Daily Science Dose

In the past month, reports from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Phillipines are detailing the troubling accounts of a resurgence of the Ebola Virus.

First, the Congo…

Nine people have died so far out of 21 people infected with the deadly Ebola virus, according to the Health Ministry in the DR Congo. Doctors without Borders has a higher estimate of 33 people infected That may not seem like such a big deal, except that Ebola tends to kill 90% of those infected. This is hardly the first time that Ebola has struck the West African nation.

Ebola was first documented in 1976 in Zaire, which was what the DR Congo at that time. The disease also afflicted people in the Sudan. Ebola is named after the Ebola River, which is very near the site where the disease was found. Below is a chart 2003 showing the number of people in red infected versus the number of deaths in black, appropriately enough.

If you have been paying attention to the news, you may have heard that some pigs in the Phillipines have also tested positively for Ebola. This needs some clarifying, as the pigs, or hogs, are infected with the Ebola-Reston Virus.

Ebola-Reston may be a subtype of Ebola, but so far, that is still to be definitely determined by researchers. Ebola-Reston gets its name from its similarity to Ebola, obviously, as it is a filovirus as is Ebola. Filoviruses are particularly nasty diseases in which long, slender RNA viruses attack the host’s blood vessels, causing them to rupture and at the same time prevent coagulation, which means that the victim will not stop bleeding.

Ebola-Reston gets the “Reston” from a Reston, Virginia lab where researchers first isolated the filovirus. So far, Ebola-Reston Virus has not caused serious illness in humans, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that it won’t. Previous to the recent outbreak, Ebola-Reston was thought only to infect monkeys. The virus’ move into the porcine world could be a normal move of the disease of which little is still known, or it could point to the much-sought “reservoir” of the disease, which has yet to be discovered.

The UN is beginning to investigate the Ebola-Reston virus in pigs…stay tuned.

Ebola, Ebola-Reston, virus, fliovirus, Congo, DR Congo, Zaire, Reston, Virginia

The tragedy that befell Chinese families affected by milk tainted with melamine this last year is nothing to make light of, for certain, so if my title seems glib — for that I apologize. But I do have some rather good news to bring you…

China has officially banned 17 chemicals as food additives. This is the first official listing of banned substances in China, a response to the recent calamity that affected nearly a quarter of a million children as well as other concerns over public confidence in Chinese food products.

Of course, just because something is banned doesn’t mean that it will never be used again…or that something that is used today won’t be banned in the future if, god forbid, another tragic situation leads to illness or deaths.

Anthony Hazzard, a regional adviser for food safety in the World Health Organisation’s Western Pacific office, said the list could prove useful in reducing the illegal use of such chemicals, by raising awareness.

But he told AFP it was more efficient to have a list of additives that could be used in food rather than an un-ending list of ones that could not. –AFP via Seed Daily

But let’s hope that China can effectively enforce the ban.

Many of the substances banned are chemicals used in insecticides and disinfectants, for example boric acid and lye. Yeah, that lye, the stuff used to open up clogged drains in your home, super corrosive stuff that eats through anything. Chinese seafood producers use it on dried seafood to make it look fresher. It’s dried, for heaven’s sake. Nothing fresh about it.

Boric Acid is used to treat yeast infections and athlete’s foot, among other equally stomach turning uses. Mmm, yummy. I guess it also increases the elasticity in foods such as noodles and won ton skins. It is also a flame retardant, so maybe with enough of the stuff, those elastic noodles won’t burn.

Another newly banned substance is the same stuff used in embalming and preserving dead tissue, formaldehyde.

China, Chinese, milk, food, exports

He’s been a professor at Stanford, he runs the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, oh, and he was part of team of scientists that won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997. Not a bad choice for Energy secretary, eh?

And the best part is that he understands the carbon conundrum. Kudos, Mr. Obama, for choosing Mr. Chu as your man to lead this nation’s energy policy.

