One Man’s Poison

Years ago I wrote this poem:

       Ode to a Toad
       by George Potts
       ca. 1967

       Oh hail to thee amphibia!
       Gourmets marvel at thy tibia.
       In witches’ caustic cauldrons are thy feet.
       What is one man’s poison ... is another man’s meat.

Now life is once again imitating art. Scientists at NASA have strayed from their quest to justify anthropomorphic carbon dioxide as the bane of our future life here on Earth to discover a form of bacteria that utilizes arsenic as though it were phosphorus. In fact this element, a deadly poison to man, is a fundamental building block in its DNA. See: NASA Discovers

It has long been thought that the six essential elements to living are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur and phosphorus. And these are the elements that have been exclusively focused on in our exploration of other planets (and the moon) for the possibility of the existence of life-forms. Now it appears that at least one more element needs to be added to this list … maybe even iron and copper too as they are the transporters of oxygen within higher life forms.

Why is phosphorous a building block of life? After all it was used in many wars as a deadly bomb adjunct … burning through almost anything, Well, for one thing, it forms a weak acid -- phosphoric acid, H(PO4)2, which can interact with weak bases to form many neutral salts. It is also relative plentiful in nature and a phosphate (PO4) is part of the backbone of the DNA strand.  See: DNA Thus, since arsenic is chemically similar to phosphorous in that it has the same number of valence electrons … but with 18 more protons and 26 more neutrons in its nucleus, it might well somehow substitute. See Periodic Table This chemical similarity may also account for its deadly poisonous nature to man since it might easily masquerade as phosphorous in many life-vital chemical reactions.

Now how did arsenic take phosphorous’ place in the DNA construction of this bacterium? I expect it will be discovered that the biosphere in which this bacteria evolved is deplete in phosphorous and abundant with arsenic. And so, after probably millions of false starts, this particular bacterium has found a way of using arsenic as a proxy for phosphorous in it DNA construction. Can life forms find other chemically similar proxies for the six essential elements list in this above paragraph – silicon for carbon, selenium for sulfur, and lithium for hydrogen? Possibly, but I suspect that if any or all of these six basic element to life are totally missing, the hurdles for life-form evolution are so insurmountable as to be effectively impossible.

Magnetic Attraction

I’ve been musing about magnets recently and I have a number of questions about them … particularly magnetic flux lines. I've read the Wikipedia entry (magnetic field) and, if anything, it needs an application of Occam's razor.  Now if anyone has any more understandable answers to these queries please respond (to muser@tiac.net) or comment:

- What exactly are flux lines (a force field, potential energy, streams of electrons or some subparticles, etc)?
- If it is a force field, why don't other force fields, like gravity, exhibit such flux lines?
- What geometric shape do flux lines take? A catenary?
- Are the flux lines of a strong magnet closer together than those of a weak magnet?
- If this is the case, can a magnet be made so strong that its flux lines become a flux plasma?
- Are the flux lines (pure) force or is there any matter therein however minute (even in theory)?
- How far out do flux lines extend from the magnet and is this a function of the magnet’s strength?
- Must flux lines always connect north-to-south or can they extend out to infinity?
- If there is a limit to flux line extension, does this mean that no flux lines can come out of a magnet absolutely and directly along the line of its orientation?
- Are all the flux lines of a single magnet of equal attractive strength?
- If the Earth’s magnetic flux lines lie along its surface, why don’t they disrupt things (other than to point a compass)? One would think that, if they can deflect cosmic rays out in space, they would create more mischief here on terra firma?
- Do flux lines extend into the magnet itself (in other words would a compass point north if one went down into a deep mine)?
- If flux lines do extend inside a magnet, what happens at the exact center point of the magnet?
- Does magnetism exist, as I suspect, at the atomic level?
- If so, what atomic structural characteristic makes an atom or molecule magnetic?
- Are all metallic elements magnetic even minutely?
- Can gases be magnetic?
- What was the strongest magnet ever made? Why?
- Why does moving a conductor across the flux lines of a magnet produce electricity? Does such movement need to be exactly orthogonal … or at what angle does this effect disappear?
- If the Earth’s molten core were eventually to solidify, would it still be magnetic?

