Another me? Another you.

I am taking a bit of time to briefly discuss cloning. While I cannot guarantee the quality of my other intellectual posts, I will do my best to bring it into this last such post.

Dolly, a Finn Dorset sheep, was the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell in 1996. Before then, a couple other animals were cloned. Since then, many other animals have been cloned. Among these animals are tadpoles, carp, cats, and horses. Some people consider cloning to be a patch on the problem of endangered species.

But what is cloning? It is the process of creating an identical copy of something. In organisms, it refers to creating copies of DNA or cells or organisms. In the case of certain organisms, it could also be asexual reproduction.

An example of cellular cloning would be creating a swatch of skin from a single cell. There are certain advantages to things such as this. Tissue cultures can be used in medicine. Skin, for example, could be used to help victims with severe burns. These cultures are rather difficult to cultivate, as they will not grow unless they are exposed to certain conditions.

We have genetically modified plants and animals. We have been cloning animals successfully since 1952. But there are two commonly accepted reasons for cloning. There is therapeutic cloning. This is done to produce various cells, for organs or various body parts. If technology advances to the point where this can be done with any sort of efficiency and certainty, it could lead to medical "magic." Transplant patients must take immunosuppressive drugs now. But if science can create exact copies of someone's organs would become unnecessary.

But there is also reproductive cloning. This is done solely for the purpose of creating copies of organisms. This is done be transferring material so that the created organism is a genetic copy of the donor. These copies are not completely exact, due to possible genetic mutations and mitochondrial genomes. It is this type of cloning which is most worrisome, especially when it comes to the prospect of human cloning. In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences called for a legally enforced ban on such cloning. The Academy, however, did support continued research on therapeutic cloning because of its possible medical benefits.

There are quite a few ethical issues with cloning as well. Horticultural cloning has been going on for centuries. But the problems come in with animal and human cloning. One argument against human cloning is that it should not be done, even to save the life an individual. The Christian argument is that life begins at conception and cloning is, in a sense, "playing God." Generally, Judaism is more accepting of cloning, as life is not equated with conception. Liberals protest cloning because of the perceived right of a person to protect his/her genetic material.

So, do we clone? Do we keep a complete ban on cloning? Your opinions.

~Interminable Immediacy

Happy Halloween!

Happy Halloween, ladies and gentlemen readers! Instead of discussing cloning today, I have decided on a more timely topic. That's right, you can start groaning now. It's the history of Halloween. Why do I do this? It is important to know how our modern holidays developed. And what better holiday than this?

Halloween has its origins in a holiday celebrated by the Celts of Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Northern France. That holiday is called Samhain (sau-wain), celebrated the day before their new year on November 1. The Celts believed that, on October 31, the barriers separating the world of the living from that of the dead thinned. The dead, then, were able to cross back into the living world for the night. These returned spirits caused trouble and ruined crops. But their presence made it easier for Druids, Celtic priests, to make predictions about the future. At night, the Druids built large bonfires. The people celebrated and burned crops and animals as offerings to the gods. They dressed in costumes, generally made from animal skins and attempted to tell each other's fortunes. When the festivities were over, they would relight their hearths from the sacred bonfires. It was believed that doing so would help protect them during the coming winter season.

Things changed somewhat when the Romans came into town in 43CE. During the time they ruled, two Roman holidays were combined with Samhain. They were Feralia, a day to celebrate the dead, and the day to honor Pomona, goddess of fruit and trees. One of the traditions believed to have eventually evolved from these incorporations is that of bobbing for apples. By the 800's, Christianity had swept it and begun exerting its influence. Pope Boniface IV named November 1 "All Saint's Day." It is believed that he might have been attempted to continue Samhain in a manner more acceptable to Christianity. Later, in the 1000's, November 2 was named "All Soul's Day." October 31 was known as "All Hallows Eve." Eventually, the words were slurred into "Halloween."

