Week Thirteen: Cognition: Bringing Forth a World

1. Do you agree that "to live is to know"?

To live is to know what? You can be alive and not know anything, not know anything for sure, or know something for sure, but wrongly. I do not have a solid understanding of Capra, Maturana and Varela, but am taking the statement "living systems are cognitive systems" at face value. I think consciousness and cognition (knowing) are two different things. Something can contain consciousness without necessarily having thought processes...I think. There are so many different levels of awareness, even amongst human beings. Perhaps they are saying this is all that counts -- a level of awareness, no matter what it is you are aware of. But what about someone who is passed out, blacked out drunk? They are not aware of anything -- neither cognition nor consciousness is happening -- and yet they are still alive.

This is one of those tricky philosophical questions that can back you into a semantic corner. Part of me wishes to abandon this line of thinking because it tangles me all up and doesn't really seem to get us anywhere.

Something as obtuse as Capra's writings on cognition deserves a likewise difficult response. Following is a you tube clip that contains no moving images. It is the second part of a ten part lecture by my hero Wallace Black Elk and the only image is a grainy still photograph of his face. In the recording that plays along he speaks in English and sometimes in Lakota, and says his prayers, and sings some songs, but the primary content seems to be the same as Capra's -- he speaks of life and consciousness, but spoken in his own way. The "clip" definitely requires patience. As he says, "I'm not formally educated, but I hear loud and clear."




you can find the rest of it on you tube...

2. Memory and magic -- how might you view things differently now?



There is both an upside and a downside to intense concentration, apparently. Following is a link to a five minute you tube video that has the embedding function disabled (therefore I can't paste it on my page here, but you have to cut and paste this link). It's worth it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAnKvo-fPs0

This is another good one ("How to take someone's wallet just by asking"):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZohpDS2aMc&NR=1

Week Twelve: Cell Biology

1. Describe connections you are making between cell biology and your TCM studies.

Honestly, I must admit I am not making many connections between cell biology and my TCM studies...yet. I haven't started my official TCM classes, so this is one reason. Also, in a way, I want to try to separate the two ways of thinking so that my TCM training is not resting on a mis-matched foundation. At this point, naively or not, I would like to understand TCM on its own merits, and understand cell biology on its own merits. In Western medical journals, it has been shown that acupuncture improves the immune response of the body, can relieve pain, etc., and the correlating biochemical processes involved could be discussed. But to me this removes the art from TCM.

I talked this over with someone just now because my response seems weak to me, and frankly I feel kind of stupid about this question, or maybe just stubborn, or possibly lazy. He said to me, "Well, isn't it integrative medicine that you're learning, and it's not up to you whether or not you want to make a connection?" Hm. Yes. That's true.

Even so...I still feel resistant at the moment to making too much of a connection because there is no art to cell biology; it is not grounded in a broader context. This is the reason I am studying Chinese Medicine and not becoming an allopathic physician.

I am not satisfied with my answer, however, and will keep thinking on it.

2. Impressions on the link "How Cells Divide: Mitosis vs. Meiosis":

The move from asexual to sexual reproduction (and corresponding process of meiosis) brings up a "wow" feeling in me -- such a beautiful and perfect and simple solution with such grand implications of love and community and relationships. In addition to awe and wonder, a lot of mundane questions arise in me as well such as:

How did the process of meiosis come about? What was the transition phase like? Are there any animals or living creatures in existence that are currently involved in the process of this evolutionary transition? Perhaps the sharks and komodo dragons that can sometimes reproduce asexually? Or the bees, ants, and wasps, whose males of those species are reproduced with only half the chromosomes?

The other question I have is which 23 chromosomes are provided by the egg and which by the sperm? And how did they arrive at knowing which 23 the other was providing so as not to provide duplicates?

We are like one body split into two in a way. In order to reproduce ourselves we need another being. That is both mysterious and beautiful.

Week Eleven: Living Diversity

1. Examine your own immediate environment for diversity of species. Post your findings.

Houseplants: We have a few plants in the house.

One "goes to sleep" at night and she is my favorite plant friend. I like to watch the "tic...tic...tic" of the leaves slowly springing inward after the sun sets. I wish I knew the name of this plant.

There is also what is called a "Lucky Chinese Money Tree" that a friend of mine gave to me. She bought it for her boyfriend, then moved to Australia to complete her PhD on Dengue Fever. He was supposed to join her there, but instead he dumped her. When she came back for a visit she took the Lucky Chinese Money Tree away from him, and gave it to me. Lucky?

A tall, bedraggled, all too often ignored Corn plant lives in the living room.

An orchid sits in the kitchen. It has been alive for many years and one must be patient with it. Suddenly it will bloom, lasting for months, and then drop its petals and sit baldly for many months.

