Science – Page 89 – a sibilant intake of breath

Vat-grown meat

As discussed previously, meat eating is problematic in terms of the environment, animal welfare, and human health. One mechanism through which one of those concerns can be eliminated – and the others potentially mitigated – is to remove animals from the equation. This week saw the world’s first international conference on the industrial manufacture of meat. Arguably, that is what the beef, pork, and chicken industries already do but, in this case, the meat is to be grown in industrial bioreactors instead of inside animals that are subsequently killed.

It should be noted from the outset that there are some problems that this approach absolutely will not solve. It will always take more energy to sustain a meat diet than a plant diet, whether that energy is going into cows or industrial processes. Similarly, large amounts of energy use associated with transportation and refrigeration would be undiminished in the face of in vitro meat production. Given that plants will probably always be a feedstock to the process, concerns about water and fossil fuel use in agriculture, as well as fertilizer and pesticide runoff, remain in place. That said, it is possible that vat grown meat could be marginally more efficient, since calories would not be directed towards growing skeletal or nervous systems. Big vats would also have a higher volume to surface area ratio than animals, making it less energy intensive to keep warm.

The major problem vat-grown meat could solve is animal welfare, though that is probably the reason for avoiding meat that most people find least compelling. Even most vegetarians drink milk and eat eggs, most of which is produced under conditions equally awful for the animals. Arguably, vat grown meat would still be a kind of ethical violation – not because any animals suffer, per se, but because the whole concept is somehow monstrous and demeaning to nature.

All told, this doesn’t seem like much of a solution. The way slaughterhouse animals exist already approximates the character of an industrial meat factory. There is also little reason to believe that firms that happily feed all manner of drugs and hormones to animals would not similarly manipulate huge tanks full of artificial fat and muscle. As such, any hygienic concerns about factory farmed animals would probably translate readily to vat-grown meat.

The relevance of any of this is fairly questionable, given that vats are currently capable of producing the very lowest quality kind of meat (fodder for ground meat and nuggets) and can only do so at a financial cost higher than industrial agriculture. For all intents and purposes, we have already built industrial bioreactors on the skeletons of livestock. Shifting those to steel drums, as an alternative, will only make sense if the economics swing strongly in that direction for some reason.

Drugs for mental enhancement

A recent informal survey, conducted by Nature, suggests that large numbers of scientists are ‘doping’ with drugs that enhance their wakefulness and concentration. While the old joke holds that “a mathematician is a device for converting coffee into theorems,” drugs of choice have expanded to include Modafinil (Provigil) and Methylphenidate (Ritalin).

One in five respondents said they had used drugs for non-medical reasons to stimulate their focus, concentration or memory…

For those who choose to use, methylphenidate was the most popular: 62% of users reported taking it. 44% reported taking modafinil, and 15% said they had taken beta blockers such as propanolol, revealing an overlap between drugs. 80 respondents specified other drugs that they were taking. The most common of these was adderall, an amphetamine similar to methylphenidate.

I do not find this surprising. At a conference once, I met a young woman who pays her tuition by selling drugs usually prescribed for attention deficit disorder to fellow students at her Ivy League school.

It is not clear what kind of response is justified in the face of such anecdotal evidence. It is not obvious, prima facie, that the use of drugs is an inappropriate way to improve one’s mental function or academic output. People use all sorts of mechanisms – from physical activities to dietary modifications – to try to achieve the same end. Prescription drugs are thoroughly vetted for safety, though it is also fair to say that people self-prescribing are likely to make mistakes in terms of dosages and interactions with other substances. People make all kinds of sacrifices for success and it isn’t clear why it is obviously inappropriate for them to run the risks associated with altering their biochemistry. Given the degree to which success is related to self-esteem and contentedness, as well as the degree to which perceptions of failure associate with depression, it could arguably be better for one’s mental health to use whatever aids to success are available.

One legitimate concern is about a spiral effect. If honour roll students and leading researchers start becoming dependent on drugs to improve their focus, it might become difficult for anyone not doping to keep up. That could lead to situations in which people feel strongly pressured to do drugs as well. Of course, that strong pressure already exists in competitive academic environments. Still, there is reason to be especially wary when it is combined with psychoactive chemicals.

The questions suggested by the survey cannot be adequately addressed in a short blog post, but it does seem likely that they will be the subject of greater amounts of attention in the future. The competitive nature of the world, and the need to achieve things ever more rapidly, ensures that a market will exist for products that help people cope with both of those things. As with other unauthorized uses of drugs, the policies adopted by governments will affect things like price, availability, safety, and access to information and advice. Getting the balance right will be tricky.

Some carbon capture similes

The media is full of talk about carbon capture and storage (CCS). At the same time, there are only four facilities in the world where it is done. None of them resemble a conventional coal-fired power plant.

As a result, our cost projections for the technology are far more speculative than is commonly acknowledged. It is like we are in the era of the Wright Brothers, and we are trying to sort out the economics of running a major airline.

