EIN News says, "China Executes 3 Filipinos Despite Manila's Appeals for Clemency
China executed three Filipinos who were convicted of drug smuggling despite last-minute appeals for clemency and political concessions by Philippine leaders, officials said. (theglobeandmail.com)".
Hooray for China! We could use some real law enforcement in the US.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Exorbitant Federal Budget
The February 28 issue of C&E News covers the Food and Drug Administrations Budget Boost, and the March 21 issue covers the National Science Foundations Budget Boost.
For the FDA, Obama is requesting a 29% increase over the previous budget, in these times of excessive government and budget deficits. Reasons given are globalization of the food and drug supply, regulating tobacco products, implementing a food safety bill, creating a pathway for generic versions of biologic drugs, and enhancing regulatory science. A closer look at what all of these entail shows a $324 million increase for food safety, $70 million for new tools to respond to emerging diseases, $124 million for generic versions of biologic drugs, $49 million for general regulatory, and $455 million for tobacco related activities.
I have the impression that my food supply is safe enough. I don't see what another $324 million would do except to increase federal hirings and buy more equipment.
I was under the impression that the Center for Disease Control handles communicable diseases. Why do I need FDA involvement for $70 million?
Why would the federal government want to spend $124 million on generic versions of biological drugs? That seems to already be handled by the pharmaceutical companies. Is the $124 million a matter of controls because we don't think the pharmaceutical companies are doing the right thing and we need to have policemen in their operations?
What is the $49 million for general regulatory? The FDA has already been regulating. Haven't we had enough regulating? Are there a lot problems out there that I haven't even thought about? If so, what are they?
Why almost 1/2 $1 billion to be spent on tobacco. We already know about tobacco for all practical purposes. Everybody now knows that smoking tobacco increases the likelihood that they will have lung cancer or emphysema. We also know that it contains nicotine, which is a physiologically addictive chemical. Chewing tobacco increases prevalence for mouth cancers. I don't see what else we need to know that would justify spending a nickel on tobacco.
Bottom line: Obama and the Socialists are still in a big spending mode. It is up to the House to kill the psychology.
Going on to the NSF budget, Obama has requested $7.8 billion, a 13% increase over the previous budget. The NSF director says that in these challenging fiscal times this budget shows the confidence that the president is placing in NSF. What does that mean? If these are challenging fiscal times, why should we be increasing the budget? Is it implied that that the NSF, through an increased budget, is going to take us out of hard times? Only Socialists think that way and it has been proven incorrect many times.
The NSF director went on to say that through support of fundamental research in all disciplinary areas, jobs are generated, the economy grows and adds immeasurably to the global store of knowledge and reeducating our workforce. A lot of hooey. If that's true, why are we in the spot that we're in now after having spent in previous years $6-$7 billion per year?
Let's look at a little of the breakdown. Several programs are tackling multidisciplinary societal problems, to include science engineering and education for sustainability, research at the interface of biological, mathematical and physical sciences, science and engineering beyond Moore's Law and generally increases in the Chemistry Division. Look at the words and consider what they mean in real life. It's all pie in the sky based upon sophisticated wording to confuse the public into thinking that these are magical silver bullets that will correct all our problems.
Take "sustainability", as an example. We already know about sustainability. The sun shines and we have no indication that it will ever stop shining. That's sustainability. The sunshine generates plants, and we have no indication that that will ever stop. That's also sustainability. Coal deposits are well known and are being mined. We can perceive that coal availability will sometime come to an end. That's non-sustainability. What then are we going to study with respect to sustainability? It's applicable to everything we do, and a little common sense on every aspect of its involvement easily leads to the conclusion that we don't need egg heads to decide whether something is sustainable or not.
$63 Million will be spent on Science, Engineering & Education for Sustainability. I need to know how it will be spent. More government jobs to do something that doesn't need doing by government, since it would be better done by private industry? It has been said that chemistry is the key to any advances that will be made in sustainability. I'm a chemist, and I generally agree with that. I also know that private industry is strongly interested in sustainability to keep their businesses running. We don't need government involved in this.
The NSF director says any cuts in the budget will be devastating. She's the director. How can she think otherwise? But that doesn't make it right. Beer drinkers would also like a free supply of beer.
One piece of good news is that the NSF appears to be cutting back on its grants to third-party investigators. I have said before that this is an area for fraud and deception and should be eliminated anyhow.
For the FDA, Obama is requesting a 29% increase over the previous budget, in these times of excessive government and budget deficits. Reasons given are globalization of the food and drug supply, regulating tobacco products, implementing a food safety bill, creating a pathway for generic versions of biologic drugs, and enhancing regulatory science. A closer look at what all of these entail shows a $324 million increase for food safety, $70 million for new tools to respond to emerging diseases, $124 million for generic versions of biologic drugs, $49 million for general regulatory, and $455 million for tobacco related activities.
