Star of the week: Aldebaran is the Bull’s fiery eye

Reddish Aldebaran – the fiery eye of the Bull in the constellation Taurus – is an aging star and a huge star! The computed diameter is between 35 and 40 solar diameters. If Aldebaran were placed where the sun is now, its surface would extend almost to the orbit of Mercury. Follow the links below to learn more about this prominent and fascinating star.

Science of star Aldebaran.

How to see Aldebaran.

History and mythology of Aldebaran.

Aldebaran and sun. Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Science of star Aldebaran. This star glows with the orangish color of a K5 giant star. In visible light, it is about 153 times brighter than the sun, although its surface temperature is lower (roughly 4000 kelvins compared to 5800 kelvins for the sun).

Aldebaran is about 65 light-years away, much closer than the stars of the Hyades with which it misleadingly seems associated. The Hyades are about 150 light-years away.

Aldebaran is an erratic variable with minor variations too small to be noticed by the eye. It also has a small, faint companion star, an M-type red dwarf, some 3.5 light-days away. In other words, light from Aldebaran would need to travel for 3.5 days to reach the companion, in contrast to light from our sun, which requires 8 minutes to travel to Earth.

The three medium-bright stars of Orion’s Belt point to reddish Aldebaran. Image Credit: SolarEmpireUK

How to see Aldebaran. Aldebaran is easy to find. Frequently imagined as the fiery eye of Taurus the Bull, Aldebaran is part of a V-shaped star grouping that forms the face of the Bull. This pattern is called the Hyades.

You can also locate Aldebaran using the famous constellation Orion as a guide. Simply locate the three stars of Orion’s Belt. Then draw an imaginary line through the belt to the right. The first bright star you come to will be Aldebaran with its distinctive reddish-orange glow.

Aldebaran is the 14th brightest star, but five of those that outshine it are only barely visible or not visible at all from much of the Northern Hemisphere. Aldebaran is primarily a winter and spring star. At least, that is when this red star is most easily visible in the evening sky. By early December, it rises shortly after sunset and is visible all night. Three months later it is high to the south at sunset, and sets at around midnight. By early May, it hangs low about the western sunset glow – and before the end of the month, it’s lost altogether. It returns to the predawn sky around late June.

By the way, although it appears among them, Aldebaran is not actually a member of the V-shaped Hyades cluster. It is actually much closer to us in space than the actual Hyades stars.

Constellation Taurus. See Aldebaran marked as the Bull’s Eye? View larger.

History and mythology of Aldebaran. Aldebaran is often depicted as the fiery eye of Taurus the Bull. Because it is bright and prominent, Aldebaran was honored as one of the Four Royal Stars in ancient Persia, the other three Royal Stars being Regulus, Antares and Fomalhaut.

The name Aldebaran is from the Arabic for “The Follower,” presumably as a hunter following prey, which here likely was the star cluster we call the Pleiades. The latter was often viewed as a flock of birds, perhaps doves. According to Richard Hinckley Allen in his classic book Star Names, the name Aldebaran once was applied to the entire Hyades star cluster, a large loose collection of faint stars.

In Hindu myth, Aldebaran was sometimes identified with a beautiful young woman named Rohini, disguised as an antelope and pursued by her lecherous father, disguised as a deer, Mriga. Apparently several ancient peoples associated the star with rain. The Wikipedia entry notes a Dakota Sioux story in which Aldebaran was a star which had fallen to the Earth and whose killing of a serpent led to the formation of the Mississippi River. Allen notes a number of other alternate names, but precious little mythology is known for Aldebaran separately.

Aldebaran is the name of one of the chariot horses in the movie Ben Hur.

On a different note, astronomer Jack Eddy has suggested a connection with the Big Horn Medicine Wheel, an ancient circle of stones atop a mountain in Wyoming. Eddy wrote that the ancient Americans may have used this site as a sort of observatory to view the rising of Aldebaran just before the sun in June to predict the June solstice.

Interestingly, in about two million years, the American spaceprobe Pioneer 10, now heading out into deep space, will pass Aldebaran.

Aldebaran’s position is RA: 4h 35m 55s, dec: 16°30’35”



from EarthSky http://ift.tt/Yhp9Em

Reddish Aldebaran – the fiery eye of the Bull in the constellation Taurus – is an aging star and a huge star! The computed diameter is between 35 and 40 solar diameters. If Aldebaran were placed where the sun is now, its surface would extend almost to the orbit of Mercury. Follow the links below to learn more about this prominent and fascinating star.

Science of star Aldebaran.

How to see Aldebaran.

History and mythology of Aldebaran.

Aldebaran and sun. Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Science of star Aldebaran. This star glows with the orangish color of a K5 giant star. In visible light, it is about 153 times brighter than the sun, although its surface temperature is lower (roughly 4000 kelvins compared to 5800 kelvins for the sun).

Aldebaran is about 65 light-years away, much closer than the stars of the Hyades with which it misleadingly seems associated. The Hyades are about 150 light-years away.

Aldebaran is an erratic variable with minor variations too small to be noticed by the eye. It also has a small, faint companion star, an M-type red dwarf, some 3.5 light-days away. In other words, light from Aldebaran would need to travel for 3.5 days to reach the companion, in contrast to light from our sun, which requires 8 minutes to travel to Earth.

The three medium-bright stars of Orion’s Belt point to reddish Aldebaran. Image Credit: SolarEmpireUK

How to see Aldebaran. Aldebaran is easy to find. Frequently imagined as the fiery eye of Taurus the Bull, Aldebaran is part of a V-shaped star grouping that forms the face of the Bull. This pattern is called the Hyades.

You can also locate Aldebaran using the famous constellation Orion as a guide. Simply locate the three stars of Orion’s Belt. Then draw an imaginary line through the belt to the right. The first bright star you come to will be Aldebaran with its distinctive reddish-orange glow.

Aldebaran is the 14th brightest star, but five of those that outshine it are only barely visible or not visible at all from much of the Northern Hemisphere. Aldebaran is primarily a winter and spring star. At least, that is when this red star is most easily visible in the evening sky. By early December, it rises shortly after sunset and is visible all night. Three months later it is high to the south at sunset, and sets at around midnight. By early May, it hangs low about the western sunset glow – and before the end of the month, it’s lost altogether. It returns to the predawn sky around late June.

By the way, although it appears among them, Aldebaran is not actually a member of the V-shaped Hyades cluster. It is actually much closer to us in space than the actual Hyades stars.

Constellation Taurus. See Aldebaran marked as the Bull’s Eye? View larger.

History and mythology of Aldebaran. Aldebaran is often depicted as the fiery eye of Taurus the Bull. Because it is bright and prominent, Aldebaran was honored as one of the Four Royal Stars in ancient Persia, the other three Royal Stars being Regulus, Antares and Fomalhaut.

The name Aldebaran is from the Arabic for “The Follower,” presumably as a hunter following prey, which here likely was the star cluster we call the Pleiades. The latter was often viewed as a flock of birds, perhaps doves. According to Richard Hinckley Allen in his classic book Star Names, the name Aldebaran once was applied to the entire Hyades star cluster, a large loose collection of faint stars.

