Dr. Think Science (aka me) is a biologist. As such, you might think I am the model for living an earth-friendly life. I am not, nor are most of my colleagues. I mean, we all try to do our best, but I am no environmentalist. For 2009, I took the opportunity to look around me and came up with five really simple ways to green my, and maybe your, lifestyle.
1. Recycle more. Most of us recycle pretty well at home, but do we go to the effort of taking the water bottle home to recycle it since there is not a recycling bin handy wherever we are at right at that moment?
2. Use a re-fillable water bottle/coffee-mug. I highly recommend aluminum (they’re a bit of an investment, but consider your investment into bottled water over the past year to put it into perspective). Plastic bottles release a number of nasty compounds as they age.
3. Bring re-usable bags to the store, at least some of the time. I admit I am only halfway successful at this. I have the bags in the back of my car, and constantly forget to lug them into the actual store. Plastic grocery bags are an environmental success story in that they are one of the most reused items in the house, according to National Geographic. If you use your plastic grocery bags, like me, for trash bags instead of purchasing more plastic bags at the store, at least they’re used twice. But, even I still end up with far too many bags to re-use. Consider taking them with you to the store to be recycled (most stores have bins), and consider using reusable bags when at those stores who don’t provide bags suitable for your re-use needs. You can also check out http://www.reusablebags.com/.
4. Use less, or less of, toxic cleaners. I try to use earth-friendly cleaning products as much as possible, like vinegar or baking soda for mold and mildew. But, there are those times when you need the extra power of one of the not-so-earth-friendly ones. Mildew is my personal nemesis. In those cases, I started trying to use a really small amount. For example, you can apply the products to target areas with small brushes or Q-tips instead of spraying everywhere. You can also place the products in glass jars (placed in kid-safe storage) so that you can soak items, like your detached shower head that has really bad lime scale, instead of spraying and spraying and spraying. And, you can then reuse, reuse, reuse.
5. Unplug it. The credit for this idea goes to a friend, but she is saving loads on her energy bill just by unplugging the appliances when they are not in use. The energy it takes to keep those little clocks on our toasters and coffee-makers going really adds up.
Now, I expect I’ll have about a thousand pairs of eyes out there helping me to keep these new resolutions! I don’t mind if you give me a little poke to remember. Do you have ideas too that you can share?
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Science Education and Science Literacy
A recent article in the Washington Post reports that the United States is stagnating in terms of Science education. Recent test scores that compared the United Stated with other countries showed that our 4th and 8th-graders were improving in math, but that our science scores were the same as a decade ago. For the 8th grade, the countries that scored higher than the United States were Singapore, China, Japan, South Korea, England, Hungary and Russia.
Why is this important? Educating our youth in science (and math), boys and girls, is going to be increasingly important for the US to remain competitive in a global economy, an economy that is driven by technology. Look at your own life, for example. We are positively drenched in various forms of technology. But, it goes even deeper than the economy of a nation and future employment opportunities for the individual.
An understanding of the basic principles of science, rooted in skills such as critical thinking, the ability to separate of fact from opinion, and problem solving is essential for decision-making. As adults, we are increasingly faced with decisions about how to live our lives, what kind of footprint we want to leave on this planet, and how we want to vote on policies that will affect that footprint for generations to come. We face issues such as meeting the world’s food and water demands, global warming, energy production, waste reduction, and homeland security. No matter what opinion you hold on these issues, they are, at their core, science-based. A science education will be essential for evaluating the options and making an informed decision at the polls.
Why is this important? Educating our youth in science (and math), boys and girls, is going to be increasingly important for the US to remain competitive in a global economy, an economy that is driven by technology. Look at your own life, for example. We are positively drenched in various forms of technology. But, it goes even deeper than the economy of a nation and future employment opportunities for the individual.
An understanding of the basic principles of science, rooted in skills such as critical thinking, the ability to separate of fact from opinion, and problem solving is essential for decision-making. As adults, we are increasingly faced with decisions about how to live our lives, what kind of footprint we want to leave on this planet, and how we want to vote on policies that will affect that footprint for generations to come. We face issues such as meeting the world’s food and water demands, global warming, energy production, waste reduction, and homeland security. No matter what opinion you hold on these issues, they are, at their core, science-based. A science education will be essential for evaluating the options and making an informed decision at the polls.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
GMOs - Friend or Foe
There is a little spot at Dr. Think Science's Place of Employment (Think Science U) where people leave their excess food. You know, like if they had a party the night before and there is a lot of cake left, they'll bring it in to work and put it in this space. It is the repository of left-overs, the recipient of random acts of generosity (as someone is driving in to work and just thinks it might be nice to pick up a dozen bagels), and the destiny for gardens that overfloweth. Every place of employment has this spot, I suspect. Ours is on top of an innocuous microwave oven.
