Justin: Disclaimer! Disclaimer! Disclaimer! Disclaimer! The following hour of programming deals with science and claims to be harmless but may in fact cause you irreparable harm.
In laboratory conditions, direct exposure to science has resulted in a multitude of co-relatable adverse effects – mostly on mice. In case you are damaged by this in some way, the University of California Davis KDVS and its sponsors would like you to know that they are in no way responsible for the content of the show and refuse to acknowledge any bit of its most passing awareness of its existence.
Furthermore, the host of the show are not to be trusted. If you meet one of them in person, run the other way! They might not be dangerous but why risk it? Not that you should live your life in a protective bubble, but you never know what might happen when you listen to This Week In Science. Coming up next.
[musical interlude]
Justin: Good morning Kirsten:.
Kirsten:: Good morning Justin. Welcome to Tuesday.
Justin: It’s Tuesday again. The twenty-something-th of February.
Kirsten:: That’s right.
Justin: 2008.
Kirsten:: How very accurate. What day is it?
Justin: I have no idea. I do know it is Tuesday. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be sitting here.
Kirsten:: [laughter].
Justin: Is it the 26th?
Kirsten:: I believe it is the 26th. It is almost the end of the…
Justin: It’s almost Christmas!
Kirsten:: …end of the leap year, Christmas? [Laughter]
Justin: Almost. Isn’t that right around the corner?
Kirsten:: Yes. Like ten more months. Yes.
Justin: Gosh it is quick.
Kirsten:: It’s already almost two months through the year.
Justin: When you get old like me Kirsten:, time starts to fly in an unprecedented pace!
Kirsten:: [laughter] Put your headphones all the way on.
Justin: I can’t its too loud.
Kirsten:: All right I’ll turn them down.
Justin: Right.
Kirsten:: I have this trick I’ve been turning up his headphones to try and keep him from being loud but it doesn’t work he just takes the headphones off.
Justin: All it does is hurt my ears.
Kirsten:: This is not helping. Put them on. I’m turning it down.
Justin: All right. All right.
Kirsten:: Put them on. [Laughter]. I’m turning it down. I’m trying to make it better on you.
Justin: There is a level on the board. They even turn my volume down.
Kirsten:: [laughter]. All they way down.
Justin: [laughter].
Kirsten:: Welcome everybody to This Week In Science. We are going to be talking all about science today and I believe it is Michael Stebbins on halfway through the program.
Justin: Wait a minute, there is a lot of science going on this February.
Kirsten:: There is a lot of science for February and there have been a lot of emails from listeners sending in stories…
Justin: A lot.
Kirsten:: And we have had also had a bunch of submissions for the 2008 Science Music Compilation CD.
Justin: Wow!
Kirsten:: Yes. I have got a couple of songs that I will play for everyone today so you can get a little taster of the kind of stuff that is being submitted to us.
Anybody out there who is interested in submitting a song, send me an email, Kirsten:@thisweekinscience.com and either inquire or just send me a link to a song or an actual mp3.
Don’t send me a WAV file because those are a little bit too big for me to download. I mean I can but I don’t want to right now. And then I can check out your song and if I like it, then because it is all about me these days, if I like it…
Justin: How come I never get? How come I never get a shot at previewing any of these?
Kirsten:: [laughter]
Justin: It’s always like a surprise to me.
Kirsten:: It’s a surprise to Justin too. That’s right.
Justin: Every year, like, I don’t get any, if your song didn’t make it, don’t blame me. I might have loved it.
Kirsten:: [laughter]
Justin: It could have been my favorite song on.
Kirsten:: It could have been, could have been but I ah. Send me an email, pop me an email, send me an mp3. You know, send me a science-y song. And if you are wondering what science-y is, listen to our show more. Yes! I guess that’s about it so let’s go on with the…
Justin: Good advice for anything.
Kirsten:: …Science. If you want to call in, give me a call, us a call at 5307522777.
Justin: So here is a submission of a story which had me rolling. I’m from Minion Clinton Edwards which almost sounds like a democratic ticket from Perth, Western Australia.
Kirsten:: Oh yes.
Justin: He sends this over, pets at risk of self-harm are increasingly being prescribed anti-depressants because they cannot discuss their problems of their lives with others.
Kirsten:: Yes. At first when I saw this story, I went, Ha ha ha ha. All these people giving their pets antidepressants, what a crazy world we live in but then I actually stopped and thought about it a little bit and the animals that I have seen, the most that I have had experience with myself are birds.
There are lots of parrots who end up, you know, they are social, social creatures and they are kept individually in cages and their owners go off to work and these birds are left alone and they end up with these very strange [stereopathies] that involve self-harm.
Justin: Stereopathies?
Kirsten:: [Steropathies]. It is a repeated incessant behavior that might have come from some kind of originally useful adaptive behavior but that has since becoming – not domesticated I guess but put in a cage and taken out of their natural environment.
Justin: Oh, wow!
Kirsten:: It’s a nonadaptive behavior and that does not help them at all. Like, like…
Justin: Like conversations with women.
Kirsten:: Like mice doing back flips, too much running in wheels. There are crazy things that animals do when you put them in cages and take them out nature and
Justin: Pacing.