In Hindu myth, Aldebaran was sometimes identified with a beautiful young woman named Rohini, disguised as an antelope and pursued by her lecherous father, disguised as a deer, Mriga. Apparently several ancient peoples associated the star with rain. The Wikipedia entry notes a Dakota Sioux story in which Aldebaran was a star which had fallen to the Earth and whose killing of a serpent led to the formation of the Mississippi River. Allen notes a number of other alternate names, but precious little mythology is known for Aldebaran separately.

Aldebaran is the name of one of the chariot horses in the movie Ben Hur.

On a different note, astronomer Jack Eddy has suggested a connection with the Big Horn Medicine Wheel, an ancient circle of stones atop a mountain in Wyoming. Eddy wrote that the ancient Americans may have used this site as a sort of observatory to view the rising of Aldebaran just before the sun in June to predict the June solstice.

Interestingly, in about two million years, the American spaceprobe Pioneer 10, now heading out into deep space, will pass Aldebaran.

Aldebaran’s position is RA: 4h 35m 55s, dec: 16°30’35”



from EarthSky http://ift.tt/Yhp9Em

Sun halo over South Pole

Photo by Hunter Davis. T see more photos like this, Visit his website.

Photo taken at the South Pole, Antarctica, by Hunter Davis. Canon 60d, 10mm lens. To see more photos like this, visit his website.

Hunter Davis submitted this image to EarthSky. It’s a halo around the sun – caused by ice crystals in high thin cirrus clouds in Earth’s atmosphere – visible over Earth’s South Pole on December 18, 2015.

Hunter said he got this shot around 1 a.m. That’s right. Around the time of the December solstice, when the sun is at its southernmost point in Earth’s sky – the South Pole is in daylight 24 hours a day.

He also said it was around -20 Fahrenheit (around -30 Celsius) at the time!

Thank you, Hunter.



from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1OwbabL
Photo by Hunter Davis. T see more photos like this, Visit his website.

Photo taken at the South Pole, Antarctica, by Hunter Davis. Canon 60d, 10mm lens. To see more photos like this, visit his website.

Hunter Davis submitted this image to EarthSky. It’s a halo around the sun – caused by ice crystals in high thin cirrus clouds in Earth’s atmosphere – visible over Earth’s South Pole on December 18, 2015.

Hunter said he got this shot around 1 a.m. That’s right. Around the time of the December solstice, when the sun is at its southernmost point in Earth’s sky – the South Pole is in daylight 24 hours a day.

He also said it was around -20 Fahrenheit (around -30 Celsius) at the time!

Thank you, Hunter.



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

More acupuncture Tooth Fairy science as 2015 approaches its end [Respectful Insolence]

Several years ago, Harriet Hall coined a term that is most apt: Tooth fairy science. The term refers to clinical trials and basic science performed on fantasy. More specifically, it refers to doing research on a phenomenon before it has been scientifically established that the phenomenon exists. Harriet put it this way:

You could measure how much money the Tooth Fairy leaves under the pillow, whether she leaves more cash for the first or last tooth, whether the payoff is greater if you leave the tooth in a plastic baggie versus wrapped in Kleenex. You can get all kinds of good data that is reproducible and statistically significant. Yes, you have learned something. But you haven’t learned what you think you’ve learned, because you haven’t bothered to establish whether the Tooth Fairy really exists.


There’s a lot of tooth fairy science out there right now. It’s been increasing in quantity ever since the rise of so-called “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM), now known as “integrative medicine” over the last two decades. “Energy healing,” acupuncture, homeopathy, craniosacral therapy, reflexology, even faith healing, there’s no pseudoscience too ridiculous to be excluded from pointless clinical trials. What all these clinical trials share in common is that they are tooth fairy science. They study a phenomenon without its ever having been established that the phenomenon actually exists. Worse, because of the vagaries of he clinical trial process, bias, and even just the random noise in clinical trial results that produce seemingly positive trials by random chance alone, advocates of these pseudoscientific treatments can always point to evidence that their treatment “works.” The overall body of existing research on a treatment like homeopathy is negative, but homeopaths can always cherry pick individual studies and sound convincing doing it.

Here’s another one that I’ve become aware of. It’s a couple of months old, but better late than never. Unfortunately, it was funded by the American Cancer Society, which really should know better, and touted on its website with the headline Acupressure May Ease Breast Cancer-Related Pain, Fatigue. Yes, it’s a study of auricular point acupuncture (APA) in breast cancer patients, and it’s based on prescientific ideas with no basis in anatomy and physiology:

APA therapy is a form of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) based on a concept called the meridian theory. It proposes that how you feel is governed by the flow of energy, or qi, through a network of invisible pathways that connect different organs in the body. Specific points on the ear correspond to specific areas of the brain, and these areas have a reflex connection with specific parts of the body. Stimulating the ear points can signal the brain to prompt reactions in the body to relieve symptoms, such as breast cancer-related pain.

“We have all the points on the ear that correspond to our body parts,” says Yeh. “That means I can always find a point on the ear to deliver treatment.”

Here we go again. Qi is a vitalistic concept; there is no such thing. Science has never been able to detect it, nor has any acupuncturist or practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) been able to demonstrate that she can detect or manipulate it. When it comes to acupuncture, for example, which is based on the fantasy that sticking thin needles in “meridians” through which the qi supposedly flows will “unblock” the flow of qi, with healing effect, studies have consistently shown that it doesn’t matter where you stick the needles (thus invalidating meridians) and that, in fact, it doesn’t even matter if you actually stick the needles in. The result is the same and can be explained by placebo effects. And no, there are not points on the ear that correspond to different body parts; this is nothing more than a variation on reflexology.

So what about the study itself? Let’s take a look. Before I get to the study design itself, I can’t resist pointing out a particularly bit of silly pseudoscience in the introduction of the article:

Auricular point acupressure (APA) involves attaching a few very small plant seeds (eg, Vaccaria segetalis) with a small amount of adhesive tape to the outer ear and ear lobe of an individual to treat symptoms (eg, pain) throughout the body. Auricular point acupressure is a well-established treatment strategy in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). In TCM, particular points on the ear are related to all parts of the human body, including each of the internal organs, and all meridians have reference points on the ear. In 1972, Dr Paul Nogier, a French neurosurgeon, retheorized that the outer ear represents an inverted fetus within the womb and therefore provides the acupressure points that correspond to all parts of the human body, including the internal organs. Nogier’s mapping and distribution of these specific auricular points—or acupoints—on the outer ear have since been widely used by therapists worldwide. Moreover, the World Health Organization considers auricular medicine as a form of microacupuncture that has therapeutic effects on the entire body.