So much better than that Dick Cheney, plain and tall…and in the pocket of the oil and coal companies. Not that Cheney was Secretary of the Department of Energy, but he might as well have been with his closed door energy wheelings and dealings. Not to mention the team of henchmen Bush employed to allow those oil and coal companies to ignore the consequences of carbon emissions.

I see a brighter and more informed energy future for America and in turn, the World.

Steven Chu is a big advocate for energy conservation. In a Q&A with Science News, he details that buildings account for nearly 40% of all energy consumed, and that with new more efficient technology and building methods, we can get that percentage down to half of that. He also feels that number can drop further, achieving the same results on 25% of what had previously been needed to run the same buildings.

Chu also advocates governmental tax credits to spur advances in energy technologies. In addition to tax credits, Chu feels that the US should be building a “greener” workforce in energy industries, by supporting universities and laboratories in developing the next generation of scientists that will continue to advance the field. Give more grants to professors, who in turn can employ more graduate students, who will in turn become the scientists that develop new and better technology to work to solve our inevitable energy crisis.

Steven Chu, Obama, Secretary of Energy, Department of Energy

Meet the Lord Howe Island Tree Lobster (Dryococelus australis).

This not so little bug, stretching up to 5 inches or 13 centimeters long, was thought to be extinct until 24 of them were found on a lonely outcrop nearly sixteen miles off of its namesake Lord Howe Island in 2001. The tree lobsters (I think you can see how they got that name just by looking at them) were once common on the small island northeast of the Sydney, Australia that is designated as a World Heritage site. They were common, that is, until black rats swam for it from shipwrecked boat to the Island ninety years ago. Rats like to eat bugs, and thus the Island’s native population of “stick” bugs were wiped out.

But this tenacious bug clung to life.

And this is not the first time that the Lord Howe island tree lobster has clung to life after losing its Island home.

Scientists have discovered that the Lord Howe variety tree lobster is older than the island for which it is named.

The Lord Howe tree lobster appears to be harboring even more surprises. As part of an analysis of the evolutionary origin of stick insects, biologist Thomas Buckley of Landcare Research, New Zealand’s main research institute for environmental science, and colleagues collected DNA from three tree lobster groups, including D. australis, and about 70 other stick insect species. The team found that D. australis was more than 20 million years old, 13 million years older than the rocks on Lord Howe Island.

So where did this species evolve? Buckley thinks that the solution lies under the Pacific Ocean. Lord Howe Island is the youngest of an old chain of islands formed as the Indo-Australian tectonic plate travels north over a fixed volcanic center, or hot spot. Older islands are now submerged inactive volcanoes. The Lord Howe tree lobster may have evolved in one of these drowned islands and traveled south as its habitat eroded away, the team reported online 16 December in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.–ScienceNOW Daily News

How about that? This insect really wants to survive, and has been island-hopping for a good part of its existence. And it seems that DNA analysis has more to tell us about this creepy crawly that just won’t die.

The Lord Howe Island tree lobster is a unique species from two other tree lobsters tested recently by Buckley. The LHI tree lobster and its previously-assumed brethren on New Caledonia and New Guinea evolved apart from one another in a process called convergent evolution.

Convergent evolution is when separate species develop similar evolutionary traits in response to similar environments, despite the fact that they are not closely related. Think wings on birds and bats. Birds and bats are hardly related, but both classes developed wings in response to environmental and evolutionary pressures.

In the case of tree lobsters, you can see how similar (top photo) the New Guinea tree lobster and the Lord Howe Island tree lobsters species are (hi, as in scary), but also how different in the bottom photo where you can see the tree lobsters side by side with another distant relative, a typical stick bug (my infinite thanks to Bug Girl’s Blog for the link to the German site where I got these images).

tree lobster, Lord Howe Island, Australia, extinct, insect, bug, DNA, New Zealand, New Guinea, New Caledonia, World Heritage, stick bugs, convergent evolution, evolution

The United Nations has projected that by 2025, half of the world’s nations may not have enough clean, potable water to drink. By 2050, that number increases to 75 percent.

