aads

New alcohol guidelines to help cut cancer risk

alcohol_hero

After much media build-up, Professor Dame Sally Davies, the Government’s Chief Medical Officer, has announced updated guidelines on low-risk drinking for the UK.

Today’s announcement has been in the pipeline since the previous government announced in 2012 it intended to have them reviewed. And over the last year there’s been growing speculation as to just what the new guidelines might look like.

This update is welcome – the guidelines were last reviewed back in 1995 – and thorough, drawing on three different expert groups and multiple reviews of a wide-range of evidence. It aims to prevent a broad range of diseases, as well as injuries and accidents. But it’s also influenced by the considerable evidence that has emerged showing that even low level drinking can increase the risk of some cancers, and that this risk increases the more alcohol people drink.

The changes are also down to a weakening of the evidence that there are health benefits to drinking alcohol – so the new version is about minimising harms, rather than considering them in addition to benefits.

So what’s changed?  What do the new recommendations mean for you? And how has the evidence changed since the last update? We’ll discuss this below. But first, one thing that hasn’t changed is that the guideline amount is measured in ‘units’ of alcohol. And you aren’t alone in wondering…

…what on earth is a ‘unit’ of alcohol?

One unit is defined as 10ml (or 8g) of pure alcohol. But that probably hasn’t helped you know how many you’re drinking.

The difficulty with communicating about alcohol consumption is that it’s very difficult for people to measure and track what they’re drinking. Chiefly this is because people (thankfully) don’t drink pure alcohol, and different drinks contain different concentrations of alcohol (hence ‘ABV – alcohol by volume – the % figure on many drinks which is the proportion of pure alcohol it contains).

And that’s before you factor in pub measures versus what people might pour themselves at home.

So using units is a way of trying to standardise advice on alcohol. But it’s far from ideal, and there’s lots of evidence (e.g. this study) that people struggle to understand what units mean, and that they aren’t the same as ‘drinks’. The committee that drew up the guidelines was aware of these limitations, but despite searching for a different solution, they say “If there is a better alternative to the UK unit, we have yet to hear of it.”

As the graphic below shows, almost any drink you might order at the bar contains more than one unit:

What’s new? And what’s changed?

The main change is that the recommendation for men and women is now the same – to keep health risks to a minimum, people should drink no more than 14 units of alcohol a week. This is because the evidence now suggests men’s and women’s risks from drinking a given amount of alcohol are about the same – although  men have a higher risk than women of immediate harms such as accidents and injuries, and women’s risk of long term illness (and premature death) is higher.

And the focus has switched back to weekly, rather than daily, limits. The previous (1995) guidelines introduced daily limits. And while these didn’t entirely replace the weekly recommendations, confusingly the two didn’t match up – people drinking up to the maximum every day would exceed the weekly limit by 7 units.

The daily limits have come in for other criticisms too – for example research published this summer, found that people who don’t drink every day (which is the majority of the population) tended to ignore the guidelines, because the advice didn’t seem relevant to them. The move away from daily limits has partly been motivated by research like this on how people understand and use guidelines.

And as we said above, the new guidelines also largely do away with the notion that alcohol is beneficial for our health.

The committee also wanted to help people reduce the risks from drinking large amounts on one occasion, and they’ve addressed this in a number of ways. Firstly, the weekly guidance also says if people drink as much as 14 units in a week, they should spread it out evenly over at least 3 days, cautioning that heavy drinking sessions increase the risk of accidents and injuries as well as long-term illnesses. As well as suggesting people limit the amount they drink in one session, there is also advice for people to help cut the immediate risks – such as drinking more slowly.

And it also suggests people have drink-free days to help cut down on the amount they drink.

The way the guidelines are now presented also makes it clear that 14 units per week is a limit, not a target. And they highlight that the risk for some diseases, such as mouth, throat and breast cancers, is increased at any level of regular drinking – so the guidelines don’t represent an absolutely safe amount to drink; they’re intended to keep a person’s health risks from alcohol to a minimum.

Finally, the committee has decided on a minimum risk level in context of other risks we expose ourselves to. So the 14 unit limit is the level of drinking that would be expected to lead to a lifetime risk of dying from an alcohol-related condition which is similar to the harms of other routine activities, such as driving a car (to be precise, about one per cent).

Cancer and the new guidelines

So that’s the new guidelines, and units, explained. But as we said above, one reason for these changes is the strengthening evidence of the link between alcohol and cancer.  So what’s changed here?

We’ve blogged about alcohol and cancer many times – especially the link with breast cancer – but here’s a quick recap.

It’s been established for decades that alcohol can cause cancer, but the impact that lighter drinking has on risk has taken longer to tease apart. That’s because the effect on risk is smaller, more difficult for scientists to demonstrate  conclusively, and also prove it’s not down to other things (such as smoking or poor diet) muddying the waters.

But more recently, it’s become clear that low level drinking (meaning around a drink a day on average) increases the risk of breast, mouth, throat and oesophageal cancers. And the more you drink, the higher the risk of these and other cancers. Altogether, alcohol is linked to seven types of cancer with bowel, liver and laryngeal cancers making up the total.

The extra risk for drinking at low levels is fairly small, so it probably won’t make much difference to an individual’s absolute risk of developing cancer – but over a population the size of the UK, where many people drink at low levels, it adds up to a big impact.

To try to show how even light drinking can increase the risk of cancer, and how the risk rises with heavier drinking, we’ve done some calculations using the latest evidence on how different levels of drinking affect the risk of mouth cancer:

These figures are worked out using the same method as we’ve previously used for breast cancer and alcohol drinking – but show the risk for mouth cancer which affects both men and women. There’s more detail about how we calculated them below*.

What next?

These updated guidelines are welcome – but by themselves they’re not going to solve the UK’s problems with alcohol and health.  The amount we drink in the UK is almost double what it was in 1960, so it’s also vital that the government invests in national health campaigns to provide people with clear information about the health risks of drinking alcohol, particularly at levels above these new guidelines.

But even if people know and understand the risks, they need to be in an environment that supports them to make changes. So as well as clear guidelines and public campaigns, we also want to see the government introduce measures to tackle the price, promotion and availability of alcohol, such as minimum unit pricing, as outlined in the independent alcohol strategy Health First.

What can I do?

These guidelines are an important step in helping people understand – and reduce – the risks from drinking alcohol. When it comes to cancer, our advice hasn’t changed – the less alcohol you drink, the lower your risk.

There are lots of simple ways to start cutting down. For many people, simply tracking how much you drink can be an eye opener – there are lots of free apps and tools available, such as this one from Change4Life.

Some quick ways to cut out units are to choose lower strength beers and wines, opt for smaller servings – or you could try a shandy or spritzer. Or just replace every other alcoholic drink with a soft drink on a night out.

And if you’re drinking in a group, staying out of large rounds means you don’t have to match anyone else’s pace, and you can more easily avoid being cajoled into having a drink that you didn’t really want.

And there’s something else you can do too – the CMO has also announced a public consultation to check that the guidelines are clear, easy to understand and, perhaps most importantly, useful. And they’d like you to take part.

Everyone has their own priorities and their own approach to risk, but along with the CMO we believe people have a right to clear information to help them make decisions about their lives. We hope these new guidelines will help people understand and manage the risks of drinking alcohol.

– Sarah

*Footnote: how we calculated the mouth cancer risk stats

We’ve started off by estimating the underlying risk of a non-drinker in the UK being diagnosed with mouth cancer – we have to estimate this because risk of being diagnosed with mouth cancer at some stage in your life (1 in 84 for men, 1 in 157 for women) includes the whole population – from tee-totallers to very heavy drinkers. Because mouth cancer risk rises with alcohol drinking, we can assume the lifetime risk for non-drinkers is lower than these population averages.

Using these estimated risks for non-drinkers, we’ve then modelled the impact of drinking at different levels using risks for men and women from a recent review of the evidence. Of course these figures are estimates – but they give a good indication of the impact of alcohol drinking at a population level.

