Science LInks - 7/31/15

Article: Independent expert confirms that the "impossible" EM Drive actually works

As efficient as this type of propulsion may sound, it defies one of the fundamental concepts of physics - the conservation of momentum, which states that for something to be propelled forward, some kind of propellant needs to be pushed out in the opposite direction. 

For that reason, the drive was widely laughed at and ignored when it was invented by English researcher Roger Shawyer in the early 2000s. But a few years later, a team of Chinese scientists decided to build their own version, and to everyone's surprise, it actually worked. Then an American inventor did the same, and convinced NASA's Eagleworks Laboratories, headed up by Harold 'Sonny' White, to test it. 

The real excitement began when those Eagleworks researchers admitted back in March that, despite more than a year of trying to poke holes in the EM Drive, it just kept on working - even inside a vacuum.

It might turn out that we need to rewrite some of our laws of physics in order to explain how the drive works. But if that opens up the possibility of human travel throughout the Solar System - and, more importantly, beyond - then it's a sacrifice we're definitely willing to make. Bring on the next set of tests.

Article #2: Engineers demonstrate the world’s first white lasers

While lasers were invented in 1960 and are commonly used in many applications, one characteristic of the technology has proven unattainable. No one has been able to create a laser that beams white light. 

Researchers at Arizona State University have solved the puzzle. They have proven that semiconductor lasers are capable of emitting over the full visible color spectrum, which is necessary to produce a white laser.

Applications include replace standard lighting because lasers are more efficient in change electrical energy into visible light. More vivid display screens (computers and TVs). And communications.

The lasers are also "tunable".

So far, this is "proof of concept" and not yet practical.

Article #3: Astronauts find living organisms clinging to the International Space Station, and aren’t sure how they got there

During a spacewalk intended to clean the International Space Station, Russian astronauts took samples from the exterior of the station for a routine analysis. The results of the experiment were quite surprising. Astronauts expected to find nothing more than contaminants created by the engines of incoming and outgoing spacecraft, but instead found that living organisms were clinging to outside of the ISS. The astronauts identified the organisms as sea plankton that likely originated from Earth, but the team couldn’t find a concrete explanation as to how these organisms made it all the way up to the space station — or how they managed to survive.

The article leads with a photo of diatoms (phytoplankton), but says that the organisms are invertebrates.

Article #4: Scientists identify men who died at Virginia's Jamestown 400 years ago

The men were identified as the Reverend Robert Hunt, Captain Gabriel Archer, Sir Ferdinando Wainman and Captain William West. All of them helped guide the colony during its difficult years after its founding in 1607. 

Researchers used archaeology, skeletal analyses, chemical testing, 3-D technology and genealogical research to identify the men who lived and died when the settlement was on the brink of failure due to famine, disease and war.

Morons and Global Warming

I like to look at the orign and uses of words, how their meanings change over time, and why they come into use and go out of use.

At the bottom of the post, I have listed a number of words that at one time had a specific, legitimate medical use which have since fallen out of favor: idiot, cretin, moron, retard, imbecile and lunatic. All are Greek or Latin derivities, transferred into English as medical terms. All of them have similar meanings to the English word "fool" which itself is derived from Latin.  All of them are "no longer in technical use; considered offensive."

So what do morons have to do with the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis?

I do not wish to imply that those accept or deny the hypothesis are morons. Rather I wish to illuminate something about the shift from using CAGW to using climate change.

Over the last 5 years or so, proponents have shifted away from using CAGW, or even just global warming (GW) to using climate change. Why?

The first reason I see is that CAGW and GW have become "considered offensive." That is, the shrillness and the extremism of CAGW proponents have become offensive to ordinary people and to some scientists.

The second reason is that the more extreme predictions (the "catastrophic" part) have already failed to pan out and climate warming is in a hiatus (only relieved by manipulating a single set of data). No one likes to be reminded of their failures.

The third reason is that "cimate change" is new, and there is no negative connotations.

The fourth reason is that it is a neutral phrase, not implying warming or cooling. It is a "safe" phrase. It is also cowardly because all climate phenomena can now be ascribed to "climate change:" warming or cooling, drought or floods, ice caps melting or increasing, increased storms or decreased storms.

Additionally, anyone who disagrees with CAGW can now be called a "climate change denier." This is a straw dog logical fallacy because no one denies that climate changes. The deniers can be dismissed as "anti-science."

In conclusion, the shift from CAGW and GW to climate change is an admission of failure on the part of advocates of the CAGW hypothesis.