Even today, the UN estimates that one in six people around the world suffer from some extent of water shortage.

The UN bases its findings on two factors: Population growth coupled with changes in the Earth’s climate that is drying up the surface of the planet.

More people need more water. Unfortunately, in this Universe, there is a law about matter not being able to be created nor destroyed, at least not without some major help from some rather experimental practices that involve some rather large super colliders.

Russian news service, RIA Novosti, published a piece exploring the implications of the UN’s dire warning. It’s funny that the “opinion & analysis” piece calls on the United States and Europe to update water infrastructure in addition to pointing out that we should be shipping food to arid regions rather than growing crops in areas that would need inordinate amounts of water in order to grow those crops.

What is the way out? It is possible to deliver food products to desert or semi-desert areas to help local people do without water-intensive agriculture. Advanced European countries and the United States have large natural water resources but should focus on modernizing their water supply infrastructure. Lack of proper repairs is causing considerable and irretrievable water losses.

The United States and Canada, for instance, will have to spend a total of $36 trillion in the next 25 years on the modernization of their water supply systems, but life is worth it. –RIA Novosti

Granted, the Us and Europe will have to upgrade and repair wasteful, aging water infrastructure systems, but to only look to the US and Europe as the only ones who can save the world’s supply of fresh water is a bit like looking at President-elect Obama as the saviour. The US and Europe can use water more efficiently and less wastefully, but I think the problem is a little bit bigger than new water pipes.

We need to curb population growth. Not in the US and Europe, but in developing nations around the world. It is not the nicest thing to say, being an American and over-consuming my fair share of water (among other resources), but let’s call a spade a spade.

Of course, we also have to look at the issue of climate change. But let’s say that humans are not responsible — calm down, this is just an exercise — for the changes in the world’s climate at present which is drying up huge areas of the planet. Let’s say that it is a normal transition in the life of the planet. No matter what is causing it — nature or man — with less water (among other resources), we have to accept that our fragile world can only support so many of us.

water, UN, United Nations, United States, Europe, drinking water, water supply, resources, population, crops, climate change, shortages, planet, humans

My thanks to the FEED newsletter from the Union of Concerned Scientists for this one.

It seems that traditional breeding methods are out-performing genetic modifications in developing drought-resistant crops. And as water becomes more and more scarce, drought-resistant crops are a big deal.

The United States Department of Agriculture has recently published some news about drought-resistant soybeans. By going back to the home of the soybean, China, for variety species that are not known in the US, and using some more exotic Chinese varieties of the staple crop, breeders have been able to cross a drought-resistant variety with a more common variety to produce soybeans that are testing well here in the US.

Using conventional breeding methods, Carter and his team develop hundreds of new breeding lines each year, for a total of more than 5,000. Five of them have stood out for further development and are now in validation trials across the South. Based on the results of these tests, the team will soon release advanced breeding lines that carry the slow-wilting trait and also show good yield potential when rainfall is plentiful.

The slow-wilting lines yield 4 to 8 bushels more than conventional varieties under drought conditions—depending on the region and environment, says Carter. For example, under drought conditions, normal soybeans yield 30 bushels per acre, but slow-wilting types yield about 35 bushels per acre. –USDA

That’s zero for genetically-modified drought-resistance, and a gazillion for traditionally-bred drought-resistance.

Ok, I have no data to back up that “gazillion” claim, but traditional breeding has been around for a long time, and there is no telling how many times it has helped develop crops that can go without water for a bit or withstand long, hot summers or even thrive in harsh conditions. If it were not for traditional breeding, well, we may not have many sub-species and varieties that we have today.

Besides, traditional breeding is the way Nature does it, so why shouldn’t we?

On another note, a NGO (non-governmental organization) is working with farmers in Africa and developed a drought-resistant variety of cassava (a staple in that part of the world and others, also known as yuca). And this variety is producing 6 to 10 times the amount of cassava that the usual seed stock is producing.