The ear represents an “inverted fetus”? Give me a break. Acupuncturists will believe anything. Or so it would seem. One wonders if they’ll do a clinical trial based on meridians mapping to the butt. Why not? Others have believed this enough to be perfectly willing to accept an abstract for presentation. Maybe they used this map:

The first thing I noticed about this trial is how small it was. It only involved, 31 patients. These were divided into two groups. One received what was described as “active APA,” described as “featuring acupoints related to symptoms—seeds taped onto the designated acupoints for pain, fatigue, and sleep.” How were these acupoints selected? This you need to read:

The Chinese Standard Ear-Acupoints Chart was used as a guide to locate the active ear points.34 A systematic auricular diagnostic procedure was used to identify reactive acupoints for treatment.35 Identification of acupoints includes 3 steps: (1) query the participants about where they were experiencing pain in the body; (2) visually inspect the ear to see if there is any discoloration or deformity on the auricle; (3) utilize the electronic point finder to identify acupoints. The electronic point finder used in this study, manufactured by Auricular Medicine and International Research and Training Center (Hooner, Alabama), measures auricular cutaneous resistance to identify ear acupoints. In most cases, auricular acupoints on both ears were identified for treatment; however, if the participant’s pain was located on 1 side of the body, then only that side was tested and treated. The number of points treated and their specific locations on the ears of each patient varied slightly because each patient experienced pain in different body locations and the different pain projected onto different corresponding points according to somatic topography. Between 8 and 12 total acupoints were used for each participant.

Here we go again with more tooth fairy science. Once again, it has not been established that these auricular acupoints actually exist, much less that this woo machine can detect them by measuring auricular cutaneous resistance.

What about the controls? Basically, for the controls investigators used what they described as acupoints unrelated to the patients’ symptoms. Specifically:

Control participants had Vaccaria seeds taped onto the stomach, mouth, duodenum, and eye acupoints that were not related to the symptom cluster of pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbance.

I suppose that’s as good a control as any. Yes, I’m being sarcastic. I find it hard to restrain my…Insolence…when reading a methods section like this. In any event, the seeds were stuck to the ear acupoints with surgical tape, and the subjects were instructed to apply pressure to the seeds with their thumb and forefinger three times per day for three minutes each time, even if they were not experiencing any symptoms.

One thing leapt out at me right away. Well, maybe that’s the wrong word. One thing was conspicuous by its absence. I looked and looked but didn’t find it. What am I referring to? I didn’t find any mention of blinding procedure. Not surprisingly given that, there was no mention of assessing adequacy of blinding. (I suppose that’s rather hard to do if there’s no blinding.) So I have to assume that this study was not blinded, particularly given this description of the placement of seeds on the acupoints:

During the APA treatment, participants were asked to sit in a comfortable chair in an outpatient clinic. Acupoints on each ear were identified using both an electronic acupoint locator and systematic auricular strategies, which include visual inspection (ie, identifying palpation on the ear) and probing for tenderness. The acupoint locator has 2 probes: one was held by the participant, and the other was used by the PI to locate the acupoints. The locator makes a sound when the probe makes contact with acupoints corresponding to (1) particular target symptoms and/or (2) pain in particular parts of the body. When the locator sounded, participants were asked if they were experiencing pain in the particular part of the body corresponding to that acupoint or asked to describe the symptom they were experiencing. After acupoints were identified, the PI placed seeds on the acupoints for each participant using tape; this procedure took 5 to 10 minutes. The PI demonstrated the technique for applying pressure to the acupoints with the thumb and index finger and then asked the participants to perform the technique to verify that they understood the technique.

The ultimate machine that goes ping! In any case, although it’s unclear whether or not this is the case, it certainly sounds as though the PI (principal investigator, for those of you who don’t know the lingo) knew who was in the control group and who was receiving “real” APA right from the beginning. If that’s the case then it almost doesn’t matter what the results were; they’re meaningless. Unblinded acupuncture studies are basically even more worthless than the usual acupuncture study. Oh, what the heck? I’ve written this much already. I might as well finish it.

Participants recorded their symptoms at baseline using the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI), which uses a 0-10 point numerical rating scale, with 0 meaning “not present” and 10 meaning “as bad as you can imagine.” It’s a widely used scale to measure cancer symptoms. They also recorded the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOLBREF), which is a 26-item questionnaire used to assess general quality of life in terms of physical, psychological,
social, and environment factors. These were assessed at the end of the trial period as well, and differences in various measures examined. What the investigators found is this:

After 4 weeks of APA, participants in the active APA treatment had reported a reduction of 71% in pain, 44% in fatigue, 31% in sleep disturbance, and 61% in interference with daily activities. The control APA group experienced some moderate reduction in these symptoms.

That’s from the abstract. Reading that, my first question was this: Why didn’t they provide the numbers for the control group as well? “Some moderate reduction”? What does that even mean? There’s also a key bit of information in the actual text that tells a lot more. For one thing, the data are presented in an enormous chart with differences between baseline and end of intervention for the experimental group, culminating with columns showing the difference between APA and control. It’s a very difficult-to-read method of presenting the findings, and I was puzzled as to why they didn’t just directly show changes in the various measures in the controls next to the changes observed in the APA group in graphical form of some sort. Be that as it may, here’s the key:

After the 4-week APA treatment, the mean scores for pain, fatigue, sleep, lack of appetite, distress, dry mouth, sadness, and numbness displayed decreases that were clinically significant (ie, defined as symptom decreases of Q30%; data available upon request). In addition, Table 5 lists outcomes of interferences and quality of life. Participants in the active APA group had higher improvement of interferences and better quality of life than did those in the control APA group; however, the difference of the improvement was not statistically significant.

So basically, most of the differences were not statistically significant. Worse, there are 18 different measures being examined in two time periods each, baseline to end of intervention and baseline to the one month followup. That’s 36 comparisons. I see no evidence that correction was made for multiple comparisons, although I could be wrong. (Again, the methods section of this paper really stinks in terms of providing key details needed to evaluate the study.) So is it a surprise that a handful of measures are borderline statistically significant? No, it is not.

Basically, between the lack of blinding and the apparent lack of correction for multiple comparisons, this is a negative study. Yet it’s being promoted as a positive study and used as the basis for further grant applications. Such is the way it works with the tooth fairy science that is “integrative medicine.”



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

Several years ago, Harriet Hall coined a term that is most apt: Tooth fairy science. The term refers to clinical trials and basic science performed on fantasy. More specifically, it refers to doing research on a phenomenon before it has been scientifically established that the phenomenon exists. Harriet put it this way:

You could measure how much money the Tooth Fairy leaves under the pillow, whether she leaves more cash for the first or last tooth, whether the payoff is greater if you leave the tooth in a plastic baggie versus wrapped in Kleenex. You can get all kinds of good data that is reproducible and statistically significant. Yes, you have learned something. But you haven’t learned what you think you’ve learned, because you haven’t bothered to establish whether the Tooth Fairy really exists.


There’s a lot of tooth fairy science out there right now. It’s been increasing in quantity ever since the rise of so-called “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM), now known as “integrative medicine” over the last two decades. “Energy healing,” acupuncture, homeopathy, craniosacral therapy, reflexology, even faith healing, there’s no pseudoscience too ridiculous to be excluded from pointless clinical trials. What all these clinical trials share in common is that they are tooth fairy science. They study a phenomenon without its ever having been established that the phenomenon actually exists. Worse, because of the vagaries of he clinical trial process, bias, and even just the random noise in clinical trial results that produce seemingly positive trials by random chance alone, advocates of these pseudoscientific treatments can always point to evidence that their treatment “works.” The overall body of existing research on a treatment like homeopathy is negative, but homeopaths can always cherry pick individual studies and sound convincing doing it.