And why the funny numbers of units?  Research, including the paper our calculations are based on, often uses grams of alcohol per day as a standard measure of drinking. The amounts in the paper we’ve based our calculations on translate to 12, 25 and 50 grams of alcohol per day, which look like a much more sensible set of numbers to pick, but we wanted to present this in units to match with the guidelines. The drinking levels we’ve picked represent people drinking within the guidelines, at around the previous weekly limit for men, and well above the recommended limits.



from Cancer Research UK - Science blog http://ift.tt/1Za96Wz
alcohol_hero

After much media build-up, Professor Dame Sally Davies, the Government’s Chief Medical Officer, has announced updated guidelines on low-risk drinking for the UK.

Today’s announcement has been in the pipeline since the previous government announced in 2012 it intended to have them reviewed. And over the last year there’s been growing speculation as to just what the new guidelines might look like.

This update is welcome – the guidelines were last reviewed back in 1995 – and thorough, drawing on three different expert groups and multiple reviews of a wide-range of evidence. It aims to prevent a broad range of diseases, as well as injuries and accidents. But it’s also influenced by the considerable evidence that has emerged showing that even low level drinking can increase the risk of some cancers, and that this risk increases the more alcohol people drink.

The changes are also down to a weakening of the evidence that there are health benefits to drinking alcohol – so the new version is about minimising harms, rather than considering them in addition to benefits.

So what’s changed?  What do the new recommendations mean for you? And how has the evidence changed since the last update? We’ll discuss this below. But first, one thing that hasn’t changed is that the guideline amount is measured in ‘units’ of alcohol. And you aren’t alone in wondering…

…what on earth is a ‘unit’ of alcohol?

One unit is defined as 10ml (or 8g) of pure alcohol. But that probably hasn’t helped you know how many you’re drinking.

The difficulty with communicating about alcohol consumption is that it’s very difficult for people to measure and track what they’re drinking. Chiefly this is because people (thankfully) don’t drink pure alcohol, and different drinks contain different concentrations of alcohol (hence ‘ABV – alcohol by volume – the % figure on many drinks which is the proportion of pure alcohol it contains).

And that’s before you factor in pub measures versus what people might pour themselves at home.

So using units is a way of trying to standardise advice on alcohol. But it’s far from ideal, and there’s lots of evidence (e.g. this study) that people struggle to understand what units mean, and that they aren’t the same as ‘drinks’. The committee that drew up the guidelines was aware of these limitations, but despite searching for a different solution, they say “If there is a better alternative to the UK unit, we have yet to hear of it.”

As the graphic below shows, almost any drink you might order at the bar contains more than one unit:

What’s new? And what’s changed?

The main change is that the recommendation for men and women is now the same – to keep health risks to a minimum, people should drink no more than 14 units of alcohol a week. This is because the evidence now suggests men’s and women’s risks from drinking a given amount of alcohol are about the same – although  men have a higher risk than women of immediate harms such as accidents and injuries, and women’s risk of long term illness (and premature death) is higher.

And the focus has switched back to weekly, rather than daily, limits. The previous (1995) guidelines introduced daily limits. And while these didn’t entirely replace the weekly recommendations, confusingly the two didn’t match up – people drinking up to the maximum every day would exceed the weekly limit by 7 units.

The daily limits have come in for other criticisms too – for example research published this summer, found that people who don’t drink every day (which is the majority of the population) tended to ignore the guidelines, because the advice didn’t seem relevant to them. The move away from daily limits has partly been motivated by research like this on how people understand and use guidelines.

And as we said above, the new guidelines also largely do away with the notion that alcohol is beneficial for our health.

The committee also wanted to help people reduce the risks from drinking large amounts on one occasion, and they’ve addressed this in a number of ways. Firstly, the weekly guidance also says if people drink as much as 14 units in a week, they should spread it out evenly over at least 3 days, cautioning that heavy drinking sessions increase the risk of accidents and injuries as well as long-term illnesses. As well as suggesting people limit the amount they drink in one session, there is also advice for people to help cut the immediate risks – such as drinking more slowly.

And it also suggests people have drink-free days to help cut down on the amount they drink.

The way the guidelines are now presented also makes it clear that 14 units per week is a limit, not a target. And they highlight that the risk for some diseases, such as mouth, throat and breast cancers, is increased at any level of regular drinking – so the guidelines don’t represent an absolutely safe amount to drink; they’re intended to keep a person’s health risks from alcohol to a minimum.

Finally, the committee has decided on a minimum risk level in context of other risks we expose ourselves to. So the 14 unit limit is the level of drinking that would be expected to lead to a lifetime risk of dying from an alcohol-related condition which is similar to the harms of other routine activities, such as driving a car (to be precise, about one per cent).

Cancer and the new guidelines

So that’s the new guidelines, and units, explained. But as we said above, one reason for these changes is the strengthening evidence of the link between alcohol and cancer.  So what’s changed here?

We’ve blogged about alcohol and cancer many times – especially the link with breast cancer – but here’s a quick recap.

It’s been established for decades that alcohol can cause cancer, but the impact that lighter drinking has on risk has taken longer to tease apart. That’s because the effect on risk is smaller, more difficult for scientists to demonstrate  conclusively, and also prove it’s not down to other things (such as smoking or poor diet) muddying the waters.

But more recently, it’s become clear that low level drinking (meaning around a drink a day on average) increases the risk of breast, mouth, throat and oesophageal cancers. And the more you drink, the higher the risk of these and other cancers. Altogether, alcohol is linked to seven types of cancer with bowel, liver and laryngeal cancers making up the total.

The extra risk for drinking at low levels is fairly small, so it probably won’t make much difference to an individual’s absolute risk of developing cancer – but over a population the size of the UK, where many people drink at low levels, it adds up to a big impact.

To try to show how even light drinking can increase the risk of cancer, and how the risk rises with heavier drinking, we’ve done some calculations using the latest evidence on how different levels of drinking affect the risk of mouth cancer:

These figures are worked out using the same method as we’ve previously used for breast cancer and alcohol drinking – but show the risk for mouth cancer which affects both men and women. There’s more detail about how we calculated them below*.

What next?

These updated guidelines are welcome – but by themselves they’re not going to solve the UK’s problems with alcohol and health.  The amount we drink in the UK is almost double what it was in 1960, so it’s also vital that the government invests in national health campaigns to provide people with clear information about the health risks of drinking alcohol, particularly at levels above these new guidelines.

But even if people know and understand the risks, they need to be in an environment that supports them to make changes. So as well as clear guidelines and public campaigns, we also want to see the government introduce measures to tackle the price, promotion and availability of alcohol, such as minimum unit pricing, as outlined in the independent alcohol strategy Health First.

What can I do?

These guidelines are an important step in helping people understand – and reduce – the risks from drinking alcohol. When it comes to cancer, our advice hasn’t changed – the less alcohol you drink, the lower your risk.

There are lots of simple ways to start cutting down. For many people, simply tracking how much you drink can be an eye opener – there are lots of free apps and tools available, such as this one from Change4Life.

Some quick ways to cut out units are to choose lower strength beers and wines, opt for smaller servings – or you could try a shandy or spritzer. Or just replace every other alcoholic drink with a soft drink on a night out.

And if you’re drinking in a group, staying out of large rounds means you don’t have to match anyone else’s pace, and you can more easily avoid being cajoled into having a drink that you didn’t really want.

And there’s something else you can do too – the CMO has also announced a public consultation to check that the guidelines are clear, easy to understand and, perhaps most importantly, useful. And they’d like you to take part.

Everyone has their own priorities and their own approach to risk, but along with the CMO we believe people have a right to clear information to help them make decisions about their lives. We hope these new guidelines will help people understand and manage the risks of drinking alcohol.

