Big Stone Gap, Virginia is about as far as you can go in EPA’s mid-Atlantic Region. But it was worth every mile of travel to help communities in Appalachia find ways to pay for badly-needed water and wastewater infrastructure. The EPA Water Finance Forum was all it was intended to be – and so much more.
The forum held in mid-June was designed as a peer-to-peer type of transfer with panels of local presenters sharing information about funding opportunities, innovative solutions, and success stories.
I was anxious to meet the many people I had spoken to and corresponded with over the prior four months while planning for the forum.
Upon arriving, I was pleasantly greeted by mountains which seemed to rise up at my feet; the beauty of the area is undeniable. Some from the EPA regional office asked, “Why Appalachia?” The answer was simple. Appalachia is a big part of EPA’s mid-Atlantic Region, including Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland and all of West Virginia. And it’s an area where the water and wastewater infrastructure needs are great and the challenges complex (rural area, with low population density, mountainous terrain, difficult geology, and limited water and economic resources).
Courtesy: Eric Vance, EPA
Although progress has been made, there are still homes and families in Appalachia that do not have public water and reliable sewage treatment. Yes, in the year 2016, there are citizens living in the United States of America where raw sewage runs directly into streams. I can hardly imagine a life without readily available water from the tap and indoor plumbing to flush away waste.
A presenter at the forum complemented the challenges by describing the “mountain ethic” as “see a problem, come together and find a solution,” which put into words what I sensed. Highlights about the value of water and stories about its impact on the quality of life recalled for me why I dedicated my career to water protection. I’m excited about the Water Finance Forum marking the beginning of a longer relationship and commitment to help people and communities, who often feel forgotten, not only acquire, but sustain reliable water and wastewater services.
In the coming weeks and months, we will have an opportunity to strengthen the connections we made through the Water Finance Forum. As one presenter put it, “the work takes commitment, dedication, and a willingness to work hard.” Since these are the very same qualities demonstrated by the people who proudly call Appalachia home, I’m confident that our investments in the Appalachian Region will succeed.
About the Author: Lori Reynolds works in the region’s Office of Infrastructure and Assistance, which provides funding to states for water and wastewater infrastructure. She is naturally drawn to water, working in the Water Protection Division, swimming in pools and open water as part of a Master’s swim team, and as an Aquarius.
from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/298MW69
by Lori Reynolds
Courtesy: Eric Vance, EPA
Big Stone Gap, Virginia is about as far as you can go in EPA’s mid-Atlantic Region. But it was worth every mile of travel to help communities in Appalachia find ways to pay for badly-needed water and wastewater infrastructure. The EPA Water Finance Forum was all it was intended to be – and so much more.
The forum held in mid-June was designed as a peer-to-peer type of transfer with panels of local presenters sharing information about funding opportunities, innovative solutions, and success stories.
I was anxious to meet the many people I had spoken to and corresponded with over the prior four months while planning for the forum.
Upon arriving, I was pleasantly greeted by mountains which seemed to rise up at my feet; the beauty of the area is undeniable. Some from the EPA regional office asked, “Why Appalachia?” The answer was simple. Appalachia is a big part of EPA’s mid-Atlantic Region, including Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland and all of West Virginia. And it’s an area where the water and wastewater infrastructure needs are great and the challenges complex (rural area, with low population density, mountainous terrain, difficult geology, and limited water and economic resources).
Courtesy: Eric Vance, EPA
Although progress has been made, there are still homes and families in Appalachia that do not have public water and reliable sewage treatment. Yes, in the year 2016, there are citizens living in the United States of America where raw sewage runs directly into streams. I can hardly imagine a life without readily available water from the tap and indoor plumbing to flush away waste.
A presenter at the forum complemented the challenges by describing the “mountain ethic” as “see a problem, come together and find a solution,” which put into words what I sensed. Highlights about the value of water and stories about its impact on the quality of life recalled for me why I dedicated my career to water protection. I’m excited about the Water Finance Forum marking the beginning of a longer relationship and commitment to help people and communities, who often feel forgotten, not only acquire, but sustain reliable water and wastewater services.
In the coming weeks and months, we will have an opportunity to strengthen the connections we made through the Water Finance Forum. As one presenter put it, “the work takes commitment, dedication, and a willingness to work hard.” Since these are the very same qualities demonstrated by the people who proudly call Appalachia home, I’m confident that our investments in the Appalachian Region will succeed.
