARE report, is that since the early 1990s these clusters have disappeared.

“The main finding of the new report was that there was no significantly increased leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) around Sellafield or Dounreay for the period 1991‐2006,” says Dr Chris Gibson, chair of COMARE. “And no new cases of leukaemia or NHL in children were registered close to either site for the same period,” he adds.

So it seems that whatever caused the earlier increased rate of childhood cancers is no longer happening.

While that’s reassuring, the question of what was to blame for the higher rate of these cancers up to 1990 remains.

What’s the evidence so far?

When researchers started to investigate the cancer rates in Cumbria they found that, weirdly, the rise in childhood cancer rates wasn’t mirrored in other nearby areas, including around the Sellafield site.

It was suggested that if radiation from Sellafield was to blame, then there should be higher childhood cancer rates in other areas too.

Researchers also worked out the extra radiation doses children and young people born in Seascale and Thurso (a village near Dounreay) could have been exposed to as a result of living near the sites.

And they found that the amount of extra radiation from the sites was dwarfed by the amount of radiation from natural sources – such as radon gas from the ground and naturally occurring radioactivity in foods, such as brazil nuts and bananas.

This suggests, again, the nuclear sites weren’t to blame.

“The best estimates of the radiation doses to both the Seascale and Thurso populations are much too small to account for the observed numbers of cases of leukaemia and NHL that occurred in the young people in these areas,” explains Gibson. “And current radioactive discharges are substantially lower than historic levels.”

But what if the damage was done far earlier, before the children were even born? The experts also looked at this possibility in detail and found no evidence that the amount of radiation parents were exposed to before getting pregnant was responsible for the cases observed.

So from all this evidence, COMARE’s experts think it seems less and less likely that radiation from nuclear sites was to blame.

So if it wasn’t radiation, what else could it have been?

Nearly 100 years ago, in 1917, Gordon Ward suggested a possible alternative explanation for the cause of childhood leukaemia: infection.

Childhood leukaemia and many other types of childhood cancers do not occur evenly within the population of Great Britain

– Dr Chris Gibson

There is evidence to support the suggestion that, while leukaemia is not an infectious disease, infections may play a part in its development. Firstly, cases of infectious diseases often cluster in different locations and over periods of time. Evidence from the UK found several clusters of childhood leukaemia throughout history that follow this sort of pattern. And not just near nuclear sites.

“Childhood leukaemia and many other types of childhood cancers do not occur evenly within the population of Great Britain,” says Gibson. “There are a variety of incidence rates in different geographical and social circumstances and these differ more than would be expected from simple random or chance variations.”

Secondly, stimulation of the immune system early in life, for example by attending day-care, seems to help protect against childhood leukaemia – possibly hinting at the fact that this type of cancer may be linked to an infection.

Thirdly, evidence has been accumulating that a process called population-mixing could be playing a role.

This process occurs when relatively large numbers of people from urban areas move into previously isolated rural communities, exposing the people already living there to new infections. “The population-mixing hypothesis proposes that childhood leukaemia can be a rare response to a common but, as yet, unidentified infection,” says Gibson.

But does this tally with what happened at Seascale?

Population-mixing – a possible explanation?

In the cases of Seascale and Thurso, an influx of workers who moved to the villages to work at the nuclear sites could have led to population-mixing. Potentially exposing long-term residents and their families to new infections, which could have played a role in the rise in childhood cancer rates.

This kind of effect had been observed before. During the Second World War, three ordnance factories were built in west Cumbria, leading to an influx of workers which coincided with a rise in childhood leukaemia deaths in the area.

And on the remote Scottish islands of Orkney and Shetland, there was a sudden rise in deaths from childhood leukaemia when hundreds of soldiers were stationed there.

Gibson also points to British and German studies that looked at the risk of leukaemia around proposed nuclear sites where construction never actually took place. These studies found similar risk levels in some of those sites to risks seen around active nuclear sites. “This is suggestive of a risk associated with factors other than the operation of the plant, such as the nature of the location itself,” says Gibson.

According to COMARE, population-mixing could have been a key factor leading to the rise in childhood cancer rates in Seascale and Thurso. “Given the highly unusual conditions experienced in Seascale and around Dounreay, it is likely that infectious agents are responsible, at least in part, for the excesses of leukaemia and NHL among young people there,” explains Gibson.

What’s next?

While the COMARE report strongly suggests that radiation from the nuclear sites doesn’t explain the cancer clusters in Seascale and around Dounreay, we don’t have all the answers yet.

And Gibson cautions that further research is still needed.

While there may be some evidence of a possible infectious element, there still isn’t a clear explanation of the role that infection and population-mixing might have played. Or whether it alone can explain why these cancer clusters occurred.

That’s why research into these possible explanations must continue. Because the people directly, or indirectly, affected by these cancers, and those still living in the area, deserve answers.

Jana Witt is a health information officer at Cancer Research UK

from Cancer Research UK – Science blog http://ift.tt/2eehAil

Bleaching away what ails you: Miracle Mineral Solution and Jim Humble’s Genesis II Church [Respectful Insolence]

It’s time to get this video clip out again:

Yes, just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. But who are “they”? I’m referring to the cult that thinks that bleach enemas (and also ingested bleach) will cure children of autism. I was reminded of that cult when ABC News 20/20 aired a special on Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS), the aforementioned bleach miracle cure. It’s the sort of story that we need to see more of, the result of what was reported to be a year-long investigation of Rev. Jim Humble and his church, the inventor and primary promoter of MMS as a cure for autism and just about everything else.

Before I get to the story, let’s recap. MMS is bleach. Specifically, it is a 28% sodium chlorite in distilled water that generates chlorine dioxide when diluted with citric acid-containing or other acid-containing foods, as instructed. This is a chemical used for water purification that a quack named Jim Humble has touted as a miracle cure for just about everything from cancer to AIDS to a wide variety of conditions, serious and not-so-serious. There is no currently known valid medical reason to administer this chemical to anyone to treat anything, much less cancer, autism, AIDS, or other medical conditions. None of this is (or should be) in serious dispute from a strictly scientific, medical, or ethical standpoint.

The next fact that is not in serious dispute is that a woman named Kerri Rivera, operating out of a quack clinic in Mexico, has been touting MMS as a “biomedical” treatment for autism. Although she appears to have gotten out of the MMS business ever since having had to agree to sign an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance with the state of Illinois, which means that she agreed to stop promoting and selling chlorine dioxide bleach as a treatment for autism, she was the main person who popularized the treatment in the “autism biomed” community. As part of the treatment, she advocated feeding MMS to autistic children every two hours over the course of 72 hours (her “72-2 protocol”) and giving children MMS enemas three times a week, basically to “bleach the autism away.” She admitted that the side effects included at minimum diarrhea and fever. In fact, she has said that the diarrhea is a good thing if it’s “detox diarrhea” and that the fever means the immune system is being stimulated, thus making it a good thing as well. What is also not in dispute is that Rivera brought this message of bleaching autism away to the yearly autism biomed quackfest known as Autism One multiple times, making even some die-hard supporters of autism quackery cringe. Again, there is currently no known valid medical reason to give this chemical to any autistic child to treat autism. Again, none of this is (or should be) in serious dispute from a scientific standpoint.

So it was that I learned of a joint investigation between ABC’s 20-20 and the Bay Area ABC affiliate ABC7 looking at MMS, Jim Humble, and Kerri Rivera. Here’s part 1 of the 20/20 report:

ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

It’s a shocking report. The level of lies coming from Jim Humble is truly amazing, as is his shamelessness in claiming to be able to cure breast cancer, prostate cancer, brain cancer, and autism, describing MMS as a “sacrament.” Steve Novella makes an appearance, and Jim Humble’s reaction to being challenged is quite telling. I must admit that I particularly liked the part where they poured MMS on a pair of blue jeans to demonstrate what a strong bleach it is. One particularly horrific part comes near the end of the first segment, where Humble is shown in his studio saying that if you get breast cancer, you brought it on, and that women should rely on MMS, not mammograms, surgery, and chemotherapy.

One woman, Sylvia Nash, died after taking MMS as a preventative measure for malaria. Her widower Doug gives a harrowing account of how his wife died in his arms after taking MMS. It’s not clear from the autopsy that MMS actually caused her death, but one really has to wonder, given the temporal proximity of her death to her having taken MMS. Correlation doesn’t always equal causation, but it’s very suspicious, it’s initially plausible that MMS caused Nash’s death, as you can see if you examine more details in the ABC7 report:

On the other hand, his wife only took two drops, which shouldn’t have been a highly toxic dose for an adult. So it’s still unclear whether MMS is what killed Sylvia Nash.

The next segment shows ABC News tracking down Jim Humble in his Mexican redoubt:

ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

One thing I never realized before is just how whacky Humble is. He claims to have come from another galaxy, for one thing. When cornered by a reporter, Humble remained cool, calm, and collected, denying that MMS could be harmful and standing by claims that it is good for children and women with breast cancer. Tellingly, when asked for evidence, he was unable to produce any.

One good thing that happened last year on the MMS front is that a major distributor of MMS and believer in Jim Humble’s Genesis II Church, Louis Daniel Smith, was convicted of selling MMS as a drug and sentenced to four years in prison. Unfortunately, Smith was part of a huge network of at least 1,700 selling MMR around the world; so stopping him hardly puts a dent in MMS distribution. After all, there are many others like this:

And the occasional celebrity testimonial, like this one by Lindsay Wagner, who starred as The Bionic Woman:

Her claim:

But none of that 70s TV magic prepared Wagner for an ailment she would suffer in real life – a case of chronic Urticaria, which is severe, disabling hives.

“All over my body, like welts, like big welts. I looked like a boxer, my eyes were all swollen,” she said.

Steroids and antihistamines helped, but they had side effects and weren’t a permanent solution. So after eight months of suffering, Wagner was desperate for a cure.

“It would burn. It would itch like crazy. It’s something that could just make you go insane,” she said.

Through a friend, Wagner was put in touch with a woman whose child seemed to be nearly cured of severe autism by something called Miracle Mineral Solution, or MMS, that was purported to work for a variety of ailments, including chronic hives.

And:

“I was dumbfounded. Within a week, I was off the Prednisone. Within one week, I was just shocked,” she said.

She said within weeks the hives disappeared and never came back.