Yard Plants:
Oh, way too many to list, but I will list what I know:
Orange tree, lemon tree, rosemary bush, jalapeno, several varieties of tomato that haven't given up yet, calendula, yellow and red onions, brussel sprouts, squirrel-bitten kale, celery, basil, mint, pear, plum, persimmon, fig (the tree most often picked by neighbors), fennel, foxglove, lavender, belladonna, princess tree, bougainvillea, flowering kale, stocks, yarrow, echinacea, rhubarb, green beans, avocado, date palms, blue spruce, magnolia, wisteria, many varieties of succulents and cacti, blackberry, many varieties of roses, crab grass (erg!), clover, nasturtium, passion flower, stinkhorns (a very unusual mushroom...it looks like a penis and smells like semen--I swear!), morning glory, hana flowers, pyrocanthis, spider plant, geranium, orchid, kinickkinick, false madrone, fake orange tree, fireweed, ferns, bamboo,


Foods: pumpkin, onions, garlic, bananas, tomatoes, carrots, broccoli, rice, teas, coffees, herbs, beans... (if I go into the pantry and list all the different species I find I might never come out...)

People: male and female (different species??)

Dogs: two. Different breeds. Same species.


Other living creatures (mostly) outside of the house: rats, mice, squirrels, raccoons, ruby-throated humming birds, tiny irritating ants, fruit flies, brown apple moth, black widows, house fly, silverfish, tons and tons of rock doves (pigeons!), house finch, an occasional California scrub jay, crows, seagulls and Canadian Geese fly over head, once I saw a very impressive tomato hornworm, ladybugs, aphids, snails, the occasional stray cat, redworms, bees, wasps, and many other bugs and creepy crawlies that populate the outdoors.

2.Impressions of the links on cells

The first link presents theories about how the first cells may have formed. I find these theories kind of silly. It reminds me of an idea a little kid would come up with to explain something mysterious in the grown up world. No matter where the "building blocks of life" came from -- hydrothermal vents in the deep ocean, rain, meteorites from outer space -- there is no mechanical explanation that can satisfactorily explain the beginning of life. You can mix all the essential ingredients of life into a soup pot, but do you create life? No. You don't. And I think even after billions of years, you'd still just have chemicals sitting in a soup pot.

In a science-nerd sort of way I think it's sweet that we couldn't survive without our bacterial friends that live in our gut. We are so different, and yet they are part of us, and have been since the beginning. I have a tender feeling toward them -- they are helping to keep me alive, and I am helping them by providing real estate!

To the left, my little buddies.

Week Nine: The Chemistry of Life

1. What are your thoughts on the ethics of “gene therapy”?

I think as a society and a culture and a human family, we should focus on prevention and healthy balanced living (this includes living in harmony with the environment, so that we do not create so many toxic situations that cause disease) instead of these highly technical fixes that treat the human body like a machine. However, I also think that if I had a child that was suffering and the suffering could be alleviated using something like gene therapy, I would probably jump at the chance to have my child treated. This paradox is troubling to me. The world view of this sort of medicine and the need for it all seems so basically wrong, and yet there does seem to be a need for it. We seem to have a lot of weird new diseases and it is awful to watch someone suffer. The hope of a quick fix is quite attractive. I hate that I feel so wishy washy about it all.

I looked gene therapy up on wikipedia and looked at the ethics section of the entry. It talks of the "Weismann barrier" which basically means that gene therapy can be thought of as ethical so long as adjustments to an individuals DNA are not something can be passed along to future generations. "The Weismann barrier is the principle that hereditary information moves only from genes to body cells, and never in reverse. " This principle is commonly accepted and gives gene therapy research the ethical go-ahead--if we really screw this person up, at least it won't spread into the population. However, some believe that if reproductive DNA (like gene therapy to the testicles) is applied, it may actually be passed on to future generations. The "Weismann barrier" can be breached. This may indeed be a problem. Wikipedia also lists other issues with gene therapy and reasons it may not work so well, including the fact that it has caused deaths.

So, ethically it may be wrong to use experimental technology on human beings when we don't fully know the consequences. I am going to gamble and say that gene therapies are being developed through use and abuse of innocent non-human animals, which I always think is wrong. Wrong wrong.

2. Check out and review the one of these Definitions of the “Chemistry of Life”

I looked at the link that took me to Stanford's biochem department. A few things I noticed: Ethics does not play a big role in their course offerings. It is present, but not overwhelmingly so (I didn't see a single course devoted solely to this topic); out of about fifteen faculty members, just two are women--what's it like to be a woman biochemist and how does their approach differ from that of men? Biochemistry, like all advanced sciences, has its own language that injects brain scrambling roadblocks into the brain of the laywoman. So many unfamiliar vocabulary terms made it difficult to understand even the course offering descriptions. They study how molecules act at the cellular level. Backgrounds in organic chemistry and biology are required. Once you graduate from their program you can teach or do research. Highlighted on the website is the usefulness of biochemistry to understanding disease, particularly cancers.

3. Check out and review one of these Animations of General, Organic and Biochemistry

I wish that the animations had some explanatory text. That said, my limited knowledge found the animations mildly interesting.

Fat entry into a cell looks like a tennis ball being hit into a pond. So easily accepted! Olestra has many more "arms" than regular fat and looks mighty scary! I didn't like seeing the collapse and rupture of red blood cells. I hope this is not happening inside my body! Vitamin B12 looks very complicated -- like a bunch of jacks glued together in an artistically wild way. Vitamin C looks much simpler. Folic acid is fat and wormy.