– Sarah

*Footnote: how we calculated the mouth cancer risk stats

We’ve started off by estimating the underlying risk of a non-drinker in the UK being diagnosed with mouth cancer – we have to estimate this because risk of being diagnosed with mouth cancer at some stage in your life (1 in 84 for men, 1 in 157 for women) includes the whole population – from tee-totallers to very heavy drinkers. Because mouth cancer risk rises with alcohol drinking, we can assume the lifetime risk for non-drinkers is lower than these population averages.

Using these estimated risks for non-drinkers, we’ve then modelled the impact of drinking at different levels using risks for men and women from a recent review of the evidence. Of course these figures are estimates – but they give a good indication of the impact of alcohol drinking at a population level.

And why the funny numbers of units?  Research, including the paper our calculations are based on, often uses grams of alcohol per day as a standard measure of drinking. The amounts in the paper we’ve based our calculations on translate to 12, 25 and 50 grams of alcohol per day, which look like a much more sensible set of numbers to pick, but we wanted to present this in units to match with the guidelines. The drinking levels we’ve picked represent people drinking within the guidelines, at around the previous weekly limit for men, and well above the recommended limits.



from Cancer Research UK - Science blog http://ift.tt/1Za96Wz

The government-facilitated poisoning of the children of Flint, Michigan [Respectful Insolence]

This post will be different than my usual post. Let’s just say that it has to do with quackery of a different kind than I usually write about here. It’s about a public health disaster that was entirely preventable and had nothing to do with vaccines. It has to do with government malpractice on an epic scale, right here in my very own state. It’s a story that’s huge here in Michigan but doesn’t seem to be penetrating the national news very much, at least not yet. I suspect that my international readers, most of whom are likely unaware of this story, will have to pick their jaws up off the ground at the shock that any government could exercise such epic incompetence and in the process potentially harm so many children, but my state government did just that last year.

I was born and raised in Detroit. My parents didn’t move to the suburbs until I was ten years old, and I stayed in southeast Michigan until I graduated from medical school and ended up in Cleveland. From there I bounced to Chicago and New Jersey and, twenty years after I left my hometown, back in the Detroit area. The point of this story is that my roots in the Detroit area run deep. Michigan is my state, for better or for worse, which is why I get annoyed when bad things happen here, such as when a local “holistic doctor” spews antivaccine nonsense, when one of our state legislators tries to make vaccine exemptions easier to get, or when attempts are made to license naturopathic quackery. I particularly become outraged when a preventable tragedy occurs here, one that science told us how to prevent but the government went ahead and did anyway. It’s a horrific tale of how science-based medicine was ignored in favor of saving money—and not even that much money.

That’s why I’m really pissed now over the mass poisoning of children with lead in the city of Flint, which is only about an hour from my house. What’s particularly galling about what happened is that it could have been prevented. Most people outside of Michigan who’ve even heard of Flint at all have probably seen it featured in Michael Moore’s movie, Roger and Me, which explored the effects of GM’s closing several auto plants in Flint, Michigan. Basically, if you think Detroit’s been bad over the last 20-30 years, Flint has been much worse. Now, I realize that there are probably a lot of you who don’t like Michael Moore. I’m not that fond of him myself, but his movie did a good job of exploring just how messed up Flint was. It still is.

As a result of its longstanding financial problems, in 2011 Governor Rick Snyder appointed an emergency manager of the city’s finances. Michigan has a law that allows the governor to appoint an Emergency Financial Manager to take control of a local financial unit, such as a city or a school district after a review finds the unit’s financial situation is deemed precarious enough that a financial emergency exists. Emergency managers have broad, some would say undemocratic, powers to reorganize departments, reduce pay, modify employee contracts, and outsource work. Detroit was just under the control of an emergency manager who filed for chapter 9 bankruptcy, a process that went surprisingly well, all things considering. The same can’t be said of Flint. It went through five emergency managers over the last four years, although two of them were the same. First it was Michael Brown. Then it was Ed Kurtz. Then it was Michael Brown again. Then it was Darnell Earley. Then it was Jerry Ambrose. The names, however, aren’t important. What they did is.

This is the disaster I’m referring to:

Flint’s drinking water became contaminated with lead in 2014 after switching its supply source from Lake Huron to the more polluted and corrosive Flint River. The move — a cost-cutting measure while the city was under the control of a state-appointed emergency manager — resulted in a spike in lead levels in children, which causes permanent brain damage. A recent preliminary report from a task force appointed by Snyder placed most of the blame on the state Department of Environmental Quality and prompted the Dec. 29 resignation of DEQ Director Dan Wyant.

What happened? There were higher concentrations of salt in Flint River water, which led to corrosion of the lead welds in the copper pipes that carried the water to the city. Detroit’s less corrosive water had flowed through the pipes for decades without a problem, but it didn’t take long after the switch was made in April 2014 for elevated lead content to be noticed. Why was the switch made? Here the story gets a bit complicated. In 2010, the Flint City Council voted to join the new Karegnondi Water Authority. Construction of a pipeline from Lake Huron to Flint was begun and is scheduled to be completed in 2016. In April 2014, the emergency manager switched from purchasing treated Lake Huron water from Detroit, as it had done for 50 years, to getting water from the Flint River as a temporary measure until the pipeline was completed. The reason? When Flint joined the Karegnondi Water Authority, the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department terminated its 35-year contract with the city. To continue to purchase Detroit water, Flint would have to renegotiate a short-term contract, at a higher cost. Basically, switching to river water saved Flint between $5 million and $7 million a year. That’s why the emergency manager did it.

As can be seen in this handy time line, residents almost immediately started complaining about the “bad water,” saying that it was causing skin problems in children. Others complained of a foul odor and cloudiness. (The switch was made in in April 2014, and by June there were stories about it in the local press.) By October a GM engine plant announced that it would stop using Flint River water. By January 2015, the University of Michigan-Flint had found that some samples on campus were high in lead. In February, it was reported that one home in Flint had water with a lead content of 104 ppb, compared to 15 ppb, the EPA safe limit for drinking water. More reports followed, and in April 2015, a Flint resident named Lee Anne Walters discovered that her child had lead poisoning. By June, a leaked memo revealed the EPA’s concern about elevated lead levels.

As is often the case in these sorts of situations, city officials denied that the water was unsafe, although they issued a notice that the levels of of trihaolomethanes (TTHM), a group of four chemicals formed as a byproduct of water disinfection, were too high. It got to the point where avoiding tap water became a way of life in Flint. Meanwhile, in September, Virginia Tech University researchers led by Marc Edwards tested water samples from 300 Flint homes and found high lead levels throughout the city. One sample was as high as 13,200 ppb. By way of comparison, the EPA considers water with 5,000 ppb lead to be hazardous waste. Not long after that, Flint pediatricians found that the percentage of children with elevated lead in their blood had doubled, from 2.1% before the switch to 4%. By October, Genesee County declared a public health emergency, and the City of Flint developed plans to distribute thousands of water filters. Finally, in October, Flint reconnected to Detroit water. Ultimately, several Flint residents filed a class action lawsuit, and in December the new mayor, Karen Weaver, declared a state of emergency, declaring that the elevated lead levels had caused irreversible damage to the health of the children of the city. And, finally, long after he should have done it, earlier this week Governor Rick Snyder declared a state of emergency as well:

Now here’s the kicker. Apparently the state knew months before it did anything:

Six months before Michigan’s governor declared a state of emergency over high lead levels in the water in Flint, his top aide wrote in an email that worried residents were “basically getting blown off by us.”

“I’m frustrated by the water issue in Flint,” Dennis Muchmore, then chief of staff to Gov. Rick Snyder, wrote in the email to a top health department staffer obtained by NBC News.

“I really don’t think people are getting the benefit of the doubt. Now they are concerned and rightfully so about the lead level studies they are receiving,” Muchmore said.

Why those DEQ officials took the actions they did is a question at the center of a tragedy that has left an unknown number of children and other Flint residents poisoned by lead, and has led to a federal lawsuit and calls for a U.S. Justice Department investigation. The questions surrounding the testing are in addition to the broader question of why Flint, which was under the control of a state-appointed emergency manager at the time, switched its drinking water source, starting in April 2014, from Lake Huron water supplied by Detroit to the much more polluted and corrosive water from the Flint River.

