Mary’s Monday Metazoan: Zing! Zap! [Pharyngula]

This is a pseudocolored image of nematocysts firing.

HHMI

In case you prefer the video…

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2arqE1e

This is a pseudocolored image of nematocysts firing.

HHMI

In case you prefer the video…

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2arqE1e

Why no young stars at Milky Way center?

Blue stars here represent Cepheid variables, used in these astronomers’ study, plotted on a background drawing of the Milky Way. The orange clump in the center represents the central 8,000 light-years of our galaxy, which appears to have very few Cepheids and hence few young stars. Image via University of Tokyo.

An international team of astronomers said on August 1, 2016 that there’s a huge region around the central Milky Way galaxy in which few or no new stars are being born. Earlier work by radio astronomers had suggested this possibility, which runs contrary to the idea that new stars are being born throughout the Milky Way’s flat disk. These astronomers said that a central Milky Way devoid of stars requires:

… a major revision in our understanding of our Milky Way.

Japanese astronomer Noriyuki Matsunaga of the University of Tokyo led the research team. The astronomers used a particular type of variable star – called Cepheid variables, named for the famous star Delta Cephei – to conduct their study. Cepheids have more typically been used to measure the distances of objects in the distant universe; the new work shows how they can also reveal the structure of our own Milky Way, these astronomers said. The work is published in a paper in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

The astronomers’ statement explained:

The Milky Way is a spiral galaxy containing many billions of stars, with our sun about 26,000 light-years from its center. Measuring the distribution of these stars is crucial to our understanding of how our galaxy formed and evolved.

Pulsating stars called Cepheids are ideal for this. They are much younger (between 10 and 300 million years old) than our sun (4.6 billion years old) and they pulsate in brightness in a regular cycle. The length of this cycle is related to the luminosity of the Cepheid, so if astronomers monitor them they can establish how bright the star really is, compare it with what we see from Earth, and work out its distance.

Despite this, finding Cepheids in the inner Milky Way is difficult, as the galaxy is full of interstellar dust which blocks out light and hides many stars from view. Matsunaga’s team compensated for this, with an analysis of near-infrared observations made with a Japanese-South African telescope located at Sutherland, South Africa.

To their surprise they found hardly any Cepheids in a huge region stretching for thousands of light-years from the core of the galaxy.

This lack of Cepheids suggests that a large part of our galaxy, called the extreme inner disk, has no young stars.

Milky Way over Sun Valley, Idaho on the night of July 31, 2016 via our friend John Boydston. The brightest region in the starlit trail in this image is in the direction toward the center of the galaxy. Thanks, John!

Noriyuki Matsunaga said:

We already found some time ago that there are Cepheids in the central heart of our Milky Way (in a region about 150 light-years in radius). Now we find that outside this there is a huge Cepheid desert extending out to 8,000 light-years from the center.

South African astronomer Michael Feast, a co-author on the study, noted:

Our conclusions are contrary to other recent work, but in line with the work of radio astronomers who see no new stars being born in this desert.

Another author, Italian astronomer Giuseppe Bono, pointed out:

The current results indicate that there has been no significant star formation in this large region over hundreds of millions years.

An artist’s illustration of our home galaxy, the Milky Way, with the locations of the newly discovered Cepheid stars marked by the yellow points. The previously known objects, located around the sun (marked by a red cross), are indicated by small white dots. The central green circle around the core of the galaxy marks the location of the ‘Cepheid desert.’ Image via University of Tokyo.

Bottom line: Astronomers confirm the idea that the central part of our Milky Way galaxy – extending out to about 8,000 light-year – is a sort of “desert” with respect to Cepheid variable stars and hence to young stars generally.

Via the Royal Astronomical Society in the UK

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2arl1jK

Blue stars here represent Cepheid variables, used in these astronomers’ study, plotted on a background drawing of the Milky Way. The orange clump in the center represents the central 8,000 light-years of our galaxy, which appears to have very few Cepheids and hence few young stars. Image via University of Tokyo.