Word study:
The definitions are word origins are from online resources include the online Webster Dictionary.

idiot

a stupid person.
synonyms: fool, ass, halfwit, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, cretin, moron, imbecile, simpleton; More

MEDICINE archaic: a mentally handicapped person.

Psychology. (no longer in technical use; considered offensive) a person of the lowest order in a former and discarded classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.

Origin of idiot

1250-1300; Middle English < Latin idiōta < Greek idiṓtēs private person, layman, person lacking skill or expertise, equivalent to idiō- (lengthened variant of idio- idio-, perhaps by analogy with stratiōtēs professional soldier, derivative of stratiá army) + -tēs agent noun suffix

Moron
Psychology. (no longer in technical use; now considered offensive) a person of borderline intelligence in a former and discarded classification of mental retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69.

Origin of MORON

irregular from Greek mōros foolish, stupid
First Known Use: 1910

Feeble-minded.
Psychology. (no longer in technical use; now considered offensive) a person of borderline intelligence in a former and discarded classification of mental retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69.

Mentally retarded. 

subaverage intellectual ability equivalent to or less than an IQ of 70 that is accompanied by significant deficits in abilities (as in communication or self-care) necessary for independent daily functioning, is present from birth or infancy, and is manifested especially by delayed or abnormal development, by learning difficulties, and by problems in social adjustment

In reference to low intellectual ability, the terms retarded, retardation, and mental retardation [and retard] are now usually perceived as insulting.

Lunatic

affected with lunacy :  insane

Middle English lunatik, from Anglo-French or Late Latin; Anglo-French lunatic, from Late Latin lunaticus, from Latin luna; from the belief that lunacy fluctuated with the phases of the moon
First Known Use: 14th century

Imbecile

Definition of IMBECILE

usually offensive :  a person affected with moderate mental retardation

The noun imbecile is used informally as an insult to mean "fool". Its origins are in the Latin word imbecille, "weak or feeble," and it was an official medical term for people with a specific (and low) I.Q. in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Patients who were classified as imbeciles were said to have no more intelligence than a seven year-old child.

Origin of IMBECILE

French imbécile, noun, from adjective, weak, weak-minded, from Latin imbecillus
First Known Use: 1802

Cretin

n. a person suffering from cretinism. Cretinism - a congenital disease due to absence or deficiency of normal thyroid secretion, characterized by physical deformity, dwarfism, and mental retardation, and often by goiter.

Word Origin and History for cretin
n. 1779, from French crétin (18c.), from Alpine dialect crestin, "a dwarfed and deformed idiot" of a type formerly found in families in the Alpine lands, a condition caused by a congenital deficiency of thyroid hormones, from Vulgar Latin *christianus "a Christian," a generic term for "anyone," but often with a sense of "poor fellow." Related: Cretinism (1801).

Article: Fears, Not Facts, Support G.M.O.-Free Food

Despite myriad assurances from scientists that foods containing genetically modified ingredients are safe to eat, consumers are likely to see more and more products labeled “G.M.O.-free” in the not-too-distant future. As happened with the explosion of gluten-free products, food companies are quick to cash in on what they believe consumers want regardless of whether it is scientifically justified.

The entire article is worth reading for the take-down of the anti-GMO hysteria.

One reads a lot about how the Right is "anti-science:" Christians because of evolution and conservatives because of skepticism about catastrophic, anthropenic global warming.

However, the Left has its areas of "anti-science" as well, and the blind fear of GMOs is certainly one of them.

[A] review of the pros and cons of G.M.O.s strongly suggests that the issue reflects a poor public understanding of the science behind them... 

[snip] 

Let’s start with the facts. Humans have been genetically modifying food and feed plants and animals for millenniums, until recently only by repeatedly crossing existing ones with relatives that have more desirable characteristics. It can take many years, even decades, to achieve a commercially viable product this way...

The techniques of making a GMO are actually imitations of nature's own show-cuts. Viruses can move genes from one bacteria to another or from one higher organism (plants, animals, etc.) to another. The human genome is full of DNA from viruses. Some of the DNA is active, some is "junk DNA."

As the ariticle points out, we share a lot of genes with dogs (about 84%). We also share many genes with plants, fungi, and bacteria.

Feel-good article of the day

Article: Five Ways Liberals Ignore Science

Five major ways, and a host of minor ways, the left ignores science. And pushes an agenda behind that ignore-ance.