“I’m not a doctor. I’m not a scientist. I’m not a chemist. But it just seemed like this had actually cured whatever I was reacting to,” she said.

Chronic urticaria is a skin condition with a wide variety of presentations tied to a large number of causes. It’s often very hard to treat, but its natural course is to wax and wane, to become quiescent for a while and to recur. In other words, it’s a perfect condition to give the illusion of effectiveness to a quack remedy., and it’s incredibly unlikely that MMS cured Wagner’s urticaria. That’s why I wish ABC7 had resisted the temptation to include this segment. It adds nothing to the story, but it’s a credulous treatment of MMS that taints an otherwise very good report.

Unfortunately, as long as Humble stays in Mexico, there isn’t much that US authorities can do to investigate or extradite him. His archbishop, Mark Grenon, continues to sell MMS in the US, claiming immunity due to his being an archbishop and Genesis II being a church. Grenon isn’t quite as smooth as Humble. Basically, when confronted by the 20/20 team, he started ranting, swearing, and asking if ABC is owned by the Rothschilds. It’s simultaneously hilarious and disturbing at the same time to watch.

One thing that disappointed me about the 20/20 segment was that there was very little about autism and virtually nothing about Kerri Rivera. Fortunately, ABC7 takes up that slack:

Particularly balmy is this claim:

“Will it cure autism?” Wedeen asked.

“Well, we’ve seen 234 people lose their autism diagnosis with the protocol,” Rivera told Wedeen.

“I guess I’m just scared of the side effects? But if there aren’t any?” Wedeen said.

“There are no side effects. It doesn’t have any. Within an hour it’s out of the body,” Rivera responded.

Rivera insisted the potion was safe because it’s chemically different from bleach. She also claimed it’s most effective when doses are timed to cycles of the moon.

“Yeah, full moon because the parasites go into the gut during the full moon and the new moon and they mate,” Rivera told Wedeen.

“Really?” Wedeen asked.

“And so you can get a lot of kills. You can kill a lot of parasites during the moon cycles,” Rivera stated.

I’ve examined photos of the “parasites” parents using MMS have claimed to have removed from their children’s intestines through the use of MMS enemas before. They’re generally disgusting ropy-looking strands with mucus attached. Basically, anyone with a modicum of knowledge about parasites and gastroenterology will recognized that these are not actually parasites, but rather mucus mixed with fragments of colon mucosa (the innermost lining of the colon). It’s definitely not worms or parasites, and the claim that the parasites go into the child on the full moon to mate is about as daft a claim as I’ve ever heard. Four years after having learned of MMS and Kerri Rivera, I still have time accepting that anyone could believe such nonsense, but believe it they do.

One of the best disinfectants for quackery like MMS is to shine the light of publicity and skepticism on it. Kudos to ABC and ABC7 for doing just that.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eLDpGv

It’s time to get this video clip out again:

Yes, just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. But who are “they”? I’m referring to the cult that thinks that bleach enemas (and also ingested bleach) will cure children of autism. I was reminded of that cult when ABC News 20/20 aired a special on Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS), the aforementioned bleach miracle cure. It’s the sort of story that we need to see more of, the result of what was reported to be a year-long investigation of Rev. Jim Humble and his church, the inventor and primary promoter of MMS as a cure for autism and just about everything else.

Before I get to the story, let’s recap. MMS is bleach. Specifically, it is a 28% sodium chlorite in distilled water that generates chlorine dioxide when diluted with citric acid-containing or other acid-containing foods, as instructed. This is a chemical used for water purification that a quack named Jim Humble has touted as a miracle cure for just about everything from cancer to AIDS to a wide variety of conditions, serious and not-so-serious. There is no currently known valid medical reason to administer this chemical to anyone to treat anything, much less cancer, autism, AIDS, or other medical conditions. None of this is (or should be) in serious dispute from a strictly scientific, medical, or ethical standpoint.

The next fact that is not in serious dispute is that a woman named Kerri Rivera, operating out of a quack clinic in Mexico, has been touting MMS as a “biomedical” treatment for autism. Although she appears to have gotten out of the MMS business ever since having had to agree to sign an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance with the state of Illinois, which means that she agreed to stop promoting and selling chlorine dioxide bleach as a treatment for autism, she was the main person who popularized the treatment in the “autism biomed” community. As part of the treatment, she advocated feeding MMS to autistic children every two hours over the course of 72 hours (her “72-2 protocol”) and giving children MMS enemas three times a week, basically to “bleach the autism away.” She admitted that the side effects included at minimum diarrhea and fever. In fact, she has said that the diarrhea is a good thing if it’s “detox diarrhea” and that the fever means the immune system is being stimulated, thus making it a good thing as well. What is also not in dispute is that Rivera brought this message of bleaching autism away to the yearly autism biomed quackfest known as Autism One multiple times, making even some die-hard supporters of autism quackery cringe. Again, there is currently no known valid medical reason to give this chemical to any autistic child to treat autism. Again, none of this is (or should be) in serious dispute from a scientific standpoint.

So it was that I learned of a joint investigation between ABC’s 20-20 and the Bay Area ABC affiliate ABC7 looking at MMS, Jim Humble, and Kerri Rivera. Here’s part 1 of the 20/20 report:

ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

It’s a shocking report. The level of lies coming from Jim Humble is truly amazing, as is his shamelessness in claiming to be able to cure breast cancer, prostate cancer, brain cancer, and autism, describing MMS as a “sacrament.” Steve Novella makes an appearance, and Jim Humble’s reaction to being challenged is quite telling. I must admit that I particularly liked the part where they poured MMS on a pair of blue jeans to demonstrate what a strong bleach it is. One particularly horrific part comes near the end of the first segment, where Humble is shown in his studio saying that if you get breast cancer, you brought it on, and that women should rely on MMS, not mammograms, surgery, and chemotherapy.

One woman, Sylvia Nash, died after taking MMS as a preventative measure for malaria. Her widower Doug gives a harrowing account of how his wife died in his arms after taking MMS. It’s not clear from the autopsy that MMS actually caused her death, but one really has to wonder, given the temporal proximity of her death to her having taken MMS. Correlation doesn’t always equal causation, but it’s very suspicious, it’s initially plausible that MMS caused Nash’s death, as you can see if you examine more details in the ABC7 report:

On the other hand, his wife only took two drops, which shouldn’t have been a highly toxic dose for an adult. So it’s still unclear whether MMS is what killed Sylvia Nash.

The next segment shows ABC News tracking down Jim Humble in his Mexican redoubt:

ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

One thing I never realized before is just how whacky Humble is. He claims to have come from another galaxy, for one thing. When cornered by a reporter, Humble remained cool, calm, and collected, denying that MMS could be harmful and standing by claims that it is good for children and women with breast cancer. Tellingly, when asked for evidence, he was unable to produce any.

One good thing that happened last year on the MMS front is that a major distributor of MMS and believer in Jim Humble’s Genesis II Church, Louis Daniel Smith, was convicted of selling MMS as a drug and sentenced to four years in prison. Unfortunately, Smith was part of a huge network of at least 1,700 selling MMR around the world; so stopping him hardly puts a dent in MMS distribution. After all, there are many others like this:

And the occasional celebrity testimonial, like this one by Lindsay Wagner, who starred as The Bionic Woman:

Her claim:

But none of that 70s TV magic prepared Wagner for an ailment she would suffer in real life – a case of chronic Urticaria, which is severe, disabling hives.

“All over my body, like welts, like big welts. I looked like a boxer, my eyes were all swollen,” she said.

Steroids and antihistamines helped, but they had side effects and weren’t a permanent solution. So after eight months of suffering, Wagner was desperate for a cure.

“It would burn. It would itch like crazy. It’s something that could just make you go insane,” she said.

Through a friend, Wagner was put in touch with a woman whose child seemed to be nearly cured of severe autism by something called Miracle Mineral Solution, or MMS, that was purported to work for a variety of ailments, including chronic hives.

And:

“I was dumbfounded. Within a week, I was off the Prednisone. Within one week, I was just shocked,” she said.

She said within weeks the hives disappeared and never came back.

“I’m not a doctor. I’m not a scientist. I’m not a chemist. But it just seemed like this had actually cured whatever I was reacting to,” she said.

Chronic urticaria is a skin condition with a wide variety of presentations tied to a large number of causes. It’s often very hard to treat, but its natural course is to wax and wane, to become quiescent for a while and to recur. In other words, it’s a perfect condition to give the illusion of effectiveness to a quack remedy., and it’s incredibly unlikely that MMS cured Wagner’s urticaria. That’s why I wish ABC7 had resisted the temptation to include this segment. It adds nothing to the story, but it’s a credulous treatment of MMS that taints an otherwise very good report.

Unfortunately, as long as Humble stays in Mexico, there isn’t much that US authorities can do to investigate or extradite him. His archbishop, Mark Grenon, continues to sell MMS in the US, claiming immunity due to his being an archbishop and Genesis II being a church. Grenon isn’t quite as smooth as Humble. Basically, when confronted by the 20/20 team, he started ranting, swearing, and asking if ABC is owned by the Rothschilds. It’s simultaneously hilarious and disturbing at the same time to watch.

One thing that disappointed me about the 20/20 segment was that there was very little about autism and virtually nothing about Kerri Rivera. Fortunately, ABC7 takes up that slack:

Particularly balmy is this claim:

“Will it cure autism?” Wedeen asked.

“Well, we’ve seen 234 people lose their autism diagnosis with the protocol,” Rivera told Wedeen.

“I guess I’m just scared of the side effects? But if there aren’t any?” Wedeen said.

“There are no side effects. It doesn’t have any. Within an hour it’s out of the body,” Rivera responded.

Rivera insisted the potion was safe because it’s chemically different from bleach. She also claimed it’s most effective when doses are timed to cycles of the moon.

“Yeah, full moon because the parasites go into the gut during the full moon and the new moon and they mate,” Rivera told Wedeen.

“Really?” Wedeen asked.

“And so you can get a lot of kills. You can kill a lot of parasites during the moon cycles,” Rivera stated.

I’ve examined photos of the “parasites” parents using MMS have claimed to have removed from their children’s intestines through the use of MMS enemas before. They’re generally disgusting ropy-looking strands with mucus attached. Basically, anyone with a modicum of knowledge about parasites and gastroenterology will recognized that these are not actually parasites, but rather mucus mixed with fragments of colon mucosa (the innermost lining of the colon). It’s definitely not worms or parasites, and the claim that the parasites go into the child on the full moon to mate is about as daft a claim as I’ve ever heard. Four years after having learned of MMS and Kerri Rivera, I still have time accepting that anyone could believe such nonsense, but believe it they do.