About the Author: Lori Reynolds works in the region’s Office of Infrastructure and Assistance, which provides funding to states for water and wastewater infrastructure. She is naturally drawn to water, working in the Water Protection Division, swimming in pools and open water as part of a Master’s swim team, and as an Aquarius.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research Dr. Melissa Flagg (left) presents Ms. Kristen Schario, AFRL, with the 2016 George Linsteadt Award Technology Transfer Achievement Award. Photo courtesy of US Air Force Tech Transfer
Kristen Schario helped formation of start-ups to pursue commercialization of AFRL technologies
The Department of Defense (DOD) recently named Ms. Kristen Schario as the 2016 George Linsteadt Technology Transfer Achievement Award winner. The annual award recognizes DOD Federal and non-Federal employees who have made outstanding efforts in support and execution of technology transfer (T2) partnerships that aid in migrating new technologies into or out of the Department, that promote technology commercialization, and that license patented government inventions.
In presenting the award, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research Dr. Melissa Flagg said technology transfer is vital to the DOD mission of developing new technologies, promoting technology commercialization, and licensing patented government inventions.
“Ms. Scharios’ performance leading the Office of Research and Technology Applications at AFRL’s Aerospace Systems Directorate embodies the vision and spirit of the Linsteadt Award,” said Dr. Flagg.
Ms. Schario is being recognized for her exemplary performance leading the Office of Research and Technology Applications at the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Aerospace Systems Directorate. In her 24 years of dedicated service, Ms. Schario has become one of the Air Force’s foremost experts on technology transfer. In addition to managing and negotiating hundreds of partnership agreements with industry and academia, Ms. Schario has also been an advocate for technology accelerators in the region. With her help, three start-ups have been formed in the past year to pursue commercialization of technologies developed at the Air Force Research Laboratory. In recognition of her expertise, she is regularly invited as a guest speaker at regional and national symposiums on technology transfer as well as serving as a Member-at-large on the Federal Laboratory Consortium Executive Board.
The award honors significant efforts comparable to those of Mr. George Linsteadt and other US Government professionals who developed the federal technology transfer process. Mr. Linsteadt was a pioneer of technology transfer at the Naval Air Systems Command China Lake Weapons Division and a promoter of technology transfer for laboratories in seventeen Federal departments and Agencies. Mr. Linsteadt and other technology transfer professionals initiated the DOD technology transfer consortium which later expanded to become the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer. Awardees embody the vision and spirit of Mr. Linsteadt and other proactive DOD technology transfer support professionals who pioneered technology transfer.
AFRL’s Aerospace Systems Directorate, based at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, brings together world-class facilities including a fuels research facility, structural testing labs, compressor research facility, rocket testing facilities, supersonic and subsonic wind tunnels, flight simulation lab, and many other cutting-edge research labs. Among the technologies in development in the Aerospace Systems Directorate are scramjet engines, alternative fuels, unmanned vehicles, and hypersonic vehicles.
Disclaimer: Re-published content may have been edited for length and clarity. The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the Department of Defense. For other than authorized activities, such as, military exchanges and Morale, Welfare and Recreation sites, the Department of Defense does not exercise any editorial control over the information you may find at these locations. Such links are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this DoD website.
from Armed with Science http://ift.tt/29663wy
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research Dr. Melissa Flagg (left) presents Ms. Kristen Schario, AFRL, with the 2016 George Linsteadt Award Technology Transfer Achievement Award. Photo courtesy of US Air Force Tech Transfer
Kristen Schario helped formation of start-ups to pursue commercialization of AFRL technologies
The Department of Defense (DOD) recently named Ms. Kristen Schario as the 2016 George Linsteadt Technology Transfer Achievement Award winner. The annual award recognizes DOD Federal and non-Federal employees who have made outstanding efforts in support and execution of technology transfer (T2) partnerships that aid in migrating new technologies into or out of the Department, that promote technology commercialization, and that license patented government inventions.
In presenting the award, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research Dr. Melissa Flagg said technology transfer is vital to the DOD mission of developing new technologies, promoting technology commercialization, and licensing patented government inventions.
“Ms. Scharios’ performance leading the Office of Research and Technology Applications at AFRL’s Aerospace Systems Directorate embodies the vision and spirit of the Linsteadt Award,” said Dr. Flagg.
Ms. Schario is being recognized for her exemplary performance leading the Office of Research and Technology Applications at the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Aerospace Systems Directorate. In her 24 years of dedicated service, Ms. Schario has become one of the Air Force’s foremost experts on technology transfer. In addition to managing and negotiating hundreds of partnership agreements with industry and academia, Ms. Schario has also been an advocate for technology accelerators in the region. With her help, three start-ups have been formed in the past year to pursue commercialization of technologies developed at the Air Force Research Laboratory. In recognition of her expertise, she is regularly invited as a guest speaker at regional and national symposiums on technology transfer as well as serving as a Member-at-large on the Federal Laboratory Consortium Executive Board.