Enough?

A [Not-So] Bright Idea

Incandescent light bulbs have been around since 1879 (thank you Thomas Edison). Now our overreaching federal government has decreed that we, U.S. citizens, cannot use incandescent bulbs in the range between 40 and 150 watts after 2014 (see here). One result of this loony legislation is that the last incandescent bulb manufacturer in this country, a General Electric plant in Winchester, VA, recently shut its doors, laying off 200 workers. We will soon enough be required to use expensive compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs – mostly made in China) or the very much more expensive LED-arrays. Now there are a number of problems associated with CFLs that were (possibly) not known when our environ-nazis passed this legislation. A few of them are:

- CFL bulbs contain mercury vapor and are dangerous if broken around the house … and are required to be thrown away using complicated hazard-disposal methodologies.
- CFLs do not operate well below 20 degrees F. This means that all outdoor lighting applications in the northern climes will be required to use expensive LED arrays. However, another complication arises here. LED arrays generate almost no heat … as opposed to incandescent lights. This means that, in snow and sleet storms, LED arrays freeze up and don’t defrost of their own accord.
- Have you ever tried to place a lampshade with a self-contained bulb-clip over a CFL bulb? It is all but impossible.
- Most CFL bulbs do not work with dimmer switches … so much for mood lighting.
- CFL bulbs do not come with three brightness levels like many of us now use in large decorative lamps.
- Some CFL bulbs do not work well when upside down.
- CFl bulbs don't look and work well as spot lights
- CFL bulbs do not come in colors. So much for bug repellent and holiday lighting. There is some provisions in the ban on incandescent light to circumvent this flaw but due to decreased manufacturing volumes of regular incandescent lights, such specialty lights will likely be much more expensive.
- Some people suffer from nerve problems when around the electromagnetic emissions from CFLs.
- There are many other problems with CFL bulbs … see “Design and application issues” at the bottom of this Wikipedia`reference

Soooo … next time you see incandescent light bulbs on sale, stock up for forever. Many others already are.

Proof of the Pudding

Some have expressed scepticism over some of my thoughts about the relationship between infinity and zero in my previous blog post here.  In order to bolster my case let me offer the following supporting evidence:


A well known mathemaical lemma is that one can find the perpendicular to the equation of the line Y = aX + b (a and b are any numbers, including zero) by taking the negative reciprocal of the coefficient of X.  Thus the previous equation's perpendicular line's equation would be Y = -1/aX + c  (c is any number and c may or may not = b).

So, by definition we know that the Y-axis (equation X = 0) is perpendicular to the X-axis (equation Y = 0).  How then can one use the previous lemma to prove this?

Start by applying this lemma to the equation of the X-axis yielding:  Y = -1/0 X.  Since, as I have stated previously 1/0 = ∞, then this equation becomes Y = -∞ X.  Dividing both sides by -∞, yields -Y/∞ = X.  And since we also were taught in the previous blog post that 1/∞ = 0, then this equation becomes -0 = X or (-0 and 0 being the same),  X = 0, which is the equation for the perpendicular Y-axis.  Q.E.D.

The Sky’s the Limit

Most mathematicians agree that 1/0 = ∞ (infinity) and that 1/∞ = 0. However, this consensus breaks down when confronted with what 0/0 is … or what ∞/∞ is. I think that most mathematicians today would say that 0/0 = 0 and ∞/∞ = ∞. I disagree … and assert that both 0/0 = 1 and ∞/∞ = 1. Here are my rationales for this … derived from the use of limit theory (the basis for the Calculus):

1/1 = 1
0.1/0.1 = 1
0.01/0.01 = 1
0.001/0.001 =1
0.0001/0.0001 = 1
0.00001/0.00001 = 1
0.000001/0.000001 = 1
And so forth
Ergo:
0/0 =1

and

1/1 = 1
10/10 = 1
100/100 = 1
1,000/1,000 =1
10,000/10,000 = 1
100,000/100,000 = 1
1,000,000/1,000,000 = 1
And so forth
Ergo:
∞/∞ = 1

All I ask is that I (George W. Potts) be so acknowledged for these assertions in mathematics anthologies.