One of the best disinfectants for quackery like MMS is to shine the light of publicity and skepticism on it. Kudos to ABC and ABC7 for doing just that.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eLDpGv

Farthest moon of 2016

Full moons at apogee (left) and perigee (right) in 2011. Composite image by EarthSky community member C.B. Devgun in India. Thanks, C.B.!

On October 31, 2016, the moon swings out to its farthest point from Earth for the year. One fortnight (approximately two weeks) from now, on November 14, the moon will be closer to Earth than it’s been since January 26, 1948. It’ll be some 50,000 km (30,000 miles) closer to Earth than tonight. It’ll also be a full moon – will present the moon and the closest supermoon since 1948!

The moon’s distance from Earth varies throughout its monthly orbit because the moon’s orbit isn’t perfectly circular. Every month, the moon’s eccentric orbit carries it to apogee – its most distant point from Earth – and then to perigee – the moon’s closest point to Earth – roughly two weeks later.

In this post, beneath the illustration below, we list the year’s 14 apogees and 13 perigees. Yes, the moon’s apparent size in our sky does change across this cycle of the moon. The variation in the moon’s apparent size – across its monthly orbit – is akin to that of a U.S. quarter versus a U.S. nickel.

Also in this post, we share with you a little-known fact about intriguing cycle of far and close moons.

This year’s farthest apogee happens on October 31, 2016 (252,688 miles or 406,662 km), and the closest perigee comes on November 14, 2016 (221,524 miles or 356,509 km). That’s a difference of about 30,000 miles (50,000 km). Meanwhile, the moon’s mean distance (semi-major axis) from Earth is 238,855 miles (384,400 km).

The moon’s orbit around Earth isn’t a circle, but it’s very nearly circular, as the above diagram shows. Diagram by Brian Koberlein. Used with permission.

Lunar apogees and perigees in 2016

Apogee	Perigee
January 2	January 15
January 30	February 11
February 27	March 10
March 25	April 7
April 21	May 6
May 18	June 3
June 15	July 1
July 13	July 27
August 10	August 22
September 6	September 18
October 4	October 16
October 31	November 14
November 27	December 12
December 25	January 10, 2017

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

Amazingly, in periods of four years, lunar apogees and perigees fall on the same, or nearly the same calendar dates. Let’s look four years ahead, to the year 2020:

Lunar apogees and perigees in 2020

Apogee	Perigee
January 2	January 15
January 29	February 11
February 26	March 10
March 24	April 7
April 20	May 6
May 18	June 3
June 15	July 1
July 12	July 27
August 9	August 22
September 6	September 18
October 3	October 16
October 30	November 14
November 27	December 12
December 24	January 9, 2021

Also, in cycles of two years, the calendar dates remain the same, or nearly so, except that the lunar apogees and perigees trade places. For instance, let’s look two years beyond 2016, to the year 2018:

Lunar apogees and perigees in 2018

Apogee	Perigee
January 15	January 1
February 11	January 30
March 11	February 27
March 26	March 26
May 6	April 20
June 2	May 17
June 30	June 14
July 27	July 13
August 23	August 10
September 20	September 8
October 17	October 5
November 14	October 31
December 12	November 26
January 9, 2019	December 24

Want to know more? Here’s for a complete listing of all lunar perigees and apogees for the 21st century (2001 to 2100).

Here’s a little-known fact of the moon’s apogee/perigee cycle, among both professional astronomers and lay people. That is, the cycle causes lunar apogees and perigees to align on the same, or nearly the same, calendar dates every four years. That’s because 53 returns to perigee (or apogee) are nearly commensurate with four calendar years.

The mean length of the anomalistic month (perigee to perigee, or apogee to apogee) is 27.55455 days, whereas the average Gregorian year equals 365.2425 days. Hence:

27.55455 x 53 = 1460.3912 days

365.2425 x 4 = 1460.97 days

View larger. | Image via Wikipedia.

Bottom line: In periods of four years, lunar apogees and perigees fall on the same, or nearly the same calendar dates.

Close and far moons in 2015

2017 EarthSky Lunar Calendar pre-sale…is happening NOW!

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2e7kMdl

Full moons at apogee (left) and perigee (right) in 2011. Composite image by EarthSky community member C.B. Devgun in India. Thanks, C.B.!

On October 31, 2016, the moon swings out to its farthest point from Earth for the year. One fortnight (approximately two weeks) from now, on November 14, the moon will be closer to Earth than it’s been since January 26, 1948. It’ll be some 50,000 km (30,000 miles) closer to Earth than tonight. It’ll also be a full moon – will present the moon and the closest supermoon since 1948!

The moon’s distance from Earth varies throughout its monthly orbit because the moon’s orbit isn’t perfectly circular. Every month, the moon’s eccentric orbit carries it to apogee – its most distant point from Earth – and then to perigee – the moon’s closest point to Earth – roughly two weeks later.

In this post, beneath the illustration below, we list the year’s 14 apogees and 13 perigees. Yes, the moon’s apparent size in our sky does change across this cycle of the moon. The variation in the moon’s apparent size – across its monthly orbit – is akin to that of a U.S. quarter versus a U.S. nickel.

Also in this post, we share with you a little-known fact about intriguing cycle of far and close moons.

This year’s farthest apogee happens on October 31, 2016 (252,688 miles or 406,662 km), and the closest perigee comes on November 14, 2016 (221,524 miles or 356,509 km). That’s a difference of about 30,000 miles (50,000 km). Meanwhile, the moon’s mean distance (semi-major axis) from Earth is 238,855 miles (384,400 km).

The moon’s orbit around Earth isn’t a circle, but it’s very nearly circular, as the above diagram shows. Diagram by Brian Koberlein. Used with permission.

Lunar apogees and perigees in 2016

Apogee	Perigee
January 2	January 15
January 30	February 11
February 27	March 10
March 25	April 7
April 21	May 6
May 18	June 3
June 15	July 1
July 13	July 27
August 10	August 22
September 6	September 18
October 4	October 16
October 31	November 14
November 27	December 12
December 25	January 10, 2017

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

Amazingly, in periods of four years, lunar apogees and perigees fall on the same, or nearly the same calendar dates. Let’s look four years ahead, to the year 2020:

Lunar apogees and perigees in 2020

Apogee	Perigee
January 2	January 15
January 29	February 11
February 26	March 10
March 24	April 7
April 20	May 6
May 18	June 3
June 15	July 1
July 12	July 27
August 9	August 22
September 6	September 18
October 3	October 16
October 30	November 14
November 27	December 12
December 24	January 9, 2021

Also, in cycles of two years, the calendar dates remain the same, or nearly so, except that the lunar apogees and perigees trade places. For instance, let’s look two years beyond 2016, to the year 2018:

Lunar apogees and perigees in 2018

Apogee	Perigee
January 15	January 1
February 11	January 30
March 11	February 27
March 26	March 26
May 6	April 20
June 2	May 17
June 30	June 14
July 27	July 13
August 23	August 10
September 20	September 8
October 17	October 5
November 14	October 31
December 12	November 26
January 9, 2019	December 24

Want to know more? Here’s for a complete listing of all lunar perigees and apogees for the 21st century (2001 to 2100).

Here’s a little-known fact of the moon’s apogee/perigee cycle, among both professional astronomers and lay people. That is, the cycle causes lunar apogees and perigees to align on the same, or nearly the same, calendar dates every four years. That’s because 53 returns to perigee (or apogee) are nearly commensurate with four calendar years.

The mean length of the anomalistic month (perigee to perigee, or apogee to apogee) is 27.55455 days, whereas the average Gregorian year equals 365.2425 days. Hence:

27.55455 x 53 = 1460.3912 days

365.2425 x 4 = 1460.97 days

View larger. | Image via Wikipedia.

Bottom line: In periods of four years, lunar apogees and perigees fall on the same, or nearly the same calendar dates.

Close and far moons in 2015

2017 EarthSky Lunar Calendar pre-sale…is happening NOW!

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2e7kMdl

Airglow over Sweden

View larger and higher quality. | Photo by Stefan Nilsson (known on Facebook as Digitaliz.se).

Stefan Nilsson in Åhus, Sweden wrote:

Airglow glowing in the darkness.

To enjoy the image in its full glory, please follow the 500px-link.

Thank you, Stefan!

Read what Atmospheric Optics has to say about airglow

Or read the airglow entry on Wikipedia.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2eqnlag

View larger and higher quality. | Photo by Stefan Nilsson (known on Facebook as Digitaliz.se).

Stefan Nilsson in Åhus, Sweden wrote:

Airglow glowing in the darkness.

To enjoy the image in its full glory, please follow the 500px-link.

Thank you, Stefan!

Read what Atmospheric Optics has to say about airglow

Or read the airglow entry on Wikipedia.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2eqnlag

Halloween ghost of the summer sun

Every Halloween – and a few days before and after – the brilliant star Arcturus sets at the same time and on the same spot on the west-northwest horizon as the summer sun.

What’s more, this star rises at the same time and at the same place on the east-northeast horizon that the sun does during the dog days of summer.

That’s why – every year at this time – you can consider Arcturus as a “ghost” of the sun.

Halloween – also known as All Hallows’ Eve or All Saints’ Eve – is observed in various countries on October 31, especially in the United States. It’s a big deal for America children, who roam from house to house trick or treating, hoping for candy and other treats. This modern holiday is based on a much older tradition, that of cross-quarter days.

2017 EarthSky Lunar Calendar pre-sale…is happening NOW!

At northerly latitudes, Arcturus sets in the west after sunset and rises in the east before sunrise

It’s fun to associate the star Arcturus with this time of year.

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere, however, you can’t see Arcturus right now. South of the equator, Arcturus sets at the same time and on the same place on the horizon as the winter sun. In other words, Arcturus sets before the sun and rises after the sun at southerly latitudes at this time of year.

2017 EarthSky Lunar Calendar pre-sale…is happening NOW!

Cover of ‘Star Arcturus, ghost of summer sun’ coloring book

At mid-northern latitudes, Arcturus now sets about 2 hours after sunset and rises about 2 hours before sunrise.