The award honors significant efforts comparable to those of Mr. George Linsteadt and other US Government professionals who developed the federal technology transfer process. Mr. Linsteadt was a pioneer of technology transfer at the Naval Air Systems Command China Lake Weapons Division and a promoter of technology transfer for laboratories in seventeen Federal departments and Agencies. Mr. Linsteadt and other technology transfer professionals initiated the DOD technology transfer consortium which later expanded to become the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer. Awardees embody the vision and spirit of Mr. Linsteadt and other proactive DOD technology transfer support professionals who pioneered technology transfer.
AFRL’s Aerospace Systems Directorate, based at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, brings together world-class facilities including a fuels research facility, structural testing labs, compressor research facility, rocket testing facilities, supersonic and subsonic wind tunnels, flight simulation lab, and many other cutting-edge research labs. Among the technologies in development in the Aerospace Systems Directorate are scramjet engines, alternative fuels, unmanned vehicles, and hypersonic vehicles.
Disclaimer: Re-published content may have been edited for length and clarity. The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the Department of Defense. For other than authorized activities, such as, military exchanges and Morale, Welfare and Recreation sites, the Department of Defense does not exercise any editorial control over the information you may find at these locations. Such links are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this DoD website.
“How well I have learned that there is no fence to sit on between heaven and hell. There is a deep, wide gulf, a chasm, and in that chasm is no place for any man.” -Johnny Cash
The largest mountains, the greatest chasms, steepest cliffs and the tallest peaks on Earth are certainly impressive, particularly when compared to the scale of a human. But compared to the mountains on Mars, Io, Vesta or Iapetus, or the canyons and cliffs on Mars, Mercury, or even Charon, Earth’s features look puny.
Valles Marineris on Mars, taken by the Viking orbiters. Image credit: NASA.
How could these small worlds, some of which — like Vesta — are barely 5% the diameter of Earth, have features that dwarf our own planet’s? The answer is in gravity itself: without the incredible gravitational pull that Earth experiences at its surface, these irregularities are unchecked by the same forces that pull Earth into such a nearly perfect sphere.
Rheasilvia Mons on the asteroid Vesta, the largest base-to-peak mountain known in the Solar System. Taken by NASA’s Dawn spacecraft. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/UCLA/MPS/DLR/IDA.
“How well I have learned that there is no fence to sit on between heaven and hell. There is a deep, wide gulf, a chasm, and in that chasm is no place for any man.” -Johnny Cash
The largest mountains, the greatest chasms, steepest cliffs and the tallest peaks on Earth are certainly impressive, particularly when compared to the scale of a human. But compared to the mountains on Mars, Io, Vesta or Iapetus, or the canyons and cliffs on Mars, Mercury, or even Charon, Earth’s features look puny.
Valles Marineris on Mars, taken by the Viking orbiters. Image credit: NASA.
How could these small worlds, some of which — like Vesta — are barely 5% the diameter of Earth, have features that dwarf our own planet’s? The answer is in gravity itself: without the incredible gravitational pull that Earth experiences at its surface, these irregularities are unchecked by the same forces that pull Earth into such a nearly perfect sphere.
Rheasilvia Mons on the asteroid Vesta, the largest base-to-peak mountain known in the Solar System. Taken by NASA’s Dawn spacecraft. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/UCLA/MPS/DLR/IDA.
A waning crescent moon is sometimes called an old moon. It’s seen in the east before dawn.
At this moon phase, the moon has moved nearly entirely around in its orbit of Earth, as measured from one new moon to the next. The next new moon will be July 4, 2016 at 1104 UTC. Translate to your time zone.
Because the moon is nearly on a line with the Earth and sun again, the day hemisphere of the moon is facing mostly away from us once more. We see only a slender fraction of the moon’s day side: a crescent moon.
Each morning before dawn, because the moon is moving eastward in orbit around Earth, the moon appears closer to the sunrise glare. We see less and less of the moon’s day side, and thus the crescent in the east before dawn appears thinner each day.
The moon, as always, is rising in the east day after day. But most people won’t see this moon phase unless they get up early. When the sun comes up, and the sky grows brighter, the waning crescent moon fades. Now the moon is so near the Earth/sun line that the sun’s glare is drowning this slim moon from view.
Still, the waning crescent is up there, nearly all day long, moving ahead of the sun across the sky’s dome. It sets in the west several hours or less before sunset.
A waning crescent moon is sometimes called an old moon. It’s seen in the east before dawn.
At this moon phase, the moon has moved nearly entirely around in its orbit of Earth, as measured from one new moon to the next. The next new moon will be July 4, 2016 at 1104 UTC. Translate to your time zone.