I looked at codeine and morphine, viagra and heroine. I can't say I learned a lot from looking except to say that no chemical is inherently "bad" -- it's just a bunch of elements linked together. And it's odd that these different compounds can have such varying effects on the human body.

Week Eight: A Question of Balance

1. Semiconductor of the week:

Great web page explaining what a semiconductor is:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2072/semicond.htm

The semiconductor I chose is antimony because I wanted to learn about something I had never heard of before. And the word sounds kind of like a mix between Anthony and Alimony. It is silly to me that its symbol is Sb. What the heck? Well it is from the latin word “stibium” which could mean “mark,” “against one,” or “not found as a metal,” “not found unalloyed.” According to some sources the word means “monk killer” which makes the most sense to me as many early alchemists were monks and and antimony is poisonous. It acts on the body in the same way arsenic does -- small does add up, a large dose is lethal.

The element has been known for a very long time. That feels kind of nice. Something around with a history that humans have been playing with for a while. Because it has that shiny silvery luster, and we humans, like crows, like sparkly things, it had been used in make-up in the Middle East. The word “kohl” is used for a compound of antimony mixed with fat (which was used as the make-up). If you have any experience with eyeliner you will know that the word “kohl” is still used to describe certain kinds of eyeliner, though now that eyeliner -- often imported -- contains lead instead of antimony. Of course this is probably even more dangerous than if it were concocted with antimony.

Today antimony is used as a semiconductor in the computer industry. The most common use is to strengthen the hardness of lead in storage batteries. Other than other manufacturing uses and in safety matches and as a flame retardant in paint and enamel (the material burns so long as a flame is held to it, but then goes out as soon as the flame is removed), it had been used to treat Schistosomiasis (one of the most interesting names for a disease). Schistosomiasis is a parasitic disease that comes from being in water that has a kind of snail that passes the parasite on to people (and other animals). It’s not necessarily deadly, but a chronic disease that can cause a lot of major problems, especially in children in developing countries. Add antimony on top of that and you’re probably a goner. It is reportedly no longer used to treat Schistosomiasis.

China contains the lion’s share of antimony -- estimated at over eighty percent (though there is a town in Utah called Antimony.) The element is found to be contained in over 100 minerals. It’s atomic number is 51.

2. Chembalancer Link

It was hard at first. The first one stumped me. Then when I figured that out I gathered some steam and they began to be really easy. The little explanations were kind of lost on me because I don't have enough exposure to the chemicals, can't really picture them in my mind, to really put the information into context. But the math was fun!

3. Balancing Equations Link

The website did not properly load for me...

Week Seven: Molecular Weight

1. Alkali Earth Metal of the Week: Meet the many faces of Strontium...




I picked strontium because I had never heard of it before and learned from Wikipedia that coral use this element to build their exoskeletons. Sealife is interesting to me and I like to imagine being an ocean dweller, so now I will relay what I learn to you about Strontium.

The periodic basics: It's in the second column on the P. Table right in the middle of all the other alkali earth metals. Like all of these elements, Strontium is also a soft metal that reacts with halogens to form ionic salts and with water to form alkaline hydroxides. The point here is that it is reactive (two electrons in the valence shell means it will try to lose those electrons to become a doubly charged positive ion). It's atomic number is 38 and its atomic weight is close to 88.

While Strontium is actually kind of a metalic white color, because it is so reactive it changes color when it hits the air and looks yellowish. It is softer than calcium. This fact is making me curious about the element's place in exoskeltons. But I suppose I will find out why in a minute if I can be patient. A fun little fact for those who like explosions: if strontium is finely powdered and exposed to air at room temperature, it will spontaneously combust. Yay, Strontium. What a dramatic trick. And, when it burns it makes the fire burn a crimson color. How lovely. Someone noticed this beautiful trick and now these volatile salts are used in the production of flares and in pyrotechnics (specifically, it causes the red color in fireworks).

Another interesting fact about this all-too-ignored element is that it is used in a compound with aluminium in the glass of your color TV's cathode ray tube to prevent X-ray emissions. What would happen without it? I don't know.

Medically, Strontium can be incorporated into bone because it acts like calcium. It has a bunch of other interesting uses, but they are a little difficult to understand exactly. For example, Strontium atoms are being used in an experimental atomic clock that has "record-setting accuracy."

It might also be found in your toothpaste. Or mine. I hope the tube doesn't blow up. Then again, that'd be kind of cool if it did. But messy.

The mineral strontianite was found in Strontian, in Scotland. Strontium is found in strontianite, as well as in celestine. Strontium is the fifteenth most abundant element on earth. Can you believe that? Have you ever heard of it? I really don't think I have! China has most of the world's strontium. Spain and Mexico have a lot, too.

Another interesting thing about Strontium is that it doesn't occur naturally, but needs to be coaxed into its elemental state through some chemical processes. It also has a lot of different isotopes that are used in many very diverse ways. It is a product of nuclear fallout and therefore can be very dangerous because it immitates calcium and the body does not release it. They say it is sparklier than a diamond -- at least that's what I think this means: "Strontium titanate is an interesting optical material as it has an extremely high refractive index and an optical dispersion greater than that of diamond." But diamonds are harder, and Strontium is soft, therefore if you wore it as a gemstone in a ring it would probably smush.

