Graduation Fall 2007!

Workout Notes Nothing yet; I’ll probably get in a few miles outside after my lunch settles a bit more. We have snow on the way so I’ll probably be on the treadmill tomorrow morning. Not to worry; a local coach has designed many cool treadmill workouts.
Graduation: Ok, I heard the graduation speaker. Frankly, I thought I was going to get diabetes listening to the address, but another faculty reminded me that saccharin can’t give you diabetes. The address was short (thank FSM) and about an Angstrom deep.

Science

Prairie State Blue has an interesting article about different kinds of solar energy generators. The article by Yinn is short but informative:

[...]but the latest breakthrough is in using molten salt to receive and store the heat energy.

The molten salt is a mixture of 60 percent sodium nitrate and 40 percent potassium-nitrate, commonly called saltpeter. The salt melts at 430 F and is kept liquid at 550 F in an insulated cold storage tank. The salt is them [sic] pumped to the top of the tower, where concentrated sunlight heats it in a receiver to 1050 F. The receiver is a series of thin-walled stainless steel tubes. The heated salt [sic] then flow back down to a second insulated hot storage tank. The size of this tank depends on the requirements of the utility; tanks can be designed with enough capacity to power a turbine from two to twelve hours. When electricity is needed from the plant, the hot salt is pumped to a conventional steam-generating system to produce superheated steam for a turbine/generator.

The uniqueness of this solar system [heh!] is in de-coupling the collection of solar energy from producing power, electricity can be generated in periods of inclement weather or even at night using the stored thermal energy in the hot salt tank. The tanks are well insulated and can store energy for up to a week.

Harnessing solar thermal energy is not a new idea. It was first used for heating water and a practical commercial model was patented in 1891. [...]

Professor Moran at Sandwalk is astonished at some of the things that Americans believe:

According to a report in the Toledo Blade a recent survey of 1005 American adults reveals the following astonishing facts [Survey finds most Americans believe Jesus born of virgin].

–75 pecent believe that Jesus was born to a virgin. Mary

–69 percent of adults believed Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding in Cana.

–68 percent believed Jesus used five loaves of bread and two fish to feed a crowd of 5,000.

–64 percent believed the Earth was covered by a flood in which Noah, his family, and numerous animals were spared by living on an Ark.

–56 percent expressed literal belief in the Bible account of the devil, disguised a serpent, tempting Eve to eat forbidden fruit.

–49 percent accepted as accurate the Bible story of Samson losing his legendary strength when Delilah had his hair cut.

Guess what folks? This survey was not taken in 1500 AD. These are the opinions of people today in 2007!

Sir, if you call such beliefs what they are (mindless superstitions), you’ll get called an “intolerant hater” or worse. In the United States, it is perfectly acceptable to be a college graduate and believe such nonsense.

If you wonder why that is the case, just take a look at one of the battles that is going on in my old state, Texas:

Is Texas about to become the next state to undermine the teaching of evolution? That is the scary implication of the abrupt ousting of Christine Comer, the state’s top expert on science education. Her transgression: forwarding an e-mail message about a talk by a distinguished professor who debunks “intelligent design” and creationism as legitimate alternatives to evolution in the science curriculum.

In most states, we hope, the state department of education would take the lead in ensuring that students receive a sound scientific education. But it was the Texas Education Agency that pushed out Ms. Comer after 27 years as a science teacher and 9 years as the agency’s director of science.

As Ralph Blumenthal reported in The Times yesterday, Ms. Comer forwarded to a local online community an e-mail message from a pro-evolution group announcing a talk by Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University. Professor Forrest testified as an expert witness in a 2005 Dover, Pa., case that found intelligent design supernatural and theological and definitely not part of a scientific education.

An hour later, Ms. Comer was called in by superiors, pressured to send out a retraction and ultimately forced to resign. Her departure was instigated by a new deputy commissioner who had served as an adviser to George Bush when he was governor of Texas and more recently worked in the federal Department of Education.