There are several symbols associated with Halloween. Most things dealing with Halloween revolve around death, magic, and mystical creatures. Common symbols involve skeletons, witches, ghost stories, bats, haunted houses, and black cats. There are many others. The traditional colors for the holiday are black and orange. Perhaps the most prominent symbol, however, is that of the Jack O'Lantern. The tradition of pumpkin carving derives from the Celtic myth of Stingy Jack.

To condense the story, Stingy Jack tricked the Devil twice. The first time, he tricked him into turning into a coin and kept him into his pocket next to a silver cross. When Jack released him, they made a deal. The Devil would leave him alone for a year and not take his soul upon death. At the end of the allotted time, Jack again tricked the Devil into another deal. Soon after, Jack died. God would not let him into Heaven and the Devil would not take his soul. With only a glowing coal, Jack was left to wander the earth. Legend says he put it into a carved-out turnip.

That, ladies and gentlemen, completes the entirety of useful information. Thank you for reading. Have a safe, happy Halloween and a blessed Samhain. Don't eat too much candy.

~Interminable Immediacy

Stem Cells

Stem cells. We've all heard the arguments about them. But just what is so important about these things? Aren't they just cells like any other?

No, stem cells are not like every other bodily cell. A stem cell is "an unspecialized cell that gives rise to differentiated cells stem cells in bone marrow>" (M-W). There are two general types of stem cells, embryonic and adult stem cells. They differ in their versatility. Embryonic stem cells are the more versatile of the two types; they develop from blastocytes. Embryonic stem cells can develop into any cell in the human body. Adult stem cells, found in adult tissues, are more specialized.

"Stem cells can be grown and transformed into specialized cells with characteristics consistent with cells of various tissues such as muscles or nerves through a cell culture." Because of this, they can be very useful to the medical field. Embryonic stem cells can be generated through therapeutic cloning (a topic which will be discussed later). Adult stem cells can be gathered from umbilical cords and bone marrow.

Stem cells, both adult and embryonic, have properties. The first property of stem cells is their ability to undergo several divisions while retaining their undefined state. The second is their potency. There are four levels of potency: totipotent, pluripotent, multipotent, and unipotent. Totipotent and pluripotent cells are the move variable of the four. Totipotent stem cells are formed when a sperm fertilizes an egg and the first few divisions. Pluripotent cells are slightly less variable, and can differentiate into cells derived from the germ layers (cells formed during embryogenesis, or formation). Multipotent cells can only produce cells within a certain family. For example, hematopoietic cells can differentiate into red and white blood cells and blood platelets. Finally, unipotent cells can only produce one type of cell but have a self-renewing property.

Stem cells have the potential to be extremely useful in the medical field. In fact, a number of adult stem cell treatments. A good example of these are bone marrow transplants, used to treat people afflicted by leukemia. But scientists and doctors hope to use stem cells to treat a wider variety of diseases, including Parkinson's Disease and muscle injuries. But there are a lot of issues surrounding the use of stem cells, issues which can be ironed out through debate and research.

There is quite a bit of controversy concerning stem cells and stem cell research. One of the main issues surrounding these cells is that starting a stem cell line requires the destruction of an embryo. That, or therapeutic cloning. However, there might be another way of creating embryonic stem cells. Opponents of stem cell research claim it to be another step toward reproductive cloning. Proponents cite the potential medical uses as reason enough to continue and expand stem cell research.

Do you, dear readers, have any thoughts on the matter? Based on the information provided, putting all moral issues aside, would you support stem cell research?

~Interminable Immediacy

The End of an Age

Like the end of the oil-consuming era, the segment on energy is also coming to a close. Just to finish things up, I'm going to recap one or two things. (Not everything, as that would be terribly long and drawn out.)

Coal, Natural Gas, Oil - These are fossil fuels formed from organic matter buried within the ground. They provide sources of energy, but are also sources of CO2. While they are useful, it is essential that we move past these forms of energy to something cleaner and more efficient.

Nuclear - While potentially dangerous, nuclear power is a good backup. It provides constant energy, with little to no damage to the environment. Fission works right now, and fusion might at some point in the future. If nothing else, nuclear power is something to consider as a temporary replacement to oil and gas.