Okay, so I'm almost done here. But maybe I missed something in my life -- specifically, news of Strontium. Here is the opening paragraph from an article titled "Strontium: Breakthrough Against Osteoporosis:"

"Mention strontium to most people, and they will almost always immediately think of strontium-90, a highly dangerous, radioactive component of nuclear fallout produced during atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950s. As a result of above-ground nuclear testing, radioactive strontium spread throughout the environment and contaminated dairy products and other foods, and subsequently accumulated in the bones of both children and adults."

So maybe everyone but me has heard of this crazy element. I still haven't found out the bit about the coral yet. The whole article about Strontium's medical uses is here: http://www.worldhealth.net/news/strontium_breakthrough_against_osteoporo and actually pretty interesting.


2. Avogadro's Hypothesis link:

http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemical/molemass/avogadro.htm

That was a lovely, straightforward and clear little web page. I did well on their quiz (was it for fifth graders?) which made me happy. What I took away from this website was how frustrating it must have been for those chemists all those years working off of Dalton's incorrect assumption that atoms from an element could not form a molecule and that everything had to be combined in a 1:1 ratio, yet they were not seeing anything left over. How crazy-making would that be??!! Thank goodness they finally realized that Avogadro was right. How surprising that someone else did not continue to keep his hypothesis in obscurity and decide to take credit for themselves (like the Marconi / Tesla radio debate). Very honorable to name it after Avogadro. I'm also wondering: did he really look like that?

3. What is a mole? Review of the link: http://www.ceramic-materials.com/cermat/education/111.html

I was following the web page along very nicely until the middle. Then I got confused so I consulted another source. A mole is the same number of particles found in 12 grams of carbon-12. There are 6.02 x 10exp23 particles in 12 grams of carbon 12. So a mole is a unit of measurement that equals 6.02 x 10exp23. What I am confused about now is the question "How many molecules are in one gram of a gaseous element?" I thought the link was leading us to the answer to this question, but now I am confused.

Week Six: Electrochemistry and Alchemy

1. Halogen of the week...

Halogen means “salt-former” -- compounds containing halogens are called salts. All halogens have 7 electrons in their outer shells.

Iodine was discovered in 1811 by Bernard Courtois, a fellow who was born in Dijon, France. He apprenticed as a pharmacist and then joined his father’s business, saltpeter manufacturing. Courtois was isolating sodium and potassium compounds from seaweed ash during the production of saltpeter (which is a component of gun powder, and in high demand during the Napolenonic Wars). He had added too much sulfuric acid to the seaweed ash and saw a purple vapor -- iodine. The word comes from the Greek “ioeides,” which means violet. (Following this discovery, Courtois went on to isolate morphine from opium.)

Iodine’s atomic number is 53. It is the least reactive of the halogens. Iodine is found concentrated in seawater and some sea plants, as well as in the mineral caliche, which is found in Chile. It is used in medicine (and at home often existing in your first aid kit), in photography (as silver iodide), to purify water, in halogen lights, and in dyes. Iodine is rare in the solar system and on Earth.

Iodine is required in trace amounts is all animals and in some plants. Kelp and algae have the ability to concentrate the element, which is why it has become an essential element in the food chain. It is the heaviest element known to be required by animals.

Our body uses iodine as a component of thyroid hormones which help to regulate our basal metabolic rate. The thyroid absorbs iodine from blood, and then distributes it into other bodily tissues, including the mammary glands. Iodine’s role in the mammary glands is to help regulate fetal and neonatal development. It acts as an antioxidant in other tissues.

If you eat kelp, some seafood, or plants grown in iodine-rich soil, you are getting your necessary iodine (recommended allowance is 150 micrograms per day). Iodine has also been added to some salt in order to ensure people get enough. In many developing countries people do not get enough iodine which can result in mental retardation, hypothyroidism, goiter, depression, weight gain, and extreme fatigue.



Iodine is also used in the manufacture of meth, so if you buy it in large quantities you will be investigated by the DEA.

2. Alchemy -- science, magic, art -- or all three?

From a very surface understanding of alchemy, it seems to me that the difference between alchemy and modern chemistry is that alchemy had a philosophical belief system underlying it, one that acknowledged and honored the "magic" of how matter can be transformed. Perhaps some of the early alchemists were "wrong" -- you apparently can't turn lead into gold, and it certainly isn't a good idea to eat lead -- but that doesn't mean that some of the underlying principles should be disregarded and forgotten, and that the mysterious should not be honored. In fact that seems like the biggest difference between alchemy and modern science. Modern science no longer honors the mysterious. It has rendered the whole world robotic and banal. Whereas alchemy wandered into questions of the soul and other metaphysical concerns such as unification with God. Their work was not separate from a spiritual path. Today, this would be seen as crazy or as a pollutant to true scientific pursuits. Which I think is too bad. I think one's work really should encompass life as a whole -- the spiritual, mental, physical, artistic, creative and mysterious elements of life.