A while back, this space housed some two-dozen or so really lovely tomatoes. I commented to a colleague that someone's garden must be doing really well, and thought I would take some fresh, wholesome goodness home to Offspring and Mr. Dr. Think Science. He replied that he initially thought so too, but then learned that Employee X had a spouse that worked for Large Agribusiness Company, and reckoned these were just some GM tomatoes grown in some large industrial field. He voiced the term "GM" the way that people tend to whisper words like "cancer", or "drug dealer". I'm not sure he was right. They were the reddest tomatoes I have ever seen. Redder than any tomato I have ever seen in a grocery store. But, they were also remarkably blemish free.
But, his reaction to the GM potential got me wondering...I mean, I know there is hype out there. But, I did not think that most scientists were on that band-wagon. After all, GM is just a fancy way of doing what we have been doing with our food and meat stocks for a long time. Breeding them for bigger, faster growing, stronger stock. Now, we're just doing it a little more directly. And, for the most part I reckoned most of us really embraced all that genetics was providing us. GM foods potentially offer a number of potential outcomes that should thrill even the strictest environmentalist: reduced water use, reduced pesticide or fertilizer use, use as bioremediators (species bred to take up heavy metal pollutants from the environment, for example). There is of course the economic advantage: increased cold resistance, increased growth rates, increased shelf lives. Plus, there is the possibility of producing foods with increased nutritional value, or foods that can produce some of the medicines that we need. Seems pretty good.
So, the bad. Most of the bad stems from fear, two basic categories of fear. There is a fear that eating these GMO's can somehow harm us. And, there is the fear that the GMO's can harm the environment. I'll treat these in two paragraphs.
Risk to Humans: Eating GMO's should not cause you any direct harm by any means that I can think of as an -ologist. But, there is one study out there that looked at the digestive tracts of rats and found an effect. Of course, the GMO studied was modified to produce a toxin, and not intended for consumption, but that apparently was not considered a reasonable reason for the results observed. SWF is skeptical. The other worry is allergens. I suppose this one is possible, but I am not sure if it is any greater risk than any other food.
Risk to Environment: In SWF's mind there is a very real worry that GMOs could interbreed with other stocks and pass on traits such as chemical resistance to nuisance species such as weeds. GMO's could also harm the larger environment through examples such as a the monarch butterfly, which is apparently consuming pollen from b.t. corn, which is "insect-resistant", meaning it kills insects that try to eat it, much like a pesticide would (the pollen from the b.t. corn is landing on the milkweed and killing the insects that eat the milkweed). A third argument is that insects could develop resistance to GMOs defenses - this is the least valid argument in my mind as I figure the risk is the same with chemical methods such as pesticides.
GM foods should be safe if they are produced sensibly, like the strains are reproductively sterile, etc. I suppose this is the biggest issue, as most people just dont trust large corporations or the government to behave sensibly. For example, there was one case where GMOs were being used to produce antibiotic resistant crops, until doctors expressed a real concern about this given the worry about antibiotic resistance in humans.
So, should you eat GM foods? The reality is you probably already are. The Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that 75% of all processed foods in the U.S. contain a GM ingredient, mostly in the form of the b.t. corn, and soybeans that are herbicide resistant.
A while back, this space housed some two-dozen or so really lovely tomatoes. I commented to a colleague that someone's garden must be doing really well, and thought I would take some fresh, wholesome goodness home to Offspring and Mr. Dr. Think Science. He replied that he initially thought so too, but then learned that Employee X had a spouse that worked for Large Agribusiness Company, and reckoned these were just some GM tomatoes grown in some large industrial field. He voiced the term "GM" the way that people tend to whisper words like "cancer", or "drug dealer". I'm not sure he was right. They were the reddest tomatoes I have ever seen. Redder than any tomato I have ever seen in a grocery store. But, they were also remarkably blemish free.
