The Science Debate 08

One of the reporters at Wired Magazine's blog site is being criticized by the internet masses for reporting on Obama's answers to the science debate question. I would say critisizm would be due for biased journalism if the story wasn't already so biased. Obama's campaign is the only one that has issued a clear science and technology platform. McCain has refused to respond to Science Debate 08 and has tended to change his position on a number of issues. I'm somewhat skeptical that Obama will be able to deliver all the funding he has promised, while cutting taxes, the fact that he has a clear platform speaks volumes.

So far, the McCain campaign seems to be for drilling and continued use of fossil fuels, and denies global warming. Not very good there.

Obama seems to have changed his mind about NASA funding, which is good.

In terms of money for all the funding that Obama proposes, most that is supposed to go towards clean energy would be derived from a Carbon Cap and Trade system. Urging companies to clean up and using money generated from that the invest in energy technologies is a pretty clever plan.

HPV vaccine

I was just reminded of the outrage response to an attempted mandate of the Human Papaloma Virus vaccination for pre-teen girls. This is a vaccine that has been shown to have a huge success rate in reducing the instance of cervical cancer in women and it is most effective when adminstered before a woman is sexually active. Some right-wing people have claimed that it promotes promescuity in women. These people have a fundamentally different view of the purpose of government I think. I see the separation of church and state as an important thing. I'm certainly a Christian and have my beliefs, but I do not feel that it is the responsibility of the government to create laws that force everyone to follow these beliefs. I ussually try to avoid double posting like this, but I thought this was important enough to bring up.

I think part of the reason that this has been coming up is because of the forthcoming election. I have a gut reaction that decided my initial feelings about the election, and sense that point in time I have been slowly unravelling my feelings and beliefs to figure out why that reaction occured. The fact is, the Republican party no longer fights for the things that I believe in: small government, fiscal responsibility, and less interference in citizens' lives. This comes back to my belief on legislating morality. I do not share the view on many social issues with the Democratic party platform, but their general tendancy to provide equal protection for all citizens is important to me. Their stance on investment in alternative energy technologies is also important. Drilling any of the US oil reserves is only a stop-gap measure and will not provide the consumers with any real relief. It also doesn't help any with concerns of global warming. I used to take the view that there have been huge swings in temperature in the ancient past of the earth. More recently I saw the comparison between ancient and present day CO2 levels, and that was enough to convince me that something is going to happen.

Vaccinations

I just listened to a woman on NPR state that she does not trust the numerous studies funded by pharmeceutical companies related to possible side effects of the standard infant vaccination schedule. I really can't understand people like this. There is a very strange anti-science faction developing in the US and it worries me. These are people who feel that the results published by scientists are simply opinions within a cloud of many opinions. This simply is not the case. Scientists are ussually very good at self-regulation, meaning that, if someone publishes results that are BS, they will quickly get called on it. We ought to listen to the experts because they are exactly that. Experts. Most of them have spent their entire lives studying the topics on which the publish, so they really do know what they are talking about.

The other part of this argument that worries me, is that measles cases are on the rise. I remember getting some of my last booster shots when I was in elementary school. I'm sure that as an infant I did not find them comfortable. However, I'm glad that I have been vaccinated against these diseases. Some people argue that some of the vaccines increase the risk of autism in children, but there is no scientific evidence for an increased risk of any disorder associated with the vaccines that most children receive. There is also a very small contingent of people who espouse a religious belief that prohibits vaccines. I cannot fathom this argument. Holding oneself to the tenants of their faith is one thing, but forcing that faith onto an infant is quite another.

I'm not sure what else I can say about this. I just wish that scientists got the respect that they once did. I don't think people should blindly follow them, but they shouldn't refuse their advice as "elitist" or anything of that sort.

Science and the Candidates

Scientists and Engineers for America, a non-profit, non-partisan group sent out a questionaire to the presidential candidates asking them about their stances on science and technology related issues. So far, only Obama has responded.

More cool science stuff

Originally from Science Friday

In recent years, the use of ethanol as a biofuel to help deal with the ongoing energy crisis has received a good deal of attention from Washington. But can we produce both food and fuel -- and can ethanol truly replace oil and gas?

In this segment, Ira talks with ethanol biofuel advocate David Blume about common misconceptions about the use of ethanol for fuel, and about Blume's vision for decentralized, community supported ethanol production in the US. Could a neighborhood ethanol distillery be in your future? Teachers, find more information about using Science Friday as a classroom resource in the Kids' Connection.

Guests
David Blume
Executive Director of the International Institute for Ecological Agriculture
Author, "Alcohol Can Be A Gas" (International Institute for Ecological Agriculture, 2007)
Santa Cruz, California

Related Links
Permaculture.com
Segment produced by:Charles Bergquist

This is some pretty cool stuff. A former farmer talking about ideas to make ethanol useful. Similar to subsriber farms, where a group of local people pay a fee to the farmer to receive a portion of the harvest. Farmers could do a similar thing with ethanol. A small distillary at the farm would allow production of the alcohol for consumption by local people. I haven't previously had too much faith in ethanol as a viable alternative energy. This would make it nearly as useful as oil. The difficulties of carbon emmisions and alcohol tending to corrode engine parts still remains however.