By watching this star in the October evening chill, you can envision the absent summer sun radiating its extra hours of sunlight. Not till after dark does this star set, an echo of long summer afternoons. Similarly, Arcturus rises in the east before dawn, a phantom reminder of early morning daybreaks.

You can verify that you’re looking at Arcturus once the Big Dipper comes out. Its handle always points to Arcturus.

By the way, if you live as far north as Barrow, Alaska, the star Arcturus shines all night long, mimicking the midnight sun of summer.

Donate: Your support means the world to us

Halloween derived from ancient Celtic cross-quarter day

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

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1W6SzGH

Every Halloween – and a few days before and after – the brilliant star Arcturus sets at the same time and on the same spot on the west-northwest horizon as the summer sun.

What’s more, this star rises at the same time and at the same place on the east-northeast horizon that the sun does during the dog days of summer.

That’s why – every year at this time – you can consider Arcturus as a “ghost” of the sun.

Halloween – also known as All Hallows’ Eve or All Saints’ Eve – is observed in various countries on October 31, especially in the United States. It’s a big deal for America children, who roam from house to house trick or treating, hoping for candy and other treats. This modern holiday is based on a much older tradition, that of cross-quarter days.

2017 EarthSky Lunar Calendar pre-sale…is happening NOW!

At northerly latitudes, Arcturus sets in the west after sunset and rises in the east before sunrise

It’s fun to associate the star Arcturus with this time of year.

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere, however, you can’t see Arcturus right now. South of the equator, Arcturus sets at the same time and on the same place on the horizon as the winter sun. In other words, Arcturus sets before the sun and rises after the sun at southerly latitudes at this time of year.

2017 EarthSky Lunar Calendar pre-sale…is happening NOW!

Cover of ‘Star Arcturus, ghost of summer sun’ coloring book

At mid-northern latitudes, Arcturus now sets about 2 hours after sunset and rises about 2 hours before sunrise.

By watching this star in the October evening chill, you can envision the absent summer sun radiating its extra hours of sunlight. Not till after dark does this star set, an echo of long summer afternoons. Similarly, Arcturus rises in the east before dawn, a phantom reminder of early morning daybreaks.

You can verify that you’re looking at Arcturus once the Big Dipper comes out. Its handle always points to Arcturus.

By the way, if you live as far north as Barrow, Alaska, the star Arcturus shines all night long, mimicking the midnight sun of summer.

Donate: Your support means the world to us

Halloween derived from ancient Celtic cross-quarter day

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

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1W6SzGH

Check out fast-spinning ‘pumpkin’ stars

Astronomers have discovered a batch of rapidly spinning stars that produce X-rays at more than 100 times the peak levels ever seen from our sun. The stars spin so fast they’ve been squashed into pumpkin-like shapes. Astronomers think they’re the result of close binary systems where two sunlike stars merge.

The most extreme member of the group, named KSw 71, is more than 10 times larger than the sun, rotates in just 5.5 days, and produces X-ray emission 4,000 times greater than the sun does at solar maximum.

Steve Howell is a senior research scientist at NASA’s Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, and leader of the discovery team. Howell said in a statement:

These 18 stars rotate in just a few days on average, while the sun takes nearly a month. The rapid rotation amplifies the same kind of activity we see on the sun, such as sunspots and solar flares, and essentially sends it into overdrive.

2017 EarthSky Lunar Calendar pre-sale…is happening NOW!

This artist’s concept illustrates how the most extreme “pumpkin star” found by Kepler and Swift compares with the sun. Both stars are shown to scale. KSw 71 is larger, cooler and redder than the sun and rotates four times faster. Rapid spin causes the star to flatten into a pumpkin shape, which results in brighter poles and a darker equator. Rapid rotation also drives increased levels of stellar activity such as starspots, flares and prominences, producing X-ray emission over 4,000 times more intense than the peak emission from the sun. KSw 71 is thought to have recently formed following the merger of two sun-like stars in a close binary system. Image via NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/Francis Reddy.

The astronomers found these rare stars, using observations from NASA’s Kepler and Swift missions from May 2009 to May 2013, in a patch of the sky comprising parts of the constellations Cygnus and Lyra.

Kepler measured the brightness of more than 150,000 stars in this region to detect the regular dimming from planets passing in front of their host stars.

A paper detailing the findings will be published in the November 1, 2016 edition of the Astrophysical Journal and is now available online.

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

Bottom line: Using observations from NASA’s Kepler and Swift missions, a team of astronomers has discovered 18 rapidly spinning stars that produce X-rays at more than 100 times the peak levels ever seen from our sun. The stars spin so fast they’ve been squashed into pumpkin-like shapes.

Read more from NASA

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2eSigYR

Astronomers have discovered a batch of rapidly spinning stars that produce X-rays at more than 100 times the peak levels ever seen from our sun. The stars spin so fast they’ve been squashed into pumpkin-like shapes. Astronomers think they’re the result of close binary systems where two sunlike stars merge.

The most extreme member of the group, named KSw 71, is more than 10 times larger than the sun, rotates in just 5.5 days, and produces X-ray emission 4,000 times greater than the sun does at solar maximum.

Steve Howell is a senior research scientist at NASA’s Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, and leader of the discovery team. Howell said in a statement:

These 18 stars rotate in just a few days on average, while the sun takes nearly a month. The rapid rotation amplifies the same kind of activity we see on the sun, such as sunspots and solar flares, and essentially sends it into overdrive.

2017 EarthSky Lunar Calendar pre-sale…is happening NOW!

This artist’s concept illustrates how the most extreme “pumpkin star” found by Kepler and Swift compares with the sun. Both stars are shown to scale. KSw 71 is larger, cooler and redder than the sun and rotates four times faster. Rapid spin causes the star to flatten into a pumpkin shape, which results in brighter poles and a darker equator. Rapid rotation also drives increased levels of stellar activity such as starspots, flares and prominences, producing X-ray emission over 4,000 times more intense than the peak emission from the sun. KSw 71 is thought to have recently formed following the merger of two sun-like stars in a close binary system. Image via NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/Francis Reddy.

The astronomers found these rare stars, using observations from NASA’s Kepler and Swift missions from May 2009 to May 2013, in a patch of the sky comprising parts of the constellations Cygnus and Lyra.

Kepler measured the brightness of more than 150,000 stars in this region to detect the regular dimming from planets passing in front of their host stars.

A paper detailing the findings will be published in the November 1, 2016 edition of the Astrophysical Journal and is now available online.

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

Bottom line: Using observations from NASA’s Kepler and Swift missions, a team of astronomers has discovered 18 rapidly spinning stars that produce X-rays at more than 100 times the peak levels ever seen from our sun. The stars spin so fast they’ve been squashed into pumpkin-like shapes.

Read more from NASA

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2eSigYR

Science fights to control fire ants

Fire ants are an invasive species, originally from Argentina. They are very aggressive and have expanded rapidly, invading homes, buildings, electrical equipment and agricultural land. They can displace or eliminate other species like lizards, frogs, birds and mammals, and their mounds can destroy irrigation systems and damage harvesting machinery. The United States Department of Agriculture has estimated that these pests generate losses of up to $5 billion per year. The scientific community is working hard to find better ways to control them, like Dr. Patricia Pietrantonio, a professor of entomology from Texas A&M University. She said:

Our research focuses on understanding the fire ant at the molecular level of interaction, to try to find more rational ways of managing these species.

Knowing more about the ants and their behavior is paramount if we want to control them more effectively. For example, many scientists believe that the ant colony is a superorganism, where the different castes represent the reproductive or circulatory systems. This approach may help scientists devise better strategies to interfere with their reproduction. Pietrantonio explained:

This concept of superorganism in thinking of the queen as the gonad of the superorganism and the workers and the tissue and the circulatory system, is helping us to have a theoretical framework to attack the problem. We need to understand, how does the ant queen produce eggs and how does the flow of energy brought into the mound by the workers transfer to the queen? And how does the transfer of energy result in number of eggs deposited?

By investigating how ants look for food, Pietrantonio´s team might find a way to disrupt the flow of essential nutrients to the colony, an approach that could become more effective than the current methods of control and could provide relief to the people and animals that have been affected by the fire ants. She said:

In our research we are looking for the master regulators, those genes that are at the top of the hierarchy of genes that regulate these pathways.

So the idea is that if we can discover which are these master regulators, maybe then we can interfere with them to weaken and control the fire ants.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2eXHwQa

Fire ants are an invasive species, originally from Argentina. They are very aggressive and have expanded rapidly, invading homes, buildings, electrical equipment and agricultural land. They can displace or eliminate other species like lizards, frogs, birds and mammals, and their mounds can destroy irrigation systems and damage harvesting machinery. The United States Department of Agriculture has estimated that these pests generate losses of up to $5 billion per year. The scientific community is working hard to find better ways to control them, like Dr. Patricia Pietrantonio, a professor of entomology from Texas A&M University. She said:

Our research focuses on understanding the fire ant at the molecular level of interaction, to try to find more rational ways of managing these species.

Knowing more about the ants and their behavior is paramount if we want to control them more effectively. For example, many scientists believe that the ant colony is a superorganism, where the different castes represent the reproductive or circulatory systems. This approach may help scientists devise better strategies to interfere with their reproduction. Pietrantonio explained:

This concept of superorganism in thinking of the queen as the gonad of the superorganism and the workers and the tissue and the circulatory system, is helping us to have a theoretical framework to attack the problem. We need to understand, how does the ant queen produce eggs and how does the flow of energy brought into the mound by the workers transfer to the queen? And how does the transfer of energy result in number of eggs deposited?

By investigating how ants look for food, Pietrantonio´s team might find a way to disrupt the flow of essential nutrients to the colony, an approach that could become more effective than the current methods of control and could provide relief to the people and animals that have been affected by the fire ants. She said:

In our research we are looking for the master regulators, those genes that are at the top of the hierarchy of genes that regulate these pathways.

So the idea is that if we can discover which are these master regulators, maybe then we can interfere with them to weaken and control the fire ants.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2eXHwQa

Spooky sharks [Life Lines]

I came across this YouTube video of spooky sharks. How appropriate before Halloween!

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eJNgwm

I came across this YouTube video of spooky sharks. How appropriate before Halloween!

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eJNgwm

Could you pass the scream test?