USDA, drought-resistance, genetically-modified, traditional breeding, genetics, GMO, NGO, soybeans, cassava, yuca, Africa, crops, agriculture

Growing up in Michigan, there was a large round depression in the neighboring farmland that we kids called the “crater.” Making a journey to the crater was an event to us kids, because we really believed that a meteorite had crashed in our backyard. Or at least that is what I believed…and still want to.

And the same technology that is used to check for speeders by your friendly state trooper is being used to scan the Earth’s surface for meteorite craters. ‘Bout time.

LIDAR, or light detection and ranging, has been used in the past by the NOAA to measure shoreline elevations as in the image at right. It’s a good way of determining sea level rise or erosion issues. Simply strapping the LIDAR devices to a plane and flying over something you want to get an accurate (within 15 cm or 6 in) elevation reading and viola, you got yourself a pretty kick*ss topographic map. The LIDAR is able to filter through vegetation, so even if you are looking at what looks like a huge flat forested area, the LIDAR will be able to show you all the curves and depressions in the actual planetary surface.

From the AAAS’s news on its website:

Hunting for meteorites isn’t easy. Most craters have eroded away, and those that do survive are often concealed by forests or lakes. As a result, researchers have only been able to locate five craters from the past 12,000 years. Presumably hundreds more pockmark Earth’s surface, but where are they?

Looking for a better way to dig up these subtle depressions, a team from the University of Alberta in Edmonton went airborne with a device called LIDAR. The technology works by shooting laser pulses at the ground; as these pulses bounce back, they reveal the precise distance from plane to Earth, creating a topographical map of the planet’s bare surface. LIDAR differs from radar because it can see through vegetation as it charts surface elevations in great detail.

And wouldn’t you know it, the research team found a crater in dense woods that yielded the tell-tale iron fragments of meteorite around the area. The team estimated that the 36 meter wide crater was created by the impact of a meteorite only one meter wide and traveling at 11 to 17 kilometers per second. Okay, that is fast, true; but that is slower by 9km/s than the big meteorites that created the craters that are well-known.

I imagine scientists that research meteorites are thinking this is like Xmas and their birthday rolled into one with this idea working. Studying meteorites is like looking at ancient artifacts from our earliest ancestors if our ancestors were cosmic rocks. Meteorites contain lots of cosmochemical information on that has proven invaluable to scientists studying the origins of our solar system and universe.

I wonder if I could persuade the Alberta team to take a quick jaunt over my Michigan crater. It’s about 20 m wide, so I imagine it was created by a meteorite maybe two thirds of a meter across…going about 13 kilometers a second…but that’s just a guess.

meteorites, crater, impact, LIDAR, Alberta, Michigan, NOAA, iron, cosmochemical, solar system, universe

How sad is it that it takes television commercials to inform the American public of, well, anything.

I have complained in the past about the Clean Coal ad campaign. So-called clean coal is not an economically viable alternative to simply allowing all kinds of bad stuff — carbon dioxide, methane, mercury, arsenic, to name a few — to enter the air we breathe. Furthermore, no one has actually built a successful large clean coal power generating plant.

Well, finally, environmental groups are entering the ad campaign game to counter the Clean Coal ad campaign. And Al Gore is putting his Nobel-prize-winning-weight behind the campaign.

A group of environmental organizations concerned about global warming, including one backed by former vice president Al Gore, is launching an advertising campaign this week to counter the coal industry’s efforts to promote what it calls “clean coal.”

The groups will spend millions of dollars on television, newspaper and outdoor ads, the first of which shows a factory door in the middle of a barren landscape and the slogan: “In reality, there is no such thing as ‘clean coal.’ ” The ads say that “there isn’t a single commercial coal power plant in America today that captures its global warming pollution.”

The campaign is a response to a $15 million-plus ad campaign that began earlier this year by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, an industry-backed group that has tried to spruce up coal’s image. –Washington Post

Gore is super-serial about this greenwashing of the coal industry. He goes on to say that “We cannot base the strategy for human survival on the illusions of the industry that coal is already clean. It is not. What they want to do is build hundreds, if not thousands, of new coal plants on a vague promise that they might be able to retrofit those plants with a technology that does not exist.”