And:

Lead levels in Flint’s drinking water would have spurred action months sooner if the results of city testing that wrapped up in June had not been revised by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to wrongly indicate the water was safe to drink, e-mails show.

The records — obtained by the Michigan ACLU and by Marc Edwards, a Virginia Tech researcher who helped raise concerns about Flint’s water — show how state officials first appear to have encouraged the City of Flint to find water samples with low lead levels and later told Flint officials to disqualify two samples with high readings. The move changed the overall lead level results to acceptable from unacceptable.

That’s right. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality manipulated the samples tested for lead to eliminate the samples with the highest concentration and thereby produce the result that it wanted: The appearance that the water was safe. It’s true that Flint was in bad financial shape. It’s debatable that its financial situation was helped by Governor Snyder appointing a series of his cronies to run the city, one of whom caused this catastrophe in his desire to save money. His successors perpetuated the damage.

Here’s the even bigger kicker. Even using the Flint River water, the City of Flint could have prevented the corrosion of its copper and lead pipes relatively inexpensively:

Marc Edwards, a professor at Virginia Tech who has been testing Flint water, says treatment could have corrected much of the problem early on — for as little as $100 a day — but officials in the city of 100,000 people didn’t take action.

“There is no question that if the city had followed the minimum requirements under federal law that none of this would have happened,” said Edwards, who obtained the Muchmore email through a Michigan Freedom of Information Act request.

One hundred dollars a day would equal a mere $36,500 a year, a pittance in a budget of millions. To save $36,500 a year or maybe a little more, the city failed to treat the Flint River water, leaving it corrosive and able to leach lead and copper from the aging pipes used to transport it. As a consequence, an as yet unknown number of children have been poisoned with lead, which is most damaging to the developing brain. This can result in developmental delay, decreased IQ, decreased hearing, and ADHD. There will be behavioral problems. Lead exposure has even been linked to violent crime. Flint will be paying for this ecological disaster for decades. They’re still paying financially now. It’s not even clear whether the switch back to Detroit water (from Lake Huron) is in time.

Here’s what’s depressing. This is all straightforward science. We know what levels of lead are safe and what levels are not. We know what the effects of lead poisoning are in children. We know how to prevent them. Chemists specializing in water purification know that corrosive water placed in old copper and lead pipes will leach lead and copper out of them. They even know how to treat the water to prevent this leaching! Yet that wasn’t done, all to save a trivial amount of money.

It’s hard for me to think of an example of such an epic public health failure on the part of a state government, much less Michigan’s. I’m not sure I’m willing to go quite as far as Michael Moore, who is demanding the arrest of Governor Snyder, but I agree that heads need to roll and politicians need to be held accountable. I don’t see that happening—yet. Sure, there’ve been some resignations of sacrificial lambs, but no one really in power has yet been held accountable. I fear that no one will be. Even now, Gov. Snyder is doing his best to dodge questions about the debacle.



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

This post will be different than my usual post. Let’s just say that it has to do with quackery of a different kind than I usually write about here. It’s about a public health disaster that was entirely preventable and had nothing to do with vaccines. It has to do with government malpractice on an epic scale, right here in my very own state. It’s a story that’s huge here in Michigan but doesn’t seem to be penetrating the national news very much, at least not yet. I suspect that my international readers, most of whom are likely unaware of this story, will have to pick their jaws up off the ground at the shock that any government could exercise such epic incompetence and in the process potentially harm so many children, but my state government did just that last year.

I was born and raised in Detroit. My parents didn’t move to the suburbs until I was ten years old, and I stayed in southeast Michigan until I graduated from medical school and ended up in Cleveland. From there I bounced to Chicago and New Jersey and, twenty years after I left my hometown, back in the Detroit area. The point of this story is that my roots in the Detroit area run deep. Michigan is my state, for better or for worse, which is why I get annoyed when bad things happen here, such as when a local “holistic doctor” spews antivaccine nonsense, when one of our state legislators tries to make vaccine exemptions easier to get, or when attempts are made to license naturopathic quackery. I particularly become outraged when a preventable tragedy occurs here, one that science told us how to prevent but the government went ahead and did anyway. It’s a horrific tale of how science-based medicine was ignored in favor of saving money—and not even that much money.

That’s why I’m really pissed now over the mass poisoning of children with lead in the city of Flint, which is only about an hour from my house. What’s particularly galling about what happened is that it could have been prevented. Most people outside of Michigan who’ve even heard of Flint at all have probably seen it featured in Michael Moore’s movie, Roger and Me, which explored the effects of GM’s closing several auto plants in Flint, Michigan. Basically, if you think Detroit’s been bad over the last 20-30 years, Flint has been much worse. Now, I realize that there are probably a lot of you who don’t like Michael Moore. I’m not that fond of him myself, but his movie did a good job of exploring just how messed up Flint was. It still is.

As a result of its longstanding financial problems, in 2011 Governor Rick Snyder appointed an emergency manager of the city’s finances. Michigan has a law that allows the governor to appoint an Emergency Financial Manager to take control of a local financial unit, such as a city or a school district after a review finds the unit’s financial situation is deemed precarious enough that a financial emergency exists. Emergency managers have broad, some would say undemocratic, powers to reorganize departments, reduce pay, modify employee contracts, and outsource work. Detroit was just under the control of an emergency manager who filed for chapter 9 bankruptcy, a process that went surprisingly well, all things considering. The same can’t be said of Flint. It went through five emergency managers over the last four years, although two of them were the same. First it was Michael Brown. Then it was Ed Kurtz. Then it was Michael Brown again. Then it was Darnell Earley. Then it was Jerry Ambrose. The names, however, aren’t important. What they did is.

This is the disaster I’m referring to:

Flint’s drinking water became contaminated with lead in 2014 after switching its supply source from Lake Huron to the more polluted and corrosive Flint River. The move — a cost-cutting measure while the city was under the control of a state-appointed emergency manager — resulted in a spike in lead levels in children, which causes permanent brain damage. A recent preliminary report from a task force appointed by Snyder placed most of the blame on the state Department of Environmental Quality and prompted the Dec. 29 resignation of DEQ Director Dan Wyant.

What happened? There were higher concentrations of salt in Flint River water, which led to corrosion of the lead welds in the copper pipes that carried the water to the city. Detroit’s less corrosive water had flowed through the pipes for decades without a problem, but it didn’t take long after the switch was made in April 2014 for elevated lead content to be noticed. Why was the switch made? Here the story gets a bit complicated. In 2010, the Flint City Council voted to join the new Karegnondi Water Authority. Construction of a pipeline from Lake Huron to Flint was begun and is scheduled to be completed in 2016. In April 2014, the emergency manager switched from purchasing treated Lake Huron water from Detroit, as it had done for 50 years, to getting water from the Flint River as a temporary measure until the pipeline was completed. The reason? When Flint joined the Karegnondi Water Authority, the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department terminated its 35-year contract with the city. To continue to purchase Detroit water, Flint would have to renegotiate a short-term contract, at a higher cost. Basically, switching to river water saved Flint between $5 million and $7 million a year. That’s why the emergency manager did it.

As can be seen in this handy time line, residents almost immediately started complaining about the “bad water,” saying that it was causing skin problems in children. Others complained of a foul odor and cloudiness. (The switch was made in in April 2014, and by June there were stories about it in the local press.) By October a GM engine plant announced that it would stop using Flint River water. By January 2015, the University of Michigan-Flint had found that some samples on campus were high in lead. In February, it was reported that one home in Flint had water with a lead content of 104 ppb, compared to 15 ppb, the EPA safe limit for drinking water. More reports followed, and in April 2015, a Flint resident named Lee Anne Walters discovered that her child had lead poisoning. By June, a leaked memo revealed the EPA’s concern about elevated lead levels.