Kirsten:: Pacing. Yes!
Justin: Well I pace at work a lot and I think that it is a stereopathy. It definitely is.
Kirsten:: It definitely is a stereopathy [sp].
Justin: Yes! They are like giving liquid forms of Prozac to parrots.
Kirsten:: Yes?
Justin: Absolutely!
Kirsten:: It’s crazy.
Justin: But now you see some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies have recognized the need for antidepressants in animals in the market I’m sure. Last year, Eli Lilly released a chewable antidepressant for dogs in the US market.
You know, they even gave it a beef flavor. Beef flavored antidepressant.
Kirsten:: Beef-flavoured Prozac. Oh I like this. It’s a healthy snack!
Justin: What I want to see, the study I want to see is the correlation between these pets who are on antidepressants and the predilection of their owners perhaps to be on the antidepressants as well. I wonder if there is some sort of…
Kirsten:: It’s a proclivity to antidepressants.
Justin: Proclivity. Yes. Like I wonder if maybe your dog is depressed because your so depressed all the time that you are bringing your dog down. Right! Dogs are pretty easy to get entertained and excited about stuff in most cases. I don’t know. It may be interesting to see.
Kirsten:: I don’t know. Yes. It is an interesting way the world is going. I mean, one of the things that I think is most interesting now that you know we test all these stuff on animals and then we put in humans and with the mass testing on humans but it is actually marketed through pharmaceutical companies and it is legal and you know happy drugs for people and now we are taking it back to the animals again so you know.
Justin: Well yes. Most scientific breakthroughs…
Kirsten:: Back to where it came from whence it came.
Justin: If really applied properly, would benefit mice more than any other living creature on the planet. We could make mice lives like perfect.
Kirsten:: Yes. Well I mean what was it something that we reported on a couple of weeks ago that we finally gave mice the common cold and now we are curing the common cold in mice.
Justin: We can genetically engineer them to be immune to the common cold.
Kirsten:: Yes. So that’s the way we are going. So rats, mice, cockroaches have taken over the world.
Justin: And squid. I think squid got a shot in that.
Kirsten:: [laughter] Somewhere. Embryonic stem cells, they have been getting a lot of bad raps lately but in the news this week, there is a great story showing a lot of promise in the human embryonic stem cell research arena.
Researchers publishing in nature biotechnology have taken an important step toward the treatment of diabetes. They have used human embryonic stem cells to create pancreatic beta cells which are the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas.
In one form of diabetes, the Islet cells and the beta cells in the pancreas, they start dying off and the pancreas is no longer able to produce insulin.
So in this situation, what we are trying to do is replace those cells somehow so that you know, a person with diabetes can once again produce their own insulin. It has been neigh upon impossible to date.
Researchers trying all sorts of different methods really have not been able to get to the point where we have been able to do this but looking at this research, I believe they implanted immature cells into mice and once again we are saving mice, one mouse at a time!
Justin: They will live forever.
Kirsten:: [laughter] Yes. Mice that had been basically created to have diabetes, their pancreas not working, and the cells do not respond to glucose which is a characteristic of beta cells.
They stuck these beta cells into the mice and then thirty days afterwards, they started detecting a human version of C peptide, a by product of insulin production, in the animal’s blood.
And after two months, the levels of C peptide went up when the mice received a dose of glucose which suggests that they are actually responding to sugar that is arriving through the diet – which is what you would hope they would do.
And then they eventually, the mice become completely diabetic and they showed that the cells could actually be – the implanted embryonic stem cells, when implanted, could actually take the place of the mouse’s own insulin producing cell.
So it was as if the transplant worked and so hopefully by [clapping] by transplanting eventually into humans, we will be able to see a complete replacement of function to those people who have had a complete loss.
Justin: Yes.
Kirsten:: Yes. So this is still looking at mice and we haven’t implanted into humans yet but this is human cells implanted into mice acting and replacing the mouse cells. So maybe the same thing will last. They are concerned though that you know.
Justin: This will create human mouse hybrids?
Kirsten:: [laughter] No. No they are just concerned that the cells themselves will eventually die off so that whatever process underlies the onset of diabetes will eventually kill whatever cells are implanted into people and so instead of curing diabetes in people long term for their life, they might have to undergo several transplants throughout their entire life which would not really be a great quality of life for somebody.
I don’t know but I mean that is up to the person. You know, do you want multiple surgeries or can we do it with injections once every couple of years or do you want to have your insulin pump or whatever it happens to be. What kind of a life do you want?
Justin: I think I would opt for every couple of years because I’m bad at even remembering that stuff. You know, but if requires a stamp and an envelope and me doing something. It’s like you know every month I gotta pay bills. Again, this month really? Like it gets…
Kirsten:: Again? What?
Justin: That’s monthly never mind daily things you have to do. Yikes!
Kirsten:: Yikes!
Justin: Overlooked at the Academy this season, The Electron, made its film debut.
Kirsten:: Oh yes! I love this story! This is so cool.
Justin: The movie shows how an electron rides on a light wave after just having been pulled away from an atom.
Kirsten:: I think this is seriously going to be a blockbuster hit.
Justin: Yes!
Kirsten:: Yes. Like the big hit of the summer you know, come out, this is going to get big audiences.