It was especially disturbing that the agency accused Ms. Comer — by forwarding the e-mail message — of taking a position on “a subject on which the agency must remain neutral.” Surely the agency should not remain neutral on the central struggle between science and religion in the public schools. It should take a stand in favor of evolution as a central theory in modern biology. Texas’s own education standards require the teaching of evolution. [...]

Unfortunately, in the minds of many, if a “theory” is believed by a large segment of the public, then in the interest of “teaching both sides” that “theory” ought to be taught in the science classroom. I just wish that these people would pay a visit to the biology department at the University of Texas and listen to what they have to say. On some issues, there is really only one side.

One of the many casualties of war: science funding.

Of course, the worst casualties of war are the humans who get killed or seriously injured. Then of course, there is the loss of property, loss of human dignity, and the mental and emotional scars.

But, the war is very expensive in monetary terms as well; we spend more on war, something has to get cut. One of those somethings is basic scientific research:

Remember the State of the Union pledge to put science front and center in building the nation’s economy?

That was then, this is now: Fermilab is cutting projects due to reduced federal funding. The U.S. is ceding pre-eminence in particle physics to CERN in Europe, or anyone else who will simply spend the money.

Dorigo has the details and links, at A Quantum Diaries Survivor.

It is clear that the US congress does not believe pure research in subatomic physics something useful for the Nation. Let’s face it: we lived through sixty years of good funding on the standing wave of nuclear weapons research, but we do not seem to manage to fool anybody anymore: no more deadly tools from muons and neutrinos. So, no dough.

[...]

Education I’ve been to the Lincoln Museum in Springfield, IL a couple of times. One of the most interesting displays is a large screen television viewing of this “history of the Civil War” in 4 minutes time; they show a map of which side controlled which areas and a running tally of casualties. Science Avenger has pointed us to this animated map.

He also points us toward a nice site that has old Electoral College maps (with “red” being Democratic, “blue” being Republican). I’d invite the reader to view the 1976 map:

Imagine that: a Democrat losing both Illinois and California, yet still winning?

I don’t share Science Avenger’s view that we are getting closer to civil war, though frankly I wouldn’t mind it if the South left for good.
Just kidding…

Politcs

John Edwards on health care:

Who can bring on change? Obama can. Edwards can. Others?

As John Edwards and Barack Obama continue to assail Hillary Clinton for accepting campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists, she has tried to dispel their accusation that being the top recipient of K Street’s money puts her in the pocket of entrenched corporate interests.

Among Clinton’s defenses is that lobbyists also work in the interest of ordinary people. “A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They represent nurses, they represent social workers—yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people,” Clinton said at a Democratic candidates forum in August. That’s when Edwards and Obama, who refuse contributions from federal lobbyists, first strongly called on their front-running rival to do the same.

According to data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, however, Clinton’s assertion doesn’t quite hit the mark. While some lobbyists certainly do represent “real” people and large corporations, those who are contributing to the 2008 presidential candidates—including the senator from New York—aren’t on Capitol Hill to talk about the issues of nurses or social workers, or firefighters or cops. By matching lobbyists who have donated to the presidential candidates this year with their clients, the Center found that these individuals are instead largely advocating for big industries such as pharmaceutical, automotive and computer companies. [...]

In total, 353 federally registered lobbyists (including those working at lobbying firms or in-house for corporations, unions and associations) contributed at least $787,300 to Clinton’s presidential campaign in the first nine months of this year, more than they gave to any other candidate, in either party. Lobbyists who represent health professionals, including the nurses Clinton singled out, account for $82,805 in contributions to her, while those representing the pharmaceutical industry paid out $562,900.

Only 14 lobbyists who gave to Clinton reported representing health professionals, compared to 76 who represented the pharmaceutical industry. Nine lobbyists who gave to the New York senator represent clients from both groups. Of contributions listed on campaign finance reports, Clinton has not received a single donation from lobbyists working for the two largest trade groups representing the working-class Americans she cited in August, the American Nurses Association and the National Association of Social Workers. [...]

Humor:

Merry Christmas, from Redstateupdate (and Mike Gravel)