As I have said before, we had better hope that CCS works, if only because so many different climate change mitigation plans depend on it. At the same time, we really need to acknowledge that there is some chance that it simply will not work, and we will need to find those megatonnes of reduction somewhere else.

That uncertainty also pertains to questions about building more coal power plants. Building them today – with the hope that CCS will eventually become available – is highly irresponsible. It might be compared to jumping out of a plane and hoping you can sew yourself a parachute before you hit the ground.

Thoroughly impressed by TED

Initially drawn in by the Al Gore video, I have been watching lots of the films from the TED conference, and being impressed by many of them. I am more impressed than ever by cephalopods, and some of my idle curiosity about how ants decide what to do has been satisfied. I also learned about some new reasons for which we should be wary about the long-term use of antidepressant drugs.

Putting these short lectures online is an excellent way of demonstrating the power of the internet to distribute ideas. Even for those of us who would balk at flying to California to attend some very neat talks, fiber optic links provide a low-carbon alternative.

Thermonuclear weapon design

A common misunderstanding about thermonuclear weapons (those that employ tritium-deuterium fusion as well as the fission of uranium or plutonium) is that most of the extra energy produced comes from fusion. In fact, the great majority comes from additional fission encouraged by neutrons produced by the fusion reaction. Each atom that undergoes fission generates 180 million electron volts (MeV) of energy, equivalent to 74 terajoules per kilogram. Tritium-deuterium fusion produces only 17.6 MeV per incident, though the materials that undergo fusion are far less massive than those that undergo fission.

The general functioning of a modern thermonuclear bomb (Teller-Ulam configuration) is something like the following:

A neutron generator bombards the plutonium pit of the primary (fission device).
Exploding-bridgewire or slapper detonators initiate the high explosive shell around the pit.
The pit is compressed to a supercritical density.
The pit undergoes nuclear fission, aided by the neutron reflecting properties of a shell made of beryllium, or a material with similar neutron-reflection properties.
The fission process in the primary is ‘boosted’ by the fusion of tritium-deuterium gas contained in a hollow chamber within the plutonium.
The x-rays produced by the primary are directed toward the secondary through an interphase material.
Within the secondary, heat and compression from the primary induce the production of tritium from lithium deuteride.
Tritium and deuterium fuse, producing energy and high-energy neutrons.
Those neutrons help induce fusion within a uranium-235 pit within the secondary (called the spark plug). Layers of uranium-235 may alternate with layers of lithium deuteride, and the whole secondary may be encased in a sphere of uranium-235 or 238. This tamper holds the secondary together during fission and fusion. Uranium-235 or 238 will also undergo fission in the presence of neutrons from fusion.

Throughout this process, the whole device is held together by a uranium-238 (depleted uranium) case. This is to ensure that the reactions proceed as far as possible before the whole physics package is blasted apart.

One important security feature can be built into the detonators that set off the explosive shell around the primary. By giving each detonator a fuse with a precisely set random delay, it is possible to ensure that only those who know the timing of each detonator can cause the bomb to explode as designed. If the detonators do not fire in a very precisely coordinated way, the result is likely to be the liquefaction of the plutonium core, followed by it being forced out of the casing as a fountain of liquid metal. Nasty as that would be, it is better than the unauthorized detonation of the weapon.

The detonators are also an important safety feature since their ability to cause very stable explosives to detonate means that the high explosive shell can be made of something that doesn’t detonate easily when exposed to shock or heat. That is an especially valuable feature in a world where bombs are sometimes held inside crashing planes, and where fires on submarines can prove impossible to control.

Al Gore at TED

The Technology Entertainment Design Conference takes place annually in Monterey, California. At the most recent one, Al Gore presented an updated version of his climate change slideshow, made famous by his film An Inconvenient Truth.

It seems a bit remarkable for me that when I first saw that film in Oxford, I wasn’t yet convinced about the full extent of the threat of climate change. Since then, I have devoted the majority of my time and attention to this issue. If you have not done so yet, I encourage you to watch the video linked above, and perhaps read some of the posts in my climate change index.

It is not unrealistic to say that climate change will be the defining issue of the next century, and possibly far beyond. Gaining a strong understanding of it is the least we can do as educated people today.

Hurricanes and climate change action

At several points in the past, I have mentioned the possibility that the majority of people will not be willing to accept serious action on climate change until at least one big, unambiguously climate related disaster has taken place. The same point is made in Joseph Romm’s book but, whereas I have speculated that it could be vanishing icecaps or large-scale climate induced human migration in Asia, he seems to think that Atlantic hurricanes striking the United States may make the difference.

There is good reason to find this plausible. The strength and frequency of hurricanes both have a lot to do with sea surface temperature (SST). While it isn’t feasible to attribute the occurrence or harmfulness of a particular storm to climate change, it is relatively easy to show a correlation between rising global temperature, rising SST, and more severe hurricanes. Simulations conducted by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory led to them concluding that “the strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth’s climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” Within decades, rising SSTs could make the kind of extraordinary hurricane seasons that have proliferated since 2000 the low end of the new scale.