Halloween is a time to celebrate primal instincts, including our fascination with screams. Emory psychologist Harold Gouzoules, who researches how we perceive and interpret screams, says humans scream in five different contexts: Aggression, fear, pain, excitement and startle.

In the above CNN video, Gouzoules gives reporter Elizabeth Cohen an informal "scream test," to see if she can tell the difference.

Related:
The psychology of screams

from eScienceCommons http://ift.tt/2f2vcvA

Halloween is a time to celebrate primal instincts, including our fascination with screams. Emory psychologist Harold Gouzoules, who researches how we perceive and interpret screams, says humans scream in five different contexts: Aggression, fear, pain, excitement and startle.

In the above CNN video, Gouzoules gives reporter Elizabeth Cohen an informal "scream test," to see if she can tell the difference.

Related:
The psychology of screams

from eScienceCommons http://ift.tt/2f2vcvA

Tracking Polls Show Clinton Disaster Looms, But Electoral College Holds [Greg Laden's Blog]

The relationship between the popular vote, roughly reflected in national polls, and the Electoral College vote, is where the rubber meets the road.

When you look at states that are very solid for each candidate, neither candidate has a lock on the race, but Clinton has way more electoral votes, currently. These numbers hover around 200-something to 100-something.

Then there are the strongly leaning states, which when added to the other states, put Clinton almost exactly at the required 270 electoral votes. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less, depending on which states you think you can count on. For example, until this weekend, many put Florida in this second category, but Florida is now looking more like a Trump state.

All of these in between states, including the strongly leaning ones and the real tossups, have the candidates within just a few percentage points of each other. If a strong swing toward or away from either candidate happens, either candidate could win this election. The chances that such a swing puts Trump in the White House is low, but not zero. Repeat: Not zero. And, there is currently an anti-Clinton swing going on, the full magnitude of which we will not know for several days.

It is distinctly possible that the situation on the weekend before voting day will be distinctly different than, say, last weekend. At the present, the race is in flux.

More on the negative side: It is possible that James Comey has (in an act best described as a felony) put enough of a counter spin on the top of the ticket that the Senate is lost to the Democrats.

On the positive side, it is possible that the Democratic Party gets anywhere between one and three extra points in each state because of an improved ground game, a get out the vote effort, compared to the Republicans. But, the Republicans have been getting good at this, and in states where they have a senator at stake, they are putting millions of dollars into play. And of course, some of those states are also swing states.

Anyway, here is today’s bad news:

ABC Tracking Poll:

USC LA Times Tracking Poll:

IBD/TIPP Tracking Poll:

Recent trends reflected in the FiveThirtyEight electoral vote estimate:

Of the swing states, Trump is leading in Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio, Utah,

Of the swing states, Clinton is leading in Colorado, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Caroina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Clinton is leading in Florida but with a rapidly diminishing lead, and is behind in more recent polls than is Trump. Florida may go for trump. A prudent guesser will now put Florida in the unknown column, or to be safe, in Trump column.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eX11ID

The relationship between the popular vote, roughly reflected in national polls, and the Electoral College vote, is where the rubber meets the road.

When you look at states that are very solid for each candidate, neither candidate has a lock on the race, but Clinton has way more electoral votes, currently. These numbers hover around 200-something to 100-something.

Then there are the strongly leaning states, which when added to the other states, put Clinton almost exactly at the required 270 electoral votes. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less, depending on which states you think you can count on. For example, until this weekend, many put Florida in this second category, but Florida is now looking more like a Trump state.

All of these in between states, including the strongly leaning ones and the real tossups, have the candidates within just a few percentage points of each other. If a strong swing toward or away from either candidate happens, either candidate could win this election. The chances that such a swing puts Trump in the White House is low, but not zero. Repeat: Not zero. And, there is currently an anti-Clinton swing going on, the full magnitude of which we will not know for several days.

It is distinctly possible that the situation on the weekend before voting day will be distinctly different than, say, last weekend. At the present, the race is in flux.

More on the negative side: It is possible that James Comey has (in an act best described as a felony) put enough of a counter spin on the top of the ticket that the Senate is lost to the Democrats.

On the positive side, it is possible that the Democratic Party gets anywhere between one and three extra points in each state because of an improved ground game, a get out the vote effort, compared to the Republicans. But, the Republicans have been getting good at this, and in states where they have a senator at stake, they are putting millions of dollars into play. And of course, some of those states are also swing states.

Anyway, here is today’s bad news:

ABC Tracking Poll:

USC LA Times Tracking Poll:

IBD/TIPP Tracking Poll:

Recent trends reflected in the FiveThirtyEight electoral vote estimate:

Of the swing states, Trump is leading in Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio, Utah,

Of the swing states, Clinton is leading in Colorado, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Caroina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Clinton is leading in Florida but with a rapidly diminishing lead, and is behind in more recent polls than is Trump. Florida may go for trump. A prudent guesser will now put Florida in the unknown column, or to be safe, in Trump column.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eX11ID

Secretary Clinton’s Likely First Violation of Her Oath of Office [Greg Laden's Blog]

When Secretary Clinton is elected President, barring more shenanigans on the part of Republicans like James Comey, she will take an oath of office, promising to protect and defend the Constituent of the United States of America.

Then, within a few days, she’ll violate that oath by appointing one or more Republicans to important positions in the Federal Government.

(As an aside, I’m wondering, what is the mechanism for paying someone like James Comey for giving a helping hand to his party and violating his constitutional oath? Offshore accounts? Do the payments come later? How does that work? I know how they do it on TV, but how do they do it in real life? But I digress…)

Every now and then, in every Democratic administration, a couple of Republicans are asked to serve. This is a thing both parties do at about equal levels. But what does not appear to be equal is the probability, increasing in recent years, that the cross party appointment will lead to either embarrassment, or serve to plant a time bomb of some sort. A cross party appointee messing with Democracy, or simply screwing up, seems to be more of a Republican thing than a Democratic things. (Though I’m sure there are a few counter examples.) Often, the Republican turns around at some point and sticks it to the Democrats. Sometimes it is just a personal attack that happens after they serve, other times it is a criminal act they carry out while still in their position.

James Comey is an example of this.

There are three truths that must be understood, and I hope Hillary Clinton understands and acts on these truths. But I doubt she will, because she she is a olde timey Democrat, bless her heart, and will likely carry on the tradition of bending over for the Republicans. But, since she should understand this more than anyone, ever, perhaps she will act differently.

Here are the truths:

1) Republicans are, in fact, very bad at certain things, especially national defense and crime. We are faced as a nation with huge problems in both of these areas, and if Secretary Clinton is elected to be President, she will be spending much of her administration dealing with these things. This includes the hatred of America engendered by protracted Republican wars, and the fact that our society is a prison state, and a police state, and other effects of the Patriot Act. These are mostly Republican-caused problems, and where Democrats were involved, they were Blue Dogs or cow towed.

2) Democrats are actually very good at doing these things, at dealing with defense and criminal justice. If Democrats keep putting their token Republicans in those areas, that will simply reinforce the utter falsehood that Democrats are lousy on crime and lousy on defense. This has to stop.

3) Republicans can not be trusted to govern, under any circumstances, in any role, at any level of government, ever. The fundamental philosophy of Republicans is that nothing matters, no ethical considerations or legal restrictions, as long as one ultimately votes against women’s health, for voter suppression, and in favor of unfettered gun ownership and use. Everything else, all other issues, are secondary. Therefore, when a Democratic president puts a Republican in any position of responsibility, knowing this, a deeply cynical and irresponsible act has occurred. The Republican will, eventually, violate the constitution.

To Republicans, the collective rights of all Americans make up the very pavement over which the bus of the Second Amendment, a Religious Republic, and a Police State roll. We don’t get thrown under the bus. We are expected to reside there, under the bus. Their bus.

Dear Secretary Clinton: After you take your oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America, don’t violate that oath right away by appointing any Republicans to any positions of authority of any kind whatsoever. Please.

There are Republicans who have served in Democratic administrations with honor and dignity, people like Jim Leach. But they are old, they are retired, they represent the GOP before the Republican Revolution. And the good they’ve done is not unique. Those positions could have been covered by Democrats. The Petraeus scandal, Bernanke’s sexism vis-a-vis the $10 bill, Chuck Hagel’s controversy, Bob Gate’s book, all serve as warnings.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eRvlBO

When Secretary Clinton is elected President, barring more shenanigans on the part of Republicans like James Comey, she will take an oath of office, promising to protect and defend the Constituent of the United States of America.

Then, within a few days, she’ll violate that oath by appointing one or more Republicans to important positions in the Federal Government.

(As an aside, I’m wondering, what is the mechanism for paying someone like James Comey for giving a helping hand to his party and violating his constitutional oath? Offshore accounts? Do the payments come later? How does that work? I know how they do it on TV, but how do they do it in real life? But I digress…)

Every now and then, in every Democratic administration, a couple of Republicans are asked to serve. This is a thing both parties do at about equal levels. But what does not appear to be equal is the probability, increasing in recent years, that the cross party appointment will lead to either embarrassment, or serve to plant a time bomb of some sort. A cross party appointee messing with Democracy, or simply screwing up, seems to be more of a Republican thing than a Democratic things. (Though I’m sure there are a few counter examples.) Often, the Republican turns around at some point and sticks it to the Democrats. Sometimes it is just a personal attack that happens after they serve, other times it is a criminal act they carry out while still in their position.

James Comey is an example of this.

There are three truths that must be understood, and I hope Hillary Clinton understands and acts on these truths. But I doubt she will, because she she is a olde timey Democrat, bless her heart, and will likely carry on the tradition of bending over for the Republicans. But, since she should understand this more than anyone, ever, perhaps she will act differently.

Here are the truths:

1) Republicans are, in fact, very bad at certain things, especially national defense and crime. We are faced as a nation with huge problems in both of these areas, and if Secretary Clinton is elected to be President, she will be spending much of her administration dealing with these things. This includes the hatred of America engendered by protracted Republican wars, and the fact that our society is a prison state, and a police state, and other effects of the Patriot Act. These are mostly Republican-caused problems, and where Democrats were involved, they were Blue Dogs or cow towed.

2) Democrats are actually very good at doing these things, at dealing with defense and criminal justice. If Democrats keep putting their token Republicans in those areas, that will simply reinforce the utter falsehood that Democrats are lousy on crime and lousy on defense. This has to stop.