Because the moon is nearly on a line with the Earth and sun again, the day hemisphere of the moon is facing mostly away from us once more. We see only a slender fraction of the moon’s day side: a crescent moon.
Each morning before dawn, because the moon is moving eastward in orbit around Earth, the moon appears closer to the sunrise glare. We see less and less of the moon’s day side, and thus the crescent in the east before dawn appears thinner each day.
The moon, as always, is rising in the east day after day. But most people won’t see this moon phase unless they get up early. When the sun comes up, and the sky grows brighter, the waning crescent moon fades. Now the moon is so near the Earth/sun line that the sun’s glare is drowning this slim moon from view.
Still, the waning crescent is up there, nearly all day long, moving ahead of the sun across the sky’s dome. It sets in the west several hours or less before sunset.
Fallen trees at Tunguska. This image is from 1927, when Russian scientists were finally able to get to the scene. Photograph from the Soviet Academy of Science 1927 expedition led by Leonid Kulik.
June 30, 1908 In a remote part of Russia, a fireball was seen streaking across the daytime sky. Within moments, something exploded in the atmosphere above Siberia’s Podkamennaya Tunguska River in what is now Krasnoyarsk Krai, Russia.
This event – now widely known as the Tunguska event – is believed to have been caused by an incoming asteroid (or comet), which never actually struck Earth but instead exploded in the atmosphere, causing what is known as an air burst, three to six miles (5–10 kilometers) above Earth’s surface.
The explosion released enough energy to kill reindeer and flatten trees for many kilometers around the blast site. But no crater was ever found.
At the time, it was difficult to reach this remote part of Siberia. It wasn’t until 1927 that Leonid Kulik led the first Soviet research expedition to investigate the Tunguska event. He made a initial trip to the region, interviewed local witnesses and explored the region where the trees had been felled. He became convinced that they were all turned with their roots to the center. He did not find any meteorite fragments, and he did not find a meteorite crater.
Map showing the approximate location of the Tunguska event of 1908.
Over the years, scientists and others concocted fabulous explanations for the Tunguska explosion. Some were pretty wild – such as the encounter of Earth with an alien spacecraft, or a mini-black-hole, or a particle of antimatter.
The truth is much more ordinary. In all likelihood, a small icy comet or stony asteroid collided with Earth’s atmosphere on June 30, 1908. If it were an asteroid, it might have been about a third as big as a football field – moving at about 15 kilometers (10 miles) per second.
Because the explosion took place so long ago, we might never know for certain whether it was an asteroid or comet. But in recent decades astronomers have come to take the possibility of comet and asteroid impacts more seriously. They now have regular observing programs to watch for Near-Earth Objects, as they’re called. They also meet regularly to discuss what might happen if we did find an object on a collision course with Earth.
Photo of an air burst, in this case from a U.S. Navy submarine-launched Tomamhawk cruise missile. An air burst from an incoming comet or asteroid is thought to have flattened trees in Siberia in 1908. Image via Wikimedia Commons
Bottom line: On June 30, 1908, an object from space apparently exploded in the atmosphere above Siberia. The explosion killed reindeer and flattened trees, in what has become known as the Tunguska event.
from EarthSky http://ift.tt/Y6G1jA
Fallen trees at Tunguska. This image is from 1927, when Russian scientists were finally able to get to the scene. Photograph from the Soviet Academy of Science 1927 expedition led by Leonid Kulik.
June 30, 1908 In a remote part of Russia, a fireball was seen streaking across the daytime sky. Within moments, something exploded in the atmosphere above Siberia’s Podkamennaya Tunguska River in what is now Krasnoyarsk Krai, Russia.
This event – now widely known as the Tunguska event – is believed to have been caused by an incoming asteroid (or comet), which never actually struck Earth but instead exploded in the atmosphere, causing what is known as an air burst, three to six miles (5–10 kilometers) above Earth’s surface.
The explosion released enough energy to kill reindeer and flatten trees for many kilometers around the blast site. But no crater was ever found.
At the time, it was difficult to reach this remote part of Siberia. It wasn’t until 1927 that Leonid Kulik led the first Soviet research expedition to investigate the Tunguska event. He made a initial trip to the region, interviewed local witnesses and explored the region where the trees had been felled. He became convinced that they were all turned with their roots to the center. He did not find any meteorite fragments, and he did not find a meteorite crater.
Map showing the approximate location of the Tunguska event of 1908.
Over the years, scientists and others concocted fabulous explanations for the Tunguska explosion. Some were pretty wild – such as the encounter of Earth with an alien spacecraft, or a mini-black-hole, or a particle of antimatter.