Of course, the Big Coal lobby’s public facade known as the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity had a response.

… Joe Lucas, vice president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, says that technology has helped coal plants meet environmental standards for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, and that it will ultimately help reduce carbon dioxide emissions too. “To use the words of a new resident of Washington, ‘Yes we can’ invest in the technologies to make us capable of storing and capturing carbon from coal plants,” Lucas said.

“Ultimately”…hmm, that’s a funny word, as it describes a time, but that time could be a long, long time away. I give the coal industry credit for trying, but to come out with an ad campaign that plainly sells lies to Americans (and to the world, ultimately)is, frankly, irresponsible.

Instead of pumping hundreds of millions of money into researching clean technology for a resource that is limited and will run out, why not invest that same money into a renewable, clean source of energy? I may be talking crazy to some shareholders of energy companies that rely on coal — which is, like, all of them — but are we as a species really that stupid to not only believe in wasting money on short-term R&D, but also to believe the Coal Industry’s lies?

coal, clean, energy, industry, mining, technology, ad campaign, commercials, Al Gore, greenwashing, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, renewable, resources

I tend to think that if you are sweeping dirt under a rug, you are avoiding the real problem of the dirt being there in the first place. I kind of feel the same way about carbon sequestration.

The US Department of Energy has recently published its Carbon Sequestration Second Atlas, and in that atlas, it is estimated that there is enough space underground to store the next 1,100 years worth of carbon emissions from both the United States and Canada. Of course, it is only an estimate of available storage space that hasn’t exactly been tested yet.

Unfortunately, despite my reluctance to accept the efficacy of carbon dioxide being pumped into porous rock formations, saline formations, depleted oil and gas reservoirs, or unmineable coal seams, carbon sequestration may be one of many steps we humans have to take in order to turn back the tide on global warming due to increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

It seems to me that if you first try to cut carbon emissions via clean energy technology, then maybe drilling into these deep underground spaces wouldn’t be necessary. However, I don’t see any drastic cuts in emissions any time soon. I wish it were otherwise, but this world is too fractured by both national and corporate interests to come to any kind of smart plan to combat our own pollution.

What makes carbon sequestration a silver bullet? No one can say with any degree of certainty that trapping carbon dioxide underground would stay trapped. Seems like it is just more “burying our problems”, a out of sight, out of mind mentality. And Yucca Mountain comes to mind. Or your friendly, necessary(?) muncipal landfill. Is it just a natural human tendency to want to bury things?

However, regulations have to be passed in order for anything to happen on a large scale, said Howard Herzog, a principal research engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The only way carbon capture will occur in any meaningful way is if there are policies that give businesses an incentive to do it, Herzog said.

“Until there are policies that restrict the emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere, it’s always going to be cheaper to emit” instead of capture and store the gas, he said.

If businesses do receive incentives to put carbon dioxide underground, federal regulations and inspections will have to ensure the gas doesn’t leak out.

“If you put it in the ground, you want to make sure it stays in there,” Herzog told UPI. “You don’t want to pay for something if you don’t get it.”

And make no mistake about it, someone will have to pay for it. Herzog and his colleagues at MIT estimate current investments in carbon capture and storage need to triple for wide-scale implementation to occur. For the federal government, that would mean increasing the annual carbon storage budget from about $300 million to $1 billion.–UPI via Terra Daily

Oh, wait, it’s going to cost us taxpayers money and big business is going to have to be urged to bury their/our carbon emissions responsibly? Add to that the increased costs for the energy produced at those power plants that will be passed down to the consumers (who will know be paying twice for this carbon sequestration service).

Yeah, that’ll work.

carbon sequestration, clean coal, US, United States, Canada, Department of Energy, atlas, porous rock, formation, saline, oil mine, power plant, carbon dioxide, greenhouse gases, global warming, Yucca Mountain, landill, business, consumers, energy costs