3) Republicans can not be trusted to govern, under any circumstances, in any role, at any level of government, ever. The fundamental philosophy of Republicans is that nothing matters, no ethical considerations or legal restrictions, as long as one ultimately votes against women’s health, for voter suppression, and in favor of unfettered gun ownership and use. Everything else, all other issues, are secondary. Therefore, when a Democratic president puts a Republican in any position of responsibility, knowing this, a deeply cynical and irresponsible act has occurred. The Republican will, eventually, violate the constitution.

To Republicans, the collective rights of all Americans make up the very pavement over which the bus of the Second Amendment, a Religious Republic, and a Police State roll. We don’t get thrown under the bus. We are expected to reside there, under the bus. Their bus.

Dear Secretary Clinton: After you take your oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America, don’t violate that oath right away by appointing any Republicans to any positions of authority of any kind whatsoever. Please.

There are Republicans who have served in Democratic administrations with honor and dignity, people like Jim Leach. But they are old, they are retired, they represent the GOP before the Republican Revolution. And the good they’ve done is not unique. Those positions could have been covered by Democrats. The Petraeus scandal, Bernanke’s sexism vis-a-vis the $10 bill, Chuck Hagel’s controversy, Bob Gate’s book, all serve as warnings.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2eRvlBO

Comments of the Week #133: from a simulated Universe to dark matter black holes [Starts With A Bang]

“Weightlessness was unbelievable. It’s physical euphoria: Nothing about you has any weight. You don’t realize that you are weighed down all the time by yourself, and your organs, and your head. Your arms weigh down your shoulders. In space simulation, you get to fly like Superman! You’re hanging in the air! It’s the coolest thing.” -Mary Roach

As October comes to an end, the nights grow longer (at least in the northern hemisphere) and Halloween approaches. There are wonders all around us, and the need to separate good science from bad. There’s plenty in the rear-view mirror, like this month’s Starts With A Bang podcast and a week of incredible articles from Starts With A Bang! Here’s a recap of all we’ve covered:

• Could the Universe be a simulation? (for Ask Ethan),
• The evidence for water on Mars is overwhelming (for Mostly Mute Monday),
• No, the LHC hasn’t shown that we live in a multiverse (by Sabine Hossenfelder),
• Dark matter rises to its biggest challenge… and succeeds,
• New supernova results: is the Universe not accelerating?, and
• Why doesn’t dark matter form black holes?

And there’s plenty more on the way, so stay tuned for Saturn’s changing hexagon, a potential new study on Planet Nine, and of course 2016’s Halloween costume! (Remember, Patreon donors at the $20/month level and up get an autographed Halloween photo delivered to them. Hint hint.) Now with all that said, let’s get right into our comments of the week!

There are many natural neutrino signatures produced by stars and other processes in the Universe. But note the unique and unambiguous signal of “reactor anti-neutrinos.” Image credit: IceCube collaboration / NSF / University of Wisconsin, via http://ift.tt/1V1qaMB.

From Omega Centauri on looking for aliens with neutrinos: “A strong case can be made that even if fusion becomes feasible, it will in all likelihood be outcompeted by solar energy on cost. If this happens with our aliens, there might not be a neutrino signal to pickup.”

If the neutrinos one produced by fusion are the same as the ones produced in the Sun — i.e., if they’re part of the proton-proton chain or the CNO cycle — they’re going to get swamped. But if you produce fusion neutrinos through a different reaction, like lithium-deuterium fusion, for example, you could pick out the unique neutrino signature. Of course, if the aliens go beyond fission or fusion, this method isn’t going to work at all. As you all found out with yesterday’s new piece, however, looking for aliens in the electromagnetic portion of the spectrum has its… pitfalls.

The “blue light” phenomenon photographed in two different location. Courtesy of this insane website: http://ift.tt/2f5YOqL.

From Alan L. on what I might have seen a decade ago in New Mexico: “My mistake. I meant to say marsh gas.”

Marsh gas or swamp gas can certainly produce blue-colored light, as well as the famed will-o’-the-wisp effect. (It’s not just for Magic: The Gathering, folks!) But the New Mexico desert isn’t really known for its marshes or swamps, nor are marsh gas/swamp gas lights known for moving in the sky.

SpooooOOOOooooky, isn’t it?

(But then again, for all I know it could’ve been an isolated auto dealership testing its lights and then turning them off.)

A singularity is where conventional physics breaks down, whether you’re talking about the very beginning of the Universe and the birth of space and time or the very central point of a black hole. Image credit: © 2007-2016, Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics, Potsdam.

From Wow on a 4D creature transporting our forlorn 3D selves: “[I]f WE took a 2D collage picture object and “teleported it” by moving it through the 3rd dimension then it would only reappear if we translated it in the 2D plane parallel at a rate no faster than if we’d moved it in the same 2D plane. And if the 2D plane were curved into a sphere, we could transport that surface image to the other side of the planet in a time of the diameter divided by velocity, rather than Pi times the radius divided by the velocity.”

This is an excellent point. If the speed of light is a limiting speed in any number of dimensions — not just 3 — then there’s a limit to how fast a teleportation could take place. Assuming everyone moves through time at the same rate, and a higher-dimensional creature couldn’t just fast-forward or re-wind the clock at will, and assuming that space isn’t catastrophically crumpled in the higher dimensions, motion through the fourth dimension would effectively be limited by approximately our 3D limits given the speed of light.

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons user Lunch, of a 2-D projection of a Calabi-Yau manifold, one popular method of compactifying the extra, unwanted dimensions of String Theory.

Of course, if string theory is right, the Calabi-Yau manifold is exactly as horrifically crumpled and compactified as you might imagine for this exact violation of traditional, flat-space relativity to occur. Not in our three dimensions, mind you, but in the other ones. It might be conceivable to take a very crooked path through the other dimensions and wind up someplace very, very disconnected from our own, while still obeying special relativity.

Good thing string theory is too scary for me to entertain seriously, even on Halloween weekend.

Whether charged or uncharged, there’s a minimum size where physics makes sense.

From ketchup on the Planck length: “I am interested in the justification for this statement about the fundamental quantum limit of 10^-35 meters. This distance is known as the Planck length, and is obtained from the gravitational constant, Planck’s constant, and the speed of light. But the idea that one cannot even in principle explore distances below this length is speculation that has no empirical justification.”

There’s no experimental or empirical justification for this because we’ve never achieved the energies to test it, but there’s a good theoretical reason for this limit. I want you to do the following thought experiment: start by thinking about the Compton wavelength of a particle. This is basically asking “what is the length scale that corresponds to scattering” for a particle? The length scale is inversely proportional to mass (or energy), so higher energies mean shorter wavelengths. At some point, your energy can get so high that your lengths get short enough that the Compton wavelength becomes smaller than the Schwarzschild radius corresponding to that energy scale.

Illustration credit: ESA, retrieved via http://ift.tt/116JDqc.

And all of a sudden, you’ve made a black hole. So that’s why you can’t explore distances below that, because if you made something energetic enough to scatter with those small distance scales, it would collapse into a black hole rather than scatter. That’s why the Planck scale really is a limit. At least, if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are right.

Image credit: Kyle Hill of http://ift.tt/2ebjtw3.

From G on the simulation hypothesis and… cults: “The technology cults are engaged in the fundamental dishonesty of offering religion in the guise of science. When Deepak Chopra plays this game we laugh; but when Ray Kurzweil and Nick Bostrom do likewise, what then? Take them seriously, because they sell salvation in a computer rather than in a “healing-energy crystal”?”

If you can test it, experiment on it and either come up with tests that validate or repudiate it then it becomes very interesting: it becomes science. If you can’t, however, if all you can do is use it to make sweeping, dreamy statements about what might be in an untestable fashion, you’re just telling stories. My facebook is filled with ads from scam artists like “Elysium Health” and the like, trying to get me to buy into infinite life and the technological singularity.

Image credit: from anrophysics 2008-09, via Bangkok Patana School http://ift.tt/2f5WL5V.

There’s only one kind of singularity I believe in, and it isn’t a technological one. My own personal beliefs are that we all came from nothing — although I don’t came to understand what nothingness is fully — and that we all head back into nothing at the ends of our lives. Somehow, I think that a singer like Emmylou Harris captures this better than anything Ray Kurzweil or Elon Musk has ever opined on the topic.

The remnants of the Schiaparelli lander. Image credit: NASA / Mars HiRISE.

From PJ on the fate of the Schiaparelli lander: “A pity Schiaparelli has been lost.”

There were some people contending, even after the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter found the dark spot where it impacted, that perhaps Schiaparelli wasn’t lost after all. I think that, unfortunately, the HiRISE image above shows us what we all feared: this thing is nothing more than catastrophic wreckage now.

It’s a tragedy anytime someone’s life’s work and dreams are dashed. In the case of Schiaparelli, it comes at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars and the dreams of a team of close to 100 people. Very sad, indeed.

Image credit: La Truffe, via http://ift.tt/15c6Jhu.

From greg on extra dimensions: “How can we scientifically prove that we live in a world with no additional dimensions? Could it be that we really live in 11 large dimensions world, but “see” only 4 of them as a limitation of our experiments equipment?”

There are effects we can look for as evidence that we live in a Universe with more than three dimensions. If you want those dimensions to be large — as in, larger than the Planck length — they will have effects on our Universe that we could uncover with advanced enough technology or experiments. If you want to prove that we live in a world with no additional dimensions, you can’t, but you can constrain them to the point of irrelevance: if it doesn’t affect your Universe, that might as well be the equivalent of it not existing.

The Standard Model particles and their supersymmetric counterparts. Exactly 50% of these particles have been discovered, and 50% have never showed a trace that they exist. Image credit: Claire David, of http://ift.tt/291yhcG.

From Wow on the standard model: “The standard model requires higher dimensions, but rolled up to work, therefore if the standard model is correct, we have extra dimensions.”

Not quite. There are a lot of things that are consequences of the standard model that are nicer in extra dimensions, and that offer some fun circumstantial evidence for it, such as the Wess-Zumino-Witten model. If you want to do fun things like break symmetry, give mass to particles and make your field theory work properly, you can do it in 3+1 dimensions, like Wess and Zumino did back in 1971. But it’s messy. It’s hideous. It’s like trying to do electricity and magnetism without complex numbers. But if you add in one extra dimension, it becomes easy and beautiful, and that’s why “Witten” got added to the model in the mid-1980s.