Here’s another one that I’ve become aware of. It’s a couple of months old, but better late than never. Unfortunately, it was funded by the American Cancer Society, which really should know better, and touted on its website with the headline Acupressure May Ease Breast Cancer-Related Pain, Fatigue. Yes, it’s a study of auricular point acupuncture (APA) in breast cancer patients, and it’s based on prescientific ideas with no basis in anatomy and physiology:

APA therapy is a form of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) based on a concept called the meridian theory. It proposes that how you feel is governed by the flow of energy, or qi, through a network of invisible pathways that connect different organs in the body. Specific points on the ear correspond to specific areas of the brain, and these areas have a reflex connection with specific parts of the body. Stimulating the ear points can signal the brain to prompt reactions in the body to relieve symptoms, such as breast cancer-related pain.

“We have all the points on the ear that correspond to our body parts,” says Yeh. “That means I can always find a point on the ear to deliver treatment.”

Here we go again. Qi is a vitalistic concept; there is no such thing. Science has never been able to detect it, nor has any acupuncturist or practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) been able to demonstrate that she can detect or manipulate it. When it comes to acupuncture, for example, which is based on the fantasy that sticking thin needles in “meridians” through which the qi supposedly flows will “unblock” the flow of qi, with healing effect, studies have consistently shown that it doesn’t matter where you stick the needles (thus invalidating meridians) and that, in fact, it doesn’t even matter if you actually stick the needles in. The result is the same and can be explained by placebo effects. And no, there are not points on the ear that correspond to different body parts; this is nothing more than a variation on reflexology.

So what about the study itself? Let’s take a look. Before I get to the study design itself, I can’t resist pointing out a particularly bit of silly pseudoscience in the introduction of the article:

Auricular point acupressure (APA) involves attaching a few very small plant seeds (eg, Vaccaria segetalis) with a small amount of adhesive tape to the outer ear and ear lobe of an individual to treat symptoms (eg, pain) throughout the body. Auricular point acupressure is a well-established treatment strategy in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). In TCM, particular points on the ear are related to all parts of the human body, including each of the internal organs, and all meridians have reference points on the ear. In 1972, Dr Paul Nogier, a French neurosurgeon, retheorized that the outer ear represents an inverted fetus within the womb and therefore provides the acupressure points that correspond to all parts of the human body, including the internal organs. Nogier’s mapping and distribution of these specific auricular points—or acupoints—on the outer ear have since been widely used by therapists worldwide. Moreover, the World Health Organization considers auricular medicine as a form of microacupuncture that has therapeutic effects on the entire body.

The ear represents an “inverted fetus”? Give me a break. Acupuncturists will believe anything. Or so it would seem. One wonders if they’ll do a clinical trial based on meridians mapping to the butt. Why not? Others have believed this enough to be perfectly willing to accept an abstract for presentation. Maybe they used this map:

The first thing I noticed about this trial is how small it was. It only involved, 31 patients. These were divided into two groups. One received what was described as “active APA,” described as “featuring acupoints related to symptoms—seeds taped onto the designated acupoints for pain, fatigue, and sleep.” How were these acupoints selected? This you need to read:

The Chinese Standard Ear-Acupoints Chart was used as a guide to locate the active ear points.34 A systematic auricular diagnostic procedure was used to identify reactive acupoints for treatment.35 Identification of acupoints includes 3 steps: (1) query the participants about where they were experiencing pain in the body; (2) visually inspect the ear to see if there is any discoloration or deformity on the auricle; (3) utilize the electronic point finder to identify acupoints. The electronic point finder used in this study, manufactured by Auricular Medicine and International Research and Training Center (Hooner, Alabama), measures auricular cutaneous resistance to identify ear acupoints. In most cases, auricular acupoints on both ears were identified for treatment; however, if the participant’s pain was located on 1 side of the body, then only that side was tested and treated. The number of points treated and their specific locations on the ears of each patient varied slightly because each patient experienced pain in different body locations and the different pain projected onto different corresponding points according to somatic topography. Between 8 and 12 total acupoints were used for each participant.

Here we go again with more tooth fairy science. Once again, it has not been established that these auricular acupoints actually exist, much less that this woo machine can detect them by measuring auricular cutaneous resistance.

What about the controls? Basically, for the controls investigators used what they described as acupoints unrelated to the patients’ symptoms. Specifically:

Control participants had Vaccaria seeds taped onto the stomach, mouth, duodenum, and eye acupoints that were not related to the symptom cluster of pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbance.

I suppose that’s as good a control as any. Yes, I’m being sarcastic. I find it hard to restrain my…Insolence…when reading a methods section like this. In any event, the seeds were stuck to the ear acupoints with surgical tape, and the subjects were instructed to apply pressure to the seeds with their thumb and forefinger three times per day for three minutes each time, even if they were not experiencing any symptoms.

One thing leapt out at me right away. Well, maybe that’s the wrong word. One thing was conspicuous by its absence. I looked and looked but didn’t find it. What am I referring to? I didn’t find any mention of blinding procedure. Not surprisingly given that, there was no mention of assessing adequacy of blinding. (I suppose that’s rather hard to do if there’s no blinding.) So I have to assume that this study was not blinded, particularly given this description of the placement of seeds on the acupoints:

During the APA treatment, participants were asked to sit in a comfortable chair in an outpatient clinic. Acupoints on each ear were identified using both an electronic acupoint locator and systematic auricular strategies, which include visual inspection (ie, identifying palpation on the ear) and probing for tenderness. The acupoint locator has 2 probes: one was held by the participant, and the other was used by the PI to locate the acupoints. The locator makes a sound when the probe makes contact with acupoints corresponding to (1) particular target symptoms and/or (2) pain in particular parts of the body. When the locator sounded, participants were asked if they were experiencing pain in the particular part of the body corresponding to that acupoint or asked to describe the symptom they were experiencing. After acupoints were identified, the PI placed seeds on the acupoints for each participant using tape; this procedure took 5 to 10 minutes. The PI demonstrated the technique for applying pressure to the acupoints with the thumb and index finger and then asked the participants to perform the technique to verify that they understood the technique.

The ultimate machine that goes ping! In any case, although it’s unclear whether or not this is the case, it certainly sounds as though the PI (principal investigator, for those of you who don’t know the lingo) knew who was in the control group and who was receiving “real” APA right from the beginning. If that’s the case then it almost doesn’t matter what the results were; they’re meaningless. Unblinded acupuncture studies are basically even more worthless than the usual acupuncture study. Oh, what the heck? I’ve written this much already. I might as well finish it.

Participants recorded their symptoms at baseline using the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI), which uses a 0-10 point numerical rating scale, with 0 meaning “not present” and 10 meaning “as bad as you can imagine.” It’s a widely used scale to measure cancer symptoms. They also recorded the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOLBREF), which is a 26-item questionnaire used to assess general quality of life in terms of physical, psychological,
social, and environment factors. These were assessed at the end of the trial period as well, and differences in various measures examined. What the investigators found is this:

After 4 weeks of APA, participants in the active APA treatment had reported a reduction of 71% in pain, 44% in fatigue, 31% in sleep disturbance, and 61% in interference with daily activities. The control APA group experienced some moderate reduction in these symptoms.

