Monthly Archives: March 2010

The Nightmare of the Tar Sands Now a Movie

Posted on by

This is the trailer for Dirty Oil, a film about the Alberta Tar Sands that premieres this week in 25 theaters across the UK.  This looks like an excellent movie and let’s hope it has an impact.  But it’s important to remember that all oil is dirty when it’s burned, not just the tar sands kind.  It just so happens we get a ton of oil from Canada’s tar sands that is the filthiest form of oil we use.

“Released in cinemas March 15th 2010 as part of the trilogy for The Co-operatives “Toxic Fuels” campaign”. Dirty Oil goes behind-the-scenes into the strip-mined world of Alberta, Canada, where the vast and toxic Tar Sands deposit supplies the U.S. with the majority of its oil. Through the eyes of scientists, big oil officials, politicians, doctors, environmentalists, and aboriginal citizens directly impacted by the largest industrial project on the planet today, the filmmakers journey to both sides of the border to see the emotional and irreversible toll this black gold rush fueled by Americas addiction to oil is taking on our planet.” (from Youtube)

I came across a blog, The Enbridge Pipeline in My Backyard. It contains a lot of information, photos and personal stories from a person who lives near the new pipeline construction area in northern Minnesota.   Life hasn’t been easy for the people there.  The blog writer has taken a lot of photos and two of them are on page 2.

Pipeline mess in northern Minnesota -- Photo by J. Johnson

They will pump 7.6 millions gallons of water from Chub Lake, then run it through the pipelines, both the 20" and 36" pipes, from Superior to Alberta, and back to Chub Lake Park. From there, they will filter it, test it, and return the 7.6 million gallons of water to the lake, all with "minimal impact on the lake". Photo by J. Johnson

See More here

The Obama administration and new energy legislation will (probably) allow for and even encourage more drilling for oil and natural gas.  The Alberta Clipper pipeline was approved by the U.S. State Department in August 2009 by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. If this project is allowed to continue, we can probably be assured of increasing CO2 emissions and runaway climate change sooner than if it were shut down as soon as possible, which is what should happen.  It was an enormous mistake to approve of this pipeline and the world’s dirtiest oil that it will carry into the United States, feeding our addiction. We are still oil junkies, but a growing number of us want off the drug.

Native American groups are suing the state department, or were trying to. I’m not aware of any success with their lawsuit.

Four environmental and Native American advocacy groups have filed suit challenging the US State Department’s August approval of Enbridge Energy’s plans to build the Alberta Clipper tar sands pipeline. The pipeline would pump 450,000 barrels of tar sands oil per [...]

J.D. Roth on the Rewards of Making

Posted on by

From Boing Boing:

J.D. Roth of the excellent personal finance blog, Get Rich Slowly, read an advance copy of my forthcoming book, Made By Hand, and wrote a great post on the rewards of spending more time making things. He starts off his essay with an homage to his late father, who

Science Literacy, the Nature of Science and Religion | The Intersection

Posted on by

Today I’m off to Portland, OR for the 2010 American Physical Society’s March meeting to participate in this panel:

Science Literacy, the Nature of Science and Religion

Jon Miller: The Development of Civic Scientific Literacy in the United States

Sheril Kirshenbaum: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future

Murray Peshkin: Addressing the Public About Science and Religion

Judith Scotchmoor: Increasing our understanding of how science really works

Art Hobson: Physics Literacy for All Students

Our session will be moderated by Lawrence Woolf and you can read the abstracts online. I’m really looking forward to what I’m certain will be a very interesting discussion.


The Argument Against DTC Genomics Marketing and such

Posted on by

Keith Grimaldi and Daniel MacArthur and Andrew Yates and I have a little bit of confusion. I think we are arguing over 2 different points.

First, Keith, Daniel and Drew need to go read a paper I authored entitled

"In Need of a Reality Check" published in the May 2009 Nature Biotech Journal.

I think many people have misunderstood our messages. So to be simple.

A. Keep the Medical, Well, Medical.

1. Medical Genetic tests that are to be used clinically should have clinical input
2. Medical Genetic tests should be regulated according to the laws of each state/country
3. DTC Genomic tests come in several flavors. The DTCG Medical tests should be Medical.

I have been championing this one for a LONG time. The arguments for this are pretty clear

1. Without clinical input, selling medical tests without an understanding of their use on a FIRST HAND basis is a bad business plan. Also, the risks of a non physician over marketing these tests as to be used for too many things or used before the science pans out could harm the consumer. Think OvaSure......

How? Via false advice and guidance, delivered not by a physician, but by a website.
Who takes accountability and liability for this? The answer no one. Thus, the chain of trust is broken and the patient is left no recourse.
2. Medical Genetic Tests should be regulated by the laws of the country/state/province of use.

Why? Well, if we don't agree to follow laws, we are lawless. How does being lawless benefit the consumer/patient? How does it build trust? It doesn't, thus, EVEN IF the laws are "stupid and outdated" those who break the law, break the trust required for such special testing and care.

3. Medicinally used genetic tests, whether DTCG or not, should be represented and treated as Medical Tests.

Why? This goes back again to quality control and tests. This also goes back to trust. If a patient is encouraged to use a medicinally used genetic test, they should have the confidence that it meets medical quality and that the lab follows that are required for medical tests.

Am I wrong? I challenge someone to give me 3 good reasons why these rules should not be followed. And they cannot use "We are slowing innovation" "It is inevitable" or "You are rent seeking doctors" Why? these are stupid arguments that you will need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. Why? When patient safety and trust is one the line, you better be DAMN sure of your stance.

B. The marketing of these current DTCG tests in not keeping medicinally used tests in the medical realm. They should immediately correct this course.

1. Marketing message confusion leads people to equate nonmedical tests as medical. This results in the customer/patient. relying on non-standard of care tests.

I use here the example of Dane Jasper an SV entrepreneur who said he could save "25 bucks" buy relying on 23andMe's CF test instead of going to a trained professional to have testing done.

2. Simply stating your tests are "nonmedical" does not make them "nonmedical" especially if they have a long history of being used medically.

May I skip getting licensed in a state if I say I do "nonmedical" medicine? May I give you coumadin "OTC" if it is to not be used to diagnose or treat a condition? No, I may not. Can someone OTHER than a pharmacist/doctor get access to medications? Not in the US.

They do this to avoid charlatanism and people putting other people at risk. In this case, the risk is a "nonmedical" diagnosis of CF carrier state, or a "nonmedical" misdiagnosis of no CF carrier state.

3. Marketing "NonMedical" Medical tests as cool and hip

A. Turns off doctors from using useful tools
B. Makes the valued noble profession of medicine appear, trivial, akin to Paris Hilton.

Please stop this now.

The Sherpa Says: This is too long to have in a post. I am drafting a paper on this subject now. But you first should read "In Need of A reality Check" in Nature Biotech.