But there’s no physical difference, it’s just a beauty one. You may be thinking that if string theory is correct, then we have supersymmetry at some scale, or that if QCD is correct, then we have glueballs (bound states of gluons alone) at some scale. But nothing we’ve discovered requires extra dimensions, they just make things prettier.

While stars might cluster in the disk and the normal matter might be restricted to a nearby region around the stars, dark matter extends in a halo more than 10 times the extent of the luminous portion. Image credit: ESO/L. Calçada.

From Louis Wilbur on dark matter simulations: “Readers of this blog should be aware of the new paper titled “The Mass-Discrepancy Acceleration Relation: a Natural Outcome of Galaxy Formation in CDM halos” at http://ift.tt/2ebpZ5R.”

This is a completely different set of independent simulations, by a consortium that includes Carlos Frenk and Julio Navarro, the “N” and the “F” of NFW, the first universal dark matter profile. What’s interesting in there is that the evolution their simulations predict for the g_baryon vs. g_acceleration relation with redshift differs dramatically from the Keller and Wadsley simulations, but both simulations predict the McGaugh et al. relation at low redshifts. Unfortunately, we only have good measurements of rotation curves at redshifts of 0.1 and less.

It’s also worth pointing out that this independent relation is not the same as a realistic rotation curve; both dark matter groups still struggle with that with a large fraction of their simulated galaxies.

The correlation between gravitational acceleration (y-axis) and the normal, baryonic matter (x-axis) visible in an assembly of 153 galaxies. The blue points show each individual galaxy, while the red show binned data. Image credit: The Radial Acceleration Relation in Rotationally Supported Galaxies, Stacy McGaugh, Federico Lelli and Jim Schombert, 2016. From http://ift.tt/2ddyA87.

From Anonymous Coward on galaxy size and rotation: “As I recall, the McGaugh team’s observations had many galaxies of various sizes, including ones that were supposedly dominated by dark matter and had very little baryonic matter. Are there galaxies like that in the McMaster simulation or other ones, and do they also obey the SPARC acceleration law in simulation?”

No, they don’t. None of these simulations go below about 10% the Milky Way’s mass in terms of the galaxies they reproduce, and there’s a good reason for that: computational power. If you want to simulate a smaller galaxy as a part of the cosmic web, you need greater resolution, which means you need more particles of lower mass. We’re already running trillion-particle simulations, and to get down to the lower ranges, we’d need to go up to 10 quadrillion particle simulations. That is… beyond our computational capabilities. But with Moore’s law or quantum computers, who knows? We might be there by the 2030s.

The figure representing the confidence in accelerated expansion and in the measurement of dark energy (y-axis) and matter (x-axis) from supernovae alone. Image credit: Nielsen, Guffanti and Sarkar, 2016, from the preprint at http://ift.tt/2dLO84v.

From Naked Bunny with a Whip on supernovae and dark energy: “Silly Bunny momentarily forgot Betteridge’s law of headlines.”

From Sinisa Lazarek on the same topic: “i like this quote from wiki: “… To a busy journalist hunting for real information a question mark means ‘don’t bother reading this bit’ ””

I wouldn’t have needed to write this piece at all if it weren’t for bad journalism that actively stated that the new supernova paper meant that dark energy wasn’t real. There has been some catastrophically bad science journalism happening over this past week, and I feel like I’m the only voice of reason out there. But does that mean I have to stop using question marks, or no one will read me?

Or does it just mean I need to make sure that the answer to everything that does end with a question mark has ‘no’ as the answer, to keep Betteridge’s Law true?

The particles and antiparticles of the Standard Model. Image credit: E. Siegel.

And finally, from Sinisa Lazarek on dark matter and the Standard Model: “What’s the story on the actual progress of trying to put it within the standard model? For as long as I remember, the story (here on blog, but elsewhere as well) revolves around more and more observations that it’s real. OK, but what about the actual particle? Are we really out of ideas for more than 20 years? IMO axions sound promising, but is there no model that doesn’t require super simetry?

It almost.. almost.. seems like the majority of community has accepted it, and fell into the usual re-print of how we know about it. But I would really be interested to hear from time to time if some groups are making any progress in actually figuring where or how it sits in grand scheme of things in the theoretical sense.”

So what you see above is the Standard Model. We can quantify the full suite of everything that exists “up there” in the Universe today. About 0.4% of the dark matter can be accounted for from neutrinos and antineutrinos, but the other 99%+ is something that’s not in the Standard Model. So whatever you’re going to have account for the dark matter needs to be outside the Standard Model, period.

If dark matter does have a self-interaction, its cross-section is tremendously low, as direct detection experiments have shown. (Image credit: Mirabolfathi, Nader arXiv:1308.0044 [astro-ph.IM], via http://ift.tt/1Mh44G5)

If it’s WIMPs, we have a big constraint on their cross-section. If it’s axions, we have a big constraint on theirs and their production. And if it’s a Kaluza-Klein (extra dimension) particle… well, that’s just a class of WIMP. Yes, we have cooked up all sorts of ideas and candidates, from WIMPzillas at the ultra-massive end to supersymmetric axinos — the SUSY counterpart of the axion — but they’re all poorly motivated, to be honest. It’s not that we’re out of ideas, it’s that we had very few good ideas, and the ones we did have appear to be well on their way to having their viable parameter space narrowed and narrowed ever further.

There has been no good progress, and that’s why you don’t hear anything. When a good idea comes around, you’ll hear about it. I mean, you’re hearing about bad ideas all the time if you’re listening to the science news… because of the perception people have that a bad idea is better than no idea.

It’s a lie. We have no idea. And so we search.

It’s the ultimate Halloween horror story.

Darkness.

Forever.

Never illuminated.

And then the one door at the end of the tunnel that we all must pass through.

Happy Halloween.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2f5XHHI

“Weightlessness was unbelievable. It’s physical euphoria: Nothing about you has any weight. You don’t realize that you are weighed down all the time by yourself, and your organs, and your head. Your arms weigh down your shoulders. In space simulation, you get to fly like Superman! You’re hanging in the air! It’s the coolest thing.” -Mary Roach

As October comes to an end, the nights grow longer (at least in the northern hemisphere) and Halloween approaches. There are wonders all around us, and the need to separate good science from bad. There’s plenty in the rear-view mirror, like this month’s Starts With A Bang podcast and a week of incredible articles from Starts With A Bang! Here’s a recap of all we’ve covered:

• Could the Universe be a simulation? (for Ask Ethan),
• The evidence for water on Mars is overwhelming (for Mostly Mute Monday),
• No, the LHC hasn’t shown that we live in a multiverse (by Sabine Hossenfelder),
• Dark matter rises to its biggest challenge… and succeeds,
• New supernova results: is the Universe not accelerating?, and
• Why doesn’t dark matter form black holes?

And there’s plenty more on the way, so stay tuned for Saturn’s changing hexagon, a potential new study on Planet Nine, and of course 2016’s Halloween costume! (Remember, Patreon donors at the $20/month level and up get an autographed Halloween photo delivered to them. Hint hint.) Now with all that said, let’s get right into our comments of the week!

There are many natural neutrino signatures produced by stars and other processes in the Universe. But note the unique and unambiguous signal of “reactor anti-neutrinos.” Image credit: IceCube collaboration / NSF / University of Wisconsin, via http://ift.tt/1V1qaMB.

From Omega Centauri on looking for aliens with neutrinos: “A strong case can be made that even if fusion becomes feasible, it will in all likelihood be outcompeted by solar energy on cost. If this happens with our aliens, there might not be a neutrino signal to pickup.”

If the neutrinos one produced by fusion are the same as the ones produced in the Sun — i.e., if they’re part of the proton-proton chain or the CNO cycle — they’re going to get swamped. But if you produce fusion neutrinos through a different reaction, like lithium-deuterium fusion, for example, you could pick out the unique neutrino signature. Of course, if the aliens go beyond fission or fusion, this method isn’t going to work at all. As you all found out with yesterday’s new piece, however, looking for aliens in the electromagnetic portion of the spectrum has its… pitfalls.

The “blue light” phenomenon photographed in two different location. Courtesy of this insane website: http://ift.tt/2f5YOqL.

From Alan L. on what I might have seen a decade ago in New Mexico: “My mistake. I meant to say marsh gas.”

Marsh gas or swamp gas can certainly produce blue-colored light, as well as the famed will-o’-the-wisp effect. (It’s not just for Magic: The Gathering, folks!) But the New Mexico desert isn’t really known for its marshes or swamps, nor are marsh gas/swamp gas lights known for moving in the sky.

SpooooOOOOooooky, isn’t it?

(But then again, for all I know it could’ve been an isolated auto dealership testing its lights and then turning them off.)

A singularity is where conventional physics breaks down, whether you’re talking about the very beginning of the Universe and the birth of space and time or the very central point of a black hole. Image credit: © 2007-2016, Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics, Potsdam.

From Wow on a 4D creature transporting our forlorn 3D selves: “[I]f WE took a 2D collage picture object and “teleported it” by moving it through the 3rd dimension then it would only reappear if we translated it in the 2D plane parallel at a rate no faster than if we’d moved it in the same 2D plane. And if the 2D plane were curved into a sphere, we could transport that surface image to the other side of the planet in a time of the diameter divided by velocity, rather than Pi times the radius divided by the velocity.”

This is an excellent point. If the speed of light is a limiting speed in any number of dimensions — not just 3 — then there’s a limit to how fast a teleportation could take place. Assuming everyone moves through time at the same rate, and a higher-dimensional creature couldn’t just fast-forward or re-wind the clock at will, and assuming that space isn’t catastrophically crumpled in the higher dimensions, motion through the fourth dimension would effectively be limited by approximately our 3D limits given the speed of light.

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons user Lunch, of a 2-D projection of a Calabi-Yau manifold, one popular method of compactifying the extra, unwanted dimensions of String Theory.

Of course, if string theory is right, the Calabi-Yau manifold is exactly as horrifically crumpled and compactified as you might imagine for this exact violation of traditional, flat-space relativity to occur. Not in our three dimensions, mind you, but in the other ones. It might be conceivable to take a very crooked path through the other dimensions and wind up someplace very, very disconnected from our own, while still obeying special relativity.

