It's almost over!

Well, have you missed it yet? I'm referring to this year's Earth Science Week, October 10 - 16. If you've missed it, wait for it to come again next October. You can still visit here to learn what it's about and what activities you are missing. If you're home-schooling, download some materials to help teach Earth-science concepts and find additional sources to engage students in exploring the Earth. Check out the sponsors and listed Earth-science organizations--see what they have to say about climate change or this year's theme, energy. If your kids can understand the material, perhaps you might want to direct the attention of your congressman to this site.

But hey, don't just do this once a year! 

We won't make a mess--Trust us!

I received a proxy for a shareholders' meeting of a Big Oil company about a month ago. The company is not BP, and I'm sure the proxy statement was written before the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Take a look at the questions that some shareholders presented at the meeting--under normal circumstances, it's not surprising that the Board of Directors recommends voting against proposals calling for greater care in environmental disturbances, reduction of company-generated greenhouse gases and consideration of real financial risks of global warming, as well as social justice and refraining from buying political influence.

But of course, these are not normal circumstances, as we are currently witnessing an environmental and economic catastrophe of vast dimensions. And for exactly the same reasons as the Board of Directors of this huge corporation recommend voting against corporate responsibility on this proxy statement: It's too costly, we already take great care in our operations, and besides, you can trust us to do the right thing.

The savior of the environment

I was driving into work today (January 15) and turned on the radio, the Diane Rehm Show on NPR. The program was about President Bush's legacy. Well, we've been hearing a lot lately about how Bush and his minions have been desperately trying to spin, frame, and fantasize how Little George has been a good, even exceptional, president. This show dealt specifically with his legacy with the environment.

I didn't catch the name of the first guest, who immediately came across as a Bush apologist. But it quickly devolved into something much worse. According to this guy, Bush was the most environment-friendly president since Theodore Roosevelt. This led me to wonder, "What the fuck planet did this fool come from?" Well, his origin could not be disputed, but I am left to ponder, how do these morons travel through space all the way from the Bizarro world? I'm not kidding--listening to him describe George W. Bush's actions with regard to the environment was like hearing everything arsey-tersy, left is right, in is out. Rehm asked him about a couple instances where Bush clearly abused the environment and misused science to justify doing so. The miserable little toady tried to turn the questions around to blame others, all the while insisting that Bush has been the Mother Teresa of the Environment. I cannot understand why Rehm did not finally tell him he was an ass-kissing, lying pile of dog shit. You can hear it all here.

Upon checking the NPR Web page, I learned the execrable twit was James Connaughton, Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Oh well, then; a professional Bizarro.

Hello for now!

Another wingnut argument to keep women barefoot and pregnant

I saw an opinion piece in the York Dispatch by National Review Online editor Kathryn Lopez, "The Pill--and the law of unintended consequences." Lopez noted that male fish have been turning up possessing certain female characteristics, such as development of eggs, and this phenomenon can be traced to disturbances of the fish's hormonal effects by estrogen present as a contaminant in the water. But this piece was no article presenting information about the environment; it quickly released the fetid odor of a Right-Wing rant.

This was not a call to protect the environment. Lopez quickly pointed the finger of blame at "Estrogen pollution from contraceptive and abortion pills" which she refers to as "the two holiest of holies for the left..."

Ah, yes, of course. It's all the fault of the Evil Left and their preoccupation with SEX, SEX, SEX. Like the Discombobulatory Institute protesting that Intelligent Design is science, not religion, Lopez cites the peer-reviewed scientific publishing house, Regnery Press (yes, that's sarcasm. Regnery is a WingNut outlet that only pretends to publish science), an anti-liberal, anti-environment screed by Iain Murray.And for more scientific backing, Lopez says:

And because its introduction came 40 years ago, at a time when American culture was enamored with Woodstock, feminism and free love, presient warning and cautions--most notably from Pope Paul VI in his encyclical "Humanae Vitae" in the summer of 1968--went unheeded.

Yes, I'm sure the Pope was speaking out of his concern for water quality.

Lopez seems to think we can solve the problem of gender-bending fish by banning birth control (and those "abortion pills" everyone is using). But here's a clear clue that this is an anti-liberal, anti-sex, wingnut rant: Contraceptives are not the only source of these contaminants in our waters. According to Raj Raman of the University of Tennessee, author of one study on animal sources,

Our best estimate is that the amount of estrogen coming out of pigs and cows is over an order of magnitude higher than what the human population puts out.

Think about that next time you sit down for a ham sandwich and a glass of milk, Ms Lopez.

Furthermore, the active contaminant is not just estrogen--various hormones, as well as pesticides, surfactants, and heavy metals are also known endocrine disruptors, being capable of mimicking estrogen (for example. Dennis McQuillan and others, presented at the 7th Annual New Mexico Environmental Health Conference, October 28-30, 2002, Albuquerque). Another source is Bisphenol A (BPA), used in the production of certain plastics, which was in the news recently as a potential hazard. BPA has been found in drinking water supplies and in wastewater (Z. Yang, "Analysis of Phenolic Estrogen Mimics in River Water by Negative Ion Electrospray LC/MS/MS").

Reminds me of the specious claim by Creationists that they only want to "teach the controversy" in order to encourage "critical thinking."

A desirable state of affairs

In a post at Rabettrun, Eli quotes a Kansas Republican legislator giving her reason for upholding Governor Sebelius' veto of legislation that would require the state to permit construction of some new coal-fired electricity generation plants: I'm amazed at how well-educated many Kansans are on issues about the environment and energy.

Imagine... if other legislators, of any political party, could make similar claims about their constituents' knowledge of other issues that require just a bit understanding of science. Say, for instance, legislators or school board members in Florida. Or any other place under assault by the anti-science forces of the Discovery Institute.

How to recognize a hole in the ground

I saw a suspicious area on the edge of a cornfield. I got out of my car to look, and immediately realized it was a sinkhole, even before I saw it. How did I recognize it? First, I saw the flies. I don't understand that, because once I was battered by the stench, I could not understand how I smelled nothing as I got out of the car. This might be a good sinkhole to use in my investigation of ground-water flow in this area, but there is something aesthetically unappealing about pumping water into a sinkhole with a ripe dead cow barely covered over in it. I guess many people still do not understand where their drinking water comes from (on-site wells in this area) and find it easiest to dispose of trash and dead animals in ready-made holes. This seems to be standard practice in many karst areas. This farmer is lucky--his house is upgradient. His downgradient neighbors are not as lucky.