Ignoring the Obvious

There is little doubt that we have had a hotter than normal summer here in the United States. (Whereas the Earth’s southern hemisphere is experiencing a deep freeze.) And global warming enthusiasts are relishing the opportunity to regroup after the East Anglia e-mail-exposure debacle and again are trumpeting their crusade against carbon dioxide. However, there is another, less publicized event taking place: Our one and only sun has exited its solar flare minimum period (labeled a Maunder Minimum) that had been on the decline since 2000 and is now pushing out solar flares with a vengeance. See: Solar Flare.  Even our increasingly politicized NASA has recognized that sunspots (solar flares) are again on the wax … and can affect our Earth. See Sunspot Cycle.  (Interestingly enough, as the chart in this link shows, until earlier this year, the last decline in sunspot activity tracks to the year 2000 when global warming is thought by many to have last peaked.)

Which brings me to my main point … when our global climate goes through its myriad cycles … causing charlatans then to preach that the Earth’s is about to burn up or, once again, freeze over … why do we dance to their pipings? Clearly many things cause our orb’s climate to “change”-- altered ocean currents, the sun’s cycles, the Earth’s shifting orbital mechanics, the changing chemistry of our atmosphere (including among many things, carbon dioxide levels) and maybe even the Earth’s position in our galaxy, the Milky Way. Now, there is nothing that we mere mortals can do about most of these events. We are powerless to change sunspot activity … or alter the Earth’s tilt or its path around the sun … or change the flow of our mighty oceans. So what do we then do to assuage our angst about our human feebleness in dealing with such climate exigencies? We seize on carbon dioxide as the bete noire of the Earth’s climate’s fickleness. We see our society’s growing use of fossil fuels as an environmental evil and convince our fellow planet-mates that this is the one and only reason that our climate is getting warmer.

And, if the climate is not really getting warmer, what do we do? We falsify (fudge) data to prove that it is. We browbeat scientists into this orthodoxy about climate change through the use of giving or withholding of government grants … or the publishing or trashing of “scientific” papers in “scientific” journals. We brainwash left-leaning and scientifically-naive “journalist” into continuously echoing this orthodoxy and suppressing any dissent. We give Nobel prizes and Oscars and Pulitzer prizes and other awards and rewards to those willing to suspend their skepticism and don the emblazoned mantle of this new religion. We bury science and laud pseudo-science. All because we need to believe that man can control the climate in which we are forever captured … when it is abundantly clear that we are at the mercy of forces far greater than what we can ever dominate. But, like so many foolish times before, we once again strive to be our own God.

One Picture Is Worth 2.5 Billion Dollars

"Mystic Mountain" in the Carina Nebula as viewed by the Hubble Telescope.  (We got our money's worth.)

Tao

I recently read the following anonymous quote in an SAT reading comprehension passage:

There are those who believe that science consists entirely of disproving alternative hypotheses, as if when you eliminate the alternative views, the one you have left is right. The problem is that there is no way to think of all the possible hypotheses that nature can devise. More than that, you have to prove which is the most reasonable. But any hypothesis can, with a limited data set, be reasonable. There is at least a touch of truth in the idea that any variable affects another. If you look long and determinedly enough, you will find that almost any variable element you chose to examine apparently affects the behavior you are studying.

Now, other than helping to explain a lot of the current mania surrounding carbon dioxide's effect on global warming, this passage exhibits a few inadequacies which I believe are reflective of our Western culture:

1) It still allows that one hypothesis (independent variable) alone is most often sufficient to explain the behavior of a dependent variable. In my experience "most reasonable" may mean that this hypothesis explains say only 50% of dependent variable behavior. Another independent variable may explain 45%. Ignoring this second one might be catastrophic.