An international team of astronomers said on August 1, 2016 that there’s a huge region around the central Milky Way galaxy in which few or no new stars are being born. Earlier work by radio astronomers had suggested this possibility, which runs contrary to the idea that new stars are being born throughout the Milky Way’s flat disk. These astronomers said that a central Milky Way devoid of stars requires:

… a major revision in our understanding of our Milky Way.

Japanese astronomer Noriyuki Matsunaga of the University of Tokyo led the research team. The astronomers used a particular type of variable star – called Cepheid variables, named for the famous star Delta Cephei – to conduct their study. Cepheids have more typically been used to measure the distances of objects in the distant universe; the new work shows how they can also reveal the structure of our own Milky Way, these astronomers said. The work is published in a paper in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

The astronomers’ statement explained:

The Milky Way is a spiral galaxy containing many billions of stars, with our sun about 26,000 light-years from its center. Measuring the distribution of these stars is crucial to our understanding of how our galaxy formed and evolved.

Pulsating stars called Cepheids are ideal for this. They are much younger (between 10 and 300 million years old) than our sun (4.6 billion years old) and they pulsate in brightness in a regular cycle. The length of this cycle is related to the luminosity of the Cepheid, so if astronomers monitor them they can establish how bright the star really is, compare it with what we see from Earth, and work out its distance.

Despite this, finding Cepheids in the inner Milky Way is difficult, as the galaxy is full of interstellar dust which blocks out light and hides many stars from view. Matsunaga’s team compensated for this, with an analysis of near-infrared observations made with a Japanese-South African telescope located at Sutherland, South Africa.

To their surprise they found hardly any Cepheids in a huge region stretching for thousands of light-years from the core of the galaxy.

This lack of Cepheids suggests that a large part of our galaxy, called the extreme inner disk, has no young stars.

Milky Way over Sun Valley, Idaho on the night of July 31, 2016 via our friend John Boydston. The brightest region in the starlit trail in this image is in the direction toward the center of the galaxy. Thanks, John!

Noriyuki Matsunaga said:

We already found some time ago that there are Cepheids in the central heart of our Milky Way (in a region about 150 light-years in radius). Now we find that outside this there is a huge Cepheid desert extending out to 8,000 light-years from the center.

South African astronomer Michael Feast, a co-author on the study, noted:

Our conclusions are contrary to other recent work, but in line with the work of radio astronomers who see no new stars being born in this desert.

Another author, Italian astronomer Giuseppe Bono, pointed out:

The current results indicate that there has been no significant star formation in this large region over hundreds of millions years.

An artist’s illustration of our home galaxy, the Milky Way, with the locations of the newly discovered Cepheid stars marked by the yellow points. The previously known objects, located around the sun (marked by a red cross), are indicated by small white dots. The central green circle around the core of the galaxy marks the location of the ‘Cepheid desert.’ Image via University of Tokyo.

Bottom line: Astronomers confirm the idea that the central part of our Milky Way galaxy – extending out to about 8,000 light-year – is a sort of “desert” with respect to Cepheid variable stars and hence to young stars generally.

Via the Royal Astronomical Society in the UK

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2arl1jK

A Reflection on the Gold King Mine Incident

By Mathy Stanislaus

Today, we are releasing a new publication, One Year After the Gold King Mine Incident: A Retrospective of EPA’s Efforts to Restore and Protect Communities. The report details our efforts — including the projects and groups we have funded — to protect the areas around the Gold King Mine (GKM) and prevent another spill like this from happening at other EPA work sites at mines across the country.

We continue to be accountable for the release, which occurred as a result of our work to investigate the mine. Since the accident, we have dedicated more than $29 million to respond to the release and to provide for continued monitoring in the area. Over the past year, we have remained committed to distilling important lessons from the incident, and are working on a more permanent solution to acid mine drainage in the Upper Animas Watershed. We have improved and tested stakeholder notification lists, instituted a headquarters review and state consultation process for all mine work plans prior to starting work at a site, provided grant assistance to foster collaboration and help support state and tribal water quality management programs,  and are developing a national report on best practices for hardrock mine remediation. We have worked with communities within the Bonita Peak Mining District area for many years on long-term solutions to address the estimated discharge of more than 5 million gallons per day of acidic mine influenced water to the Upper Animas River watershed. In April, we proposed a Superfund National Priorities Listing for the Bonita Peak Mining District (which includes Gold King Mine) and are working to finalize the listing this fall.