I have the impression that my food supply is safe enough. I don't see what another $324 million would do except to increase federal hirings and buy more equipment.
I was under the impression that the Center for Disease Control handles communicable diseases. Why do I need FDA involvement for $70 million?
Why would the federal government want to spend $124 million on generic versions of biological drugs? That seems to already be handled by the pharmaceutical companies. Is the $124 million a matter of controls because we don't think the pharmaceutical companies are doing the right thing and we need to have policemen in their operations?
What is the $49 million for general regulatory? The FDA has already been regulating. Haven't we had enough regulating? Are there a lot problems out there that I haven't even thought about? If so, what are they?
Why almost 1/2 $1 billion to be spent on tobacco. We already know about tobacco for all practical purposes. Everybody now knows that smoking tobacco increases the likelihood that they will have lung cancer or emphysema. We also know that it contains nicotine, which is a physiologically addictive chemical. Chewing tobacco increases prevalence for mouth cancers. I don't see what else we need to know that would justify spending a nickel on tobacco.
Bottom line: Obama and the Socialists are still in a big spending mode. It is up to the House to kill the psychology.
Going on to the NSF budget, Obama has requested $7.8 billion, a 13% increase over the previous budget. The NSF director says that in these challenging fiscal times this budget shows the confidence that the president is placing in NSF. What does that mean? If these are challenging fiscal times, why should we be increasing the budget? Is it implied that that the NSF, through an increased budget, is going to take us out of hard times? Only Socialists think that way and it has been proven incorrect many times.
The NSF director went on to say that through support of fundamental research in all disciplinary areas, jobs are generated, the economy grows and adds immeasurably to the global store of knowledge and reeducating our workforce. A lot of hooey. If that's true, why are we in the spot that we're in now after having spent in previous years $6-$7 billion per year?
Let's look at a little of the breakdown. Several programs are tackling multidisciplinary societal problems, to include science engineering and education for sustainability, research at the interface of biological, mathematical and physical sciences, science and engineering beyond Moore's Law and generally increases in the Chemistry Division. Look at the words and consider what they mean in real life. It's all pie in the sky based upon sophisticated wording to confuse the public into thinking that these are magical silver bullets that will correct all our problems.
Take "sustainability", as an example. We already know about sustainability. The sun shines and we have no indication that it will ever stop shining. That's sustainability. The sunshine generates plants, and we have no indication that that will ever stop. That's also sustainability. Coal deposits are well known and are being mined. We can perceive that coal availability will sometime come to an end. That's non-sustainability. What then are we going to study with respect to sustainability? It's applicable to everything we do, and a little common sense on every aspect of its involvement easily leads to the conclusion that we don't need egg heads to decide whether something is sustainable or not.
$63 Million will be spent on Science, Engineering & Education for Sustainability. I need to know how it will be spent. More government jobs to do something that doesn't need doing by government, since it would be better done by private industry? It has been said that chemistry is the key to any advances that will be made in sustainability. I'm a chemist, and I generally agree with that. I also know that private industry is strongly interested in sustainability to keep their businesses running. We don't need government involved in this.
The NSF director says any cuts in the budget will be devastating. She's the director. How can she think otherwise? But that doesn't make it right. Beer drinkers would also like a free supply of beer.
One piece of good news is that the NSF appears to be cutting back on its grants to third-party investigators. I have said before that this is an area for fraud and deception and should be eliminated anyhow.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Regulating Perchlorate in Drinking Water
Perchlorate has been found to be a drinking water contaminant. It is believed that the pollution sources are from rocket fuels and fire works, as well as occurring naturally in some areas. It is suspected to interfere with thyroid function. The EPA has decided to set a standard for its content in drinking water. The C&E News article of February 7 did not mention what that standard might be, but California has set a limit of no more than 6 mcg per liter. In a separate EPA report, an average of 4 mcg per liter was reported.
The Bush administration had previously decided not to regulate it, but this is being reevaluated by the present administration. The EPA director said that the consideration is being based upon extensive review of the best available science and health needs for the American people.
However, I thought I'd like to know something about the the toxicity of perchlorate with respect to thyroid metabolism, for which it is accused.
Joseph C. Siglin, et al. performed a, "A 90-Day Drinking Water Toxicity Study in Rats of the Environmental Contaminant Ammonium Perchlorate". They found a thyroid change at 10 mg per kilo per day and no change at 1 mg per kilo per day. For convenience, we can eliminate the ammonium contribution to the molecule and just say there was no change at 1 mg per kilo per day for perchlorate.