As is often the case in these sorts of situations, city officials denied that the water was unsafe, although they issued a notice that the levels of of trihaolomethanes (TTHM), a group of four chemicals formed as a byproduct of water disinfection, were too high. It got to the point where avoiding tap water became a way of life in Flint. Meanwhile, in September, Virginia Tech University researchers led by Marc Edwards tested water samples from 300 Flint homes and found high lead levels throughout the city. One sample was as high as 13,200 ppb. By way of comparison, the EPA considers water with 5,000 ppb lead to be hazardous waste. Not long after that, Flint pediatricians found that the percentage of children with elevated lead in their blood had doubled, from 2.1% before the switch to 4%. By October, Genesee County declared a public health emergency, and the City of Flint developed plans to distribute thousands of water filters. Finally, in October, Flint reconnected to Detroit water. Ultimately, several Flint residents filed a class action lawsuit, and in December the new mayor, Karen Weaver, declared a state of emergency, declaring that the elevated lead levels had caused irreversible damage to the health of the children of the city. And, finally, long after he should have done it, earlier this week Governor Rick Snyder declared a state of emergency as well:

Now here’s the kicker. Apparently the state knew months before it did anything:

Six months before Michigan’s governor declared a state of emergency over high lead levels in the water in Flint, his top aide wrote in an email that worried residents were “basically getting blown off by us.”

“I’m frustrated by the water issue in Flint,” Dennis Muchmore, then chief of staff to Gov. Rick Snyder, wrote in the email to a top health department staffer obtained by NBC News.

“I really don’t think people are getting the benefit of the doubt. Now they are concerned and rightfully so about the lead level studies they are receiving,” Muchmore said.

Why those DEQ officials took the actions they did is a question at the center of a tragedy that has left an unknown number of children and other Flint residents poisoned by lead, and has led to a federal lawsuit and calls for a U.S. Justice Department investigation. The questions surrounding the testing are in addition to the broader question of why Flint, which was under the control of a state-appointed emergency manager at the time, switched its drinking water source, starting in April 2014, from Lake Huron water supplied by Detroit to the much more polluted and corrosive water from the Flint River.

And:

Lead levels in Flint’s drinking water would have spurred action months sooner if the results of city testing that wrapped up in June had not been revised by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to wrongly indicate the water was safe to drink, e-mails show.

The records — obtained by the Michigan ACLU and by Marc Edwards, a Virginia Tech researcher who helped raise concerns about Flint’s water — show how state officials first appear to have encouraged the City of Flint to find water samples with low lead levels and later told Flint officials to disqualify two samples with high readings. The move changed the overall lead level results to acceptable from unacceptable.

That’s right. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality manipulated the samples tested for lead to eliminate the samples with the highest concentration and thereby produce the result that it wanted: The appearance that the water was safe. It’s true that Flint was in bad financial shape. It’s debatable that its financial situation was helped by Governor Snyder appointing a series of his cronies to run the city, one of whom caused this catastrophe in his desire to save money. His successors perpetuated the damage.

Here’s the even bigger kicker. Even using the Flint River water, the City of Flint could have prevented the corrosion of its copper and lead pipes relatively inexpensively:

Marc Edwards, a professor at Virginia Tech who has been testing Flint water, says treatment could have corrected much of the problem early on — for as little as $100 a day — but officials in the city of 100,000 people didn’t take action.

“There is no question that if the city had followed the minimum requirements under federal law that none of this would have happened,” said Edwards, who obtained the Muchmore email through a Michigan Freedom of Information Act request.

One hundred dollars a day would equal a mere $36,500 a year, a pittance in a budget of millions. To save $36,500 a year or maybe a little more, the city failed to treat the Flint River water, leaving it corrosive and able to leach lead and copper from the aging pipes used to transport it. As a consequence, an as yet unknown number of children have been poisoned with lead, which is most damaging to the developing brain. This can result in developmental delay, decreased IQ, decreased hearing, and ADHD. There will be behavioral problems. Lead exposure has even been linked to violent crime. Flint will be paying for this ecological disaster for decades. They’re still paying financially now. It’s not even clear whether the switch back to Detroit water (from Lake Huron) is in time.

Here’s what’s depressing. This is all straightforward science. We know what levels of lead are safe and what levels are not. We know what the effects of lead poisoning are in children. We know how to prevent them. Chemists specializing in water purification know that corrosive water placed in old copper and lead pipes will leach lead and copper out of them. They even know how to treat the water to prevent this leaching! Yet that wasn’t done, all to save a trivial amount of money.

It’s hard for me to think of an example of such an epic public health failure on the part of a state government, much less Michigan’s. I’m not sure I’m willing to go quite as far as Michael Moore, who is demanding the arrest of Governor Snyder, but I agree that heads need to roll and politicians need to be held accountable. I don’t see that happening—yet. Sure, there’ve been some resignations of sacrificial lambs, but no one really in power has yet been held accountable. I fear that no one will be. Even now, Gov. Snyder is doing his best to dodge questions about the debacle.



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

Venus-Saturn conjunction January 9

Tomorrow morning – January 9, 2016 – Venus and Saturn will all but kiss one another in the predawn/dawn sky. Imagine, if you can, one-sixth of the moon’s diameter. That’s about how far apart these two worlds will be from one another on the great dome of sky, featuring the closest conjunction of two planets since March 22, 2013. Get up early and look eastward for these two lovebirds flitting next to each other in the ballroom of early morn.

Venus is by far the brighter of these two planets. Venus, the third-brightest celestial body after the sun and moon, outshines Saturn by nearly 70 times. That’s in spite of the fact that Saturn beams as brilliantly as a 1st-magnitude star.

You should be able to see Saturn in Venus’ glare, but – if for some reason you have difficulty – try viewing these two worlds through binoculars or a low-powered telescope.

Think photo opportunity, as well!

After their conjunction, watch for Saturn (and the star Antares) to climb upward in the January 2016 morning sky while Venus falls downward. Starting around January 20, as darkness first begins to give way to morning dawn, draw an imaginary line from Saturn through Venus to spot Mercury, the solar system’s innermost planet, near the horizon.

At that juncture you’ll have the opportunity to view all five visible planets – Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn – in the same sky together. That hasn’t happened since 2005.

The approximate positions of the morning planets in early January 2016. Saturn will actually climb above Venus on or near January 9. The green line depicts the ecliptic - Earth's orbital plane projected onto the constellations of the Zodiac. Read more

The approximate positions of the morning planets in early January 2016. Saturn will actually climb above Venus on or near January 9. The green line depicts the ecliptic – Earth’s orbital plane projected onto the constellations of the Zodiac. Read more

Bottom line: Enjoy the close conjunction of Venus and Saturn on the morning of January 9, 2016. It serves as a fitting prelude to the five-planet morning spectacle from January 20 to February 20, 2016!

Astronomy events, star parties, festivals, workshops for 2016

EarthSky astronomy kits are perfect for beginners. Order today from the EarthSky store

Donate: Your support means the world to us



from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1Z0GoYl

Tomorrow morning – January 9, 2016 – Venus and Saturn will all but kiss one another in the predawn/dawn sky. Imagine, if you can, one-sixth of the moon’s diameter. That’s about how far apart these two worlds will be from one another on the great dome of sky, featuring the closest conjunction of two planets since March 22, 2013. Get up early and look eastward for these two lovebirds flitting next to each other in the ballroom of early morn.

Venus is by far the brighter of these two planets. Venus, the third-brightest celestial body after the sun and moon, outshines Saturn by nearly 70 times. That’s in spite of the fact that Saturn beams as brilliantly as a 1st-magnitude star.

You should be able to see Saturn in Venus’ glare, but – if for some reason you have difficulty – try viewing these two worlds through binoculars or a low-powered telescope.

Think photo opportunity, as well!

After their conjunction, watch for Saturn (and the star Antares) to climb upward in the January 2016 morning sky while Venus falls downward. Starting around January 20, as darkness first begins to give way to morning dawn, draw an imaginary line from Saturn through Venus to spot Mercury, the solar system’s innermost planet, near the horizon.