As Assistant Administrator for our Office of Land and Emergency Management, I can say that tackling the national environmental issue of abandoned mines is one of the toughest challenges we face. There are no overarching federal statutes or regula¬tions for addressing the environmental contamination from abandoned hardrock mines. When requested by state or tribal partners, our Superfund program has been used to investigate and reme¬diate abandoned mines that present a high risk to human and environmental health.  A 2015 Government Accountability Office report estimates that we spend anywhere from 7 to 52 times more at mining sites than at other types of Superfund sites.

Overall, the scale of this problem is striking. There are at least 161,000 abandoned hardrock mines in the western U.S. states and Alaska. Water draining from these types of mines and mine tailings are often highly acidic and release heavy metals such as zinc, lead, cadmium, copper and aluminum into the groundwater and surface waters the public relies on for drinking, agricultural irrigation and recreation.

The legacy of abandoned hardrock mines continues to be a source of complex challenges for our and the other federal and state agencies working to address this impact over the long-term. We thank all of our federal, tribal, state and local partners for their contributions to this first year of work following the GKM incident. We are strongly committed to working together to achieve long-term solutions to prevent future releases and protect our vital water resources. For more information, please visit: http://ift.tt/2apF2nq.

 

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

By Mathy Stanislaus

Today, we are releasing a new publication, One Year After the Gold King Mine Incident: A Retrospective of EPA’s Efforts to Restore and Protect Communities. The report details our efforts — including the projects and groups we have funded — to protect the areas around the Gold King Mine (GKM) and prevent another spill like this from happening at other EPA work sites at mines across the country.

We continue to be accountable for the release, which occurred as a result of our work to investigate the mine. Since the accident, we have dedicated more than $29 million to respond to the release and to provide for continued monitoring in the area. Over the past year, we have remained committed to distilling important lessons from the incident, and are working on a more permanent solution to acid mine drainage in the Upper Animas Watershed. We have improved and tested stakeholder notification lists, instituted a headquarters review and state consultation process for all mine work plans prior to starting work at a site, provided grant assistance to foster collaboration and help support state and tribal water quality management programs,  and are developing a national report on best practices for hardrock mine remediation. We have worked with communities within the Bonita Peak Mining District area for many years on long-term solutions to address the estimated discharge of more than 5 million gallons per day of acidic mine influenced water to the Upper Animas River watershed. In April, we proposed a Superfund National Priorities Listing for the Bonita Peak Mining District (which includes Gold King Mine) and are working to finalize the listing this fall.

As Assistant Administrator for our Office of Land and Emergency Management, I can say that tackling the national environmental issue of abandoned mines is one of the toughest challenges we face. There are no overarching federal statutes or regula¬tions for addressing the environmental contamination from abandoned hardrock mines. When requested by state or tribal partners, our Superfund program has been used to investigate and reme¬diate abandoned mines that present a high risk to human and environmental health.  A 2015 Government Accountability Office report estimates that we spend anywhere from 7 to 52 times more at mining sites than at other types of Superfund sites.

Overall, the scale of this problem is striking. There are at least 161,000 abandoned hardrock mines in the western U.S. states and Alaska. Water draining from these types of mines and mine tailings are often highly acidic and release heavy metals such as zinc, lead, cadmium, copper and aluminum into the groundwater and surface waters the public relies on for drinking, agricultural irrigation and recreation.

The legacy of abandoned hardrock mines continues to be a source of complex challenges for our and the other federal and state agencies working to address this impact over the long-term. We thank all of our federal, tribal, state and local partners for their contributions to this first year of work following the GKM incident. We are strongly committed to working together to achieve long-term solutions to prevent future releases and protect our vital water resources. For more information, please visit: http://ift.tt/2apF2nq.

 

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

Accountability through Authorship

By Francesca T. Grifo

Authorship can be a confusing prospect. Projects can be large and complex with multiple teams contributing in diverse ways. That’s why EPA is issuing a best practices guide to authorship to help ensure the scientific integrity of the final products.