An average person weighs about 70 kg. Children drinking tap water may weigh as little as 20 kg. Let's take the low children weight. The no-affect level for child would be 20 mg per day. That's 20,000 mcg per day. At 4 mcg per liter, a child drinking 5000 L of water in a day would have no thyroid effect but would certainly be drowned.
In essence, I am not against regulating perchlorate in drinking water, if it is necessary, nor am I against regulating about 16 other chemicals, providing we can show that there is toxicity at the levels for which they currently exist in drinking water. However, my quick calculations above seem to indicate it is even ridiculous to consider it. We also must remember that analytical techniques have developed significantly in the last 50 years, so that we can go down to a gnat's eyelash. However the mere fact that we can find it does not mean that it is significant
This all boils down to the usual consideration of whether regulation is necessary. Let's remember that some of the major problems in employment is the resistance of employers to hire based upon numerous regulations of the federal government.
The Bush administration had previously decided not to regulate it, but this is being reevaluated by the present administration. The EPA director said that the consideration is being based upon extensive review of the best available science and health needs for the American people.
However, I thought I'd like to know something about the the toxicity of perchlorate with respect to thyroid metabolism, for which it is accused.
Joseph C. Siglin, et al. performed a, "A 90-Day Drinking Water Toxicity Study in Rats of the Environmental Contaminant Ammonium Perchlorate". They found a thyroid change at 10 mg per kilo per day and no change at 1 mg per kilo per day. For convenience, we can eliminate the ammonium contribution to the molecule and just say there was no change at 1 mg per kilo per day for perchlorate.
An average person weighs about 70 kg. Children drinking tap water may weigh as little as 20 kg. Let's take the low children weight. The no-affect level for child would be 20 mg per day. That's 20,000 mcg per day. At 4 mcg per liter, a child drinking 5000 L of water in a day would have no thyroid effect but would certainly be drowned.
In essence, I am not against regulating perchlorate in drinking water, if it is necessary, nor am I against regulating about 16 other chemicals, providing we can show that there is toxicity at the levels for which they currently exist in drinking water. However, my quick calculations above seem to indicate it is even ridiculous to consider it. We also must remember that analytical techniques have developed significantly in the last 50 years, so that we can go down to a gnat's eyelash. However the mere fact that we can find it does not mean that it is significant
This all boils down to the usual consideration of whether regulation is necessary. Let's remember that some of the major problems in employment is the resistance of employers to hire based upon numerous regulations of the federal government.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Scientific Integrity in the Federal Government
This writing starts with a publication in the January 10 issue of C&E News. It is entitled, "Federal Blueprint for Scientific integrity".
It is said that Congress has been following the issue of scientific integrity at federal agencies for many years.
In March of 2009, Pres. Barack Obama pledged in his address to executive departments and agencies that government officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions. He was referring to this in regard to forming public policy.
In December of 2010, the Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) issued the long-awaited memorandum to federal departments designed to ensure scientific integrity and the government. The memorandum does not seem to cover the fact that all various agencies of the federal government work for the president, whose ideological persuasions are well-known to the leaders of those federal agencies and the other employees. Therefore, to hold their jobs, they generally tend to show bias in scientific investigations within their departments. in addition, they tend to use subterfuge in grants to third-party investigators, who also know that the handwriting is on the wall to come up with answers which are consistent with the ideologies of the president, in order to have their grants continued
In the February 7 issue of C&E News, it is reported that the Department of interior became the first department to issue a new policy for scientific integrity based on the previous OSTP memorandum. Interior Sec. Ken Salazar said in a statement that the policy sets forth clear expectations for all employees - political and career - to uphold the principles of scientific integrity and establishes a process for an impartial review of alleged breaching of those principles. This is, again, a motherhood statement very similar to Pres. Obama's original speech. Among the specifics, is the statement that government scientists may speak freely to the news media and public in areas related to their work and have protection for whistleblowers.
I don't know what else the Salazar Policy. While there is indication of protection for whistleblowers, it certainly will not correct my major concern that there will always be bias toward what the boss thinks in order to protect one's job
The only solution to this problem is to change the fundamental ideologies by replacing those in power, such as Ken Salazar and Pres. Obama, with new people having a more reasonable ideology for the progress of the United States rather than a redistribution of wealth on a worldwide basis.
Let's hope we can achieve this in the forthcoming 2012 election.
It is said that Congress has been following the issue of scientific integrity at federal agencies for many years.