Justin: To be fair to the Academy, yes. This is past the cut off for this year. This is going to be next year they are going to get the award.
Kirsten:. Yup.
Justin: Yes. It’s the first time an electron has ever been filmed and the results are being presented in the latest issue of Physical Review Letters. Previously impossible to photograph electrons with their extremely high velocities have produced blurry head shots at best.
Kirsten:: Oh that’s so fast!
Justin: Like faster than that.
Kirsten:: Even faster than that. [Laughter]
Justin: In order to capture these rapid events, extremely short flashes of light were necessary. But such flashes were not previously available.
That is until the advent of attosecond pulses. This is achieved by short pulses of very intense laser light. I like the explanation of an attosecond here. It takes about a 150 attoseconds for an electron to circle the nucleus of an atom. An attosecond is related to a second as a second is related to the age of the universe, says Johan Mauritsson
Kirsten:: Yes. It really is actually. That is really interesting.
Justin: It’s a description by the assistant professor of atomic physics at the Faculty of Engineering at Lund University who seems to have an knack for really unrevealing an analogy there. An attosecond is related to a second as a second is related to the age of the universe.
Kirsten:: Well its…
Justin: Really fast!
Kirsten:: Yes. So an attosecond technically is 10 to the minus 18 so it is 10 with 18 zeroes after it.
Justin: Wait. Ten minus 18?
Kirsten:: Or one with 18 zeroes after it.
Justin: Wow!
Kirsten:: Yes. Ten with 18 zeroes.
Justin: So it’s one with 19 zeroes.
Kirsten:: [laughter] Yes. It’s the same.
Justin: Is it the same? Wait a sec.
Kirsten:: And that’s an awful lot. It’s like a billion billion, I don’t know. It’s a lot.
Justin: It’s a new word. It can be a new word. They are going to have to make it up.
Kirsten:: It’s a billion, billion.
Justin: It’s like a lot. Very fast. Very, very fast.
Kirsten:: A trillion, billion. But it is so fast I can’t even conceive how fast it is. And it is a good analogy to be able to say that the second you know as short as a second is to us. You know, in as short as a second is to the age of the entire universe, that is the speed at which the attosecond travels.
Justin: So wild.
Kirsten:: Do you take pictures or whatever? We have like you know millisecond click shutter speeds you know. And as we get digital shutter speeds are getting faster and faster because we are not relying so much on an iris to detect the physical closure of an iris for each picture.
But to go beyond the speed at which we are able to take pictures normally and go to this incredibly high speed photography and we are not able to get motion per se. We are just getting like this idea of the movement. It’s crazy.
Justin: Yes. They are saying that now that they have succeeded, they can now study how electrons behave when they collide with various objects.
Kirsten:: Which would be really great you know.
Justin: So wow. And a lot of it is going to be probably not discovering how things work but verifying.
Kirsten:: Verifying. Right. Exactly.
Justin: If the theories are correct. I like this Johan Mauritsson. I’m going to have to go have a beer with this cat because I like his analogy of the universe and the second. That’s fun. But then also I like his attitude about the research that he is doing.
And like what we are doing is pure basic research. If there happen to be future applications, they will have to be seen as a bonus.
Kirsten:: That’s great they got to do something with it.
Justin: We’re just pure research this year and what happens after that, you know it’s a something else to do.
Kirsten:: That’s all right there. I got an interesting story here about the rings of Saturn. Yes. It turns out that there might be more rings of Saturn that we have actually been able to see through the pictures we have taken so far.
Justin: More rings?
Kirsten:: Yes. There might be these near invisible, like almost invisible rings that have been undiscovered that are basically little tiny particles of dust being shed off of a couple of the smaller moons of Saturn.
So Cassini has been taking pictures basically of the high-energy electrons that have been like sped up really fast that are near Saturn and what compassed Saturn and whatever getting sped up through the magnetic field of Saturn and kind of in a way that in this article that I was looking at on Science Daily, it says that, kind of in a way that when you go under a bridge, rain stops pelting your windshield and you know that there is something above you stopping the rain.
As Cassini has been passing under certain areas where it doesn’t look as though there is anything there, it has been witnessing a lack of these high-energy electrons. Yes. We have a phone call! So why don’t we take this really fast.
Justin: Oh they bailed!
Kirsten:: They bailed.
Justin: Gave up right at the last second.
Kirsten:: [laughs] If they call again maybe we’ll answer the phone. So it’s been recording these really high energy electrons and then every once in a while as it passes past a couple of areas, has been missing them.
Even though on the cameras, it doesn’t look as though there is anything there and so these holes tend to follow these two little tiny moons that have been newly discovered by Cassini in 2004, Methone and Anthe. Methone is about three kilometers across or two miles and Anthe is about two kilometers across or one mile. So these are really tiny moons and they are located between the orbits of Mimas and Enceladus.
Justin: They could be cloaked space crafts.
Kirsten:: They could be cloaked space crafts. That’s right.
Justin: [Moaning]
Kirsten:: And so for the first time, the researchers are looking at the moons of Saturn and the rings of Saturn. They are getting an idea that there could be dust being fed into the rings by impacts with the surface of even these little tiny moons.