To qualify as an author, one must make a substantial intellectual contribution, write or provide editorial revisions with critical intellectual content, and approve the final version and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. As the best practices say “Any individual who has met these criteria, independent of their rank, status or affiliation, should be named as an author. Any individual who has not met these criteria, independent of their rank, status or affiliation, should not be named as an author.”

The scientific integrity of a final work product can only be assessed if there is transparency surrounding the origin of its contents. Here is where conflicts of authorship arise. For example, how can we assess the quality of conclusions based on the analysis of a data set if the name of the person who undertook that work is missing from the authors because they were a contractor? What if someone is added because they are a supervisor but did not make a substantial intellectual contribution? What if an author has a financial conflict of interest that never came to light, because that person was not listed as an author on the document?

The primary takeaways from the best practices are that authorship is a reward and a responsibility, authorship should be talked about early and often, and all members of teams should be offered opportunities to make the intellectual contributions that would earn them authorship.

We hope the best practices will help prevent or resolve authorship issues or disputes, ensure the acknowledgement of individual contribution in EPA work products, and enhance our scientific integrity.

• Read more about authorship best practices

About the Author: Francesca Grifo, Ph.D. is EPA’s Scientific Integrity Officer. She came to the Agency in November of 2013 with more than 30 years of experience in environmental science and scientific integrity, including serving as a senior policy fellow advancing scientific integrity and transparency with the Union of Concerned Scientists.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/2aqeXI7

By Francesca T. Grifo

Authorship can be a confusing prospect. Projects can be large and complex with multiple teams contributing in diverse ways. That’s why EPA is issuing a best practices guide to authorship to help ensure the scientific integrity of the final products.

To qualify as an author, one must make a substantial intellectual contribution, write or provide editorial revisions with critical intellectual content, and approve the final version and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. As the best practices say “Any individual who has met these criteria, independent of their rank, status or affiliation, should be named as an author. Any individual who has not met these criteria, independent of their rank, status or affiliation, should not be named as an author.”

The scientific integrity of a final work product can only be assessed if there is transparency surrounding the origin of its contents. Here is where conflicts of authorship arise. For example, how can we assess the quality of conclusions based on the analysis of a data set if the name of the person who undertook that work is missing from the authors because they were a contractor? What if someone is added because they are a supervisor but did not make a substantial intellectual contribution? What if an author has a financial conflict of interest that never came to light, because that person was not listed as an author on the document?

The primary takeaways from the best practices are that authorship is a reward and a responsibility, authorship should be talked about early and often, and all members of teams should be offered opportunities to make the intellectual contributions that would earn them authorship.

We hope the best practices will help prevent or resolve authorship issues or disputes, ensure the acknowledgement of individual contribution in EPA work products, and enhance our scientific integrity.

• Read more about authorship best practices

About the Author: Francesca Grifo, Ph.D. is EPA’s Scientific Integrity Officer. She came to the Agency in November of 2013 with more than 30 years of experience in environmental science and scientific integrity, including serving as a senior policy fellow advancing scientific integrity and transparency with the Union of Concerned Scientists.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/2aqeXI7

EPA and USDA Pledge Actions to Support America’s Growing Water Quality Trading Markets

By Ann Mills, USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment and Ellen Gilinsky, EPA Office of Water Senior Policy Advisor

In September of 2015, EPA and USDA sponsored a three-day national workshop at the Robert B. Daugherty Water for Food Institute in Lincoln, Nebraska that brought together more than 200 experts and leaders representing the agricultural community, utilities, environmental NGOs, private investors, states, cities, and tribes to discuss how to expand the country’s small but growing water quality trading markets. Recently we released a report that summarizes the workshop’s key discussions and outlines new actions that we and others will take to further promote the use of market-based tools to advance water quality improvements.