In March of 2009, Pres. Barack Obama pledged in his address to executive departments and agencies that government officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions. He was referring to this in regard to forming public policy.
In December of 2010, the Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) issued the long-awaited memorandum to federal departments designed to ensure scientific integrity and the government. The memorandum does not seem to cover the fact that all various agencies of the federal government work for the president, whose ideological persuasions are well-known to the leaders of those federal agencies and the other employees. Therefore, to hold their jobs, they generally tend to show bias in scientific investigations within their departments. in addition, they tend to use subterfuge in grants to third-party investigators, who also know that the handwriting is on the wall to come up with answers which are consistent with the ideologies of the president, in order to have their grants continued
In the February 7 issue of C&E News, it is reported that the Department of interior became the first department to issue a new policy for scientific integrity based on the previous OSTP memorandum. Interior Sec. Ken Salazar said in a statement that the policy sets forth clear expectations for all employees - political and career - to uphold the principles of scientific integrity and establishes a process for an impartial review of alleged breaching of those principles. This is, again, a motherhood statement very similar to Pres. Obama's original speech. Among the specifics, is the statement that government scientists may speak freely to the news media and public in areas related to their work and have protection for whistleblowers.
I don't know what else the Salazar Policy. While there is indication of protection for whistleblowers, it certainly will not correct my major concern that there will always be bias toward what the boss thinks in order to protect one's job
The only solution to this problem is to change the fundamental ideologies by replacing those in power, such as Ken Salazar and Pres. Obama, with new people having a more reasonable ideology for the progress of the United States rather than a redistribution of wealth on a worldwide basis.
Let's hope we can achieve this in the forthcoming 2012 election.
Monday, March 21, 2011
More Unnecessary Foreign Programs
The March 14 issue of C&E News has an article entitled, "Strengthening Science Abroad".
The article says that US federal agencies are becoming increasingly engaged with foreign countries on subjects involving global health, science diplomacy, and climate change.
The National Institutes of Health has several programs relating to global health. The US taxpayers have been supporting this program for some years by training 4000 scientists from low income countries. In four years, 35 grants were awarded under this program. It did not say what it cost the American taxpayer
The State Department has a Science Envoy Program to bolster research collaboration and innovation with scientists in other countries, presumably all at US taxpayer expense. The State Department sent three big shot scientists to foreign countries in the first wave of "envoys". Why do we need the federal government on this? I would leave it up to the universities and private industry, which have a direct interest in such operation.
The US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration has a global development policy which includes global climate change, food security, and health. If the National Institutes of Health are already handling global health, why do we need involvement by Oceanic? What also is this program on "climate change"? Is this another effort on the part of the Administration and various departments to develop a worldwide interest in condemning carbon dioxide as a prelude to using it for additional tax revenue?
All of the above sounds good from a humanitarian point of view. The average American is generous in helping people who need help. However, the age-old problem of helping people and having them become dependent is always with us. We have been helping foreigners for years. They need to help themselves, which automatically excludes our federal government from most involvements. We have a real budget problem in government operations. Let's start significantly reducing some of these giveaway programs.
The article says that US federal agencies are becoming increasingly engaged with foreign countries on subjects involving global health, science diplomacy, and climate change.
The National Institutes of Health has several programs relating to global health. The US taxpayers have been supporting this program for some years by training 4000 scientists from low income countries. In four years, 35 grants were awarded under this program. It did not say what it cost the American taxpayer
The State Department has a Science Envoy Program to bolster research collaboration and innovation with scientists in other countries, presumably all at US taxpayer expense. The State Department sent three big shot scientists to foreign countries in the first wave of "envoys". Why do we need the federal government on this? I would leave it up to the universities and private industry, which have a direct interest in such operation.
The US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration has a global development policy which includes global climate change, food security, and health. If the National Institutes of Health are already handling global health, why do we need involvement by Oceanic? What also is this program on "climate change"? Is this another effort on the part of the Administration and various departments to develop a worldwide interest in condemning carbon dioxide as a prelude to using it for additional tax revenue?
All of the above sounds good from a humanitarian point of view. The average American is generous in helping people who need help. However, the age-old problem of helping people and having them become dependent is always with us. We have been helping foreigners for years. They need to help themselves, which automatically excludes our federal government from most involvements. We have a real budget problem in government operations. Let's start significantly reducing some of these giveaway programs.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
More Unnecessary Research by Government
The March 14th issue of C&E News contained an article entitled, "Oil Spill's Air Effects Probed". The article discusses research flights conducted by the Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's plane carrying environmental instrumentation to measure methane and other hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, 03, nitrogen oxides and other species.
It is not stated how much this operation cost, but I consider it silly research in these times of budget deficiencies and requirements to cut expenditures.