This matters partly because a hurricane-climate change connection would affect Americans directly and very visibly. Insurance prices would rise further, at the same time as more areas became uninsurable and serious questions arose about whether to rebuild at all in some places. The cost trade-offs between insurance, protective measures like higher levees, and storm risk would be thrown into sharp relief. The perceived damages associated with climate change would also shift from being associated with people outside of North America at some distant point in the future to being both physically and temporally immediate.

Obviously, it would be better if serious measures to combat climate change (eliminating non-CCS coal, pushing hard on energy efficiency, building dramatically more renewable capacity, etc) could come about simply as the result of a reasoned assessment of the IPCC’s scientific conclusions and projected associated costs. If, however, it is going to take disasters before people and politicians are ready to embrace real change, we should hope that they will come early, carry a relatively small cost in human lives, and not exacerbate the problem of climate change in and of themselves, as fires and ice loss do.

Hell and High Water

Joseph Romm’s Hell and High Water: Global Warming – the Solution and the Politics – and What We Should Do might be fairly described as an American version of George Monbiot’s Heat. It describes much less intrusive means for responding to the threat of climate change, as well as being more tailored to American politics. It is also less ambitious that Monbiot’s work, since it aims at the stabilization of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) below 550 parts per million (ppm) rather than 450.

The book is basically divided into two sections: one of which describes the nature and extent of the threat posed by climate change and one talking about solutions. The book is very explicitly focused on what climate change will do to Americans. Romm argues that too much coverage has focused on effects in poor countries, leading Americans to think the impact of climate change on their lives will be minimal.

Romm talks a great deal about how groups opposed to GHG regulation have created and funded a group of irresponsible ‘experts’ trying to convince the general public that major disagreement still exists about the reality and probable impact of climate change. He is very critical of the media, particularly for giving equal attention to the conclusions of a few oil-funded crackpots, compared with those of the enormous majority of scientists and all major scientific assessments.

I have some quibbles with some of Romm’s technological recommendations. I think he is a bit overconfident about the rapidity with which carbon capture and storage and cellulosic ethanol might be deployed. That said, the vast majority of what he says is correct, well defended, and similar to the thinking of others who have considered the questions seriously.

One notable omission from the book is emissions associated with air travel. At no point are they mentioned, either as a problem or an area where policy could yield improvements. As Monbiot effectively highlights, emissions from air travel are among the toughest to address, not least because lots of well-off people who consider themselves environmentalists and support good environmental policies nonetheless want to be able to jet off to South Africa or New Zealand.

Overall, Romm’s book is informative and accessible. He does a good job of bringing the issue home for Americans – de-emphasizing issues like the preservation of nature and international fairness – and emphasizing why they, personally, should be worried. Certainly, the kind of climatic impacts projected by the IPCC for 2030 or so are enough to make any reasonable person extremely nervous. He is right to say that, in a world where GHG concentrations are 650 ppm or more, climate change will be the issue being dealt with by all governments. Equally, he is right to point out that concentrations of that magnitude have a very serious risk of pushing us into a self-reinforcing cycle producing temperature increases of more than 5˚C globally and sea level increases of 25 metres or more. Hell and high water, indeed.

Here come the jellies

What do you get when you combine overfishing with large-scale nutrient runoff from industrial farms into rivers and the sea? Plagues of jellyfish:

The Namibian coast, for instance, used to be “hugely productive in fish,” [UBC fisheries graduate student Lucas Brotz] says, “and now it is entirely dominated by jellyfish. Things appear to be going that way in the Middle East, South Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico and the Mediterranean.”

This is what unlimited fishing with ever-better gear inevitably produces – short term profits for a few years followed by severely degraded ecosystems indefinitely.

Faith and evolution

An article in a recent issue of The Economist discusses the evolutionary basis for religious belief. The hypothesis being evaluated is that being religious confers some kind of advantage upon those with the trait, explaining the degree to which the trait is widespread. The hypothesis is not an entirely implausible one, and several studies suggesting some degree of validity are listed.

The thing the studies made me wonder was: “If you believed both that being religious would make you more healthy or successful, but you also believed that the religion had no basis in fact, would you practice nonetheless?” This would be akin to adopting Islamic dietary restrictions and fasting requirements because scientists had shown they conferred benefits for cardiovascular health. Such behaviour might achieve the aims that these scientists claim are embedded beneath religious behaviours, but they would clearly deviate from the stated principles of most faiths.

Another possibility acknowledged is that religiosity doesn’t confer direct benefits on individuals. Rather, it just makes them more fertile. There certainly seems to be an inverse correlation between the degree of secularism in a society and birth rates. Genes that promote religious faith may thus be doing so in order to increase the number of offspring who later carry them. The beliefs themselves may lack a basis in fact, but, if they contribute meaningfully to the propagation of selfish genes, part of the near-ubiquity of faith might be explained.