Carl Jung used alchemical symbols to validate his theories about universality in psychological motifs. From the vantage point of human psychological and spiritual development, and an investigation of the mystery of who we really are and where we come from, the study of alchemical history and its symbols and philosophies are fascinating and possibly quite useful. I think that modern chemistry could also be looked at through the lens of metaphor and human development -- we have become quite detached from the natural world, are polluting ourselves and each other, and show a profound disrespect for life. But hope is on the horizon with the advent of scientific developments, such as the principles behind green chemistry, that are putting the recognition of the wholeness of the universe back into the mixing pot.

Here is a beautiful passage by M.L. von Franz from the book edited by Carl Jung "Man and His Symbols." The passage relates to the usefulness of alchemy as an epistemology for understanding the self:

"The alchemical stone (the lapis) symbolizes something that can be never be lost or dissolved, something eternal that some alchemists compared to the mystical experience of God within one's own soul. It usually takes prolonged suffering to burn away all the superfluous psychic elements concealing the stone. But some profound inner experience of the Self does occur to most people at least once in a lifetime. From the psychological standpoint, a genuinely religious attitude consists of an effort to discover this unique experience, and gradually to keep in tune with it (it is relevant that a stone is itself something permanent), so that the Self becomes an inner partner toward whom one's attention is continually turned."

Week Five: The Chemistry of Color and Nutrition

1. Inert Gas of the Week: There are only two true elemental inert gases that don't react with anything else to form a compound. Helium and Neon. I'm picking helium because of its abundance in the sun and the fact that kids suck it out of balloons to make their voices high pitched. So noble and so silly all at once. I was happy to discover that it is non-toxic, as well as colorless, odorless, and tasteless. It has the lovely and simple atomic number of two. It has the lowest boiling and melting points of all the elements, and is always a gas except under very extreme circumstances. Here's my drawing of helium: .

A large reserve of helium was found in 1903 in the U.S., the largest helium supplier. Besides being used to inflate balloons, helium is also used industrially in welding, to cool superconducting magnets, to lift airships and in cryogenics as a very cold liquid to store human heads for future revival. Because it has such a low freezing point, it is used by quantum physicists in testing the effects that something near absolute zero has on matter.

It has the distinction of being the most abundant element in the known universe--though relatively rare on earth. It is also the second lightest, next to hydrogen.

2. The Color of Foods in My Kitchen



Today there is a lot of green and orange in my kitchen. The neighbor gave me a bunch of apples from his mother's tree. There are some little green heirloom tomatoes in my yard that just recently ripened (and they are delicious). I have kale, broccoli, a small pumpkin and some carrots. Yellow is always present - bananas -- they go in my daily morning protein shake. Besides the fresh stuff there are a lot of boxes and cans and jars with varying colors inside them. That stuff takes up a lot of room, but I never really access it unless I'm desperate. There's also a pile of homemade chocolate chip cookies on the table (brown) but for some reason that one picture refused to upload.



I think in general I'm pretty good at eating well, and that because I've been planting a garden for a few years now, I am more aware of seasonal foods and those are often in my kitchen. Working full time and being in school has led to less time and energy to cook, however. I realized the other day that it had been awhile since I'd had any "real" food -- it had all been things like Clif bars and burritos and coffee. That makes me feel lousy. I like to cook. I love food. And I enjoy eating good food.



3. Thoughts on the Links

Element colors in flames: We have a lot of campfires and sometimes the light burns green or blue, but mostly it is orange. I thought I might find out what kind of chemicals are being released when I see these colors, but it seems that there are so many possibilities that unless I was in a laboratory burning things in a controlled way there is really no way to know for sure. However, I think it's great that we have this knowledge, for safety reasons. If there is a fire somewhere and it is burning some color other than orange, we might have a clue as to what is burning.

Luminescence: I learned that this is "cold light." This is a new concept for me. I am particularly interested in the living things that are phosphorescent, like fireflies (which I grew up with) and those tiny little creatures in the ocean that glow when your oar moves through the water. What an amazing, magical experience that was when I lived on a bay and had a little row boat and the night was so dark and the phosphorescent glow, like little stars, filled the water.

Week Four: Green Chemistry

1. Catalyst of the Week

This was much harder than I expected. Although I understand the green chemistry principle of using a catalyst in order to speed up processes thereby saving energy and / or materials, I did lots of different google searches to try to find a list of elements that are catalysts, but apparently it doesn’t work that way. So, I pulled out my old chemistry textbook and found reference to copper being a catalyst. So I looked that up and found an artist who uses copper as a catalyst in creating artwork made from explosions. Artist Evelyn Rosenberg created an art practice she has termed “Detonography.” She detonates a plastic explosive sheet over top of a carved sculpture that has a metal plate (copper) on top. Then she blows it up. The sculpture pops out of the copper. She has also tried it using brass and stainless steel, but copper works the best.



My chemistry text book refers to compounds of elements also working as catalysts. Sometimes catalysis is unfortunate, as when Chlorine (Cl), the result of CFCs, helps the ozone layer to disappear.

2. Science Without Social Responsibility--how did that happen?

I'd like to know if there was a time when science did take into account social responsibility. This topic has been on my mind for many years. When I was teaching second grade I was saddened and appalled at some of the experiments kids would cook up for the science fair. These experiment ideas would come from library books that suggested science fair projects. They usually involved killing plants in one way or another: "Do an experiment where you water one plant with water and another plant with hairspray. What happens?" or "Put one plant in the sun and the other in a closet for two weeks. What happens?" Or, this lovely example I pulled up from a science fair website--note that it took me about two seconds to find this:

The Experiment:

"PURPOSE: The purpose of this experiment was to determine the effect of insecticide on ladybugs.