And these little tiny moons even though they are so small could be having an effect on the rings of Saturn and the creation of the rings of Saturn.
And so they are now going to start looking at the ring arts because they are undetected by Cassini. So they are going to start looking at what kinds of particles are there to absorb the high-energy electrons and not let them pass. Yes.
Justin: They should be able to figure that out pretty easily.
Kirsten:: Should be able to? Duh!
Justin: It seems like you would know what could be invisible and be absorbing the I mean I bet there is a chart in a text book somewhere.
Kirsten:: [laughs] Yes. Exactly.
Justin: No I have no idea. I have no idea how they would figure that out. Viking fashion. Viking fashion has been updated with much bling and flare.
Kirsten:: And horns.
Justin: No horns. Never had them, never will.
Kirsten:: Oh man! Those horns they made me take a liking to a Viking.
Justin: Much bling and flare has been added to the pillaging attire this year revealing retro rampages to be runway romps!
Kirsten:: Wow!
Justin: Yes. Vivid colors, flowing silk ribbons, glittering bits of mirror?
Kirsten:: Oh.
Justin: The men were into bling so very like fabulous looking Viking attire.
Kirsten:: Very fabulous.
Justin: I’m picturing, who is the piano player? The very …Oh gosh it’ll come to me some other day.
Kirsten:: Liberace?
Justin: Liberace! I’m picturing myself like Liberaces coming off the boat now and pillaging the English countryside.
Kirsten:: [laughs] Or Wayne Newton maybe.
Justin: Men were into sparkle and the women dressed…
Kirsten:: Old Elvis?
Justin: Much more, but yes. Yes, the jumpsuit Elvis with the rhinestones and the thing. The women dressed more provocatively than previously pondered.
Puritan panache then prevailed by prescription of Christian preference for the pious pin up according to Swedish archaeologist Annika Larsson.
They combined oriental features with Nordic styles. Their clothing was designed to be shown off mostly indoors around the fire. So that is actually a good reason for all the sparkle and because then yes that would be very impressive you know if you very sparkly by the fire side, I guess.
Kirsten:: Yes.
Justin: But yes. A lot of oriental features, a lot of like Russian clothing features.
Kirsten:: Interesting.
Justin: And this is the Viking age which is there going 750 to 1050 A.D. and the changes in the clothing style that they can seen through the medieval Christian fashions were when the Christian fashions hit Sweden as early as the late 900s and new trade routes came to the us by land.
So, it’s kind of an interesting way she is looking at it because she is saying textiles can tell you a lot more about what is going on in the society, who they are trading with, what the trends are than the actual traditions of the society because clothing changes first. Clothing changes quicker.
Kirsten:: That’s really interesting.
Justin: Yes.
Kirsten:: And it always has you know, everyone follows the spring and the fall fashion lines.
Justin: I like this.
Kirsten:: We have always been a slave to trends and fashion.
Justin: Based on some of the findings, previously it was though that Viking women wore this long suspender skirt thing that was like a giant mumu almost I guess with the front and back pieces of this large square held together by a belt and clasps were thought to be by the collar bone keeping everything together.
But now excavations at Boudicca outside Stockholm show the clasps were probably one over the center of each breast and accentua..
Kirsten:: Accentuate?
Justin: To accentuate the breast and reveal much cleavage.
Kirsten:: [wow.]
Justin: The women’s skirts consisted of single piece of fabric that were open in the front. Wow!
Kirsten:: [laughs]
Justin: Hoping there was some underwear of some form or another maybe? Wow. The style of clothing sadly disappeared with the advent of Christianity in the Scandinavian regions.
Kirsten:: Fascinating!
Justin: Yes! That’s pretty wild.
Kirsten:: That’s so neat. Thinking of textiles as a way to track a culture and the influences, yes.
Justin: Because its going to predate the real big shifts. Because as soon as you open up trade routes, especially back in the day one of the biggest things to trade will be textiles.
Kirsten:: Textiles.
Justin: Yes. And that kind of makes sense because I’ve seen a lot of the Scandinavian art. The Viking art. It is very elaborate detailed sort of intricate stuff so it makes sense that they would dress that way. Oh we got a caller.
Kirsten:: Phone call.
Justin: Good morning TWIS minion. You are on the air with This Week In Science.
Male Caller: I got a question about the attosecond.
Kirsten:: Yes. Go ahead.
Justin: Certainly, we will pretend to be qualified enough to answer.
Kirsten:: [laughs]
Male Caller: Excellent! So if time is a dimension, is there a point length version for time?
Kirsten:: Is there a point length version for time? Well..
Male Caller: Yes. Is there a point where you can’t divide it down any smaller?
Kirsten:: That’s a debatable question actually. I was recently looking at an article, where was it from…? I’m probably not going to be able to find it in time. But anyway, its…
Justin: I’m going guess that there is a certain point where…
Kirsten:: Well it depends if time is a dimension.
Justin: It’s motion. Time is motion.
Kirsten:: Is it a series of finite points and what is the divisibility of time if you know, what is the ultimate divisibility, but that is a question.
Some theoretical physicists actually don’t think that time is a real dimension itself and it is actually just a by product.
Justin: It’s like a measurement. It’s like a ruler.