Good thing string theory is too scary for me to entertain seriously, even on Halloween weekend.

Whether charged or uncharged, there’s a minimum size where physics makes sense.

From ketchup on the Planck length: “I am interested in the justification for this statement about the fundamental quantum limit of 10^-35 meters. This distance is known as the Planck length, and is obtained from the gravitational constant, Planck’s constant, and the speed of light. But the idea that one cannot even in principle explore distances below this length is speculation that has no empirical justification.”

There’s no experimental or empirical justification for this because we’ve never achieved the energies to test it, but there’s a good theoretical reason for this limit. I want you to do the following thought experiment: start by thinking about the Compton wavelength of a particle. This is basically asking “what is the length scale that corresponds to scattering” for a particle? The length scale is inversely proportional to mass (or energy), so higher energies mean shorter wavelengths. At some point, your energy can get so high that your lengths get short enough that the Compton wavelength becomes smaller than the Schwarzschild radius corresponding to that energy scale.

Illustration credit: ESA, retrieved via http://ift.tt/116JDqc.

And all of a sudden, you’ve made a black hole. So that’s why you can’t explore distances below that, because if you made something energetic enough to scatter with those small distance scales, it would collapse into a black hole rather than scatter. That’s why the Planck scale really is a limit. At least, if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are right.

Image credit: Kyle Hill of http://ift.tt/2ebjtw3.

From G on the simulation hypothesis and… cults: “The technology cults are engaged in the fundamental dishonesty of offering religion in the guise of science. When Deepak Chopra plays this game we laugh; but when Ray Kurzweil and Nick Bostrom do likewise, what then? Take them seriously, because they sell salvation in a computer rather than in a “healing-energy crystal”?”

If you can test it, experiment on it and either come up with tests that validate or repudiate it then it becomes very interesting: it becomes science. If you can’t, however, if all you can do is use it to make sweeping, dreamy statements about what might be in an untestable fashion, you’re just telling stories. My facebook is filled with ads from scam artists like “Elysium Health” and the like, trying to get me to buy into infinite life and the technological singularity.

Image credit: from anrophysics 2008-09, via Bangkok Patana School http://ift.tt/2f5WL5V.

There’s only one kind of singularity I believe in, and it isn’t a technological one. My own personal beliefs are that we all came from nothing — although I don’t came to understand what nothingness is fully — and that we all head back into nothing at the ends of our lives. Somehow, I think that a singer like Emmylou Harris captures this better than anything Ray Kurzweil or Elon Musk has ever opined on the topic.

The remnants of the Schiaparelli lander. Image credit: NASA / Mars HiRISE.

From PJ on the fate of the Schiaparelli lander: “A pity Schiaparelli has been lost.”

There were some people contending, even after the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter found the dark spot where it impacted, that perhaps Schiaparelli wasn’t lost after all. I think that, unfortunately, the HiRISE image above shows us what we all feared: this thing is nothing more than catastrophic wreckage now.

It’s a tragedy anytime someone’s life’s work and dreams are dashed. In the case of Schiaparelli, it comes at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars and the dreams of a team of close to 100 people. Very sad, indeed.

Image credit: La Truffe, via http://ift.tt/15c6Jhu.

From greg on extra dimensions: “How can we scientifically prove that we live in a world with no additional dimensions? Could it be that we really live in 11 large dimensions world, but “see” only 4 of them as a limitation of our experiments equipment?”

There are effects we can look for as evidence that we live in a Universe with more than three dimensions. If you want those dimensions to be large — as in, larger than the Planck length — they will have effects on our Universe that we could uncover with advanced enough technology or experiments. If you want to prove that we live in a world with no additional dimensions, you can’t, but you can constrain them to the point of irrelevance: if it doesn’t affect your Universe, that might as well be the equivalent of it not existing.

The Standard Model particles and their supersymmetric counterparts. Exactly 50% of these particles have been discovered, and 50% have never showed a trace that they exist. Image credit: Claire David, of http://ift.tt/291yhcG.

From Wow on the standard model: “The standard model requires higher dimensions, but rolled up to work, therefore if the standard model is correct, we have extra dimensions.”

Not quite. There are a lot of things that are consequences of the standard model that are nicer in extra dimensions, and that offer some fun circumstantial evidence for it, such as the Wess-Zumino-Witten model. If you want to do fun things like break symmetry, give mass to particles and make your field theory work properly, you can do it in 3+1 dimensions, like Wess and Zumino did back in 1971. But it’s messy. It’s hideous. It’s like trying to do electricity and magnetism without complex numbers. But if you add in one extra dimension, it becomes easy and beautiful, and that’s why “Witten” got added to the model in the mid-1980s.

But there’s no physical difference, it’s just a beauty one. You may be thinking that if string theory is correct, then we have supersymmetry at some scale, or that if QCD is correct, then we have glueballs (bound states of gluons alone) at some scale. But nothing we’ve discovered requires extra dimensions, they just make things prettier.

While stars might cluster in the disk and the normal matter might be restricted to a nearby region around the stars, dark matter extends in a halo more than 10 times the extent of the luminous portion. Image credit: ESO/L. Calçada.

From Louis Wilbur on dark matter simulations: “Readers of this blog should be aware of the new paper titled “The Mass-Discrepancy Acceleration Relation: a Natural Outcome of Galaxy Formation in CDM halos” at http://ift.tt/2ebpZ5R.”

This is a completely different set of independent simulations, by a consortium that includes Carlos Frenk and Julio Navarro, the “N” and the “F” of NFW, the first universal dark matter profile. What’s interesting in there is that the evolution their simulations predict for the g_baryon vs. g_acceleration relation with redshift differs dramatically from the Keller and Wadsley simulations, but both simulations predict the McGaugh et al. relation at low redshifts. Unfortunately, we only have good measurements of rotation curves at redshifts of 0.1 and less.

It’s also worth pointing out that this independent relation is not the same as a realistic rotation curve; both dark matter groups still struggle with that with a large fraction of their simulated galaxies.

The correlation between gravitational acceleration (y-axis) and the normal, baryonic matter (x-axis) visible in an assembly of 153 galaxies. The blue points show each individual galaxy, while the red show binned data. Image credit: The Radial Acceleration Relation in Rotationally Supported Galaxies, Stacy McGaugh, Federico Lelli and Jim Schombert, 2016. From http://ift.tt/2ddyA87.

From Anonymous Coward on galaxy size and rotation: “As I recall, the McGaugh team’s observations had many galaxies of various sizes, including ones that were supposedly dominated by dark matter and had very little baryonic matter. Are there galaxies like that in the McMaster simulation or other ones, and do they also obey the SPARC acceleration law in simulation?”

No, they don’t. None of these simulations go below about 10% the Milky Way’s mass in terms of the galaxies they reproduce, and there’s a good reason for that: computational power. If you want to simulate a smaller galaxy as a part of the cosmic web, you need greater resolution, which means you need more particles of lower mass. We’re already running trillion-particle simulations, and to get down to the lower ranges, we’d need to go up to 10 quadrillion particle simulations. That is… beyond our computational capabilities. But with Moore’s law or quantum computers, who knows? We might be there by the 2030s.

The figure representing the confidence in accelerated expansion and in the measurement of dark energy (y-axis) and matter (x-axis) from supernovae alone. Image credit: Nielsen, Guffanti and Sarkar, 2016, from the preprint at http://ift.tt/2dLO84v.

From Naked Bunny with a Whip on supernovae and dark energy: “Silly Bunny momentarily forgot Betteridge’s law of headlines.”

From Sinisa Lazarek on the same topic: “i like this quote from wiki: “… To a busy journalist hunting for real information a question mark means ‘don’t bother reading this bit’ ””

I wouldn’t have needed to write this piece at all if it weren’t for bad journalism that actively stated that the new supernova paper meant that dark energy wasn’t real. There has been some catastrophically bad science journalism happening over this past week, and I feel like I’m the only voice of reason out there. But does that mean I have to stop using question marks, or no one will read me?

Or does it just mean I need to make sure that the answer to everything that does end with a question mark has ‘no’ as the answer, to keep Betteridge’s Law true?

The particles and antiparticles of the Standard Model. Image credit: E. Siegel.

And finally, from Sinisa Lazarek on dark matter and the Standard Model: “What’s the story on the actual progress of trying to put it within the standard model? For as long as I remember, the story (here on blog, but elsewhere as well) revolves around more and more observations that it’s real. OK, but what about the actual particle? Are we really out of ideas for more than 20 years? IMO axions sound promising, but is there no model that doesn’t require super simetry?

It almost.. almost.. seems like the majority of community has accepted it, and fell into the usual re-print of how we know about it. But I would really be interested to hear from time to time if some groups are making any progress in actually figuring where or how it sits in grand scheme of things in the theoretical sense.”

So what you see above is the Standard Model. We can quantify the full suite of everything that exists “up there” in the Universe today. About 0.4% of the dark matter can be accounted for from neutrinos and antineutrinos, but the other 99%+ is something that’s not in the Standard Model. So whatever you’re going to have account for the dark matter needs to be outside the Standard Model, period.

If dark matter does have a self-interaction, its cross-section is tremendously low, as direct detection experiments have shown. (Image credit: Mirabolfathi, Nader arXiv:1308.0044 [astro-ph.IM], via http://ift.tt/1Mh44G5)

If it’s WIMPs, we have a big constraint on their cross-section. If it’s axions, we have a big constraint on theirs and their production. And if it’s a Kaluza-Klein (extra dimension) particle… well, that’s just a class of WIMP. Yes, we have cooked up all sorts of ideas and candidates, from WIMPzillas at the ultra-massive end to supersymmetric axinos — the SUSY counterpart of the axion — but they’re all poorly motivated, to be honest. It’s not that we’re out of ideas, it’s that we had very few good ideas, and the ones we did have appear to be well on their way to having their viable parameter space narrowed and narrowed ever further.

There has been no good progress, and that’s why you don’t hear anything. When a good idea comes around, you’ll hear about it. I mean, you’re hearing about bad ideas all the time if you’re listening to the science news… because of the perception people have that a bad idea is better than no idea.

It’s a lie. We have no idea. And so we search.

It’s the ultimate Halloween horror story.

Darkness.

Forever.

Never illuminated.

And then the one door at the end of the tunnel that we all must pass through.

Happy Halloween.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2f5XHHI