At that juncture you’ll have the opportunity to view all five visible planets – Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn – in the same sky together. That hasn’t happened since 2005.

The approximate positions of the morning planets in early January 2016. Saturn will actually climb above Venus on or near January 9. The green line depicts the ecliptic - Earth's orbital plane projected onto the constellations of the Zodiac. Read more

The approximate positions of the morning planets in early January 2016. Saturn will actually climb above Venus on or near January 9. The green line depicts the ecliptic – Earth’s orbital plane projected onto the constellations of the Zodiac. Read more

Bottom line: Enjoy the close conjunction of Venus and Saturn on the morning of January 9, 2016. It serves as a fitting prelude to the five-planet morning spectacle from January 20 to February 20, 2016!

Astronomy events, star parties, festivals, workshops for 2016

EarthSky astronomy kits are perfect for beginners. Order today from the EarthSky store

Donate: Your support means the world to us



from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1Z0GoYl

Mathematical Anti-Evolutionism [EvolutionBlog]

As it happens, I’ve been thinking about mathematical anti-evolutionism a lot lately.

Sometime over the summer, though I can’t find the exact post, I mentioned that I had been working on an article about mathematical arguments against evolution. I finished it in the fall, and it has recently been accepted for publication in the journal Science and Education. The article is currently in production, but I don’t how long the process will take.

The main point of the article is that while anti-evolutionists deploy mathematics in a large variety of ways, ultimately all of their arguments are just small variations on a few basic themes. First, they are all based on modeling evolution as a combinatorial search. We treat some modern, complex, biological structure as a target of the search. The argument concludes by invoking some piece of mathematics that is meant to demonstrate the unreasonableness of known evolutionary mechanisms locating the target.

The sorts of mathematics that get invoked are themselves of two basic sorts. You either carry out a probability calculation of some sort, or you invoke a general principle. Examples of the former strategy are found in the simplistic creationist arguments in which the precise sequence of amino acids in, say, a hemoglobin molecule, is viewed as a combinatorial string selected at random from a set of equiprobable possibilities, Dembski’s arguments about specified complexity, and Michael Behe’s probability arguments in The Edge of Evolution. Examples of the latter strategy are arguments based on the second law of thermodynamics, No Free Lunch theorems, or Conservation of Information theorems.

(Technically, the second law argument might be considered to be based on physics and not mathematics, but it is of a sufficiently mathematical character that I think it deserves inclusion here. In the article, space restrictions prevented me from discussing the second law argument in detail, so I just mention it in passing. Maybe that should be a separate article!)

Once this basic framework is recognized, it becomes easy to zero in on critical weak spots in their arguments. The probability arguments invariably fail because they are based on reducing probability calculations to combinatorics, which is never justified in any non-trivial biological application. The general principle arguments fail either because of basic empirical considerations, or because the principle at issue is simply irrelevant to the issue at hand.

For example, applying Dembski’s machinery of specified complexity to biology requires that one calculate the probability of evolving a structure like a flagellum given many millions of years in which to work. Since he has suggested no plausible way of carrying out such a calculation we’re done here. The second law argument on the other hand, leaving aside the minutiae put forth by its defenders, plainly runs afoul of empirical considerations. Known evolutionary mechanisms demonstrably have the power to create novel functionalities in organisms and to change relative frequencies of genes. That is sufficient to show that there is nothing thermodynamically impossible in what evolutionists are saying. Again, we’re done here.

Of course, I don’t mean to say that these observations constitute a complete catalog of all that is wrong with these arguments. There is plenty else to criticize. For example, Dembski’s notion of “specification” is hopelessly vague, and people like Granville Sewell makes childish errors in their discussions of the second law. My point is simply that to the extent that our only goal is to refute the challenge these arguments are said to pose to evolution they can be dismissed very quickly with just a few basic points.

A further goal of the article is to trace the history of modern mathematical anti-evolutionism back to the famous Wistar conference of 1966. That was the conference whose proceedings were published under the title, “Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution.” The challenges came primarily from Muuray Eden and Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger. I argue that their arguments exemplify the two main strategies that are used, and established the framework in which modern mathematical anti-evolutionism is presented. They both modeled evolution as a combinatorial search. Eden pursued the “calculation” strategy, and based his argument mostly on the observation that the set of abstractly possible proteins is many orders of magnitude larger than the set of proteins found in modern organisms. Schutzenberger pursued the “general principle” strategy. He argued by analogizing genes to computer code, and put forth the principle that random changes in formal languages degrade meaning. I discuss both arguments in considerable detail, explain why they are wrong, and show how they fit cleanly into my rubric of mathematical anti-evolutionism.

The final point I make is that in modern anti-evolutionist discourse, the mathematics never really contributes anything to the discussion. As I pointed out in yesterday’s post, Dembski’s arguments about specified complexity as applied to evolution are complete parasitic on prior ID arguments, for example, Michael Behe’s claims about irreducible complexity. If Behe’s claims were correct they would all by themselves be a powerful argument against evolution. A probability calculation would do nothing to make them stronger. Since Behe’s claims are not correct, no calculation based on them is going to be relevant. Likewise for Behe’s Edge of Evolution calculations. It is the assumption that the evolution of certain bio-molecular systems require numerous simultaneous mutations that is doing all the work in his argument. The numerology Behe slathers on top of that dubious assumption serves only to obfuscate. And so it goes.

Anyway, that’s a very quick summary. The finished article is actually quite long, at a little over eleven thousand words. Even after writing at such length I’m painfully aware of everything I had to leave out. Hopefully, though, I’ve managed to say something new. One thing I noticed during my time schmoozing at creationist conferences is that mathematical arguments are rhetorically very powerful. It’s easy to bamboozle folks with a few equations and Greek letters. Mathematical research can often seem esoteric and rarefied, so it’s nice to be able to write about something with practical import for a change.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1Rd1KlU

As it happens, I’ve been thinking about mathematical anti-evolutionism a lot lately.

Sometime over the summer, though I can’t find the exact post, I mentioned that I had been working on an article about mathematical arguments against evolution. I finished it in the fall, and it has recently been accepted for publication in the journal Science and Education. The article is currently in production, but I don’t how long the process will take.

The main point of the article is that while anti-evolutionists deploy mathematics in a large variety of ways, ultimately all of their arguments are just small variations on a few basic themes. First, they are all based on modeling evolution as a combinatorial search. We treat some modern, complex, biological structure as a target of the search. The argument concludes by invoking some piece of mathematics that is meant to demonstrate the unreasonableness of known evolutionary mechanisms locating the target.

The sorts of mathematics that get invoked are themselves of two basic sorts. You either carry out a probability calculation of some sort, or you invoke a general principle. Examples of the former strategy are found in the simplistic creationist arguments in which the precise sequence of amino acids in, say, a hemoglobin molecule, is viewed as a combinatorial string selected at random from a set of equiprobable possibilities, Dembski’s arguments about specified complexity, and Michael Behe’s probability arguments in The Edge of Evolution. Examples of the latter strategy are arguments based on the second law of thermodynamics, No Free Lunch theorems, or Conservation of Information theorems.

(Technically, the second law argument might be considered to be based on physics and not mathematics, but it is of a sufficiently mathematical character that I think it deserves inclusion here. In the article, space restrictions prevented me from discussing the second law argument in detail, so I just mention it in passing. Maybe that should be a separate article!)

Once this basic framework is recognized, it becomes easy to zero in on critical weak spots in their arguments. The probability arguments invariably fail because they are based on reducing probability calculations to combinatorics, which is never justified in any non-trivial biological application. The general principle arguments fail either because of basic empirical considerations, or because the principle at issue is simply irrelevant to the issue at hand.