Kirsten:: So that’s the question. Yes. But that’s the question is it?
Justin: Yes. Of course it is. That’s all it is.
Kirsten:: Not necessarily.
Justin: It is! Oh. I’m opinionated without science to back to me up.
Kirsten:: Is time absolute? I love your question because it is debatable.
Male Caller: Okay. Is there a point where Justin’s opinion cannot be further divided?
Kirsten:: [laughs]
Justin: No. Actually. Very rarely am I a hypocrite but I can have very contradictory points of view and those can continue to splinter off infinitely.
Kirsten:: [laughs] Divisible ad infinitum. We’re going to have to use some kind of neat calculus to be able to figure out your opinionation.
Justin: Well, I spent many years in college studying opinionology. So, at least on that I can be an expert.
Kirsten:: Where are you calling from?
Male Caller: Sacramento on the freeway heading to Jackson.
Kirsten:: Fantastic.
Justin: Going to go do some gambling?
Male Caller: No, I’m just going to work.
Justin: Oh, all right! Better to make money than to just…
Kirsten:: Get rid of it? Yes. Thanks for calling.
Male Caller: Sure. Thanks for answering.
Kirsten:: Have a great day.
Male Caller: Bye!
Kirsten:: Bye. That was a lot of fun. We have to take a break right now so we will be back in just a couple of moments but without further ado, let me play you a song for to…
Justin: Oh, I hate further ado! This is further ado!
Kirsten:: Further ado! [laughs].
Justin: This song is further ado.
Kirsten:: No. [laughs]
Justin: Stay tuned for some further ado.
Kirsten:: On This Week In Science on KDVS Davis
[radio break]
Kirsten:: [laughs]
Justin: Oh my God!
Kirsten:: Thank you [laughs]. Thank you, Trabatheric. This is a song specifically for Justin.
Justin: Oh my goodness!
Kirsten:: Chlamydia.
Justin: Chlamydia. [singing]
Kirsten:: That is right. And on the line, we have… [laughs]
Justin: Now wait! We should clarify…
Kirsten:: Wait, wait, what?
Justin: Just if you are listening for the first time.
Kirsten:: If you are listening for the first time.
Justin: That the specifically the song for Justin Chlamydia, because there is another kind of connotation to the word that is non-scientific.
Kirsten:: Non… right!
Justin: We mean the scientific term of…
Kirsten:: We mean the scientific term…
Justin: Instead of calling it global warming or climate change,
Kirsten:: Yes. Climadia[sp].
Justin: Climadia[sp].
Kirsten:: Yes. Without further ado, we’re changing up the music for Dr. Michael Stebbins.
Justin: Oh, bring it! Bring it!
Kirsten:: This was sent to us by Grant Preston. It is called “Secret Agent”.
[music]
Justin: [laughs] Did we get…
Kirsten:: I pressed the bouton! I know! Darn it!
Justin: Darn it!
Kirsten:: Good morning!
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Good morning everyone. How are you?
Kirsten:: Great. How are you?
Justin: Doing good!
MICHAEL STEBBINS: I am doing well, thank you.
Kirsten:: How weird is it this week?
MICHAEL STEBBINS: It’s strange. It is really weird. There are just weird things and some other really weird things.
Kirsten:: Oh so weird and really weird.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Yes.
Kirsten:: Lets just ramp it up slowly this week.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: OK. So then we’ll start from outside of Washington. How about that?
Kirsten:: All right good. Bring it!
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Our northern most state Canada is actually getting rid of its science adviser position to the prime minister.
Kirsten:: Really?
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Yes. In 2004, then Prime Minister Paul Martin appointed a scientist for independent and nonpartisan advise on Science and Technology. And this year, they are actually going to get rid of the position.
Justin: Of prime minister?
Kirsten:: No, science adviser. [laughs]
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Oh, care to dream.
Justin: I was thinking like this going in the right direction. I’m like. Ah! Yes! Just let the science ambassador run it. Yes! Good idea.
Kirsten:: Maybe, maybe, maybe. [laughs]
Justin: Oh, it is not good then!
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Canada has been increasing the money that it has been spending on basic science research over the last couple of years. But, it is actually now going to be getting rid of its science adviser position in exchange for a committee that will be doing it.
So this is the Science Technology and Innovation Council which together has about 18 members and they are the ones who are now going to give advice to the president.
But, and this committee actually has some industry representatives in it and some politicians on it and so, it is going to be decidedly less impartial. So, there are some good news and bad new on this that they will have actually more than just the single science advisor but and they are changing a counsel for a single member but you can not replace actually having a single person who has the ear of the prime minister.
Kirsten:: Yes.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: So, if everyone who thinks that the US is the only one who is a little bit weird on science. Well, Canada is the same way these days. They have backed away from their commitment on Kyoto and they have muzzled environmental Canada scientists ordering them to route any media inquiries thru Ottawa to control the agency’s media message.
So, yes. So, there you go. And last week, the prime minister and members of the cabinet failed to attend the ceremony to honor the Canadian scientists who contributed to the international climate change report which of course, won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Kirsten:: Right, that is a little slap in the face.