But, his reaction to the GM potential got me wondering...I mean, I know there is hype out there. But, I did not think that most scientists were on that band-wagon. After all, GM is just a fancy way of doing what we have been doing with our food and meat stocks for a long time. Breeding them for bigger, faster growing, stronger stock. Now, we're just doing it a little more directly. And, for the most part I reckoned most of us really embraced all that genetics was providing us. GM foods potentially offer a number of potential outcomes that should thrill even the strictest environmentalist: reduced water use, reduced pesticide or fertilizer use, use as bioremediators (species bred to take up heavy metal pollutants from the environment, for example). There is of course the economic advantage: increased cold resistance, increased growth rates, increased shelf lives. Plus, there is the possibility of producing foods with increased nutritional value, or foods that can produce some of the medicines that we need. Seems pretty good.
So, the bad. Most of the bad stems from fear, two basic categories of fear. There is a fear that eating these GMO's can somehow harm us. And, there is the fear that the GMO's can harm the environment. I'll treat these in two paragraphs.
Risk to Humans: Eating GMO's should not cause you any direct harm by any means that I can think of as an -ologist. But, there is one study out there that looked at the digestive tracts of rats and found an effect. Of course, the GMO studied was modified to produce a toxin, and not intended for consumption, but that apparently was not considered a reasonable reason for the results observed. SWF is skeptical. The other worry is allergens. I suppose this one is possible, but I am not sure if it is any greater risk than any other food.
Risk to Environment: In SWF's mind there is a very real worry that GMOs could interbreed with other stocks and pass on traits such as chemical resistance to nuisance species such as weeds. GMO's could also harm the larger environment through examples such as a the monarch butterfly, which is apparently consuming pollen from b.t. corn, which is "insect-resistant", meaning it kills insects that try to eat it, much like a pesticide would (the pollen from the b.t. corn is landing on the milkweed and killing the insects that eat the milkweed). A third argument is that insects could develop resistance to GMOs defenses - this is the least valid argument in my mind as I figure the risk is the same with chemical methods such as pesticides.
GM foods should be safe if they are produced sensibly, like the strains are reproductively sterile, etc. I suppose this is the biggest issue, as most people just dont trust large corporations or the government to behave sensibly. For example, there was one case where GMOs were being used to produce antibiotic resistant crops, until doctors expressed a real concern about this given the worry about antibiotic resistance in humans.
So, should you eat GM foods? The reality is you probably already are. The Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that 75% of all processed foods in the U.S. contain a GM ingredient, mostly in the form of the b.t. corn, and soybeans that are herbicide resistant.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Scientists as Hypocrites?
I cannot take credit for this piece about the conservation biologist's dilemma. It was sent to me by a grad student in our department. It is entitled "When Swordfish Conservation Biologists Eat Swordfish." You might enjoy it.
http://www.tethys.org/download/pdf/Bearzi_ConsBiol_InPress.pdf
http://www.tethys.org/download/pdf/Bearzi_ConsBiol_InPress.pdf
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Hip to Change?
I am afraid that when it comes to change, despite Obama's message and his momentum, people don't really give a rat's ass. At least, not when it comes to having to change yourself and your habits. I know this because I see it all around me. Cars are still big, and getting bigger. Gas is getting cheaper again (part of me is bummed about this). People are back to their same old habits.
My very wise friend suggested to me that it is because we have made people numb. We have hyped global warming and all of its possible outcomes to such an extent that people just cannot care anymore. If they think about it anymore, they will either 1) break down into tears, 2) become paralyzed with fear, or 3) go slowly crazy meticulously analyzing each of their actions and its complete carbon footprint, eventually ending up in the corner banging their head against the wall. It is actually hip to not care, in the way that it became PC to not be PC, in the way that I hear parents at my kid's [public] school say things like "it is so awesome we get to sing actual Christmas songs this year - it is about time they stopped letting a few people ruin it for the rest of us".
So, wise-friend said, we just need to make it hip for people to care. Hip in the way that carrying your own brand name water-in-a-bottle with you at all times, a bottle most wont even reuse even though tap water is just fine and costs like 99% less, is hip. Since 82% of those water bottles are not even recycled (according to the Sierra Club), we need to reach out somehow and get folks excited, not numb. Especially the folks who support a vice-presidential candidate that thinks that global warming is not a problem, it is all part of God's plan (just a little warning - God could be testing you, you know, to see if you are taking care of "His" earth. Given Noah's Flood and all, I am not so sure I would just blindy go through life thinking it will all be fine.). If you are bothering to read this, you probably already recycle. We need to hook the rest.
OK. Umm, how? Unfortunately, academics, especially scientists, are like the anti-hip. If there are ideas out there, I would love to know.