That’s from the abstract. Reading that, my first question was this: Why didn’t they provide the numbers for the control group as well? “Some moderate reduction”? What does that even mean? There’s also a key bit of information in the actual text that tells a lot more. For one thing, the data are presented in an enormous chart with differences between baseline and end of intervention for the experimental group, culminating with columns showing the difference between APA and control. It’s a very difficult-to-read method of presenting the findings, and I was puzzled as to why they didn’t just directly show changes in the various measures in the controls next to the changes observed in the APA group in graphical form of some sort. Be that as it may, here’s the key:

After the 4-week APA treatment, the mean scores for pain, fatigue, sleep, lack of appetite, distress, dry mouth, sadness, and numbness displayed decreases that were clinically significant (ie, defined as symptom decreases of Q30%; data available upon request). In addition, Table 5 lists outcomes of interferences and quality of life. Participants in the active APA group had higher improvement of interferences and better quality of life than did those in the control APA group; however, the difference of the improvement was not statistically significant.

So basically, most of the differences were not statistically significant. Worse, there are 18 different measures being examined in two time periods each, baseline to end of intervention and baseline to the one month followup. That’s 36 comparisons. I see no evidence that correction was made for multiple comparisons, although I could be wrong. (Again, the methods section of this paper really stinks in terms of providing key details needed to evaluate the study.) So is it a surprise that a handful of measures are borderline statistically significant? No, it is not.

Basically, between the lack of blinding and the apparent lack of correction for multiple comparisons, this is a negative study. Yet it’s being promoted as a positive study and used as the basis for further grant applications. Such is the way it works with the tooth fairy science that is “integrative medicine.”



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

Moon and Regulus on December 29

Tonight – December 29, 2015 – look eastward before going to bed, and you just might catch the moon and the star Regulus over your horizon. If you’re an early bird – and go to sleep before the moon and Regulus come up at mid-to-late evening – wake up before dawn to see them. If you do that, you’ll notice the dazzling planet Jupiter nearby … and the moon will be moving toward Jupiter in the next few days. On this night, Jupiter will follow the moon and Regulus into your sky by very late evening or after midnight. After Jupiter rises, it’ll follow the moon and Regulus westward throughout the rest of the night.

Whether you’re sky gazing this evening or during the predawn hours, look first for the waning gibbous moon and the nearby bright star will be Regulus.

Jupiter is much brighter than Regulus and more noticeable, but it comes up later.

The exact rising times for the moon, Regulus and Jupiter vary around the world, so you might want to check out the links on our almanac page.

At the same time each day, the moon appears farther east relative to the constellation Leo, the star Regulus and the planet Jupiter. Click here to know when the moon and Jupiter rise into your sky.

At the same time each day, the moon appears farther east relative to the constellation Leo, the star Regulus and the planet Jupiter. Click here for recommended almanacs. They can help you know when the moon and Jupiter rise into your sky.

What’s more, three other planets – other than Jupiter – light up the morning sky right now: Venus, Mars and Saturn. All four will light up the morning hours for months to come.

And here’s something really exciting. Mercury will join the foursome in the morning sky in late January 2016. When that happens, all five visible planets – Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn – will be shining simultaneously in the sky visible from around the world.

You can see all five planets simultaneously from about January 20 to February 20, 2016.

In the meantime, you can also see all five visible planets tonight! Catch Mercury at dusk or very early evening, and then spot the other four visible morning planets – Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn – in the predawn/dawn sky.

Are you a morning person? Then look for the four morning planets. Venus and Saturn appear low in the southeast, not far from the sunrise point on the horizon. Mars is to the south at this early morning hour whereas brilliant Jupiter lords over the southwest sky (to the right of Mars and Spica, and outside the sky chart). The green line depicts the ecliptic - Earth's orbital plane projected outward onto the great dome of sky.

Are you a morning person? Then look for the four morning planets. Venus and Saturn appear low in the southeast, not far from the sunrise point on the horizon. Mars is to the south at this early morning hour whereas brilliant Jupiter lords over the southwest sky (to the right of Mars and Spica, and outside the sky chart). The green line depicts the ecliptic – Earth’s orbital plane projected outward onto the great dome of sky.



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

Tonight – December 29, 2015 – look eastward before going to bed, and you just might catch the moon and the star Regulus over your horizon. If you’re an early bird – and go to sleep before the moon and Regulus come up at mid-to-late evening – wake up before dawn to see them. If you do that, you’ll notice the dazzling planet Jupiter nearby … and the moon will be moving toward Jupiter in the next few days. On this night, Jupiter will follow the moon and Regulus into your sky by very late evening or after midnight. After Jupiter rises, it’ll follow the moon and Regulus westward throughout the rest of the night.

Whether you’re sky gazing this evening or during the predawn hours, look first for the waning gibbous moon and the nearby bright star will be Regulus.

Jupiter is much brighter than Regulus and more noticeable, but it comes up later.

The exact rising times for the moon, Regulus and Jupiter vary around the world, so you might want to check out the links on our almanac page.

At the same time each day, the moon appears farther east relative to the constellation Leo, the star Regulus and the planet Jupiter. Click here to know when the moon and Jupiter rise into your sky.

At the same time each day, the moon appears farther east relative to the constellation Leo, the star Regulus and the planet Jupiter. Click here for recommended almanacs. They can help you know when the moon and Jupiter rise into your sky.

What’s more, three other planets – other than Jupiter – light up the morning sky right now: Venus, Mars and Saturn. All four will light up the morning hours for months to come.

And here’s something really exciting. Mercury will join the foursome in the morning sky in late January 2016. When that happens, all five visible planets – Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn – will be shining simultaneously in the sky visible from around the world.

You can see all five planets simultaneously from about January 20 to February 20, 2016.

In the meantime, you can also see all five visible planets tonight! Catch Mercury at dusk or very early evening, and then spot the other four visible morning planets – Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn – in the predawn/dawn sky.

Are you a morning person? Then look for the four morning planets. Venus and Saturn appear low in the southeast, not far from the sunrise point on the horizon. Mars is to the south at this early morning hour whereas brilliant Jupiter lords over the southwest sky (to the right of Mars and Spica, and outside the sky chart). The green line depicts the ecliptic - Earth's orbital plane projected outward onto the great dome of sky.

Are you a morning person? Then look for the four morning planets. Venus and Saturn appear low in the southeast, not far from the sunrise point on the horizon. Mars is to the south at this early morning hour whereas brilliant Jupiter lords over the southwest sky (to the right of Mars and Spica, and outside the sky chart). The green line depicts the ecliptic – Earth’s orbital plane projected outward onto the great dome of sky.



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

The strong economics of wind energy

As a follow-up to a recent article I posted on renewable energy, this article discusses the economics of wind in both the developed and developing worlds compared to other renewable energy sources. At the recent climate conference in Paris, 70 countries highlighted wind as a major component for their emissions-reduction schemes. 

I spoke with Giles Dickson who is CEO of the European Wind Energy Association(EWEA). I asked him economic questions related to the wind industry and I also asked him to look into his crystal ball and describe the future of wind. Mr. Dickson is in a great position to answer these questions because his organization includes 600 members who represent wind industry manufacturers, operators, and companies comprising the full wind-energy supply chain.