Justin: It seems like you could look backwards in time and realize how science has benefitted your society and when you continue that trend. But it is…
Kirsten:: Yes, you would think. Yes, it does seem like it will be a bit of a, it is going to hamper the science policy or at least what the government’s opinion on sciences in Canada to have not just one person but this entire panel. I mean, it could go both ways. I mean, with an entire panel…
Justin: Of scientists, it would be great!
Kirsten:: I mean, yes! If it were an entire panel of scientist, that would be fantastic. But as you said, it is, you know, industry and politicians. But maybe it is well-balanced.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: They do have some extraordinary scientists on this panel as well. But, you know…
Kirsten:: They probably going to have their work cut out.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Maybe there will be balance and maybe there is cause but the alarm is a little bit premature but all indicators would say no. I mean, if the prime minister can’t even show up to a ceremony celebrating the Nobel Peace Prize being given to a Canadian. [laugh]
Kirsten:: Right! Yes!
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Yup, simply because it had to with climate change and, you know, it can be a problem.
Kirsten:: Yup.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Yes.
Kirsten:: Well, it is good to know that we are not alone here in the states. We got company! That is good! That is good.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: So then the question is where are our candidates for president actually lining up on some of these issues including the environment on the league of conservation voters put that on ranking of politicians every year and this year, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Senator John McCain have all gone down from their previous scores.
And this is because, they have actually been absent for votes on energy bills. Now, some have gone down more than others. So, Hillary Clinton this year went down from 73 from 87, which is her lifetime percentage by their calculation.
And Obama went to 67 from a lifetime of 86. So, their records overall are very high. John McCain on the other hand has some issues. He basically missed all 15 votes on energy issues this year. So, his lifetime percentage score from the league of conservation voters went from 24 down to zero because there was nothing to rank him on.
Kirsten:: Wow.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Yes. He missed every single one. He missed more than people who have died. [Laughs]
Kirsten:: Oh, that is interesting.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Yes.
Kirsten:: But what is that compared to all the other things that they have been voting on? Were these candidates for president, did they go down across the board because they have been off campaigning and they have just missed being in session?
MICHAEL STEBBINS: They have overall that which is why certainly Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have missed far more votes than they ever have but McCain missing all 15, that is a much higher percentage that he has missed for other issues.
Justin: The thing is what McCain now, is that he is that bus. He is not flying around the country. It is like a long drive back to Washington if you, you know. [Laughs]
MICHAEL STEBBINS: He should just give a [straight talk ] to vote. So yes, but on the good side, is actually the chair of the environmental issue committees in the house and the senate, their scores increased dramatically from 2006 to 2007 which is coincidental.
It has to do with the fact that it changed from a republican house and senate to democrat. So, the scores went from eight and five in the house and senate, 8% and 5% up to 83 and 78%. So, there is a dramatic increase in house leadership for those committees which was excellent. So that is good news over in congress.
Kirsten:: Yes.
[claps]
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Yes. So, there is some good news here!
Kirsten:: Yey! Put a smile on my face. OK, coal! [coughing]
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Have you guys heard of Americans for down energy choices?
Justin: No, but it sounds…
Kirsten:: Sounds like one of those groups that…
Justin: Been watered down in name?
MICHAEL STEBBINS: See exactly. It is a coal industry group.
Kirsten:: It has got a nice pretty sounding name.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: They have sponsored some several presidential candidate debates and their members paid for advertisement comparing governor of Kansas to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, easy for me to say.
Kirsten:: [Laughs]
Justin: They are thinking they could lead a nation?
MICHAEL STEBBINS: They had a web site called learnaboutcoal.org and on the site they had what they featured kids telling you, in videos, about coal. So, for example, little Sarah says and she is glad to know that we have 250-year supply of American coal available right here in America. Yes.
Kirsten:: Yay!
MICHAEL STEBBINS: And little Luke put it bluntly, is coal the fuel for America’s future? Actually, we can afford for it not to be.
Kirsten:: Oh, wow! We used children. Pluck at the heart strings.
Justin: They did want a campaign like that for, was not it though oil or just carbon in general where they were like, should this little girl have to wear a jacket in the winter to stay warm.
Kirsten:: [Laughs]
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Little Adam had the best one though where he said, “I am pretty stoked about the future of energy in this country. One reason is that I have taken the time to learn more about American coal.”
Justin: That is awesome!
Kirsten:: Good job little Adam!
Justin: Thank you Adam!
Kirsten:: Hats off for you!
[laughs]
Justin: I am guessing these are playing. Well, these are probably trying to play outside of an industry town. But I mean in it…
MICHAEL STEBBINS: This is a web site. So now Physicians for social responsibility blasted this and saying that they were promoting a polluting and dangerous industry and that pregnant woman and children are especially vulnerable to toxic effects of mercury and no parent would allow their child to be exposed to such danger.
So, what happened was they pulled the web site. So, we are not actually going to be seeing if we can figure out and find anyone who has actually downloaded the videos or if we can get it on internet archive so we can get it back up there because it is fascinating to watch these kids like talking about coal and one thing, kids love nothing more than coal.
[Laughs]
Kirsten:: I know. Isn’t that the whole thing I mean, Santa brought me coal.
Justin: For Christmas all I want is a lump of coal. Okay kiddo.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Cool! I got a coal.