Crude oil is essentially a mixture of light hydrocarbons and heavy hydrocarbons. The total mixture is lighter than water and when an amount is released from below the surface, it remains cohesive and rises to the surface as a pool, where the lighter components evaporate into the atmosphere. This process continues until all of the light components are gone and the concentration decreases in time, as the heavier hydrocarbons remain. Those light hydrocarbons that dissipate into the atmosphere are dispersed very easily by wind currents and become widespread low concentration in the atmosphere. Therefore, the measurement of hydrocarbon concentration in the air above an oil spill at a specific time is not environmentally important, because it is not long-lasting.
Since this is information which we previously knew, it was unnecessary to conduct additional expensive research.
It is not stated how much this operation cost, but I consider it silly research in these times of budget deficiencies and requirements to cut expenditures.
Crude oil is essentially a mixture of light hydrocarbons and heavy hydrocarbons. The total mixture is lighter than water and when an amount is released from below the surface, it remains cohesive and rises to the surface as a pool, where the lighter components evaporate into the atmosphere. This process continues until all of the light components are gone and the concentration decreases in time, as the heavier hydrocarbons remain. Those light hydrocarbons that dissipate into the atmosphere are dispersed very easily by wind currents and become widespread low concentration in the atmosphere. Therefore, the measurement of hydrocarbon concentration in the air above an oil spill at a specific time is not environmentally important, because it is not long-lasting.
Since this is information which we previously knew, it was unnecessary to conduct additional expensive research.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Dishonesty in Grants
I recently saw the movie Fat Head. It is an interesting documentation on diet, but it includes some comments on grants.
Grants are the payments of funds generally to establish a program of research or investigation.
In Fat Head, two types of grants are mentioned. One is an advance of funds from a private or public company, and the second is an advance of funds from a Federal government department.
The recipients of those funds are usually academicians associated with various universities. Since the grants are on an annual basis, the recipients usually recognize that in order to receive additional grants for subsequent years, they must come up with results which are consistent with the ideology or plan of the grantor.
An example of a private industry grant, might be one from a pharmaceutical company which is asking for research on the safety of a medicinal material. It is obvious to the grant receiver that the pharmaceutical company wishes to show safety in use of the material and the investigator must come up with a good safety report in order to receive subsequent grants. In fact, this compromises the scientific integrity of the grant receiver.
In the case of a federal department as a grantor, an example might be the Department of Energy funding an investigation on climate change caused by carbon dioxide. The grantee, fully knowing the department's position on CO2 and climate change, is then encouraged to find data which will support the departments position. Again, this compromises the scientific integrity of the grantee.
This is not to say that all grants are bad, but most of them are. It is difficult to find a grant which is completely clear of political implications.
I don't have any specific suggestions on how grants might be controlled in order to maintain scientific integrity. One way might be to eliminate government grants completely. This would be consistent with present efforts to control government expenditures and reduce the size and power of government. Government has its own laboratories, which can conduct research on about any subject. Government laboratories can also manipulate data, but results would be interpreted by the news media and the general public as more questionable than if the research had been performed in a third-party academic institution.
Grants are the payments of funds generally to establish a program of research or investigation.
In Fat Head, two types of grants are mentioned. One is an advance of funds from a private or public company, and the second is an advance of funds from a Federal government department.
The recipients of those funds are usually academicians associated with various universities. Since the grants are on an annual basis, the recipients usually recognize that in order to receive additional grants for subsequent years, they must come up with results which are consistent with the ideology or plan of the grantor.
An example of a private industry grant, might be one from a pharmaceutical company which is asking for research on the safety of a medicinal material. It is obvious to the grant receiver that the pharmaceutical company wishes to show safety in use of the material and the investigator must come up with a good safety report in order to receive subsequent grants. In fact, this compromises the scientific integrity of the grant receiver.
In the case of a federal department as a grantor, an example might be the Department of Energy funding an investigation on climate change caused by carbon dioxide. The grantee, fully knowing the department's position on CO2 and climate change, is then encouraged to find data which will support the departments position. Again, this compromises the scientific integrity of the grantee.
This is not to say that all grants are bad, but most of them are. It is difficult to find a grant which is completely clear of political implications.
I don't have any specific suggestions on how grants might be controlled in order to maintain scientific integrity. One way might be to eliminate government grants completely. This would be consistent with present efforts to control government expenditures and reduce the size and power of government. Government has its own laboratories, which can conduct research on about any subject. Government laboratories can also manipulate data, but results would be interpreted by the news media and the general public as more questionable than if the research had been performed in a third-party academic institution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