For example, applying Dembski’s machinery of specified complexity to biology requires that one calculate the probability of evolving a structure like a flagellum given many millions of years in which to work. Since he has suggested no plausible way of carrying out such a calculation we’re done here. The second law argument on the other hand, leaving aside the minutiae put forth by its defenders, plainly runs afoul of empirical considerations. Known evolutionary mechanisms demonstrably have the power to create novel functionalities in organisms and to change relative frequencies of genes. That is sufficient to show that there is nothing thermodynamically impossible in what evolutionists are saying. Again, we’re done here.

Of course, I don’t mean to say that these observations constitute a complete catalog of all that is wrong with these arguments. There is plenty else to criticize. For example, Dembski’s notion of “specification” is hopelessly vague, and people like Granville Sewell makes childish errors in their discussions of the second law. My point is simply that to the extent that our only goal is to refute the challenge these arguments are said to pose to evolution they can be dismissed very quickly with just a few basic points.

A further goal of the article is to trace the history of modern mathematical anti-evolutionism back to the famous Wistar conference of 1966. That was the conference whose proceedings were published under the title, “Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution.” The challenges came primarily from Muuray Eden and Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger. I argue that their arguments exemplify the two main strategies that are used, and established the framework in which modern mathematical anti-evolutionism is presented. They both modeled evolution as a combinatorial search. Eden pursued the “calculation” strategy, and based his argument mostly on the observation that the set of abstractly possible proteins is many orders of magnitude larger than the set of proteins found in modern organisms. Schutzenberger pursued the “general principle” strategy. He argued by analogizing genes to computer code, and put forth the principle that random changes in formal languages degrade meaning. I discuss both arguments in considerable detail, explain why they are wrong, and show how they fit cleanly into my rubric of mathematical anti-evolutionism.

The final point I make is that in modern anti-evolutionist discourse, the mathematics never really contributes anything to the discussion. As I pointed out in yesterday’s post, Dembski’s arguments about specified complexity as applied to evolution are complete parasitic on prior ID arguments, for example, Michael Behe’s claims about irreducible complexity. If Behe’s claims were correct they would all by themselves be a powerful argument against evolution. A probability calculation would do nothing to make them stronger. Since Behe’s claims are not correct, no calculation based on them is going to be relevant. Likewise for Behe’s Edge of Evolution calculations. It is the assumption that the evolution of certain bio-molecular systems require numerous simultaneous mutations that is doing all the work in his argument. The numerology Behe slathers on top of that dubious assumption serves only to obfuscate. And so it goes.

Anyway, that’s a very quick summary. The finished article is actually quite long, at a little over eleven thousand words. Even after writing at such length I’m painfully aware of everything I had to leave out. Hopefully, though, I’ve managed to say something new. One thing I noticed during my time schmoozing at creationist conferences is that mathematical arguments are rhetorically very powerful. It’s easy to bamboozle folks with a few equations and Greek letters. Mathematical research can often seem esoteric and rarefied, so it’s nice to be able to write about something with practical import for a change.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1Rd1KlU

Career Spotlight: The Planet-Searching Physicist

Growing up in a small town in New Mexico, Elisa Quintana didn’t even think about science. She grew up in a household that did not stress the importance of math and science. It was not until community college that she realized she liked math, and ended up transferring to the University of California, San Diego to pursue a degree in physics.

“I was a late bloomer,” says Elisa. “Because I didn’t know what I wanted to do in life, it took me six years to complete my undergraduate work.”

Elisa now works for NASA, studying planets.

“I am most interested in finding planets like Earth around other stars,” says Elisa. “Ones that have the right size and orbit to be able to sustain liquid water, a prerequisite for life as we know it.”

Elisa spends a large portion of her time on her laptop, working on computer algorithms that can sift through massive amounts of data to locate planets that could potentially be habitable. She also works on computer models to simulate how these planets might have formed.

“I feel like I am lucky to live in an age where humans can actually start to answer the question of, ‘Are we alone?'”, says Elisa.



from QUEST http://ift.tt/1JxLfhK

Growing up in a small town in New Mexico, Elisa Quintana didn’t even think about science. She grew up in a household that did not stress the importance of math and science. It was not until community college that she realized she liked math, and ended up transferring to the University of California, San Diego to pursue a degree in physics.

“I was a late bloomer,” says Elisa. “Because I didn’t know what I wanted to do in life, it took me six years to complete my undergraduate work.”

Elisa now works for NASA, studying planets.

“I am most interested in finding planets like Earth around other stars,” says Elisa. “Ones that have the right size and orbit to be able to sustain liquid water, a prerequisite for life as we know it.”

Elisa spends a large portion of her time on her laptop, working on computer algorithms that can sift through massive amounts of data to locate planets that could potentially be habitable. She also works on computer models to simulate how these planets might have formed.

“I feel like I am lucky to live in an age where humans can actually start to answer the question of, ‘Are we alone?'”, says Elisa.



from QUEST http://ift.tt/1JxLfhK

EarthSky News with Deborah Byrd

This week … dozens of new runaway stars in the Milky Way. Plus, do the most advanced civilizations in the galaxy live inside globular star clusters? And the marvelous, upcoming conjunction of Venus and Saturn.

Special thanks to Slooh.com for producing this video.

Producer: Tricia Ennis

Assistant Producer: Ryan Little

Check out Slooh.com’s new 24/7 broadcast schedule



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

This week … dozens of new runaway stars in the Milky Way. Plus, do the most advanced civilizations in the galaxy live inside globular star clusters? And the marvelous, upcoming conjunction of Venus and Saturn.

Special thanks to Slooh.com for producing this video.

Producer: Tricia Ennis

Assistant Producer: Ryan Little

Check out Slooh.com’s new 24/7 broadcast schedule



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

Un 2016 más ecológico

Por Lina Younes

¡Feliz año nuevo! Al iniciar el nuevo año, buscamos maneras de tener un nuevo comienzo de una vida más saludable y más feliz. ¿Qué les parece encontrar formas de adoptar un estilo de vida más ecológico para el 2016?

Personalmente, elegí varias resoluciones verdes que me ayudarán a tomar acciones más ecológicas para mi familia, mi comunidad y el planeta. Me parece que serán fáciles de seguir a lo largo del año. Las comparto con ustedes. ¿Qué les parecen?

Resolución #1: ahorrar energía

El ahorrar energía en el hogar, la escuela y en la oficina puede comenzar con una simple bombilla. Admito que a veces sueno como un disco rayado tratando de convencer a mi hija menor que apague las luces cuando sale de su habitación. Este año quiero que ambas hagamos un esfuerzo especial por lograrlo. Esta acción sencilla puede lograr mucho para ahorrar energía.

También, en casa, nos hemos asegurado de tener efectos eléctricos con la etiqueta EnergyStar. ¿Acaso está planeando reemplazar su vieja computadora o comprar nuevos enseres electrodomésticos este año? Puede ahorrar energía y dinero también si escoge un nuevo electrodoméstico con la etiqueta EnergyStar.

Resolución #2: conservar agua

Definitivamente sin agua no podemos vivir. ¿Entonces, por qué no nos esforzamos para utilizar este preciado recurso de la manera más eficiente posible? Conservar agua ahorra energía y dinero. Este año me esforzaré para tomar duchas más cortas y cerrar el grifo cuando me cepille los dientes.  Estos pasos sencillos pueden contribuir positivamente.

¿Tiene algún grifo o inodoro que esté goteando? ¿Sabía que las fugas caseras desperdician más de un millón de millones de galones de agua al año solamente? ¡Yo he tenido problemas con fugas en los inodoros en casa y ya he aprendido de mi lección! No deje que un goteo le arruine. Busque la etiqueta WaterSense

Resolución #3: use sustancias químicas más seguras.

