Science Cheerleader

What does Cap and Trade mean? Where do the candidates say they stand on this particular issue and how do their words compare to their voting histories?

Any mom who used bingo chips to barter babysitting hours will understand this analogy immediately. Take a group of three moms. Give each, say 10 bingo chips. One chip = one hour of babysitting. If Dana asks Joanne to watch her boys for two hours, she must give Joanne two chips. Joanne can ask Tania to watch her girls for one hour but she will lose a chip to Tania.
Need more chips? Sacrifice some nights out, offer to watch some kids and rebuild your chip reserve
Of course, there are some differences between the babysitting chip method and the cap and trade system:
1) In general, when political wonks refer to Cap and Trade they are not organizing babysitting schedules. They are most likely talking about an approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.

2) Babysitting chips cannot be bought and sold (despite my numerous attempts to do so). Within a cap and trade system, companies are given a limit–capped–on how much they can pollute the environment. Let’s say they are given a limit of 25. That’s 25 points or credits (or chips) a company can use. They are licensed accordingly. They will not be given more chips by the government. As they start to near their cap, they must buy credits (chips) from other companies who have an excess of credits. This is the “trade” part. Trading money for credits. How would a company have an excess of credits? By lowering their pollution output.  In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those that can easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society.

Both candidates are in favor of a Cap and Trade policy. Read on. (more…)

May I share something with you? Don’t tell anyone, ok?  When it comes to the gossip see-saw, I’ve been on top, crashed to the bottom and had to balance very carefully right in the middle at times. All three on any given day, come to think of it. So it was with great relief and a bit of amusement that I read this Scientific American article, by Frank McAndrew: The Science of Gossip: Why We Can’t Stop Ourselves. (more…)

Two timely science facts from Scientific American:

Why Trees Lose Leaves: University of Missouri plant biologist John Walker says he and colleagues have identified a group of compounds [in Arabidopsis thaliana] that prompt production of the proteins that cause plants to shed their petals. By blocking these chemicals, they succeeded in keeping petals intact, according to their paper published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Well, assuming nature continues to take its course and old leaves are replaced with new ones in the spring, Project BudBurst will seek your help in observing the tree buds to detect long-term impacts of climate change. 

Each spring, thousands of citizen scientists participate in Project BudBurst by observing and recording buds and blooms across the nation. Scientists are using this data to learn about the responses of individual plant species to climatic variation locally, regionally, and nationally, and to detect longer-term impacts of climate change by comparing with historical data.  

—

Why hurricanes hit the East Coast of the U.S. (From Scientific American): Hurricanes almost always form over ocean water warmer than about 80 degrees F. in a belt of generally east-to-west flow called the trade winds. California’s cool coastal buffer appears to keep the West Coast hurricane free. If you want to learn a little more, here’s a nice primer on hurricanes from an Earth Science Teacher.

Cheers!

Finally: A Phunky Physics Rap. (Thanks, Mike, for recommending it! He found it on BuzzFeed.) This rap bit is a clever way to make complicated physics concepts accessible and relevant to the “average”

person.

Wish this video existed when I was a high school junior studying physics. I wasted 45 minutes a day staring at the cover of my physics textbook (big bang or tie-dye design?) while A+ students, Scott and Stephanie, paraded their superior intellect. On a positive note, I did learn how to french braid my own hair that year. (more…)

I was a cheerleader for the Philadelphia 76ers NBA team during the 90-91, 91-92 and 92-93 seasons. First year was awesome. Easy to bust some moves in modest uniforms and hightops?! (left) when the entire stadium was cheering on the Atlantic Division champs (Barkley/Jordan era).  I was a senior in college at the time. Just a couple of years prior, I was a cheerleader for the incredible Temple Owls basketball team (ranked #1 in the nation for some weeks). Traveled everywhere. Sold out games, die-hard college fans and an entire city–craving any type of championship–behind us. Dated a football jock. Held a Beer Bong record. Very cliche. Life was good. But I digress.
(more…)

No doubt about it: cancer is scary and it “sucks,” as the kids say.  As we age and start to peer ahead at our approaching demographics, the statistical odds aren’t quite as rosy as they were, say, 15 years ago.   And, the American Cancer Society projects that 1,437,180 new cases of cancer will be diagnosed here in the United States this year alone. 

But, far be it from the Science Cheerleader to put a downer on your day. I come to you with some promising news! (more…)

Hate to be a buzz kill but you might want to keep these facts in mind while you are partying in the sun.

Thanks to some ScienceCheerleader subscribers, we are now armed with important, scientifically based tips on how we can more safely damage our skin and kill off brain cells. 

From Cindy:  4 out of 5 sunscreens contain chemicals that may pose health hazards or don’t adequately protect skin from the sun’s damaging rays. Which work the best? Check here.

From Jacquie: The Science of Drinking? The New York Times reports that diet soda used as a mixer hastens the absorption (time and amount) of alcohol. Watch those summer Rum and (diet) Cokes!

Plus a recent shows an increase in alcohol poisoning deaths among college kids. Some deaths may be linked to marijuana use—which retards nausea so one can attain higher, potentially fatal blood alcohol levels. 

While we’re on the topic, if you know a college-kid turning 21 this year, share this news: ”Of the college-age deaths that made news, 11 people, including eight college students, died while celebrating their 21st birthdays”….a growing trend of drinking 21 shots on a 21st birthday is proving lethal.

Thanks for the comments, ladies. Keep them coming.

Who doesn’t love fireflies?

Except Mean Matthew who, when we were kids, would squish the glow-in-the-dark goo out of them and wipe it on his neck to show off.

(Don’t try that at home, kids. This was before real glow-in-the-dark jewelry was sold, and, frankly, Matthew’s probably serving time now.)

Hey Matthew, here’s a better way to impress your mates this holiday weekend.

(more…)

Winner: Bart Leahy. Congratulations! Your Science Cheerleader T-Shirt is on its way. Bart was the first to respond to this post in which readers were challenged to read science fiction books and report back on what “real science” was learned. See here for Bart’s reply. 

Loser: ME. I’m off to a theme park today–hooray!–where I will sneak away for one hour to participate in a conference call with scientists. Ok, the real reason I’m a loser is because I’m SO excited to be part of this call. Leaders in the world of science will talk about the findings of their poll showing voters (us) support candidates who are committed to advancing science and technology on a range of top-tier election issues. But I ask you: is that true? Does a candidate’s commitment to advancing science and technology factor in to your voting decisions? Let me know. Give me something to work with.  (more…)

If you’re anything like millions of other adult Americans, you were of legal drinking age before you learned that all engineers do not work on trains.

Engineers are the source of technology. They take scientists’ basic (and critical) research and they figure out ways to apply that research. The common terms used to describe these two actions are “Basic Research” and “Applied Technology.” Each needs the other.

Society gives lots of credit to scientists but we often neglect the engineers. (Until recently, it should be noted, science and engineers neglected us, our input, our opinions.) In the spirit of teamwork–in my crusade to kick-start dialogue between scientists, engineers, and citizens–I reached out to a friend, Randy Atkins. Randy is the Senior Program Officer for Media and Public Relations at the National Academy of Engineering. He filled me in on some terrific public outreach programs his group is creating.

Here’s one I’d like to highlight today. More will follow.

Tags: Engineers, nae
Posted in Citizen Science, Social network science | 3 Comments »