Over the last decade, states and others have discovered that they can meet their water quality improvement goals through lower costs and greater flexibility by using a voluntary water quality trading program. Trading is based on the fact that sources in a watershed can face very different costs to control the same pollutant. Trading programs allow facilities facing higher pollution control costs (like a wastewater treatment plant or a municipality with a stormwater permit) to meet their regulatory obligations by purchasing lower cost environmentally equivalent (or superior) pollution reductions (or credits) from another source, including farms that use conservation practices to efficiently reduce the movement of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment from their fields into local waterways. For example, Virginia’s nutrient trading program to offset stormwater phosphorous loads from new development has saved the Commonwealth more than $1 million in meeting state water quality goals while providing economic incentives to local agricultural producers to reduce soil erosion and runoff.

It’s a proven approach that creates new revenue streams for America’s farmers and ranchers while delivering significant environmental results.

While relatively few robust state and tribal water quality trading programs are in existence today, there is growing interest in markets as a tool for achieving water quality and ecosystem sustainability goals.

Our report summarizes the primary obstacles to market expansion and participants’ recommendations on how to simplify development of trading markets in their states.

It also captures the participants’ recommendations to the Administration on steps it can take to promote the use of environmental markets and water quality trading, which include:

• Supporting a national dialogue series over the next three years, convened by the National Network On Water Quality Trading, to advance collective understanding of water quality program design, implementation, and operation across sectors and communities;
• Increasing state awareness of water quality trading, through support of the  Association of Clean Water Administrators working directly with state agencies;
• Highlighting successful trading programs that have attracted private capital, or are otherwise financially sustainable;
• Compiling a list of known, voluntary conservation program design frameworks that use market-like approaches;
• Pursuing efforts to develop a national registry for water quality trading programs;
• Forming a stakeholder group to develop a list of tools that meet the minimum requirements of the federal and state agencies that must verify trades Increase targeted stakeholder engagement; and,
• Working with federal and state partners to actively engage in locations where increasing participation in market-based programs may result in more rapid nutrient decreases to address immediate problems such as harmful algal blooms.

These recommendations complement the USDA-EPA Water Quality Trading Roadmap and EnviroAtlas, products our agencies have jointly developed to simplify stakeholders’ efforts to establish their own trading markets.

States, communities, and farmers and ranchers who’ve championed this innovative idea are creating momentum for others to follow.  We look forward to supporting the expansion of these markets to help  America more efficiently protect its water quality while supporting a vibrant agricultural economy in communities nationwide.

For more information, visit the USDA Environmental Markets website and EPA’s Water Quality Trading website.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/2aLJ6kk

By Ann Mills, USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment and Ellen Gilinsky, EPA Office of Water Senior Policy Advisor

In September of 2015, EPA and USDA sponsored a three-day national workshop at the Robert B. Daugherty Water for Food Institute in Lincoln, Nebraska that brought together more than 200 experts and leaders representing the agricultural community, utilities, environmental NGOs, private investors, states, cities, and tribes to discuss how to expand the country’s small but growing water quality trading markets. Recently we released a report that summarizes the workshop’s key discussions and outlines new actions that we and others will take to further promote the use of market-based tools to advance water quality improvements.

Over the last decade, states and others have discovered that they can meet their water quality improvement goals through lower costs and greater flexibility by using a voluntary water quality trading program. Trading is based on the fact that sources in a watershed can face very different costs to control the same pollutant. Trading programs allow facilities facing higher pollution control costs (like a wastewater treatment plant or a municipality with a stormwater permit) to meet their regulatory obligations by purchasing lower cost environmentally equivalent (or superior) pollution reductions (or credits) from another source, including farms that use conservation practices to efficiently reduce the movement of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment from their fields into local waterways. For example, Virginia’s nutrient trading program to offset stormwater phosphorous loads from new development has saved the Commonwealth more than $1 million in meeting state water quality goals while providing economic incentives to local agricultural producers to reduce soil erosion and runoff.

It’s a proven approach that creates new revenue streams for America’s farmers and ranchers while delivering significant environmental results.

While relatively few robust state and tribal water quality trading programs are in existence today, there is growing interest in markets as a tool for achieving water quality and ecosystem sustainability goals.

Our report summarizes the primary obstacles to market expansion and participants’ recommendations on how to simplify development of trading markets in their states.