Hydrogen - While environmentally friendly, the technology for hydrogen isn't fully developed. If we can discover better methods of recovering elemental hydrogen, perhaps it might be a viable option. But that is millions of research dollars and years away.

Biofuel - One of the most controversial energy sources, in my mind. Renewable, to and extent. But production currently requires the burning of fossil fuels to produce the ethanol and bio diesel. And there's the issue of energy return: it's not 100%. Again, more research is needed. If we can improve the return ratio and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels to produce biofuel, it might just be one of the best options for the future.

What I have covered in these blogs are just the very tip of the iceberg, so to speak. There is so much more information out there. I encourage you to look further into the subject, to familiarize yourself with more of the scientific pros and cons of each topic. They are fascinating and absolutely essential to the continuation of our current way of life.

~Interminable Immediacy

The Aftermath

So what consequences will we have to deal with, as a result of our energy issues? The book The Long Emergency, by James Howard Kunstler, addresses some of them. For one thing, suburbia is dead. People will need to live in the cities, with easier access to jobs, public transportation, etc. That, or we will revert back to a more rural society, with most people living in small communities where they grow their own food. According to Kunstler:

“The dirty secret of the American economy in the 1990’s was that is was no longer about anything except the creation of suburban sprawl and the furnishing, accessorizing and the financing of it. It resembled the efficiency of cancer. Nothing else really mattered except building suburban houses, trading away the mortgages, selling the multiple cars needed by the inhabitants, upgrading the roads into commercial strip highways with all the necessary shopping infrastructure, and moving vast supplies of merchandise made in China for next to nothing to fill up those houses”

But there is a positive side. For example, those living in urban environments can bike or walk, instead of driving cars. And, wonder of wonders, it might just improve our health while we're at it. And city planning will become essential. As some people will inevitably move into the city, space must be economized. And it must be done in a manner that doesn't call for a lot of automotive traffic. The better planned things are, the more individuals can rely on more pedestrian forms of transportation. This, of course, is the concept of the "sustainable city."

Steven Wheeler put forth this definition of the sustainable city in 1998: "[the sustainably city is one where it has] development that improves the long-term social and ecological health of cities and towns." His ideas for this covered several topics, from economic land use and waste reduction to the restoration of natural environments. He also mentioned good living conditions, sustainable economics, community participation, and preservation of local culture. This is an ongoing process, and not an easy one. Urban areas have to be safe, with a lack of "slums," with available forms of non-polluting/minimal pollution transportation, opportunities for urban renewal, and aesthetics. All of these must also be considered in the long term, with opportunities for change and adaptation.

I realize this post is rather short, but it's basically just getting you to think. Suburban sprawl is unsustainable. As oil becomes more expensive, gas prices will rise. Consequently, it limits our transportation options. Any ideas on what can be done? Or how we can improve on urban and regional planning?

Black Gold

The one energy related issue I have not previously discussed is petroleum, gasoline, oil, black gold. Whatever you want to call it, it is the the main source of the problems we face today. Our economy is driven by oil (no pun intended). As reserves dwindle, we find ourselves on a slippery slope. Do we look the other way? Do we put time and resources into research? I have discussed the possible alternative energy sources. Now it's time to hit the crux of the matter.

As with the other fossil fuels, it is good to discuss the origins of oil. There are several conditions that need to be perfect or nearly perfect for oil to form:

1. Basins at the edges of the oceans must have a high concentration of organic material (5% or over) in their sedimentary rock. These conditions are extremely rare. If it weren't, there would be a lot more oil than there is currently.

2. The sediments have to be withing the oil window, 7500-15000ft. At 7500ft, the temperature causes large organic molecules to break down. Molecules with 5-20 carbon atoms are liquid at room temperature and pressure. Any less than 5 and the molecule is a gas at room temp and pressure.