I became interested in this idea because I know that ladybugs are beneficial insects. They live around insect pests, which leads to accidental spraying of the ladybugs. Farmers need the ladybugs to help keep down pest population, and need to avoid killing them accidentally.

The information gained from this experiment can warn farmers to be extra-careful when using insecticide.

HYPOTHESIS: My hypothesis is that the organic insecticide will kill the ladybugs faster than Sevin.

I base my hypothesis on the fact that my parents and I have used soap and water to kill potato bugs, and that is like an insecticide. The natural insecticides usually work better.

EXPERIMENT DESIGN: The constants in this study were: the same amount of insecticide, the same type of ladybug, and the same size of ladybug. The manipulated variable was: the type of insecticide. The responding variable was: the percentage of the ladybugs that die from each insecticide. To measure the responding variable I will observe the ladybugs after spraying them with insecticide, counting how many die.

End of experiment.

This experiment was done by a sweet little girl. At least that's how she looked in the picture, until science gave her the wise idea to kill these "beneficial insects" to prove a point.

Here is a picture from someone's science experiment where they fed one plant microwaved water and the other regular water. Can you guess which is which? True, this one is kind of interesting, but is it worth it?



This is how we're training elementary school students to become scientists. With many thoughtless experiments just so kids can go through the motions of the scientific method. Then they go to college with this training. They become adults with this training. They become leading scientists who place monkeys in cages, electrocute rats, and put humans through medical trials for drug upon drug. And the results are often disastrous. Look where all of our "advances" that science has given us have led us!

My solution for this dilemma is to add just one extra step in the scientific method--an ethics check. Ask yourself "What is the potential impact of this experiment? Will anything be harmed in the process?" and "What are the potential benefits and harms that may result from the possible uses of the knowledge gained from this experiment?" Just some simple questions that might cause people to stop and think.

This question also reminded me of my final physics paper from last trimester. I have pasted a portion of it below. The topic explored "Physics as Religion." The point I am trying to make with it here is that people are once again looking for meaning. Science displaced religion -- at least religion in its purest sense had some moral backbone to it. With the take over of science morality became a pollutant to the truth. But I think people are once again craving some kind of guidance. That's the point of this paper:

Science started replacing God in the late 1700s and early 1800s when scientific discoveries began to conflict with Christian thinking. At the end of the 1800s, with the publication of Darwin’s treatise, the “theory of evolution” began to replace a belief in God. Political ideologies, such as communism, which rose to popularity in the early 1900s, further eroded a reliance on religion and God. Perhaps God could be replaced by the social structure? In the West, the social and cultural revolutions of the 1960s and 70s were partially successful because they were rebelling against the Christian thinking and behavior that had made somewhat of a comeback in the post World War II years of the late 1940s and 50s. The social revolution wanted to bring about greater freedoms and traditional Christianity was seen, for the most part, as restrictive. God was no longer speaking to the masses. The scientific worldview had begun to completely take over. In the 1980s and 1990s Christmas got pulled from school, the theory of evolution was commonly taught, and those still adhering to religious views began to home school their children. Yet it seems this mass exodus from churches left people feeling empty. The “Me Generation” got lost in consumerism, cocaine, overeating, and divorce; crime rates went up and things came crashing down. Once forbidden by religion, these behaviors became more and more okay. Scientific thought now led us and, for all its explanations for how things work, science doesn’t offer ethics, rules for the game, nor does it lend a lot of meaning -- it doesn’t answer the “whys” and “who am I” and “how should I behave.”

Enter physics. Physics is the only hard science that circles back around to exploring questions involving God. Through looking deeply at how things work, physicists began to offer up meaningful explanations that sounded a lot like the words of ancient mystics. David Bohm has been quoted as saying, “Individuality is only possible if it unfolds from wholeness.” Niels Bohr said, “Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” Physicists even admit to a search for the “God particle.”

The film “What the bleep do we know” packages science and religion together for consumption by popular culture. It gives us permission to pray to the great “observer” in the sky without feeling embarrassed about being “religious” since religion went out of style long ago, around the time of Sir Isaac Newton’s influential temper tantrum when he declared that he would not believe in the invisible, and not believe something simply because someone told him it was. Newton’s Principia Mathematica declares the rules for the scientific method. The first is “We are to admit no more causes of natural things such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” The funny thing is that Newton, a pioneer of modern physics, insisted on discovering the world for himself. This method of discovery -- science -- has led us back to God after all.

So we have been on a long journey together, searching for the truth. With Newton we disregarded everything that we could not explain. We lost mystery, and without mystery we lost meaning. From the numbers of people running to see “What the bleep do we know” and buying books with titles like “5 Steps to a Quantum Life: How to Use the Astounding Secrets of Quantum Physics to Create the Life You Want,” it seems that we are welcoming the mystery back, and many of us prefer to have that mystery wrapped in science.