The truth is much more ordinary. In all likelihood, a small icy comet or stony asteroid collided with Earth’s atmosphere on June 30, 1908. If it were an asteroid, it might have been about a third as big as a football field – moving at about 15 kilometers (10 miles) per second.
Because the explosion took place so long ago, we might never know for certain whether it was an asteroid or comet. But in recent decades astronomers have come to take the possibility of comet and asteroid impacts more seriously. They now have regular observing programs to watch for Near-Earth Objects, as they’re called. They also meet regularly to discuss what might happen if we did find an object on a collision course with Earth.
Photo of an air burst, in this case from a U.S. Navy submarine-launched Tomamhawk cruise missile. An air burst from an incoming comet or asteroid is thought to have flattened trees in Siberia in 1908. Image via Wikimedia Commons
Bottom line: On June 30, 1908, an object from space apparently exploded in the atmosphere above Siberia. The explosion killed reindeer and flattened trees, in what has become known as the Tunguska event.
The map above shows near-Earth space on June 30, 2016. It shows all the objects within 0.3 AU of Earth – that’s 45 million kilometers – or about 30 million miles – or about one-third of the distance between us and the sun – today. The red oval around Earth represents 3.84 million kilometers, or 10 lunar distances.
Want to see more of the solar system? Try the map below, also from Armagh Observatory. It shows the orbits of the inner planets – Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars – as the blue ellipses around the sun (the yellow dot at the center). The planets themselves are cyan or white squares. The Earth is highlighted “because of its special importance to us,” Armagh explains.
Small green points mark the location of asteroids which do not approach close to the Earth right now. Yellow objects (with the exception of sun) are Earth-approaching asteroids which are called Amors after the first one discovered. Amors have orbits which come close to the Earth but they don’t cross the Earth’s orbit, yet.
Finally the red boxes mark the location of the Apollo and Aten asteroids. These cross the Earth’s orbit and are the most directly identifiable astronomical threat for the near future.
It is estimated that there are perhaps 100,000 to 1,000,000 undiscovered asteroids on similar Earth crossing orbits.
However, one thing to remember here is that the maps are not to scale, with respect to the sizes of the dots representing the asteroids, and the space in between them. Space, even the near space just outside our little Earth-moon system, is very vast. We could not see the asteroids on a map this size, if they were depicted relative to the reality of the vastness of space.
Also, look at these maps. We know about a lot of asteroids. It’s the ones we don’t know about that worry astronomers. They’re confident they know all the potentially Earth-destroying-sized asteroids, and they know none are headed our way for the foreseeable future. It’s the smaller asteroids they’re still not sure about, the ones that could strike on or near a large city and do a lot of harm.
Finally, today we know that fairly large asteroids do strike our atmosphere several times each year. Data released in 2014 by the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization, which operates a network of sensors that monitors Earth continuously for the infrasound signature of nuclear detonations, showed that, as of 2014, there had been 26 atom-bomb scale impacts to our atmosphere since the year 2000. Nearly all of those passed unnoticed because our atmosphere did its job … and kept us safe.
Bottom line: Asteroid maps from Armagh Observatory for June 30, 2016.
The map above shows near-Earth space on June 30, 2016. It shows all the objects within 0.3 AU of Earth – that’s 45 million kilometers – or about 30 million miles – or about one-third of the distance between us and the sun – today. The red oval around Earth represents 3.84 million kilometers, or 10 lunar distances.
Want to see more of the solar system? Try the map below, also from Armagh Observatory. It shows the orbits of the inner planets – Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars – as the blue ellipses around the sun (the yellow dot at the center). The planets themselves are cyan or white squares. The Earth is highlighted “because of its special importance to us,” Armagh explains.
Small green points mark the location of asteroids which do not approach close to the Earth right now. Yellow objects (with the exception of sun) are Earth-approaching asteroids which are called Amors after the first one discovered. Amors have orbits which come close to the Earth but they don’t cross the Earth’s orbit, yet.
Finally the red boxes mark the location of the Apollo and Aten asteroids. These cross the Earth’s orbit and are the most directly identifiable astronomical threat for the near future.
It is estimated that there are perhaps 100,000 to 1,000,000 undiscovered asteroids on similar Earth crossing orbits.
However, one thing to remember here is that the maps are not to scale, with respect to the sizes of the dots representing the asteroids, and the space in between them. Space, even the near space just outside our little Earth-moon system, is very vast. We could not see the asteroids on a map this size, if they were depicted relative to the reality of the vastness of space.