2) Multivariate analysis seems to be eschewed in Western culture possibly because of its complexity. Witness how we tend to gravitate to a single "silver bullet" approach to many of our conundrums. Whereas we desire taking a single pill to cure a health problem, Chinese herbalists will compound a time-tested mixture of many herbs, minerals, and even animal parts to cure even a simple headache. They seem to understand that variables do indeed interact. Independent variables "A" and "B" might explain 90% of a dependent variables behavior. But "A", "B", and "C" might explain only 40% due to "C"'s deleterious effect on "B". Alternatively, "B"'s effect might be magnified by "C". This is comparable to the effect that a catalyst has on a chemical reaction.

3) There is a poorly understood concept in statistics called "homoscedasticity". This means that some independent variables are equivalent in explaining the behavior of the dependent variable. Think about both cake and ice cream being blamed for the increase in diabetes.

So we see that Western cultures have the unfortunate tendency to propound phantom truths often with devastating consequences ... witness the banning of DDT (sacrificing million of human lives so to protect the population of peregrine falcons), the false belief that thimerosal causes autism (and probably setting back investigations into its real cause), and, of course, the pejorative rhetoric surrounding carbon dioxide (a life-form essential gas). This may be why the Chinese seem to be laughing up their sleeves over the U.N.'s attempt to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

I know that it seems treasonous, but perhaps we do have something else to learn from Eastern cultures ("the way").

Whale Poop

What does happen to whale fecal matter? I would imagine that, after untold millennia of millions of whales, porpoises, seals, walruses, etc. relieving themselves with abandon in our planet's oceans, the Mariana Trench would be chock-a-block full and we would be up to our surfboards in whale poop.

And the EPA lets them do it! A sea-kayaker can't sh*t in his hat and dump it overboard without being fined hundreds of dollars by our coral-reef huggers. Yet a freed Willy can defecate to his heart's content without so much as a Sierra Club reprimand.

Yes, this is meant as a scientific spoof ... but also to demonstrate that we are getting sillier and sillier with our environmental angst.

Signed,
Jacques Cousteau

Francis N. Stein

Mary Shelley was writing fantasy when she wrote the thriller, "Frankenstein". But now such a monumental medical event is well within sight. Let me explain. Medical researchers can take organs and other body parts from cadavers and re-engineer them into working organs and body parts for living patients. It is done thusly: first the organs are decellurized. That is, a variety of solutions (dependent on the body part) are used to dissolve all the cellular matter from these body parts, see: NIH publication. What is left is the extracellular matrix (ECM) scaffold. Then these ECM structures will be placed in a nutrient bath along with stem cells extracted from the bone marrow of the target patient. In a matter of days, these stem cells re-arrange themselves into the muscles, nerves, blood vessels, etc. of what once was these body parts ... only they are, in effect, brand spanking new body parts (hearts, kidneys, eyes, stomachs, etc.) for the target patient. And these parts are a genetic match for this target patient ... with no chance of rejection. Truly remarkable!

Now I know this sounds like science fiction, but it is not a hoax. Yes, such remarkable developments are just getting started, but so far a new bioengineered bronchus was grown and installed in a woman in Guatemala (without rejection) and new skeletal muscle segments have also been bioengineered (see: all things stem cell). Clearly, this process is now very complex and fraught with setbacks, but it is, nevertheless, possible ... and it is probably only a matter of years before people can order new body parts from bioengineering factories. And, if this be the case, why shouldn't Francis N. Stein be able, at some future point, to order his twin to be created out of an assemblage of body parts or, even, as a whole? This is the Mary Shelley connection. I am intrigued by how life might be breathed into such a construct (a bolt of lightning?) and what might be the thought contents of a bioengineered brain (tabula rasa?). But (bio)science marches on ... trampling over such seeming monstrous obstacles. And yes, such a possibility raises a myriad of ethical and spiritual issues, but it now seems quite likely to this observer that our grandchildren will need to deal with such matters -- hopefully not with torches and pitchforks.