First, I asked why companies were investing in wind. His response was clear: wind is competitive economically. He told me about the SolutionWind campaign which is a platform that gives industry leaders like Unilever, BNP, Aveda, IKEA, LEGO, Google, Microsoft, SAP, and others the chance to tell their customers and the general public why they have chosen wind. SolutionWind includes interviews with these leaders (and case studies soon to be published) wherein the case is made that using wind energy adds value to these companies. 

Companies want to reduce their emissions and they want access to reliable, inexpensive power. Companies want to know how to achieve these two goals in a way that is quick and efficient. For many of them, wind is the answer. It’s inexpensive and emissions-free (aside from initial manufacturing and installation and service) and it gives the companies control over their energy supply. 

Globally, the average cost of wind is $83 per megawatt-hour. This is the levelized cost of electrical delivery. How does it compare to other energy sources? Well the averages for coal and gas are $84 and $98, respectively. In the USA, gas is slightly cheaper than wind but this is the only large economy where that is the case. As a comparison, solar photovoltaic energy averages $122 globally for each MW-hour.

Levelized cost to produce electricity outside of Europe, from Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

 Levelized cost to produce electricity outside of Europe, from Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

There are some additional system integration costs and market balancing costs that vary geographically. The cost of balancing out the variable wind power is usually paid by the wind-power producers. And of course there are the costs of reinforcing the grid, such as building transmission lines to wind farms.

Put together all these additional costs might typically amount to 30% of the total costs. However, they are reduced with a properly functioning electrical market, which balances out variable power from power sources over a large geographical region. 

In Europe, for instance, while electricity is traded across borders, there is no single market. That makes the system less efficient. It’s important to include large regions in a single market because a quiet day in Spain may be balanced by wind gusts in Germany. And the same is true for solar. Cloudy days in one region are often balanced by sun in others.

One of the things Mr. Dickson was most excited about was the continued decrease in cost and increase in capacity. The economics of wind are going to continue to get better and installation will accelerate, particularly in the developing world.

Since my research is on small-scale off-grid wind power, I asked him about that too. He told me that small-scale wind is not a big presence in Europe; the vast majority of their wind is grid-connected farms. There are small-scale installations that communities have established for their own local power however micro-generation in Europe is much more likely to be solar rather than wind.

In the developing world, it is a different story. Small-scale off-grid systems are seen as a quick way to extend power to people who do not have access to the grid. According to Mr. Dickson, if your goal is to get people access to quick electricity, off-grid systems have real merit. However if your goal is to provide a basis for long-term energy supply and industrial development, then large-scale systems will be required.

The renewable energy sector also supplies many high-paid and high-skilled jobs. In Europe, for instance, the coal industry employs 240,000 workers whereas the wind industry exceeds that at 262,000. So, people can see careers in this industry and young engineers and scientists are passionate about working in the field. I see this with my own students in the USA.

Aside from continued cost decreases and increased market, what else is EWEA looking forward to? Well everyone is watching the Chinese emission trading scheme. That goes into effect in two years. No one knows what the price will be for carbon in that market, but it will be the largest carbon market in the world. If the balance between supply and demand is not correct, then the price on carbon will be too low (as the case with Europe where there is an excess of emissions certificates).

Click here to read the rest



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

As a follow-up to a recent article I posted on renewable energy, this article discusses the economics of wind in both the developed and developing worlds compared to other renewable energy sources. At the recent climate conference in Paris, 70 countries highlighted wind as a major component for their emissions-reduction schemes. 

I spoke with Giles Dickson who is CEO of the European Wind Energy Association(EWEA). I asked him economic questions related to the wind industry and I also asked him to look into his crystal ball and describe the future of wind. Mr. Dickson is in a great position to answer these questions because his organization includes 600 members who represent wind industry manufacturers, operators, and companies comprising the full wind-energy supply chain.

First, I asked why companies were investing in wind. His response was clear: wind is competitive economically. He told me about the SolutionWind campaign which is a platform that gives industry leaders like Unilever, BNP, Aveda, IKEA, LEGO, Google, Microsoft, SAP, and others the chance to tell their customers and the general public why they have chosen wind. SolutionWind includes interviews with these leaders (and case studies soon to be published) wherein the case is made that using wind energy adds value to these companies. 

Companies want to reduce their emissions and they want access to reliable, inexpensive power. Companies want to know how to achieve these two goals in a way that is quick and efficient. For many of them, wind is the answer. It’s inexpensive and emissions-free (aside from initial manufacturing and installation and service) and it gives the companies control over their energy supply. 

Globally, the average cost of wind is $83 per megawatt-hour. This is the levelized cost of electrical delivery. How does it compare to other energy sources? Well the averages for coal and gas are $84 and $98, respectively. In the USA, gas is slightly cheaper than wind but this is the only large economy where that is the case. As a comparison, solar photovoltaic energy averages $122 globally for each MW-hour.

Levelized cost to produce electricity outside of Europe, from Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

 Levelized cost to produce electricity outside of Europe, from Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

There are some additional system integration costs and market balancing costs that vary geographically. The cost of balancing out the variable wind power is usually paid by the wind-power producers. And of course there are the costs of reinforcing the grid, such as building transmission lines to wind farms.

Put together all these additional costs might typically amount to 30% of the total costs. However, they are reduced with a properly functioning electrical market, which balances out variable power from power sources over a large geographical region. 

In Europe, for instance, while electricity is traded across borders, there is no single market. That makes the system less efficient. It’s important to include large regions in a single market because a quiet day in Spain may be balanced by wind gusts in Germany. And the same is true for solar. Cloudy days in one region are often balanced by sun in others.

One of the things Mr. Dickson was most excited about was the continued decrease in cost and increase in capacity. The economics of wind are going to continue to get better and installation will accelerate, particularly in the developing world.

Since my research is on small-scale off-grid wind power, I asked him about that too. He told me that small-scale wind is not a big presence in Europe; the vast majority of their wind is grid-connected farms. There are small-scale installations that communities have established for their own local power however micro-generation in Europe is much more likely to be solar rather than wind.

In the developing world, it is a different story. Small-scale off-grid systems are seen as a quick way to extend power to people who do not have access to the grid. According to Mr. Dickson, if your goal is to get people access to quick electricity, off-grid systems have real merit. However if your goal is to provide a basis for long-term energy supply and industrial development, then large-scale systems will be required.

The renewable energy sector also supplies many high-paid and high-skilled jobs. In Europe, for instance, the coal industry employs 240,000 workers whereas the wind industry exceeds that at 262,000. So, people can see careers in this industry and young engineers and scientists are passionate about working in the field. I see this with my own students in the USA.

Aside from continued cost decreases and increased market, what else is EWEA looking forward to? Well everyone is watching the Chinese emission trading scheme. That goes into effect in two years. No one knows what the price will be for carbon in that market, but it will be the largest carbon market in the world. If the balance between supply and demand is not correct, then the price on carbon will be too low (as the case with Europe where there is an excess of emissions certificates).

