Here's What I Think

Editor,

I read your editorial as a request for participation ("What Do You Think?" The Citizen Scientist, 20 October 2006). The SAS community does indeed need more participation. It is barely ticking along, not yet having reached "critical mass." William Dembowski has already expressed his frustration with the lack of activity [at the SAS Community site]. Others I am sure have just faded away or forget to check in. I for one enjoy reading what little activity there is to read. So far none of my posts have generated much activity either.

I have to get in a little dig here though. Shawn and George's conversation could have been conducted on the SAS community and would have helped create some activity.

I really want to thank both you and Shawn for the post you have made to the SAS community. I think it is important for the leaders of an organization to participate with the other members.

Jim Hannon

Jim, The SAS Community Site has huge potential. I hope more will join you, Bill, Shawn and all the others who are participating. Editor.

Editor,

Robert Warren has rediscovered an algorithm that was known to me as early as 1961 when I tried to teach it to my German teacher in college. She had a hard time understanding the difference between F and C and how to get from one to the other. She found the algorithm to be hopelessly confusing for her non-mathematical mind. I, on the other hand use it all the time.

I don't claim to have invented the algorithm. I am sure that there are many who used it before me.

I agree with Mr. Warren that the algorithm he presents is superior to the conventional conversion that most of us learned in high school. All one has to remember is that a Fahrenheit degree is a smaller temperature change than a Centigrade degree. The fact that 1.8 is 10% less than 2 and .55 is a good enough approximation to 5/9 certainly makes the mental arithmetic easy.

Sincerely,

Jim Potter

James M. Potter, PhD, President.
JP Accelerator Works, Inc.
Los Alamos, NM 87544

Editor,

After seeing the recent feature article in the New York Times about model rocketry, it occurred to me that I've read very little on this subject in SAS publications. There was Shawn Carlson's discussion of the onerous BATF rules that would have effectively outlawed the hobby, but what I'd really like to know is whether anyone in the rocketry community is using these inexpensive launch platforms for real amateur science.

Maybe the problem is that rocketry is dominated by engineering types rather than scientists, a tendency that is not unique to the amateurs (see: International Space Station). It's not hard to come up with scientifically interesting payloads that would fit on a hobby-size rocket (accelerometer, barometer, fruit fly larvae ...). An active amateur science presence in model rocketry won't fix the shortage of science on NASA's agenda, but it certainly wouldn't hurt. So is anyone doing experiments with rockets?

Alan Dove, Ph.D.
http://dovdox.com

Science News (9/30/06) published a summary by Christen Brownlee of some lab mice experiments with (recreated) strains of the 1918 influenza virus. The article, "The Bad Fight: Immune systems harmed 1918 flu patients," concludes that the virus caused autoimmune responses in the mice, filling their lungs with fluids and immune system cells and resulting in death. A team led by Michael G. Katze of the University of Washington in Seattle injected the virus into mice and reported these results.

I remember the PBS special concerning the 1918 pandemic stating that the strongest individuals (i.e., men in their 20's) were just as susceptible or maybe more susceptible than infants and elderly people.

I emailed Dr. Katze at U of W and asked if he was considering injecting (infected) mice with steroids to try and halt the autoimmune response. So far, he hasn't replied.

Three years ago, my daughter had Henoch-Schonlein Purpura (HSP), an autoimmune response to strep virus that causes bruising of vascular blood vessels and can cause major kidney damage. She was treated with steroids and sustained only minor kidney damage.

Any comments or opinions on using steroids to treat autoimmune responses and specifically this type of influenza? For example, if the 'bird flu' causes extreme autoimmune responses?

Jeffrey Bledsoe
Weatherford TX

This intriguing question is for SAS members who are physicians, and I will be glad to publish their comments in a future "Backscatter." Editor.

Editor,

I recently read your editorial "What Do You Think?" in the 20 October 2006 issues of The Citizen Scientist: and I'll offer a few comments.

First, we're still receiving conflicting reports concerning the details of the North Korean nuclear test. One of the most interesting, yet most conflicted, has been the air sample results from near the site. The initial report indicated that no radio-isotopes were detected, but this was later changed to indicate that some radio-isotopes were detected in the air following the test. That would seem to indicate either that the test was real (and spewed some fission byproducts out of the underground enclosure), or that the North Koreans were quite imaginative in staging such a complete hoax. Unfortunately, we'll probably never see the detailed analysis of the gas samples (probably for very good security reasons).

While the seismic data indicates that something happened in North Korea, I don't believe that we've seen the detailed analysis of that data either. From research that I've done, indications are that a nuclear seismic event does not look like a geological seismic event. However, I can't find enough detailed data to determine whether a chemically initiated seismic event would look different enough from a nuclear seismic event to differentiate the two.