3. Atom Economy

The principle of atom economy is hopeful. It presents a challenge to chemists, which I think will be fun for them. It presents potential savings, in terms of money, I am guessing for producers of products. And it presents the possibility of cleaner and greener ways of continuing our habitual lifestyles in this world. I am thankful that some people are feeling a need to do the right thing, to inject science with some sense of common good. The 12 Principles of Green Chemistry are kind of like the ten commandments. It doesn't matter to me what kind of rules people follow -- religious or scientific -- so long as they are good rules, that take the common good into account.

Week Three: Molecular Structure and Bonding

The Nickel from Outerspace!



1. Transitional Metal of the Week: Nickel!

Nickel comes from the mineral pentlandite. Most nickel is mined in Ontario, Canada. Many believe the large deposit is from an ancient meteor. Our 5-cent coin, the nickel, contains only about 25% nickel. Nickel is silvery white and can be polished to quite a shine. It is hard, malleable, ductile, and fair conductor of electricity. Its symbol is Ni, and the atomic number is 28. Its atomic weight is 60. It resists corrosion (and therefore things are often “nickel plated”), but is soluble in acids.

Most of the other nickel on earth is locked in its molten core, which is 10% nickel. Nickel can be found in vegetables that come from polluted soil. Chocolate and fats contain a relatively high amount of nickel. Smokers have higher amounts of nickel in their lungs. It is essential to health in small quantities, but in large quantities it can result in lung problems (like asthma and bronchitis), heart disorders, birth defects, and allergic reactions (mainly skin rashes from jewelry made of nickel).

The word comes from the German word kupfernickel which some say means false copper and others say it means “Old Nick” which is a name for the devil. Besides nickels, it is also used in nickel-cadmium batteries and is electroplated onto other metals to form a protective covering.

2. Link Review:

I looked at the Water Concepts link. I was listening to some music as I watched the animation of water's hydrogen bonds breaking and reforming. It looked like the molecules were dancing. I was hoping to truly understand why water is so unusual--why it floats as a solid and has such a high boiling point. The answers were there, I'm sure, I'm just not such a fluent chemist yet. Soon, soon...hopefully I can return to this link at a date not too far in the future and will be able to read and understand it with ease. What I did get was that hydrogen bonds are not as strong as covalent bonds, therefore they are breaking and re-forming, hence the dance.

Week Two: Periodic Tables and Atomic Structures

1. Element(s) of the Week

I picked two elements because they are the only liquids at room temperature on the chart: Mercury and Bromine. This intrigued me. One is a metal, one is not. They are relatively far apart on the periodic table. And why are only two elements liquid? I discovered there are other metals some also consider liquid at room temperature, even though on the periodic table they are not noted as such: caesium, francium, gallium and rubidium. The reason for this is that only mercury and bromine are liquids "at standard conditions for temperature and pressure."

Bromine: the word comes from the Greek and means "stench of he goats." It's symbol is Br and the atomic number is 35. It is reddish brown. The vapors are corrosive and toxic. It is used as a fire retardant and is used in swimming pools in the way chlorine is--as a "water purifier." Bromine is the only liquid non-metallic element, In nature it is found in compounds in sea water, the Dead Sea, and in natural brines and salt lake evaporates . Bromine in the atmosphere leads to depletion of the "good" ozone layer and so the chemical is being phased out of many products that used to take advantage of its properties.

Mercury: Mercury's symbol is Hg and it's atomic number is 80. It is toxic and is shiny and silvery. The symbol Hg comes from the Latinized Greek word hydrargyrum meaning "watery" or "liquid silver." The element is named for the Roman God Mercury, who was known for his speed. It is used, as you probably know, in thermometers and other scientific instruments. Mercury is rare, but when it is found, it is found in high concentrations. Mercury is mostly gotten by reduction from the mineral cinnabar, which resembles quartz and is found, among other places, in California's hot springs. I went to Orr Hot Springs where mercury used to be mined. Some people are concerned about mercury being in the water there. Now I understand why. Cinnabar used to be used in Mayan burial sites because of its known toxicity (to scare away grave robbers). Many ancient cultures used mercury as make up and in concoctions intended to give eternal life; neither of these uses worked out very well.

Cinnabar:


Lots of things are named after Mercury -- from planets to newspapers to cars -- and very few after Bromine (or perhaps none -- there are no cars called Bromine). I guess it is more desirable to be quick and shiny than it is to be brown and stinky. If you want to insult someone in a chemistry nerd sort of way you could say, "Whatever, Bromine!"

Bromine:



2. Ozone discussions

I asked four people about ozone. My husband, a college educated person who loved chemistry in school, tentatively told me the following (he wasn't trusting his memory, though he was mostly correct):

It is three oxygen molecules; it is negatively charged; it is a filter/barrier to radiation/energy from space; it is biologically toxic; it is a pollutant that comes from cars?; there is good and bad ozone; it is lighter than a lot of atmospheric gases; CFCs react with ozone and turn it into something else which creates no ozone in the atmosphere; if we stopped polluting the atmosphere it would come back; we should ban the chemicals that pollute the atmosphere and put a cap on the human population and limit consumption of natural resources.

