A mass panic of sorts occurred in Georgia (the country, not the US state) after a major news station aired a 30 minute news report indicating that the country was being invaded, the president had been assassinated and citizens were in danger of being caught in the crossfire of the crisis.   The station claimed that the report had been part of a dramatic presentation of a  hypothetical future invasion.   However, it was presented in a manner entirely consistent with a real news report.  Even the reporters and anchors were the same as those who normally report the news.

While I often criticize those who buy into a mass panic for not exercising due restraint and skepticism, it’s hard to blame anyone in this case.   The reports were realistic and did not appear to be any different from standard news reports.   Furthermore, the events reported were not beyond the realm of possibility, especially given that the country had been involved in a serious military conflict with Russia in 2008.

This would have been the equivalent of Americans turning on their televisions and seeing Brian Williams, Katie Couric or another major news anchor at their news desk reporting that a plane had just crashed into the Empire State Building.

An explanation of the broadcast being a hypothetical situation dramatized as a newscast was run at the beginning of the broadcast.   Of course, a single warning of this type would not do much for those who tuned in during the middle of the apparent newscast.   Even in a day and age where there are alternate sources of information, such as the internet, the way the story was presented caused many to react with such panic that they were too busy trying to get to safety to stop and check out a few websites and Twitter feeds.
(more…)

In recent times, medical imaging procedures that utilize x-rays have come under increased scrutiny as numerous media outlets and even peer-reviewed studies have reported that these procedures are putting patients at risk of cancer and causing tens of thousands of new cases of cancer per year, with many of those resulting in death.   These reports are leading to not only increased fear of medical imaging, but also to calls for policy changes and reduced use of x-ray medical imaging.

The CT scan has become on of the biggest targets.   CT scans are rapidly becoming one of the most common forms of medical imaging.  They’re relatively quick, painless and provide excellent diagnostic data for a wide number of conditions.   The technology of CT scanning and imaging processing has improved dramatically in recent years, making the procedures both more economical and increasing data quality and resolution.    There’s no doubt that these procedures save lives and improve the quality of life by giving doctors a look inside the human body at both bone and soft tissue.

CT scans do subject patients to some radiation exposure, however.   The levels of radiation which a patient receives from a CT scan (or even several of them) has never been shown to actually cause any long term harm, but the long-standing and many times debunked linear non-threshold model presumes that it will.  LNT was conceived as a “worst case scenario” for the effect that ionizing radiation might have on the human body in the earliest days of radiation research, when data was scarce.

LNT holds that radiation effect is directly proportional to dose, all the way down to zero and therefore assumes that the human body is incapable of repairing damage caused by radiation, recovering from radiation-induced cellular damage or in any way mitigating the effects of radiation.   It further assumes that the effect of a few atoms in a human cell being ionized is smaller, but otherwise no different than an enormous amount of ionization of the cells.

There’s no doubt that cancer risk is increased by radiation if the dose is high enough.   Radiation can damage the body on both a macroscopic and cellular level.   A high enough dose of radiation can cause tissue damage, internal bleeding and even death.  Those who do recover from multiple incidence of near-fatal acute radiation poisoning may face life-long complications and health issues relating to the damage caused by radiation.   At high enough levels, the dangers appear to be relatively linear in relation to radiation dose.  In other words, a person exposed to 1000 rems has approximately twice the risk of complications like cancer as someone exposed to 500.

By this logic, one rem should result in .1% the likelihood of developing cancer as 1000 rems.   This has been likened to observing that when a person is thrown off a ten story building they die 100% of the time, when thrown off of a 5 story building, they die 50% of the time and therefore assuming that 10% will die from a one story fall and 1% will die after falling 12 inches.  Furthermore, the implication is that the optimal living situation is zero radiation exposure (something which is effectively impossible) and the higher the exposure is over zero, the worse off you are for cancer risk.

Needless to say, many have pointed out that there’s a flaw in this logic and as knowledge of radiation has increased, LNT has begun to look less and less likely.  Unfortunately for the promoters of LNT, examination of the cancer rates in populations living in high radiation background areas shows no increase in cancer and in fact, has produced some evidence of a decreased risk of cancer.

Yet what these reports on the dangers of medical imaging really are is nothing more than a combination of the LNT hypothysis and fifth grade level mathematics.

In the media:
SF Gate: CT scan cancer warnings worry patients
WEB MD: Multiple CT Scans Raise Cancer Risk
Daily Mail: CAT scan cancer fear: Radiation ‘could trigger the disease in one in 80 patients’
US News and World Report: Too Many CT Scans Pose Cancer Risk, Studies Say
Wall Street Journal: Radiation Risks Prompt Push to Curb CT Scans

The math:
(more…)

One would generally think that a buisiness model that involves violating the laws of physics is probably not going to result in a very sound enterprise.   However, it appears that some in Missouri feel differently about that.

Via the Kansas City Star:

Odessa, Mo., cheers news of manufacturing plant

A Utah company announced Thursday that it planned to build a manufacturing and research complex in Odessa, Mo., that could eventually employ more than 3,000 people.

The company, Manna of Utah, said it would build facilities to make home generators that use magnets to make electricity, produce food products from soybeans and rice, and manufacture portable medical emergency rooms that could be sent quickly anywhere in the world.

There also would also be a research and testing center, which would have 1,200 employees and a day care center.

The announcement was made to more than 300 people gathered in Odessa, including several state legislators and U.S. Rep. Ike Skelton.

“This is a magic moment for Odessa, a magic moment for Lafayette County and a magic moment for the Missouri,” said Skelton, a Democrat.

But the announcement also raised questions, including whether Manna of Utah, which has an office in Provo, can bring it off. The company started just last year and has 23 employees.

….
The Missouri Department of Economic Development said discussions have just begun about state incentives. But at this point, an official said, no request for state incentives or other help has been received.

“Our project managers have had very preliminary discussions with representatives of the business to determine what information they would need to provide if they were to apply for any state incentive program,” said John Fougere, a department spokesman.

Officials in Odessa were clearly happy in the hours leading up to the announcement. Rep. Mike McGhee said that Odessa would be producing technology that would be “world-changing” and that the announcement would shake the earth and the product would be the equivalent of the light bulb.

The Odessa Republican was referring to a home generator developed by Maglev Energy in Largo, Fla. The home generator, which Manna of Utah is licensing, uses magnets.

Maglev said that it filed for a patent on the generator in 2005 and that it has a prototype. However, the generator isn’t commercially available.

(more…)

The ridiculous thing isn’t that Switzerland is denying animals the right to an attorney to represent their interest, the ridiculous thing is that they almost did!   70% of the Swiss people turned out not to be quite that insane, but the politicians of Switzerland apparently took the idea pretty seriously – seriously enough to call for a referendum on the issue.

Via BBC News:

Switzerland rejects move to provide lawyers for animals
Voters in Switzerland have rejected a proposal to introduce a nationwide system of state-funded lawyers to represent animals in court.

Animal rights groups had proposed the move, saying that without lawyers to argue the animals’ case, many instances of cruelty were going unpunished.

But the measure was rejected by around 70% of voters in a referendum.

Opponents had argued that Switzerland did not need more legislation. The government had opposed the idea.

Voters were almost certainly swayed by worries about how much such a system might cost taxpayers, and by objections from Switzerland’s farmers already struggling with reduced subsidies and falling milk prices.

Switzerland already has some of the strictest animal welfare legislation in the world.

Pigs, budgies, goldfish and other social animals cannot be kept alone; horses and cows must have regular exercise outside in summer and winter; and dog owners have to take training courses to learn how to care for their pets.

(more…)

From a more hopeful time when most saw nuclear energy and nuclear technology as the amazing and hopeful field that it is, these ads ran in magazines in the 1950’s and early 1960’s.   They have a great positive and optimistic message combined with some inspiring symbolism and artwork.   My favorite are the Union Carbide ads, but others here include ads from Honeywell, General Dynamics, General Atomics, The Railroad Association of America, Inco Nickle, Lockheed, General Electric and others.   A few of these ads are not even for companies whose main activity was nuclear related, but noted that they were at least somewhat involved in the nuclear technology world.

I collected these classics from a number of sources.  A few came from the excellent Modern Mechanix blog, while others  came from Wikimedia, Erik Nitsche’s Flickr account and other websites.   Since these images were scanned from original material and posted to begin with, I’m assuming that there’s probably no copyright issue here, either because the original ad owner doesn’t mind them being distributed or because they’re no longer under copyright.   In any case, their use for documentary purposes should constitute fair use.

I really love these classics.

In the past few days, a great deal of information has been coming out regarding the explosion that occurred at the Kleen Energy power plant in Middletown CT.    Another worker has died from his injuries sustained during the blast, bringing the death toll to six.  The Chemical Safety Review Board has released information from their initial probe into the incident which contained some shocking revelations about the nature of the natural gas “purge” which was being conducted at the time of the explosion.

The “purge” is a fairly common procedure which has been long known to come with some significant dangers.  Simply put, the purge refers to part of the gas system being opened to the outside and gas released into the system to blow out the opening.   This is done when work has been done on the system, such as new pipes fitted or valves replaced.  In these cases, debris such as metal fragments may be left behind in the system.   These fragments could damage the turbines if they were not purged from the system.   Purging can be done with the natural gas supply or by using a blast of nitrogen, argon or compressed air.   In the case of compressed air, however, it may be required that another purge is conducted with gas or nitrogen before the final power-up, in order to assure there is no oxygen in the gas lines.    It is also possible to conduct such purges with the gas piped to a flare tower, rather than simply vented.   This burns off the excess gas, reducing the danger of an explosion.

There are safety regulations, but most of them are volentary and in the case of the Kleen Energy plant, there does not appear to be any specific violation of the law.   It had been previously recommended that purges be conducted with as few workers on site as possible and with the gas piped far away from the structure, but this was a recommendation and not binding.   In light of this accident, the Chemical Safety Review Board has urged a moratorium on purges using natural gas.

Natural gas is, of course, a potentially explosive substance.   When gas is isolated in a pipeline, it can’t explode, because there is no oxygen to allow combustion.   However, once released, the gas mixes with air, creating a potentially dangerous fuel-air explosive.  Natural gas can ignite at concentrations as low as 4%.   When it is vented, it is critical that the area be thoroughly ventilated to assure that the gas is completely dispersed.  Natural gas is primarily methane and therefore is lighter than air, although not as much so as hydrogen or helium.    In general, methane will tend to disperse upward, but this property can also be problematic if there is a roof or overhang, which the gas may become trapped under.

The rate of dispersal of methane depends on a number of factors.   Gas will disperse much faster in open spaces, and wind will help accelerate the dispersal.  Sheltered areas may contain the gas for some time, and while natural gas does tend to disperse upward, if compressed gas is discharged, the drop in temperature will cause an increase in the density of the gas.   Cold natural gas may linger near the ground until it warms up enough to be lighter than air.

A photo has come out of a purge conducted at the Kleen Energy plant only a few hours before the deadly explosion.   This purge was uneventful, but reportedly the purge which was conducted at the time of the explosion used the same setup.   The photo is quite telling, even shocking.

(more…)

There’s no doubt that radiation saves lives when applied properly in a medical setting.  In recent years, narrow beam radiation therapy has made it possible to zap cancerous tumors while keeping damage to nearby tissue to a minimum.   CT scans and digital filmless x-ray imaging has improved at an astonishing rate, making it possible to see inside the body with unprecedented detail.

The exposure from imaging procedures tends to be fairly low and no empirical evidence exists for any harm from routine diagnostic imaging.  However, it’s no surprise that a lot of scaremongering has come about over this.   People seem to fear “radiation” like few other things an reports that indicate patients are exposed to more radiation than ever before (on average) raise alarm even though they never state that there’s actually any harm arising from this.

Of course, the greater danger is that these reports, empty though they may be, could lead some to avoid life saving diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy.  Forging radiation therapy for a tumor that cannot be removed completely with surgery can be a death sentence, but some of the sensational reporting makes it seem like radiation could be even worse, emphasizing the dangers without any context.

Via the New York Times:
(more…)

NOTE:  See the question mark on the end of the headline?   That means this is not reported as verified fact but rather as a possible event that is being reported
Reports have come in from Mexico describing an apparent meteorite strike that left a thirty meter crater in an area of the country about 100 miles northeast of Mexico city.  The impact is reported to have occurred yesterday evening at approximately 18:30 (6:30 PM).   This would have been around 00:30 GMT, assuming that the reported timing is correct.   Thus far there’s not a lot of information outside of the Mexican press, but based on a number of reports it does appear that there was some kind of event that did occur in the area of Pachuca, Hidalgo Mexico.

Reports include sightings of a flaming object streaking across the sky, but it should be noted that until independent verification and more data becomes available, it can’t be stated conclusively that it was indeed a meteorite.   It is possible that this could have been a piece of “space junk,” an aircraft accident or possibly even something as mundane as a propane tank exploding.  It would not be the first time that a terrestrial explosion as reported as a meteor strike.

Via Bad Astronomy:

There have been some reports of a possible meteorite in Mexico — here is one news report translated into English.

Reports are a bit sketchy right now, but apparently a bright flaming object was seen coming down about 100 miles northeast of Mexico City on Wednesday around 18:30 local time. There was a roar that was loud enough to shake buildings. Another news article is reporting a crater 30 meters in diameter was found.

At the moment this is all I know. It’s not clear if this was actually an impact event from a meteorite or some terrestrial event. In 2007 a small meteorite struck in Peru, causing a lot of confusion (with me at least!) over the source of the event; there was a lot of speculation before an actual meteorite impact was confirmed. Before that impact, it was not considered likely that a small meteorite could actually hit the ground fast enough to make a crater in the ten-meter size range (they slow down or break up high in the atmosphere), so the Peru event was a surprise. It’s still not completely understood how the meteoroid survived to hit the ground.

So it’s possible this Mexico event is a meteorite, but we don’t know yet. I’ll post more information as I find it.

Possible Seismic Confirmation???

(more…)

Interestingly I was an observer to a disaster today without even knowing it.

My parents are out of town for a while and because I live quite near to them, I am staying at their home to take care of the dogs and keep down the fort.   Their home is in Guilford CT, which is about 15 miles, as the crow flies, from Middletown CT.   That’s slightly closer than where I’d otherwise be.  A bit before noon, I felt and heard what I would describe as  “surge” of wind or vibrations.    My parents house is fairly large and when a gust of wind hits it broadside, you can hear and feel the windows and walls rattle.   This event was a bit like that, but far more acute.  While wind gusts last a few seconds, this was more like a surge of pressure that lasted under a second.   It shook the house more than normal, to the point where it felt a bit like it might have been a seismic event, transmitted through the ground.

It was noteworthy enough to make me go to the window and look outside to see if there was something going on, like maybe a big truck or something else that could account for this weird sudden surge of pressure and vibration.   The event was not like a “BOOM” but perhaps a bit like a “thud,” although not an easily heard sound.   It may have been infrasonic – the kind of sound that you don’t hear directly but which you can feel in your chest and which you can hear indirectly due to the reverberations it causes.

It’s hard to describe the event, but the words “thud,” “woosh” and “surge” are the best I can come up with.

In any case, I went back to what I was doing, which was writing the previous post (the one about diamonds).

Turns out a natural gas power plant blew up and killed at least five people!!!

It seems a bit ironic that it’s called the “Clean Energy Plant” or at least it was, before much of it was blown up.   It’s far too early to tell exactly what happened here, but it’s worth noting that the event is not entirely unique.   Some enormous explosions have occurred at natural gas fired power plants over the years, as well as at natural gas pumping stations, storage depots and other facilities that support them. A massive natural gas explosion in New Jersey left hundreds homeless in 1994 and deadly natural gas explosions have occurred in recent years in Russia, Texas, Virgina, Alaska, several parts of Canada, China, India and numerous other places. This includes explosions at the power plant location, as was the case in St. Petersburg Russia.

I have to admit that while I’m acutely aware of the potential for disaster that lurks wherever you find massive amounts of flammable gas, this reminder hit especially close to home.   In addition to living near a natural gas power plant, I also live about 20 miles from a nuclear plant.  The nuclear plant, unlike the gas plant, has never killed anyone or had a major incident that effected the safety or property of those who live in the area.    This shouldn’t be surprising, however, because while the American  natural gas industry’s safety record is fairly descent, it’s far from spotless, unlike the nuclear energy industry which has never had even a single solitary incident in it’s history that endangered the local community or caused loss of life to citizens in the area.

During its history of roughly five decades, there have been a handful of worker fatalities in the US nuclear industry.  Nearly all of them have been from common workplace accidents found in all industries, such as falling off of a ladder or catwalk.   There has never been a death of a worker at a US nuclear power plant due to reactor malfunction or a nuclear accident.  There has been only one death attributable to a “nuclear” accident of any kind – a worker died as the result of a criticality accident in 1964 at the Woods River Junction reprocessing plant when he improperly mixed a solution of uranium and plutonium, resulting in unexpected critical.    Of course, the US is not alone in this.   With the exception of the former Soviet Union, most other countries with a nuclear industry have a spotless record and the rest have a nearly spotless one.

Sadly, in a single event, the natural gas industry has killed five times that many.   So which one is the dangerous one again?

In light of the upcoming Valentines Day holiday, when diamonds are often purchased as a means of telling your significant other how much you buy into media hype and advertisements, I thought it was about time I posted about some of the pervasive myths and the realities of diamonds.   This post does contain some actual scientific and historical facts verses myths, but it also has some social commentary that I figured I might add.

Some would argue that this is why I’m single, because the fact of the matter is that I’m not keen on buying diamonds*.   If I did ever buy a diamond as an engagement ring it would be synthetic.   Yes, this may limit my options, although most of those excluded would hopefully not be anyone I’d be interested in anyway.

If this seems written from a male perspective, it’s because, traditionally, it’s the man who is generally expected to purchase expensive jewelery.   Diamonds are not generally given from women to men, except perhaps in narrow circumstances of things like cuff-links or tie tacks.

(more…)