Also, look at these maps. We know about a lot of asteroids. It’s the ones we don’t know about that worry astronomers. They’re confident they know all the potentially Earth-destroying-sized asteroids, and they know none are headed our way for the foreseeable future. It’s the smaller asteroids they’re still not sure about, the ones that could strike on or near a large city and do a lot of harm.
Finally, today we know that fairly large asteroids do strike our atmosphere several times each year. Data released in 2014 by the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization, which operates a network of sensors that monitors Earth continuously for the infrasound signature of nuclear detonations, showed that, as of 2014, there had been 26 atom-bomb scale impacts to our atmosphere since the year 2000. Nearly all of those passed unnoticed because our atmosphere did its job … and kept us safe.
Bottom line: Asteroid maps from Armagh Observatory for June 30, 2016.
One of the most reliable indicators of a quack clinic that I know of (besides its offering homeopathy and reiki) is the inclusion of “detox foot bath” treatments on its roster of services. Detox foot baths, whatever the brand, are of a piece with other “detoxification” pseudoscience involving the feet, such as Kinoki foot pads. Basically, the idea is that you can some how remove toxins through the soles of your feet using either a nice mineral bath with a weak electrical current passed through it or a foot pad. Inevitably, nasty looking stuff is seen apparently coming out of the feet. In the case of the foot pads, it’s in the form of some sort of brownish black stuff on the pad; in the case of the footbath, the water turns brown. These color changes are presented as evidence that “toxins” have been pulled from the body through the soles of the feet, and those selling these devices make videos like this:
It’s all utter nonsense, of course. Indeed, “detox” foot pads and foot baths are among the very silliest treatments used in alternative medicine there are. First, the skin on the soles of the feet is think and relatively impermeable, covered as it is with a layer of cells and keratin. But what about the color change? For the “detox footbath,” that’s easy. As I’ve described on more than one occasion, thanks to the minerals in the water and some basic physics and chemistry of electrolysis that lead to the corrosion of the electrodes, the water will change color whether feet are in the bath or not. Similarly, I’ve described how “detox footpads” turn black when exposed to warm moisture like steam (or like the bottoms of stinky feet). “Foot detox,” whether due to detox foot pads or detox foot baths, are a brilliant scam to bilk the gullible.
No wonder the merry band of antivaccine quacks and propagandists over at that wretched hive of scum and antivaccine quackery Age of Autism like it enough to advertise—get this!—a clinical trial of the IonCleanse System from A Major Difference (AMD). I’ve mentioned this system before and how AMD has jumped feet first (if you’ll excuse the term) into autism quackery. I learned of this “clinical trial” from AoA yesterday in this post about Therapy House LLC Clinical Trial Enrolling Participants in Pittsburgh for IonCleanse. I took a look at the protocol. Let’s just say that it’s not exactly rigorous, as you’ll see. First, however, see the genesis of this study. First AMD brags about having sold over 13,000 units in 39 countries, demonstrating once again that gullibility knows no nationality. Then, we learn:
In December of 2014, AMD was approached by The Thinking Moms’ Revolution to do a parent evaluation of the IonCleanse by AMD as it relates to children with ASD. The first of the 2-part study completed in April of 2015. This evaluation proved enormously successful and has paved the way for a wave of interest in the autism community.
Basically, from what I can tell, this “part one” was a single arm “study” (I really, really have to use scare quotes, because what TMR posted and a real clinical study are related only by coincidence), unblinded, with repeated measures. There’s nothing resembling a statistical analysis. I was half-tempted to show this post to one of our statisticians at the cancer center, but I decided that I didn’t want to cause harm by inducing relentless, unstoppable laughter that could cause her to pass out, particularly at the part that says:
The efficacy of treatments using ionic detoxification footbath technology has been validated through the TMR-ATEC Survey. Observed results, combined with mathematical analysis, have shown clearly that detoxification is an essential element in the autism recovery process.
And:
These results establish high confidence that continued use of the IonCleanse® Detoxification Footbath System can be used as an effective tool in the treatment of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).
Um, no. It shows nothing of the sort. Moreover, this new study is not likely to show anything of the sort either. For instance:
Of the 30+ participants, 50% will be randomly selected to receive the IonCleanse by AMD sessions, and 50% will be part of the control group that will receive no therapy. Pre and post evaluations will be performed for all 30 participants, and the evaluators will be blind as to which children received treatment and which did not. The parents of the children and the children cannot be blinded as they will observe the water which may change color during actual therapy. The blinding of the evaluators as to the therapy/no therapy should be sufficient to assure a valid conclusion. Each patient will have total of 32 treatments. The pre-evaluation testing will be done within 7 days of beginning therapy and post-evaluation will be completed with 7 days of the last treatment.