Click here to read the rest



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

An honest appraisal of evo devo [Pharyngula]

In a review of a new book edited by Alan Love, The evolution of “evo-devo”, Adam Wilkins makes a few telling criticisms of the sub-field I enjoy.

Evo-devo has come a long way since 1981 though the Dahlem Conference laid some of the important groundwork for what followed and was, indeed, widely appreciated as having done so. Yet, troublingly, the field remains, for many evolutionary biologists, something of a side-show, a “boutique” subject within evolutionary biology as a whole. Several of us, in the 1990s, warned that this might happen. This is in contrast to some of the early expectations, which involved positing a coming central role for this discipline within evolutionary biology as a whole. A few of the contributors evidently feel that it has achieved such a position but I think that a broad survey within biology would reveal that not to be the case. If it failed to develop its full potential, why? Opinions will vary but my own hunch is that one factor is that the field has largely avoided incorporating much of the rich material that developmental genetics offers for understanding developmental and morphological change. The one general concession to such genetics, noted in passing in one of the chapters, is the insistence that most developmental change in evolution involves alterations in cis-regulatory elements for regulatory genes. There is, of course, good evidence for this but it is not the whole story and ignores both other mechanisms and the possible dynamics of the incorporation of such change in populations. That last thought, however, introduces what is, in my view, the second weakness of the field: evo-devo remains largely a zone devoid of population thinking. The great strength of classical evolutionary biology was that it focused on the nature of transformation of populations over time – both genetically and phenotypically – and provided a crude general mechanism for understanding such transformations. Its corresponding failing was that it largely ignored the details of the source materials for such change. Evo-devo’s main strength and weakness are just the reverse. These reciprocal differences in emphasis amount to perceptual and intellectual differences about what is important in considering evolutionary change. Such differences in attitude continue to create a divide between evo-devo and classical evolutionary biology. This volume does not address this issue at all and I think that is a regrettable omission.

I’ve highlighted the two key points, although I think they’re both rooted in the same problem. 1) I think there is a superficial focus on developmental genetics, but what we’re missing is the experimental perspective. 2) True enough that there is a lack of population studies (I can think of the stickleback work on recent evolution of small populations as a counter-example), but there the problem is that if you’re focusing on the great grand questions of evolution, like where the notochord came from, you’re simply not going to find much variation within extant groups. All fish have notochords. All zebrafish populations have notochords. You’re just not going to have any material to work with if you try to study how the expression of notochords vary in a population that is over half a billion years removed from an ancestral population that did have interesting differences in a nascent structure.

The key problem is that the field has long been interested in morphological and molecular differences at the phylum and class level. What we need to do is ask better questions that are appropriate on a smaller scale, and are more amenable to experiment and genetic analysis. Narrow the scope, more work on differences in fruit fly wings and in the circuitry of tissue specification in closely related species of echinoderms, for instance.

Of course, the appeal of evo-devo is often in those gigantic huge intractable questions that involve comparing fruit flies and echinoderms. Evo-devo without the grandiosity is harder to market.


Wilkins AS (2015) The evolution of “evo-devo”. BioEssays 37(12):1258–1260.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1Izu4My

In a review of a new book edited by Alan Love, The evolution of “evo-devo”, Adam Wilkins makes a few telling criticisms of the sub-field I enjoy.

Evo-devo has come a long way since 1981 though the Dahlem Conference laid some of the important groundwork for what followed and was, indeed, widely appreciated as having done so. Yet, troublingly, the field remains, for many evolutionary biologists, something of a side-show, a “boutique” subject within evolutionary biology as a whole. Several of us, in the 1990s, warned that this might happen. This is in contrast to some of the early expectations, which involved positing a coming central role for this discipline within evolutionary biology as a whole. A few of the contributors evidently feel that it has achieved such a position but I think that a broad survey within biology would reveal that not to be the case. If it failed to develop its full potential, why? Opinions will vary but my own hunch is that one factor is that the field has largely avoided incorporating much of the rich material that developmental genetics offers for understanding developmental and morphological change. The one general concession to such genetics, noted in passing in one of the chapters, is the insistence that most developmental change in evolution involves alterations in cis-regulatory elements for regulatory genes. There is, of course, good evidence for this but it is not the whole story and ignores both other mechanisms and the possible dynamics of the incorporation of such change in populations. That last thought, however, introduces what is, in my view, the second weakness of the field: evo-devo remains largely a zone devoid of population thinking. The great strength of classical evolutionary biology was that it focused on the nature of transformation of populations over time – both genetically and phenotypically – and provided a crude general mechanism for understanding such transformations. Its corresponding failing was that it largely ignored the details of the source materials for such change. Evo-devo’s main strength and weakness are just the reverse. These reciprocal differences in emphasis amount to perceptual and intellectual differences about what is important in considering evolutionary change. Such differences in attitude continue to create a divide between evo-devo and classical evolutionary biology. This volume does not address this issue at all and I think that is a regrettable omission.

I’ve highlighted the two key points, although I think they’re both rooted in the same problem. 1) I think there is a superficial focus on developmental genetics, but what we’re missing is the experimental perspective. 2) True enough that there is a lack of population studies (I can think of the stickleback work on recent evolution of small populations as a counter-example), but there the problem is that if you’re focusing on the great grand questions of evolution, like where the notochord came from, you’re simply not going to find much variation within extant groups. All fish have notochords. All zebrafish populations have notochords. You’re just not going to have any material to work with if you try to study how the expression of notochords vary in a population that is over half a billion years removed from an ancestral population that did have interesting differences in a nascent structure.

The key problem is that the field has long been interested in morphological and molecular differences at the phylum and class level. What we need to do is ask better questions that are appropriate on a smaller scale, and are more amenable to experiment and genetic analysis. Narrow the scope, more work on differences in fruit fly wings and in the circuitry of tissue specification in closely related species of echinoderms, for instance.

Of course, the appeal of evo-devo is often in those gigantic huge intractable questions that involve comparing fruit flies and echinoderms. Evo-devo without the grandiosity is harder to market.


Wilkins AS (2015) The evolution of “evo-devo”. BioEssays 37(12):1258–1260.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1Izu4My

Edison’s Christmas Lights: The Spirit of Innovation Shines On [USA Science and Engineering Festival: The Blog]

By USA Science & Engineering Festival Founder Larry Bock

Edison´s contribution to those wondrous beacons of the holiday season is a poignant one. On a wintry night during the Christmas season of 1880 — just weeks after introducing his revolutionary invention of the first practical incandescent light — Edison, in a bold move to promote his new technology, wowed thousands of people in front of his Menlo Park lab with a live outdoor display of dozens of incandescent lamps strung together, creating the very first strand of electric lights. Two years later, Edison´s friend and associate, Edward Johnson, added a new twist. Johnson placed a string of about 80 miniature lights of various colors on an actual Christmas tree in his own home. His glowing, revolving Christmas tree was visible through his home’s windows, resulting in crowds of people — intrigued by this fascinating use of electricity — to pass by his residence.