It also captures the participants’ recommendations to the Administration on steps it can take to promote the use of environmental markets and water quality trading, which include:

• Supporting a national dialogue series over the next three years, convened by the National Network On Water Quality Trading, to advance collective understanding of water quality program design, implementation, and operation across sectors and communities;
• Increasing state awareness of water quality trading, through support of the  Association of Clean Water Administrators working directly with state agencies;
• Highlighting successful trading programs that have attracted private capital, or are otherwise financially sustainable;
• Compiling a list of known, voluntary conservation program design frameworks that use market-like approaches;
• Pursuing efforts to develop a national registry for water quality trading programs;
• Forming a stakeholder group to develop a list of tools that meet the minimum requirements of the federal and state agencies that must verify trades Increase targeted stakeholder engagement; and,
• Working with federal and state partners to actively engage in locations where increasing participation in market-based programs may result in more rapid nutrient decreases to address immediate problems such as harmful algal blooms.

These recommendations complement the USDA-EPA Water Quality Trading Roadmap and EnviroAtlas, products our agencies have jointly developed to simplify stakeholders’ efforts to establish their own trading markets.

States, communities, and farmers and ranchers who’ve championed this innovative idea are creating momentum for others to follow.  We look forward to supporting the expansion of these markets to help  America more efficiently protect its water quality while supporting a vibrant agricultural economy in communities nationwide.

For more information, visit the USDA Environmental Markets website and EPA’s Water Quality Trading website.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/2aLJ6kk

Don’t Ditch Your Bike

By Matthew Bristol

I can still remember my first bike ride without training wheels – a supremely human freedom. America seems to have outgrown cycling, graduating to more sophisticated modes of transportation. Cycling outside of sport or hobby in the U.S. can be seen as somewhat childish, not to be taken seriously. For me, cycling is not childish, nor is it completely serious. Though I bike to EPA every day, I hardly think of it as work compared to sitting frustrated in traffic or braving the crowds on public transportation. It’s not work; it’s play! But that’s not to say it’s easy right off the bat.

At first, bicycle commuting in a city can be quite intimidating. There are also logistical considerations: what to wear (should I change at work?), how tough or long the ride is, whether there are safe streets to bike on – just to list a few. As I waded gently into the world of city biking, I was surprised by how easy it really was. Some of my fears turned out to be completely unfounded, which I only learned after I really dove in.

First, the cars are not as fast or scary as you might imagine. Given the heavy traffic around rush hour, bikes are usually much faster than cars, and you will find that rather than slowing anybody down, you move naturally with the flow of traffic. As long as you obey the rules of the road, you won’t be a surprise to most drivers. Still, be sure to wear a helmet and stay visible with lights at night.

Second, it is fairly easy to get where you want to go. DC is pretty flat, but so are most cities; if you aren’t in shape to be doing Tour-de-France style hill climbs, have no fear! Neither am I, and I do just fine, no matter where I find myself. Many streets also have dedicated bike lanes (here are detailed bike maps of DC, NYC, Seattle, Portland, and Austin) and I’ve found Google Maps’ bicycle directions to be good for cities.

If you aren’t ready to brave the streets, scenic trails like the Capital Crescent and C&O Canal Trail in DC are better options for a weekend workout or an afternoon ride. Still, I would argue that nothing beats the rush of flying down Pennsylvania Avenue, or whizzing around Dupont Circle with a full basket of groceries. What more can I say? It’s fun!

About the author:  Matt Bristol is a rising senior at Skidmore College, an avid cyclist, and an intern in the EPA Office of Web Communications.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/2am42hp

By Matthew Bristol

I can still remember my first bike ride without training wheels – a supremely human freedom. America seems to have outgrown cycling, graduating to more sophisticated modes of transportation. Cycling outside of sport or hobby in the U.S. can be seen as somewhat childish, not to be taken seriously. For me, cycling is not childish, nor is it completely serious. Though I bike to EPA every day, I hardly think of it as work compared to sitting frustrated in traffic or braving the crowds on public transportation. It’s not work; it’s play! But that’s not to say it’s easy right off the bat.