After 60 days, success will be considered a significant reduction in ASD symptoms as determined by a repeat of the entry requirements assessment and a comparison of the treated patients to the control patients. For purposes of this study a greater than 25% overall reduction ASD symptoms will be clinically significant.
But how will this be determined? Thusly:
Data from the study will be collected at the study site, and provided to sponsor for data analysis. A simple analysis comparing pre procedure symptoms with post procedure symptoms will be performed, and a statically difference in measurement will be considered a success.
Let’s see. The bit about not being able to blind the parents or children is risible in the extreme, as it would not be that difficult to make a sham device that replicates the color change in the water in the control group. So, no, the blinding of the evaluators as to therapy/no therapy is not sufficient. Moreover, no study would ever pass institutional review board (IRB) muster (at least not with a decent IRB) without a decent plan for statistical analysis. Nothing resembling that exists here. Nor does anything resembling a plan to make sure that the two groups (control and IonCleanse) are comparable in terms of age, autism severity, comorbidities, etc., another very important basic part of any randomized clinical trial because if the groups aren’t comparable biases can creep in and affect the results.
Then there’s the issue of ethics. The common rule and federal regulations regarding the protection of human research subjects emphasize a higher standard to protect vulnerable populations, and children are a vulnerable population, particularly special needs children like autistic children. So what does AMD have to say about this? Not a lot:
The study is considered under FDA regulations as non-significant risk clinical trial. The trail will comply with FDA regulations by having the approval of a qualified Institutional Review Board.
Um, no. You don’t get to choose whether your study is a “non-significant risk” study. As the FDA points out, it is the IRB that determines whether a study is a “non-significant risk” study or not. I suppose I should be happy that this will be approved by an IRB, but given how antivaccine warriors like Mark and David Geier have set up their own IRBs to approve unethical studies, I’d be very interested in knowing what IRB AMD plans on using.
This study is a perfect example of what Harriet Hall likes to refer to as “Tooth Fairy science.” Basically, it’s doing research on a phenomenon before establishing that that phenomenon exists. As she likes to continue the analogy, you can 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 even get all kinds of good data that is reproducible and statistically significant. Yes, you think 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. In this case, it hasn’t been determined that these foot baths can pull toxins out of the body through the feet; quite the opposite, in fact. It also hasn’t been established that these unnamed “toxins” have anything to do with autism.
As I said early on, one of the surest indicators of quackery in a clinic is its inclusion of something like the IonCleanse foot bath. The purpose of this study isn’t really to determine efficacy or safety of the IonCleanse in treating autism. The design of the study virtually guarantees that it will find a positive result. That’s because it’s a marketing tool to produce more IonCleanse Ambassadors and sell more IonCleanse devices.
from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/297zSOf
One of the most reliable indicators of a quack clinic that I know of (besides its offering homeopathy and reiki) is the inclusion of “detox foot bath” treatments on its roster of services. Detox foot baths, whatever the brand, are of a piece with other “detoxification” pseudoscience involving the feet, such as Kinoki foot pads. Basically, the idea is that you can some how remove toxins through the soles of your feet using either a nice mineral bath with a weak electrical current passed through it or a foot pad. Inevitably, nasty looking stuff is seen apparently coming out of the feet. In the case of the foot pads, it’s in the form of some sort of brownish black stuff on the pad; in the case of the footbath, the water turns brown. These color changes are presented as evidence that “toxins” have been pulled from the body through the soles of the feet, and those selling these devices make videos like this:
It’s all utter nonsense, of course. Indeed, “detox” foot pads and foot baths are among the very silliest treatments used in alternative medicine there are. First, the skin on the soles of the feet is think and relatively impermeable, covered as it is with a layer of cells and keratin. But what about the color change? For the “detox footbath,” that’s easy. As I’ve described on more than one occasion, thanks to the minerals in the water and some basic physics and chemistry of electrolysis that lead to the corrosion of the electrodes, the water will change color whether feet are in the bath or not. Similarly, I’ve described how “detox footpads” turn black when exposed to warm moisture like steam (or like the bottoms of stinky feet). “Foot detox,” whether due to detox foot pads or detox foot baths, are a brilliant scam to bilk the gullible.
No wonder the merry band of antivaccine quacks and propagandists over at that wretched hive of scum and antivaccine quackery Age of Autism like it enough to advertise—get this!—a clinical trial of the IonCleanse System from A Major Difference (AMD). I’ve mentioned this system before and how AMD has jumped feet first (if you’ll excuse the term) into autism quackery. I learned of this “clinical trial” from AoA yesterday in this post about Therapy House LLC Clinical Trial Enrolling Participants in Pittsburgh for IonCleanse. I took a look at the protocol. Let’s just say that it’s not exactly rigorous, as you’ll see. First, however, see the genesis of this study. First AMD brags about having sold over 13,000 units in 39 countries, demonstrating once again that gullibility knows no nationality. Then, we learn:
In December of 2014, AMD was approached by The Thinking Moms’ Revolution to do a parent evaluation of the IonCleanse by AMD as it relates to children with ASD. The first of the 2-part study completed in April of 2015. This evaluation proved enormously successful and has paved the way for a wave of interest in the autism community.