Kirsten:: It’s the new cry of children at Christmas. The cry of joy in the morning.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: But the coal industry is getting beaten up this year though a little bit.
Kirsten:: Yes.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: So in 2008, it has been a rough year for them. Now, 24 hours after the president’s state of the union address where he chimed in about expanding the use of coal, the Department of Energy pulled the plug on Futuregen which is a government project which was aimed at building the first zero emissions coal plant.
Kirsten:: Which is such a great idea, right?
Justin: Then coal…
Kirsten:: Why not make coal clean if we are going to use it?
Justin: They I’d be like so happy that America has a 250-year supply of coal right here at home, I’d be stoked!
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Yes. Now a couple of days later, several major banks actually took issue with the coal industry, Citi Group and Morgan Stanley stated their concern over the coal industry’s carbon foot print with emission caps and on the horizon in consideration that it makes less likely that the banks will finance other coal-fired plants.
So, now they are taking a stand in Kansas, of all places, where there is a power company called Sunflower, and Sunflower Electric is trying to build two new coal-fired plants there and so a couple of weeks after that, the Department of Health and Environments’ denial of their application for their plant, they actually took out a bunch of ads and that is where the newspaper ads compared the secretary to Mahmud Ahmadinejad and of Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez.
Kirsten:: Whoa.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Yes. So, there are almost funded completely by energy companies. So that is not surprising though. But the weird thing is that there are members of the Kansas legislature who are standing up and saying some very strange things.
For example, Senator Tim Huelskamp, he declared that CO2 is not a harmful substance. It is an average ordinary part of human life anywhere on earth. I’m a farmer and we love CO2. It’s a good thing. And another representative in the house over there, Don Meyer, said, its all around us and you breathe it. [Laughs]
Kirsten:: Yes you do. Thanks for that clarification.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Thanks Don. [Laughs]. And another writ slapped to them was they said the EPA had a bit to de-list mercury. We talked about this a little while ago from the pollutants that are required to be controlled in each power plant but a the US Supreme Court actually last year if you remember it, told the EPA that it violated the Clean Air Act when it chose not to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. And now a court has said that you absolutely have to regulate mercury emissions. So, there’s that
Kirsten:: That’s good.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: That’s actually good. So there is some good stuff.
Kirsten:: Yes. It’s good that they are maintaining the regulation on mercury. The contrary is mercury is pretty bad stuff.
Justin: But didn’t the Clean Air Act get rid of all the regulation that was there before or are we just trying to go back to…
MICHAEL STEBBINS: The clean air act is a good thing, it’s the data quality act which is a weird one which is basically the government is going to, if the government is going to put any new regulations on that, it forces them to deal with public and industry concerns about the data itself, and really forces the data to be conclusive, which of course in science is an incredibly difficult thing to do, especially when you’re dealing with something as difficult as the impacts on the environment where it’s really hard to actually to predict how a coal-fired plant for example will affect a local environment.
We do know that it does spew some toxic substances and you know, but we have now shut down our plants to produce a zero emission coal fire plant.
Justin: My mistake not the Clean Air Act but the Clear Skies Initiative, which is so worded as to be…
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Yes. That was the one. That was in 2005 and so the agency – the EPA in 2005 struck a deal with the power industry that was basically designed to fit with other pollution reduction programs that they already had in progress.
So, they didn’t have to change anything, so in reality, what their plan was to reduce a plants 45 to 48 tons a year of emissions down to about 38 when what they were really supposed to do is to bring it down to 15.
Kirsten:: Whoa. Yes. They’re just minimizing what they were supposed to do over a period of time.
Justin: And I like Al Franken’s take on it which was the Clear Skies Initiative was designed to clear the sky of birds.
Kirsten:: [Laughs] Hopefully not, I don’t like that idea at all. [Laughs]
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Oh, you’re a bird person you know.
Kirsten:: Yes, I know. I love them. The little twirping, chirp chirp.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Here’s some mixed bag, Florida’s education department voted four to three to adopt new science standards that for first time require the teaching of evolution.
Kirsten:: Yes, that was great news to hear that in the Florida.
Justin: Really?
Kirsten:: Yes. It’s fantastic.
Justin: It wasn’t required before?
MICHAEL STEBBINS: No.
Justin: Wow!
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Previously Florida standards are referred to evolution as “biological changes over time”, but those rules we’re slammed by scientist as vague and shallow and a 2005 national review gave Florida science standards a failing grade because their superficiality of the treatment of evolutionary biology and for fudging or obfuscating the entire basis of which biology rests.
And the new science proposal which won approval of the National Academy of Science is to find evolution as the fundamental concept underlying all of biology, that’s pretty straightforward.
Kirsten:: Which it pretty much is. Yes.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: And one that is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence. But instead of accepting this scientific standard, the board actually approved a last minute alternative…
Kirsten:: OK.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Following some complaints by the public. Specifically it was actually groups like Florida Family Policy Council and…
Justin: Family.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: And the Florida Baptist Witness, published comments from one board member Donna Callaway who says that evolution should be taught with all the research and study that is current but it should not be taught to the exclusion of other theories of origin of life.
Kirsten:: Blah blah blah blah blah.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Right, exactly.