As for the size of the event, the latest data seems to indicate a size of somewhere around 550 tons (equivalent), or .55 Kt. While that's not the smallest nuclear explosion ever produced, it is by far the smallest initial test of a nuclear device by any country, leading one to believe that it may have been a partial failure (fizzle). While it is possible to produce substantially smaller nuclear blasts, doing so is neither easy nor low-tech.

I'm afraid that the general public may never be able to see the exact data on the monitoring of the test (for national security reasons). But, from the limited information available, it would appear that the test was that of a nuclear device.

David W. Glass

In our area (I am on the banks of the Hudson River, south of Albany) a cement plant is about to begin burning tires as fuel. While there is evidence that if burned properly this is relatively benign, the company does not have a good record for the quality of operations that would assure proper burning.

There is a group of local people who would like to become active in several directions. One would be paperwork monitoring, so to speak; following their compliance with what rules do exist. Another would be independently monitoring emissions of one type or another. The third would be weather related.

I know you have a great deal of experience in monitoring, though I don't know that the one you are most known for is applicable here. I am appealing more to your overall experience.

I recently attended a presentation by a meteorologist who has been studying the Hudson River micro climate, and has found, as common sense would suggest (the river is bordered on both sides by mountains), that the winds below 1,500 feet are quite independent of the higher winds, the latter being those used in models involved in the permitting process. He encouraged local folks to aid in his project. One member of the group lives across the river from the plant, and can photograph the plume with a camera on a timer. But we would like to go further, and wonder if you might direct us to possible instrumentation. The most immediate help would be with wind speed and direction. The meteorologist mentioned that he is using sound systems for this, and I wondered if there might be relatively inexpensive models that could be built? What would be most useful, of course, would be a relatively extensive system, as this is a micro climate issue.

But we are, as I mentioned, also interested in other sorts of monitoring. At this point we are pretty ignorant as to just what this means, as we are only beginning to be active. Any suggestions you might have would be welcome, including toward other information resources.

Many thanks,

Christian Sweningsen
NewScience Alliance

Dear Christian,

Thanks for writing. People around the country have similar questions, so here are some comments.

First, we all need cement. But we need to make sure that it is produced with as little as possible impact on the environment.
Cement plants produce NO₂, the major ozone precursor gas. They are a major contributor to ozone in my region. Fortunately, the local plants have worked closely with regional air planners to reduce their emissions.

If I lived in your area, my primary concern would be particulate matter, especially, black carbon (soot) from the tire combustion. Scientifically monitoring this is not cheap. A laser particle sampler will cost more than $2,000. And it will tell you only the number and size, not the composition, of what it detects.

A backup option that might not be acceptable in a court is basic sedimentary air sampling in which particulate matter (PM) is collected on exposed microscope slides or clear adhesive tape and then examined with a microscope. Black carbon PM will be either very small (under a few microns) or large (over 5 microns). The very fine particles may be hard to distinguish from mineral dust through a microscope. The larger ones are more obvious and will look very different from spores and pollen.

Samples collected on glass slides should be are covered with a cover glass or clear tape and examined from below. Tape samples are saved by pressing them against glass slides. All samples must be carefully marked and safeguarded.

Even thought sedimentary testing may not be an approved method, the fact remains that it is real evidence of what fell to the surface during the sampling time.

The meteorology measurements are really important, for they will provide the data that modeling totally misses. In my experience, modelers will tend to rely more on their models than on real data, so you have to use good methodology. Davis Instruments weather systems are highly rated. See http://www.davis.com/showl5.asp?L5ID=22&L4ID=86
Other systems are also available.

Photography is also important, for it provides real data about emissions from a stack. Photos can be visually enhanced to better show the plume (though all enhancement must be disclosed).

In short, a network of wind monitors and basic PM collectors coupled with plume photography will allow you to keep track of what is happening at the surface.

It might be good to meet with the company executives to fully and politely explain your concerns and the steps you are planning. If they know a group of citizens will be monitoring them, they will be less inclined to do what is wrong, such as improper combustion during hours of darkness.

Editor.

Letters to "Backscatter" are welcome. Important: It's very important to use a meaningful subject line! E-mails with subject lines that read, "Hi," "Hello," "Question," "A comment," and so forth are routinely deleted as spam or junk mail. Please include both your first and last name and the author and full title of any article(s) from THE CITIZEN SCIENTIST cited in your letter. We'll add the hyperlink. Letters are subject to light editing to correct punctuation, spelling and grammar. By placing "Backscatter" in the subject line, you give us permission to consider publishing your letter. Send your letter to Backscatter.