At first, bicycle commuting in a city can be quite intimidating. There are also logistical considerations: what to wear (should I change at work?), how tough or long the ride is, whether there are safe streets to bike on – just to list a few. As I waded gently into the world of city biking, I was surprised by how easy it really was. Some of my fears turned out to be completely unfounded, which I only learned after I really dove in.

First, the cars are not as fast or scary as you might imagine. Given the heavy traffic around rush hour, bikes are usually much faster than cars, and you will find that rather than slowing anybody down, you move naturally with the flow of traffic. As long as you obey the rules of the road, you won’t be a surprise to most drivers. Still, be sure to wear a helmet and stay visible with lights at night.

Second, it is fairly easy to get where you want to go. DC is pretty flat, but so are most cities; if you aren’t in shape to be doing Tour-de-France style hill climbs, have no fear! Neither am I, and I do just fine, no matter where I find myself. Many streets also have dedicated bike lanes (here are detailed bike maps of DC, NYC, Seattle, Portland, and Austin) and I’ve found Google Maps’ bicycle directions to be good for cities.

If you aren’t ready to brave the streets, scenic trails like the Capital Crescent and C&O Canal Trail in DC are better options for a weekend workout or an afternoon ride. Still, I would argue that nothing beats the rush of flying down Pennsylvania Avenue, or whizzing around Dupont Circle with a full basket of groceries. What more can I say? It’s fun!

About the author:  Matt Bristol is a rising senior at Skidmore College, an avid cyclist, and an intern in the EPA Office of Web Communications.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/2am42hp

Emirates Mars Mission to launch in 2020

The biggest initiative under the space program of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is the Emirates Mars Mission. No Arab nation has launched a probe beyond Earth orbit before, making the UAE’s mission to Mars historically and regionally significant. The UAE Mars mission aims to bring the Arab world together and to give a message that Arabs can also make their mark in the world of innovation & technology.

The probe to be sent to Mars is named ‘Hope’, and the mission, which is due to launch in 2020, has already begun to inspire young Arabs to think about space and science.

The probe is being built by Emirati hands at the Mohammed bin Rashid Space Centre (MBRSC) in Dubai.

When the Hope probe will enter the orbit around the Red Planet, it will study the Martian atmosphere to find out why a land that was once quite similar to that of planet Earth now finds itself barren with no signs of sustainable life.

Read more about the Emirates Mars Mission here.

Article provided by Heidi Joseph, representative of Mohammed Bin Rashid Space Centre in Dubai.

Dubai ruler Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, center, announces a United Arab Emirates’ Mars mission named “Hope” — or “al-Amal” in Arabic — which is scheduled be launched in 2020, during a ceremony in Dubai in May, 2015. Image and caption via nydailynews.com.

Bottom line: The Emirates Mars Mission – or Hope Mars – is planned to launch to Mars in 2020 and make a seven-month journey to the Red Planet.

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

The biggest initiative under the space program of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is the Emirates Mars Mission. No Arab nation has launched a probe beyond Earth orbit before, making the UAE’s mission to Mars historically and regionally significant. The UAE Mars mission aims to bring the Arab world together and to give a message that Arabs can also make their mark in the world of innovation & technology.

The probe to be sent to Mars is named ‘Hope’, and the mission, which is due to launch in 2020, has already begun to inspire young Arabs to think about space and science.

The probe is being built by Emirati hands at the Mohammed bin Rashid Space Centre (MBRSC) in Dubai.

When the Hope probe will enter the orbit around the Red Planet, it will study the Martian atmosphere to find out why a land that was once quite similar to that of planet Earth now finds itself barren with no signs of sustainable life.

Read more about the Emirates Mars Mission here.

Article provided by Heidi Joseph, representative of Mohammed Bin Rashid Space Centre in Dubai.

Dubai ruler Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, center, announces a United Arab Emirates’ Mars mission named “Hope” — or “al-Amal” in Arabic — which is scheduled be launched in 2020, during a ceremony in Dubai in May, 2015. Image and caption via nydailynews.com.

Bottom line: The Emirates Mars Mission – or Hope Mars – is planned to launch to Mars in 2020 and make a seven-month journey to the Red Planet.

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