Kirsten:: [Laughs]
MICHAEL STEBBINS: So, in fact, all of this intelligence designed stuff that we were talking about, there’s still a quite a battle going on here.
Kirsten:: There is, yes.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Some other good news is most of you have heard of Ben Stein from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off move and Wildensteins Money recently…
Kirsten:: Yes.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: America’s most smartest model or some ridiculous show like that.
Kirsten:: Yes.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: So his movie called Expelled, which promotes intelligence design in essence and really questions why people who are promoting intelligence design can’t get into the National Academy from these sorts of things.
I haven’t actually seen the movie yet because they delayed its release. It was supposed to be released this month. It turns out they moved the release to April.
Now people have been speculating that this move was actually because there was a lack of interest in the movie on the whole. There were some reviews that came out of the movie in some of the local showings that they had that slammed it as being kind of ridiculous.
Kirsten:: Well, I saw a preview. I mean there are, there’s a web site up you can go check out a preview online and it’s just you know, like any one of where it takes a particular political or you know biased view point.
It’s very one-sided and it is obviously one-sided and you know, it’s if you like to go have your view points supported in particular way, it might be the movie for you, however if you like to see something that is fair and balanced. [Laughs]. It’s not necessary.
Justin: I don’t think all information by requirement should be either fair or balanced, I mean, but I, gosh…
Kirsten:: Well, it means, it’s so significantly, I mean it’s you know, if people on one side slammed Michael Moore for his one-sided documentaries, then this is the kind of, this is like from the other side on a different issue, you know it’s.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Precisely.
Justin: Journalism is dead isn’t it?
Kirsten:: [Laughs] Yes, true…
Justin: Isn’t just over?
Kirsten:: Yes, it’s all over. [Laughs]
Justin: Gosh!
MICHAEL STEBBINS: You thought it would be after the Dover case. In fact there is a fantastic documentary out on the Dover case that really goes through and gives both sides of it, and the Dover intelligence design case where the judge slapped down the teaching intelligence design in Dover, Pennsylvania school district and it’s absolutely fantastic.
So if you guys can get it on your Netflix or find it on the web somewhere, if you’re interested in the subject, that one really walks through the debate in a really detailed way and it doesn’t…
Kirsten:: Doesn’t pick sides really.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: It really doesn’t take sides. I mean, in the end, it of course winds up taking a side simply because you know the ruling came out in one direction.
Kirsten:: Right.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: And so it might appear in that way to some people, but it really does carefully go through the arguments for intelligent design by the people who actually were arguing for it in Dover and so this is a really wonderful, wonderful documentary, so if anyone can pick that up, please do.
Justin: Anything doesn’t agree with me is taking the other side.
Kirsten:: [Laughs]
Justin: I think that there’s like, what is really missing is like the open debate, like if we had, like William F. Buckley to have a show where he would have a whole line of panelists sitting around, sort of chirping in and debating on any given issue, I think that’s like what’s missing, it’s not so much, we don’t even need journalism.
Journalism is dead but the one-sidedness has gotta go too. We need like to get everybody sitting at a panel debating and shooting down each others’ points, that would be more fun anyway.
Kirsten:: Yes! Sure well we are out of time. We have to get a move on. This has been a great week.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Thank you guys so much and one last plug for scientists and engineers for America who released their bill of rights for scientist on line, so anyone who wants to check that out would go the annals of the Sharp Network where you can help track your congressmen’s views on science and health over time their entire history.
It’s at sharp.sefora.org or just type in scientist and engineers for America and your Google searching will pick it up and check that out.
Justin: And you wrote a book? What was it called?
MICHAEL STEBBINS: Sex, drugs and DNA.
Kirsten:: Thank you very much. We’ll be talking to you in a couple of weeks.
Justin: Be safe without those air bags in that a ‘91 Corolla.
MICHAEL STEBBINS: [Laughs]
Kirsten:: Dr. Michael Stebbins! Thank you very much.
[music interlude]
Kirsten:: And that is it for us today. We had a lot of talking going on, lot of talking, lot of talking, lot of talking.
Thank you for listening. I want to thank Allesandra Triono, Clinton Edwards, Naomi Rowstone-Calidasa, Erick Meatlake, Goergies Egor, Ben Rhiner, Ed Dyer, Aubrey Obkah, Rob Hessler, Antonio Dueno, James Marshall, all sorts of people for writing in and having lots to say this last week.
So, shout outs to all of you, thank you very much for taking the time to listen and taking the time to write and let me know what you think and send in stories.
I love your stories. Jessica Spalding and I had TWIStributions that I was going to play today.
Justin: Maybe next week.
Kirsten:: I’m sorry Jessica Spalding and Rob Hessler. They had these great TWIStributions. So they are going to have to wait until next week because we are out of time. Darn it!
Justin: If you learned anything from today’s show please remember.
Kirsten:: We have a guest next week talking all about absinthe.
Justin: Absinthe
Kirsten:: And it’s all in your head.
Justin: Is absinthe in your head?
[musical interlude]
Skip to content
Business Process Outsourcing Provider
Data Collection, Preparation, Analytics, Secure Network Management, Contact Center Services,Back Office Processing