Basically, from what I can tell, this “part one” was a single arm “study” (I really, really have to use scare quotes, because what TMR posted and a real clinical study are related only by coincidence), unblinded, with repeated measures. There’s nothing resembling a statistical analysis. I was half-tempted to show this post to one of our statisticians at the cancer center, but I decided that I didn’t want to cause harm by inducing relentless, unstoppable laughter that could cause her to pass out, particularly at the part that says:
The efficacy of treatments using ionic detoxification footbath technology has been validated through the TMR-ATEC Survey. Observed results, combined with mathematical analysis, have shown clearly that detoxification is an essential element in the autism recovery process.
And:
These results establish high confidence that continued use of the IonCleanse® Detoxification Footbath System can be used as an effective tool in the treatment of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).
Um, no. It shows nothing of the sort. Moreover, this new study is not likely to show anything of the sort either. For instance:
Of the 30+ participants, 50% will be randomly selected to receive the IonCleanse by AMD sessions, and 50% will be part of the control group that will receive no therapy. Pre and post evaluations will be performed for all 30 participants, and the evaluators will be blind as to which children received treatment and which did not. The parents of the children and the children cannot be blinded as they will observe the water which may change color during actual therapy. The blinding of the evaluators as to the therapy/no therapy should be sufficient to assure a valid conclusion. Each patient will have total of 32 treatments. The pre-evaluation testing will be done within 7 days of beginning therapy and post-evaluation will be completed with 7 days of the last treatment.
After 60 days, success will be considered a significant reduction in ASD symptoms as determined by a repeat of the entry requirements assessment and a comparison of the treated patients to the control patients. For purposes of this study a greater than 25% overall reduction ASD symptoms will be clinically significant.
But how will this be determined? Thusly:
Data from the study will be collected at the study site, and provided to sponsor for data analysis. A simple analysis comparing pre procedure symptoms with post procedure symptoms will be performed, and a statically difference in measurement will be considered a success.
Let’s see. The bit about not being able to blind the parents or children is risible in the extreme, as it would not be that difficult to make a sham device that replicates the color change in the water in the control group. So, no, the blinding of the evaluators as to therapy/no therapy is not sufficient. Moreover, no study would ever pass institutional review board (IRB) muster (at least not with a decent IRB) without a decent plan for statistical analysis. Nothing resembling that exists here. Nor does anything resembling a plan to make sure that the two groups (control and IonCleanse) are comparable in terms of age, autism severity, comorbidities, etc., another very important basic part of any randomized clinical trial because if the groups aren’t comparable biases can creep in and affect the results.
Then there’s the issue of ethics. The common rule and federal regulations regarding the protection of human research subjects emphasize a higher standard to protect vulnerable populations, and children are a vulnerable population, particularly special needs children like autistic children. So what does AMD have to say about this? Not a lot:
The study is considered under FDA regulations as non-significant risk clinical trial. The trail will comply with FDA regulations by having the approval of a qualified Institutional Review Board.
Um, no. You don’t get to choose whether your study is a “non-significant risk” study. As the FDA points out, it is the IRB that determines whether a study is a “non-significant risk” study or not. I suppose I should be happy that this will be approved by an IRB, but given how antivaccine warriors like Mark and David Geier have set up their own IRBs to approve unethical studies, I’d be very interested in knowing what IRB AMD plans on using.
This study is a perfect example of what Harriet Hall likes to refer to as “Tooth Fairy science.” Basically, it’s doing research on a phenomenon before establishing that that phenomenon exists. As she likes to continue the analogy, you can 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 even get all kinds of good data that is reproducible and statistically significant. Yes, you think 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. In this case, it hasn’t been determined that these foot baths can pull toxins out of the body through the feet; quite the opposite, in fact. It also hasn’t been established that these unnamed “toxins” have anything to do with autism.
As I said early on, one of the surest indicators of quackery in a clinic is its inclusion of something like the IonCleanse foot bath. The purpose of this study isn’t really to determine efficacy or safety of the IonCleanse in treating autism. The design of the study virtually guarantees that it will find a positive result. That’s because it’s a marketing tool to produce more IonCleanse Ambassadors and sell more IonCleanse devices.