My very wise friend suggested to me that it is because we have made people numb. We have hyped global warming and all of its possible outcomes to such an extent that people just cannot care anymore. If they think about it anymore, they will either 1) break down into tears, 2) become paralyzed with fear, or 3) go slowly crazy meticulously analyzing each of their actions and its complete carbon footprint, eventually ending up in the corner banging their head against the wall. It is actually hip to not care, in the way that it became PC to not be PC, in the way that I hear parents at my kid's [public] school say things like "it is so awesome we get to sing actual Christmas songs this year - it is about time they stopped letting a few people ruin it for the rest of us".
So, wise-friend said, we just need to make it hip for people to care. Hip in the way that carrying your own brand name water-in-a-bottle with you at all times, a bottle most wont even reuse even though tap water is just fine and costs like 99% less, is hip. Since 82% of those water bottles are not even recycled (according to the Sierra Club), we need to reach out somehow and get folks excited, not numb. Especially the folks who support a vice-presidential candidate that thinks that global warming is not a problem, it is all part of God's plan (just a little warning - God could be testing you, you know, to see if you are taking care of "His" earth. Given Noah's Flood and all, I am not so sure I would just blindy go through life thinking it will all be fine.). If you are bothering to read this, you probably already recycle. We need to hook the rest.
OK. Umm, how? Unfortunately, academics, especially scientists, are like the anti-hip. If there are ideas out there, I would love to know.
Friday, October 31, 2008
I'll take my fruit flies french, please...
Palin recently (Oct 24 speech, Pittsburgh, PA) condemned federal earmarks and in particular federally-funded fruit fly research that is being conducted in France, suggesting it was frivolous. Lots of you out there are aware of this. The scientific community was quick to respond (Science Magazine, 28 Oct), pointing out that those little fruit flies are an invasive species in California, and they cause a huge economic problem for the olive industry. The result is that the flies are controlled by insecticides, so the economic problem becomes the environment's problem. Research is being conducted in France because this is the fly's natural range - only here can researchers learn about what makes it thrive, or not, and what its natural enemies are. This was an unfortunate choice of examples on Palin's part because this research is vital to California's agriculture industry and overall economy. And, it demonstrated how little she understands about which she speaks.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Packaging, packaging, everywhere
Science Mommy is an oxymoron, like jumbo shrimp.
I need my eldest child to eat healthy food during the day. School lunches frighten me. The menu is all brand names and most of them I recognize from the frozen food isle of the grocery store, like XX's "hot pockets". So, not just frozen. Fried, then frozen. What happened to good old mystery meat and Wednesday lasagna day? Ok, we hated it, but the lunch room ladies actually COOKED it! From raw ingredients.
Enter my dilemma. I feel l must send him with milk, fruit, a protein source, a grain (yes, I have been completely brainwashed by the concept of the food pyramid despite all those years of education!). All of these come in little packages. I tried getting small re-usable containers for a while and my ds kept throwing them out no matter how much I threatened him with corporal punishment and a world overflowing with parks turned into landfills.
So, I buy small cartons of milk that dont have to be kept cold (I love that these come in the organic variety), small containers of fruit in the healthiest varieties I can find (when we cannot get fruit in season), baggies or packages of crackers that the two of us can agree upon (precious few varieties), and usually a sandwich in another baggie. So much plastic, so little child!
I am a living contradiction. The scientist in me says there must be a better way! Surely I can reduce all the waste in this one little lunch box. The Mommy in me cannot seem to risk it. Ug, school lunches!
I need my eldest child to eat healthy food during the day. School lunches frighten me. The menu is all brand names and most of them I recognize from the frozen food isle of the grocery store, like XX's "hot pockets". So, not just frozen. Fried, then frozen. What happened to good old mystery meat and Wednesday lasagna day? Ok, we hated it, but the lunch room ladies actually COOKED it! From raw ingredients.
Enter my dilemma. I feel l must send him with milk, fruit, a protein source, a grain (yes, I have been completely brainwashed by the concept of the food pyramid despite all those years of education!). All of these come in little packages. I tried getting small re-usable containers for a while and my ds kept throwing them out no matter how much I threatened him with corporal punishment and a world overflowing with parks turned into landfills.
So, I buy small cartons of milk that dont have to be kept cold (I love that these come in the organic variety), small containers of fruit in the healthiest varieties I can find (when we cannot get fruit in season), baggies or packages of crackers that the two of us can agree upon (precious few varieties), and usually a sandwich in another baggie. So much plastic, so little child!
I am a living contradiction. The scientist in me says there must be a better way! Surely I can reduce all the waste in this one little lunch box. The Mommy in me cannot seem to risk it. Ug, school lunches!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