I also asked three teenaged boys what they knew about ozone. They said, "You mean the head shop in Alameda? I hate that place!" And they went on to discuss the head shop's owner in a most disgraceful way. I said, no, that's not what I mean. Oh, they said. Then one of them said something about the stratosphere and the atmosphere. Then another found a hula hoop in the yard and proceeded to show everyone how talented of a hula hooper he was.

3. Review of links

I might sound like a wimp or a dummy, but I don't think I have the mind of a chemist...yet? The simple information in the links I understand, but then begin to glaze over. Here's what I get:

Protons and neutrons exist within the nucleus of an atom. Electrons swarm about in a cloud outside of the nucleus. The atom has no electrical charge because the protons (which are positive) and electrons (which are negative) cancel each other out (atoms share the same number of protons and electrons). The atomic number will tell you the number of protons (and therefore also the number of electrons, since atoms contain the same amount of protons and electrons), and the atomic mass will tell you the number of neutrons (take the atomic mass and subtract the number of protons and it gives you the number of neutrons). Atoms have a structure. The electons build themselves up in "fields" (my term, I think) around the nucleus. Two electrons can be in the first field, eight in the second, and I think eight in the third. The fields -- oh, yes, they are called oribitals-- are organized as shapes. The first orbital is spherical. The second oribital is spherical. Then they become kind of complicated -- p's and d's and such. I'm a little lost there.

Elements are matter that cannot be paired down any further. One atom of an element can pair with another atom of a different element to make a molecule that is a compound. These compounds can be separated chemically, but not physically -- like water. Sometimes elements combine to make a mixture -- the elements do not actually attach themselves to each other. Mixtures can be separated physically. I'm guessing that in order to form compounds you probably have to add heat. Except in the case of that horrible thing I have heard is happening with regularity in Japan where kids are mixing bleach and ammonia (I think) and creating a deadly gas. Bleach and ammonia I am guessing are rather unstable and will happily intermingle to form a deadly gas compound without adding heat.

The information in the links on bonds kind of made me, well did make me, shut down. I want to wait to hear this information explained to me in class hopefully so that I can approach it with a little prior knowledge. I'm sure I had this in high school, but the information made a mixture in my brain that was easily separated out, instead of a compound that stuck.

Week One: The Cultural Influence of Chemistry

1. Results from the quiz...

Taking the quiz refreshed the ideas of the difference between chemical and physical changes. One point that kind of makes me scratch my head is that if you add heat to water a physical change takes place, but if you add heat (fire) to wood, a chemical change takes place. Why is that? Is it because water is a "pure" substance and wood is not?

The other question I had is why would black coffee become non-homogenous if stirred?

And finally, I want to bring up my thought that the scientific method needs an extra step that places ethics in the mix. I think before a scientific experiment is conducted, and once a "result" is "confirmed" scientists should be required to document in a formalized way what good they hope to achieve through their experiments and conclusions, and what possible harm might come from those experiments and conclusions (and resulting inventions). Possible harm might involve laboratory animals, humans, the environment, etc. The first step would be to document, the second to make an informed decision about whether or not to proceed with the experiment, and maybe, just maybe, it might give everyone pause before they decide what to do with a discovery or an invention. I think we need to be more careful and take more responsibility for our science. We need conscience to begin to outweigh greed.

2. Should there be more effective control of the pharmaceutical industry?



One of the articles in our week one packet documented the troubling statistic that between 1997 and 2005 "the amount of five major painkillers sold at retail establishments rose 90 percent." It listed reasons for this dramatic increase such as the aging of the population (does getting old really hurt that badly? and if so, why? isn't there a "better" way to prevent pain?) and unprecedented marketing campaigns.

I remember a time when there were no ads for prescription drugs. Currently, only the United States and New Zealand allow direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medication. This practice was deemed acceptable in the US in 1997 by the FDA -- the same year that marketing budgets rose sharply. The drug companies call this marketing "educational." It is not educational -- watch any of those ads and it is clear they are trying to sell us something and not educate. The unbelievable list of side effects that is read at lightening speed at the end of such commercials doesn't really do much to offset the image of that happy older couple who now are thankfully able to copulate like teenagers thanks to viagra or some other happy-making miracle drug. The message in all the commercials is that drugs make you happier! What would those commercials look like if they showed images of the real patients taking those drugs?

The website netwellness.org, whose content is created jointly by three Ohio universities, states that every dollar the pharmaceutical industry spent on advertising in 2000 resulted in an additional $4.20 in drug sales. People seeking treatment are being pushed into drug use from all sides -- they get the idea from deceptive TV ads and go to their doctor who has been wined and dined by a "detailer."

The impacts of rampant over-prescription of medication are numerous and unfortunate, meanwhile there are a few people getting very wealthy off of making people sick. How ironic that in an attempt to be healed many people are being made sicker.

I have to mention one other side effect of all of these drugs being ingested -- pharmaceuticals are now a new class of water pollutant. In March 2008 it was reported by the Associated Press that "a vast array of pharmaceuticals - including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones - have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans."

I don't think the pharmaceutical companies, whose profit margins are four to five times above that of any other industry, are going to change their ways by themselves. So, yes, I do believe that there should be more effective control of the pharmaceutical industry.

The drinking water report: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/10/health/main3920454.shtml

Amy Goodman reporting on pharmaceuticals in the water: