Category Archives: Current Events

It’s a Banana – Run for You Life – Or Not

Posted on by

banana.svg.medOne of my favorite websites tackled the question “are bananas radioactive?”

The answer, of course, is “yes.”

Radiation is everywhere – all life, including you and me, evolved in a constant bath of radiation. Our bodies can handle a certain amount – though be careful what you google. There’s a lot of wacky stuff about alleged natural cancer cures on the internet.

There are variations in the amount of radiation present in familiar things.

[At] the nearest grocery… started by measuring the ambient radiation in the air at the store: eight microrems. (The rem is a unit of radiation dosage…) … radiation in the banana bin: 15 microrems. Progress at this point was interrupted by a store manager’s inquiry regarding the customer wielding the Geiger counter. Having justified her presence, Una broadened the investigation. Idaho potatoes? Eleven microrems. Kitty litter? A whopping 19. (We presume you’re not eating that.) straightdope

That’s all part of background radiation – “ubiquitous ionizing radiation that people on the planet Earth are exposed to, including natural and artificial sources.” wikipedia

Bananas are only one source. Background radiation varies by location and – especially pertinent for Coloradans – is higher at higher elevation. Radon is the biggest natural source, and is worth considering. I once rejected purchasing a house because of its way-high radon level. I’ve read of places where uranium mine tailings were used as aggregate in concrete for homes – that’s ridiculous. Sealing yourself in with a source is a foolish risk.

Medical procedures are the largest contributor to artificial radiation and obviously that varies a lot from person to person. We expect the benefits of procedures to far outweigh the risks, but whether certain screenings – mammograms, for example – are worth the risk is an interesting debate. Continue reading →

Fracking Update

Posted on by

I thought of using a tongue-in-cheek title, “The Science is Settled: Fracking Doesn’t Endanger Groundwater.” A recent Denver Post editorial titled “More study, same result on fracking” had a subtitle “Hydraulic fracturing isn’t poisoning water supplies.” I commend the Post for the content of the editorial and the fact they even recognize the actual name of the technology is “hydraulic fracturing.” I believe “fracking” has been substituted by opponents of the process because it sounds “dirty.” Getting my personal opinions out of the way early, I also believe the reason for the continued assault on the process is based on the fact that it has resulted in an abundance of relatively inexpensive natural gas. The “dream children” of anti-oil and gas activists want (completely unrealistically) the only source of energy to be wind and solar. Inexpensive natural gas has gotten in the way of that dream. Inexpensive natural gas that also has reduced the United States totals of carbon dioxide emissions, and oponents are willing to do anything they can to vilify hydraulic fracturing. That starts with giving the process a “dirty” name.

I recommend reading the entire Post editorial, which says studies by Yale University and Colorado State University both found no evidence of groundwater contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing. There was the finding of the inevitable contamination of surface spills and methane seepage in two percent of the wells from compromised well casings. The comment about methane reminded me of a friend who asked about the videos on the Internet that shows people lighting their well water and equating it to hydraulic fracturing. Those have been debunked as evidence people have drilled their wells into natural gas pockets that are around coal seams. Of course natural gas from those pockets will burn, but the opponents of hydraulic fracturing don’t seem to care that their claim is bogus. Once on the Internet, always on the Internet, regardless of accuracy.

The closing paragraph of the editorial that inspired this commentary refers to the evidence that hydraulic fracturing hasn’t been shown to cause groundwater contamination and the resistance to that information from opponents. “Such reports haven’t seemed to matter to the green anti-fracking groups that continue to trumpet the alleged dangers to drinking water from oil and gas drilling. But the reports at least ought to reassure the public, which is often caught between wildly divergent claims over fracking, on this one area of bitter contention.”

It is a great editorial, and you should click on the link if you are interested in the subject. I especially suggest that for those who have been influenced to be “anti-fracking.” I don’t expect to change your mind, but perhaps you will intelligently begin to consider that the “science has been settled that fracking is not evil.” As a closing note, I detest the term, “the science is settled.” Science never stops evaluating evidence regardless of the subject.

Radiation Fears and Depleted Uranium

Posted on by

A new fear has apparently been created by the application by the U.S. Army with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to leave depleted uranium from firing tests of the Davey Crocket weapons system at the ranges on Fort Carson near Colorado Springs, Colorado and other military locations. The Army contends, and I agree, that “…cleaning up the waste at Fort Carson and other installations is too expensive.”

A military report on the Davey Crocket program indicates that about 7 ounces of depleted uranium was used in each training round. “The Army estimates that more than 1,400 of the training rounds rained down at Fort Carson; none have been found.” The Army reported in 1961 that depleted uranium could be handled “…with your bare hands and it’s not going to hurt you.” The half life is a bit under 4.5 billion years, which indicates there is a minimal or non-existence radiation risk. One research project I was assigned when I worked at the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant required the use of machining turnings of depleted uranium. I was warned that the turnings would be sharp, but there was no radiation risk.

The Davey Crocket was a small nuclear round launched from a “bazooka” system. It was tested in Nevada in 1962 in a blast named “Little Feller.” The weapon was a key component of the defense of Germany when there were fears about the massive tank-led army units of the Soviet and East German armies. There were 2,100 Davey Crocket nuclear rounds produced during the Cold War. There were also 75,000 depleted uranium training rounds produced, of which 30,000 were fired. The only risk of the depleted uranium at Fort Carson and the other sites would be if someone found one of the rounds, picked it up, and dropped it on their foot.

Indian Summer – Can We Be Offended If We Don’t Know?

Posted on by

Recently on Weather Underground, a show on the Weather Channel, the host said management had decreed they no longer use the phrase “Indian Summer” for a warm autumn day, but rather “Second Summer.” He went on to say some Native Americans find the phrase offensive but others do not, and left the impression he disagreed with his management – I don’t know how brave or foolish that may be for an employee on cable TV.

My Google search provided this as its top link: “Although the exact origins of the term are uncertain, it is thought to have been based on the warm and hazy conditions in autumn when native American Indians chose to hunt.”

While that certainly refers to Native Americans, it hardly seems offensive. Though I doubt warm fall days were the only time to hunt!

Phrase Finder says

“Indian summer is first recorded in Letters From an American Farmer, a 1778 work by the French-American soldier turned farmer J. H. St. John de Crèvecoeur…[It arrived in England] during the heyday of the British Raj in India. This led to the mistaken belief that the term referred to the Indian subcontinent.”

No one knows why the phrase refers to Indians, but Phrase Finder lists several theories. The one that may lead to offense is:

In a parallel with other ‘Indian’ terms it implied a belief in Indian falsity and untrustworthiness and that an Indian summer was an ersatz copy of the real thing.

Since no one knows the source of the term and there are many “harmless” theories, I’m surprised the phrase is falling into disrepute.

Too Much Debt, Not Enough Solutions

Posted on by

That’s the title of a recent opinion piece written by Alan Simpson and Maya MacGuineas. Simpson is a former Wyoming senator and was the co-chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (the Simpson-Bowles commission). That commission offered common sense approaches to controlling the national debt in the report it issued in 2010. The commission’s findings were of course ignored by the President and Congress because they couldn’t reach a consensus. Politicians kick the can down the road when someone, such as the commission tells them, “Our fiscal challenges are real. The solutions will be painful, and there is no easy way out.” Those words will never escape the lips of a politician whose primary focus is getting reelected.

The national debt has increased markedly in the past few years, and is approaching $18.5 trillion dollars. The article points out that people have a difficult time conceptualizing a trillion dollars. “If you spend a buck a second, you won’t hit a trillion for 32,500 years. If you spent a million a day since the birth of Christ, you wouldn’t be at a trillion yet.”

The headlines today indicate that our current politicians are not ready to take action on getting the debt under control. The new grand plan that was cobbled together to prevent a government shutdown increases the debt by $80 billion over the next two years. Debt has increased from 34 percent of the GDP in 2007 to 74 percent today. Further increases will only add to the crushing problem we are willing to leave to future generations.

Co-author of the article MacGuineas is president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and head of Campaign to Fix the Debt. I predict the AARP won’t like anything that the committee or the campaign recommends.

What To Do With Racist Origins

Posted on by

I recently read an article about expressions with racist origins, which said:

  • Peanut Gallery was a segregation-era term for the seating area for blacks in a theater. Wikipedia says “A peanut gallery was, in the days of vaudeville, a nickname for the cheapest (and ostensibly rowdiest) seats in the theater, the occupants of which were often known to heckle” and throw the cheap snack – peanuts – at actors. It says the popular comic strip Peanuts was named for this phrase. While Wikipedia doesn’t specifically mention a racial origin, todayifoundout says experts disagree on whether the phrase referred to race or economic class. I suspect the two overlap a great deal.
  • Sold Me Down the River referred to selling disruptive slaves deeper into the South where conditions were harder. NPR agrees, citing one writer who called such a sale a death sentience. Phrase Finder adds a literal use in print is in The Ohio Repository, May 1837; and the figurative meaning of betrayal by P. G. Wodehouse’s Small Bachelor, 1927.
  • Gypped, meaning cheated, referred to the supposed dishonesty of Romani (a ethnicity originating in India), called gypsies in Europe. NPR quotes the1899 Century Dictionary as tying the word to gypsies. Worldwidewords acknowledges the possibility but notes the word seems to have originated in America, where gypsies were few. “It may equally well come from the obsolete gippo, a menial kitchen servant; this once meant a man’s short tunic, from the obsolete French jupeau.”

I wonder if origins matter
If I want to communicate with people around me, I need to use words they understand. If I use the word “gyp,” launching into a monologue on why taking offense is ignorant sounds, well, offensive.

This isn’t “political correctness” to me. Words and symbols mean what the people you’re talking to think they mean. It may be a chore to stay current with the latest usage, but I don’t want to be a jerk.