Todos hemos escuchado el dicho que reza “la limpieza va del lado de la piedad”. ¿Entonces, por qué no buscamos productos de limpieza más sanos para protegernos a nosotros mismos, a nuestra familia y al medio ambiente? ¿Sabía que tenemos un programa que se trata exactamente de eso mismo? Es el programa SaferChoice. Los productos con la etiqueta Safer Choice han cumplido con las normas estrictas de la EPA para asegurar que sean más ecológicos para proteger mejor a la gente, las mascotas, la salud de los trabajadores y el medio ambiente. Personalmente, siempre busco productos químicos más verdes para ayudar a proteger a mi familia. Me alegro de que hay más productos con la etiqueta SaferChoice disponibles en el mercado este año.

Resolución #4: reduzca, reutilice y recicle.

Hagamos un esfuerzo por reducir la basura desde el inicio. ¿Por qué no utilizar envases reutilizables en casa, en la escuela y en la oficina? El reducir las envolturas desechables y la basura ahorra dinero y, en esencia, protege al medio ambiente. ¿Está buscando maneras adicionales para reducir los desperdicios? He aquí más sugerencias sobre lo que usted puede hacer todos los días.

Este año, me concentraré en preparar almuerzos libres de desperdicio. Cuando prepare el almuerzo para que mi pequeña se lleve a la escuela o para llevar a mi trabajo, evitaré usar bolsas y envolturas de plástico desechables. Usaré envases reutilizables para la comida y la bebida. No solo evitaré que estas bolsas terminen en los vertederos municipales, sino estaré ahorrando dinero también.

Por cierto, no se olvide de las otras dos erres—reutilizar y reciclar. Para otros consejos sobre reciclaje (en inglés), visite: http://ift.tt/1x274xl.

Resolución #5: Sea más activo.

Muchas veces incluimos el perder peso entre las resoluciones del nuevo año. Sin embargo, ¿por qué no aspirar a ser más activo para tener un estilo de vida más sano y saludable? No tiene que hacerse miembro de un gimnasio caro para lograr su objetivo. Es mucho más sencillo y menos costoso de lo que usted piensa. ¿Qué le parece si simplemente se dedica a caminar más? Lleve a su perro a caminar en un largo paseo. ¿Qué tal le parece visitar un parque local?

Personalmente me propongo usar las escaleras con más frecuencia en el trabajo.  También tengo un nuevo escritorio para trabajar de pie. Así no tengo una vida tan sedentaria como en el pasado. Al estar más activa en el trabajo, estaré más saludable y protegeré el medio ambiente también. Me parecen opciones ganadoras.

¿Entonces, cuáles resoluciones ecológicas piensa adoptar para el 2016? Nos encantaría escuchar su opinión.

Acerca de la autora: Lina Younes ha estado trabajando en la EPA desde el 2002. En la actualidad se desempeña como la enlace de comunicaciones multilingües de la EPA en la Oficina de Comunicaciones del Web. Con anterioridad, ella fue la directora de la oficina en Washington, DC de dos periódicos puertorriqueños y ha trabajado también como funcionaria en agencias gubernamentales federales y estatales a lo largo de los años.



from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1Rma3fD

Por Lina Younes

¡Feliz año nuevo! Al iniciar el nuevo año, buscamos maneras de tener un nuevo comienzo de una vida más saludable y más feliz. ¿Qué les parece encontrar formas de adoptar un estilo de vida más ecológico para el 2016?

Personalmente, elegí varias resoluciones verdes que me ayudarán a tomar acciones más ecológicas para mi familia, mi comunidad y el planeta. Me parece que serán fáciles de seguir a lo largo del año. Las comparto con ustedes. ¿Qué les parecen?

Resolución #1: ahorrar energía

El ahorrar energía en el hogar, la escuela y en la oficina puede comenzar con una simple bombilla. Admito que a veces sueno como un disco rayado tratando de convencer a mi hija menor que apague las luces cuando sale de su habitación. Este año quiero que ambas hagamos un esfuerzo especial por lograrlo. Esta acción sencilla puede lograr mucho para ahorrar energía.

También, en casa, nos hemos asegurado de tener efectos eléctricos con la etiqueta EnergyStar. ¿Acaso está planeando reemplazar su vieja computadora o comprar nuevos enseres electrodomésticos este año? Puede ahorrar energía y dinero también si escoge un nuevo electrodoméstico con la etiqueta EnergyStar.

Resolución #2: conservar agua

Definitivamente sin agua no podemos vivir. ¿Entonces, por qué no nos esforzamos para utilizar este preciado recurso de la manera más eficiente posible? Conservar agua ahorra energía y dinero. Este año me esforzaré para tomar duchas más cortas y cerrar el grifo cuando me cepille los dientes.  Estos pasos sencillos pueden contribuir positivamente.

¿Tiene algún grifo o inodoro que esté goteando? ¿Sabía que las fugas caseras desperdician más de un millón de millones de galones de agua al año solamente? ¡Yo he tenido problemas con fugas en los inodoros en casa y ya he aprendido de mi lección! No deje que un goteo le arruine. Busque la etiqueta WaterSense

Resolución #3: use sustancias químicas más seguras.

Todos hemos escuchado el dicho que reza “la limpieza va del lado de la piedad”. ¿Entonces, por qué no buscamos productos de limpieza más sanos para protegernos a nosotros mismos, a nuestra familia y al medio ambiente? ¿Sabía que tenemos un programa que se trata exactamente de eso mismo? Es el programa SaferChoice. Los productos con la etiqueta Safer Choice han cumplido con las normas estrictas de la EPA para asegurar que sean más ecológicos para proteger mejor a la gente, las mascotas, la salud de los trabajadores y el medio ambiente. Personalmente, siempre busco productos químicos más verdes para ayudar a proteger a mi familia. Me alegro de que hay más productos con la etiqueta SaferChoice disponibles en el mercado este año.

Resolución #4: reduzca, reutilice y recicle.

Hagamos un esfuerzo por reducir la basura desde el inicio. ¿Por qué no utilizar envases reutilizables en casa, en la escuela y en la oficina? El reducir las envolturas desechables y la basura ahorra dinero y, en esencia, protege al medio ambiente. ¿Está buscando maneras adicionales para reducir los desperdicios? He aquí más sugerencias sobre lo que usted puede hacer todos los días.

Este año, me concentraré en preparar almuerzos libres de desperdicio. Cuando prepare el almuerzo para que mi pequeña se lleve a la escuela o para llevar a mi trabajo, evitaré usar bolsas y envolturas de plástico desechables. Usaré envases reutilizables para la comida y la bebida. No solo evitaré que estas bolsas terminen en los vertederos municipales, sino estaré ahorrando dinero también.

Por cierto, no se olvide de las otras dos erres—reutilizar y reciclar. Para otros consejos sobre reciclaje (en inglés), visite: http://ift.tt/1x274xl.

Resolución #5: Sea más activo.

Muchas veces incluimos el perder peso entre las resoluciones del nuevo año. Sin embargo, ¿por qué no aspirar a ser más activo para tener un estilo de vida más sano y saludable? No tiene que hacerse miembro de un gimnasio caro para lograr su objetivo. Es mucho más sencillo y menos costoso de lo que usted piensa. ¿Qué le parece si simplemente se dedica a caminar más? Lleve a su perro a caminar en un largo paseo. ¿Qué tal le parece visitar un parque local?

Personalmente me propongo usar las escaleras con más frecuencia en el trabajo.  También tengo un nuevo escritorio para trabajar de pie. Así no tengo una vida tan sedentaria como en el pasado. Al estar más activa en el trabajo, estaré más saludable y protegeré el medio ambiente también. Me parecen opciones ganadoras.

¿Entonces, cuáles resoluciones ecológicas piensa adoptar para el 2016? Nos encantaría escuchar su opinión.

Acerca de la autora: Lina Younes ha estado trabajando en la EPA desde el 2002. En la actualidad se desempeña como la enlace de comunicaciones multilingües de la EPA en la Oficina de Comunicaciones del Web. Con anterioridad, ella fue la directora de la oficina en Washington, DC de dos periódicos puertorriqueños y ha trabajado también como funcionaria en agencias gubernamentales federales y estatales a lo largo de los años.



from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1Rma3fD

adds 2