USASEF016 1

This later sparked the mainstream commercial introduction of Christmas lights worldwide, aided by President Grover Cleveland who in 1895 had the White House family Christmas tree decorated with hundreds of multi-colored electric light bulbs, for the first time. (Before electric holiday lights, families used candles to illuminate their Christmas trees, however, this practice was dangerous and caused many home fires.) Today, just as these lights continue to connect with us on a visceral level with the spirit of the holiday (joy and goodwill toward others), this innovation, in its most simplistic way, also demonstrates the power of technology to impact our lives, if only in some seemingly indiscernible, yet influential, manner.

Similarly, the USA Science & Engineering Festival is striving to inspire and motivate the next generation of Edison’s and other leaders in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) on their career road to produce innovations that make a difference. As America´s only NATIONAL science festival, the Festival and its Expo — working behind the scenes with numerous partners in STEM — bring K-12 students up close and personal with exciting, interactive and challenging STEM experiences and role models, inside and outside the classroom.

We know that to meet the technological challenges of tomorrow, America needs the brightest minds, especially in solving daunting problems in technology — ranging from sustainable energy and biotechnology to climate and national security. To introduce young learners, teachers and the public to such frontiers and the exciting work currently underway to find solutions, the Festival is now once more gearing up to assemble an unforgettable line-up of renowned and diverse innovators who will demonstrate an important fact: STEM innovation is not only cool and fascinating but vital to improving the quality of life for everyone in countless ways.

USASEF014

Join us April 16-17, 2016 at the Washington, D.C. Convention Center for the 4th USA Science & Engineering Festival and Expo, with Lockheed Martin serving again as Founding and Presenting Host. In a compendium of interactive stage shows, world-class exhibits, and other presentations, you´ll gain insight from some of America’s foremost achievers and institutions in STEM -including those in space exploration, biotechnology, nanotechnology,

Adding to the excitement is the Festival’s all-day X-STEM – Extreme STEM Symposium set for April 14 at the D.C. Convention Center where students, educators, parents and the general public will gather for an all-day experience of workshops, live demonstrations and other hands-on interaction with leading visionaries in STEM, including:

Patricia Bath, MD, renowned ophthalmologist and inventor who developed the device and procedure that revolutionized cataract surgery; Chris Emdin, Ph.D., the unforgettable science advocate and educator who is motivating a generation of K-12 students in STEM through urban hip-hop music; Carol Greider, Ph.D., the pioneering molecular biologist who won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2009; Shubham Banerjee, the phenomenal 12-year-old who set the high-tech world abuzz by inventing a low-cost Braille printer from LEGO; Helen Greiner, Founder and CEO of CyPhy Works, where she is spearheading the development of amazing, futuristic flying robots; and Nizar Ibrahim, Ph.D., internationally known paleontologist noted for locating and unearthing the largest dinosaur bone ever found in the Kem Kem region of southeastern Morocco.

USASEF008 2

The power of technological innovation to delight us, improve our lives and inspire us to dream big is unquestioned. Sarah Miller Caldicott, an innovation process expert and great grandniece of Thomas Edison, wrote this about her famous relative in her blog for Forbes in 2014: “In every twinkling light, Edison strengthened the wonder we feel when the seemingly impossible becomes real.” We at the Festival invite everyone to remember these words this holiday season, and we´ll carry this spirit into our work for 2016 as we help inspire the next generation of innovators.



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

By USA Science & Engineering Festival Founder Larry Bock

Edison´s contribution to those wondrous beacons of the holiday season is a poignant one. On a wintry night during the Christmas season of 1880 — just weeks after introducing his revolutionary invention of the first practical incandescent light — Edison, in a bold move to promote his new technology, wowed thousands of people in front of his Menlo Park lab with a live outdoor display of dozens of incandescent lamps strung together, creating the very first strand of electric lights. Two years later, Edison´s friend and associate, Edward Johnson, added a new twist. Johnson placed a string of about 80 miniature lights of various colors on an actual Christmas tree in his own home. His glowing, revolving Christmas tree was visible through his home’s windows, resulting in crowds of people — intrigued by this fascinating use of electricity — to pass by his residence.

USASEF016 1

This later sparked the mainstream commercial introduction of Christmas lights worldwide, aided by President Grover Cleveland who in 1895 had the White House family Christmas tree decorated with hundreds of multi-colored electric light bulbs, for the first time. (Before electric holiday lights, families used candles to illuminate their Christmas trees, however, this practice was dangerous and caused many home fires.) Today, just as these lights continue to connect with us on a visceral level with the spirit of the holiday (joy and goodwill toward others), this innovation, in its most simplistic way, also demonstrates the power of technology to impact our lives, if only in some seemingly indiscernible, yet influential, manner.

Similarly, the USA Science & Engineering Festival is striving to inspire and motivate the next generation of Edison’s and other leaders in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) on their career road to produce innovations that make a difference. As America´s only NATIONAL science festival, the Festival and its Expo — working behind the scenes with numerous partners in STEM — bring K-12 students up close and personal with exciting, interactive and challenging STEM experiences and role models, inside and outside the classroom.

We know that to meet the technological challenges of tomorrow, America needs the brightest minds, especially in solving daunting problems in technology — ranging from sustainable energy and biotechnology to climate and national security. To introduce young learners, teachers and the public to such frontiers and the exciting work currently underway to find solutions, the Festival is now once more gearing up to assemble an unforgettable line-up of renowned and diverse innovators who will demonstrate an important fact: STEM innovation is not only cool and fascinating but vital to improving the quality of life for everyone in countless ways.

USASEF014

Join us April 16-17, 2016 at the Washington, D.C. Convention Center for the 4th USA Science & Engineering Festival and Expo, with Lockheed Martin serving again as Founding and Presenting Host. In a compendium of interactive stage shows, world-class exhibits, and other presentations, you´ll gain insight from some of America’s foremost achievers and institutions in STEM -including those in space exploration, biotechnology, nanotechnology,

Adding to the excitement is the Festival’s all-day X-STEM – Extreme STEM Symposium set for April 14 at the D.C. Convention Center where students, educators, parents and the general public will gather for an all-day experience of workshops, live demonstrations and other hands-on interaction with leading visionaries in STEM, including:

Patricia Bath, MD, renowned ophthalmologist and inventor who developed the device and procedure that revolutionized cataract surgery; Chris Emdin, Ph.D., the unforgettable science advocate and educator who is motivating a generation of K-12 students in STEM through urban hip-hop music; Carol Greider, Ph.D., the pioneering molecular biologist who won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2009; Shubham Banerjee, the phenomenal 12-year-old who set the high-tech world abuzz by inventing a low-cost Braille printer from LEGO; Helen Greiner, Founder and CEO of CyPhy Works, where she is spearheading the development of amazing, futuristic flying robots; and Nizar Ibrahim, Ph.D., internationally known paleontologist noted for locating and unearthing the largest dinosaur bone ever found in the Kem Kem region of southeastern Morocco.

USASEF008 2

The power of technological innovation to delight us, improve our lives and inspire us to dream big is unquestioned. Sarah Miller Caldicott, an innovation process expert and great grandniece of Thomas Edison, wrote this about her famous relative in her blog for Forbes in 2014: “In every twinkling light, Edison strengthened the wonder we feel when the seemingly impossible becomes real.” We at the Festival invite everyone to remember these words this holiday season, and we´ll carry this spirit into our work for 2016 as we help inspire the next generation of innovators.



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