"Noisy Science," DDT, and Global Warming

Article: How the EPA's empire-building got in the way of its science

The founding of the EPA, and the first major decision by its first administrator. DDT was found to be safe by a long series of scientific studies, but was banned for political reasons. [see also: The Lies of Rachel Carson]

I accept the idea that DDT causes eggshell thinning in raptors. However, that was due to indiscriminate spraying. Malaria can be controlled in third world countries by spraying the walls and floors of homes. There, it is stable and does not migrate into the water supply and thence into the food chains leading to the top raptors.

However, because the USA completely banned DDT, so did everyone else. That is the basis for the charge in this article (and elsewhere) that the DDT ban in the US has caused millions of deaths world-wide.

Bananas, Vitamin A, and Ignorance

Article: Scientists Ready to Test 'Super Banana' on Humans: Fruit could save lives through vitamin A

Vitamin A deficiency kills hundreds of thousands of children worldwide; hundreds of thousands more go blind, says a researcher.

A group of researchers have engineered a variety of bananas to produce precursors of vitamin A. Like golden rice, widespread use of this crop would help reduce vitamin A deficiency due to malnutrition in undeveloped countries.

So, help millions of children to grow up to be healthy, productive adults? Or oppose genetically modified crops and condemn them to death or blindness?

The article showed 3 comments of about 200 when I read the article. The third one said something irrelevant, but ended up with, "no thank you to GMO's." At least he was polite.

I decided to skim through the comments. I did not go through them all; they were too depressing. I am a science teacher and I am under no delusions about what students graduate from high school knowing about science. And about the half comments had some sort of stupidity/ignorance/willful blindness about the various scientific issues.

"Bananas have no fat!" "Autism is increasing because of science!" "If they are not getting vitamin A through their food it is because they aren't getting any food!" "Just what we need, more frankenfoods."

One commenter noted that bananas tend to be eaten raw and plantains tend to be cooked. The article talks about cooking the bananas. So did the researchers use bananas? Or plantains?

Both are same "plant". Some cultivars are specifically eaten raw and are called "desert bananas." Some cultivars are always cooked. Many are eaten both ways. And I have had cooked "desert bananas."

One person repeatedly cut and pasted the same rant as "replies" to other commenters. One point he made was, I think, that bananas cannot have vitamin A in them because they have no fat. However, all living things have fat in them, even if those fats/lipids are not nutritionally significant ("0%"). And bananas have some vitamin A already. The green leaves of spinach also have no nutritionally significant amounts of fats and lipids. On the other hand, they are high in fat-soluable chlorophyll and the same vitamin A precursors that have been added to banana. Which is why spinach is recognized as a good source of vitamin A.

Other commenters focused on the EEEEVVVVIIILLLL of companies, like Monsanto, turning a profit from GMO's. I have never been able to relate to the argument that profits are evil. As far as I have ever been able to determine it is just another "argument from envy." "You're rich; I hate you." Yawn.

I remember all too well the first gas crisis. The oil cartel, OPEC, cut production and raised prices. This cut supply. Because demand remained the same, oil prices soared. Gasoline prices followed suit. Oil companies' profits also soared (although not as much). Congress investigated, ready to attack EVIL oil companies for "obscene profits." What they found was relatively simple and easy to understand, even for grandstanding politicians. If 5% of a companies income is profit, then 5% of more income is more profit. They still make the same profit margin, but on more income. Therefore their profits go up. When I was relatively young, gas sold at $0.299 per gallon (or 29.9 cents). It is now pushing $4.00 per gallon in my area. I would expect the "obscene profits" of oil companies to be correspondingly larger.

At any rate, to get back to the main point: Help children or stop GMO's? Either I believe that each child is made in God's image, as I am, and I bring my ideology (and we all have an ideology) and my behavior in line with that belief. Or I believe that vast swaths of humanity are worthless, especially compared to me and the "tribe" that agrees with me.

Famine fear won't sway minds on GM crops

Article: Famine fear won't sway minds on GM crops

Do you want to feed people, prevent starvation, or help children get a good start in life? You support GMO (genetically modified organisms) crops. Science created them. They can supply extra nutrients like golden rice, or increase yield by variety of methods.

They have been studied for 50 years and only minor issues have been uncovered; none related to health or safety.

You can read the Wikipedia article above on golden rice. People actually oppose getting children needed vitamin A on the grounds of biodiversity.

The real question is do we treat humans as something special, divine in origin (that is, created by God), with a divine value and purpose? Or do we see humans as a blight on the environment?