3. Organic rick sediment buried below 15000ft will be "dry" natural gas, not oil.

4. About 90% of the oil finds its way to the surface via oil seeps. Only 10% gets trapped underground.

5. Porous rocks such as sandstone, limestone (CaCO3), and dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2) must be present to serve as reservoirs.

6. The pores in the host rock must be connected to each other, allowing for oil flow (permeability). The larger the pores in the rock, the more permeable it is. That being said, the permeability is the square of the grain size. Increasing the grain by 2 increases permeability by 4. And so on.

7. There must be a layer of rock above the oil reservoir that is relatively leak-proof. A few examples of such cap-stone rock types are fine-grained mudstone, halite (NaCl), and anhydrite (CaSO4).

Without even one of these factors, there will be no oil. The Middle East is prime oil country as the conditions there are just near perfect. As it stands, Saudi Arabia is the largest producer of oil in the world (7.7 million barrels/day with only 1600 working wells). The next largest produces are Russia (7.4 mil barrels/day, 41000 wells) and the United States (5.8 mil barrels/day, 521,000 wells).

In the past, oil drilling was done by "banging a chisel up and down on the end of a rope." Eventually, drills were developed which operated using a heavy bit of wire with a drill bit attached to it. A thin mud flows back and forth in the drill pipe. However, other methods have been developed.

If you recall, a recent commercial depicted a "man with a problem." In one of the commercials, he was sitting in a shop with his son when the boy bent his straw to get the last bit of his drink from the bottom and sides of his glass. I'm sorry to say, but horizontal drilling is not a new invention. It has been around for years. But it is effective. It can turn a vertical well into a horizontal well. This can be effective for up to a half mile or more. "Diamond bits" are tungsten-carbide drill heads in which synthetic diamonds are embedded. The hardness of the diamond allows drilling to be done much more quickly, and can drill up to 7000ft. It saves costs, too, since the drilling doesn't have to stop to replace worn our drill bits.

Recently Boeing Corporation donated several powerful lasers to the Colorado School of Mines. This was done in hopes of finding even faster drilling methods. (It should be noted the lasers were from the abandoned Star Wars program.) Finally, some rigs use continuous drilling, unrolling pipe like fishing line.

When the oil well is initially breached, the oil and gas comes bubbling up because the pressure is not equal. However, it eventually dies down and pumpjacks are set up to bring the oil to the surface. Once the easily accessible oil is retrieved, secondary recovery is started. Early on, this was accomplished by flooding the well with water so that the lighter oil could be recovered. Unfortunately, most efforts only recovered about half of the available oil in the reservoir. But other methods have been developed. Carbon dioxide is one especially good method. It is extremely soluble in crude oil and it gets the oil moving again. The drawback? 100% of the reservoir oil isn't recoverable no matter what we do.

We can't forget the rising price of oil, either. As oil becomes more scarce, the price rises to balance drilling and exploration costs against consumer demand. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was formed, in part, to help regulate the price of oil. OPEC no longer controls the price of oil. But, then, no one does.

Most oil is used for transportation (a fact mentioned in previous posts). But something needs to be done. Technology that doesn't rely on oil. Better city planning. More people carpooling or using public transportation. Thoughts?

Biodiesel?

I find it amusing that, in the course of my discussion on energy, the newest National Geographic comes out. What is the topic of this month's issue? Global warming and biodiesel. I have already covered global warming; to do so again would be to beat it with a stick. Instead, I shall focus on this newest topic. Fuel produced from crops such as soy beans, corn, and sugar cane. "Proponents say such renewable fuels could light a fire under our moribund rural economy, help extract us from our sticky dependence on the Middle East, and–best of all–cut our ballooning emissions of carbon dioxide."

Biodiesel: the miracle replacement for gasoline. Some cars can run completely on ethanol or biodiesel. But here's one of the major issues. Compared to a gallon of gasoline, ethanol has only 67% of the energy content. Biodiesel is better, but it is still only 86% compared to a gallon of diesel. How do we reconcile this lack? Well, one way to do so is to look at the environmental aspect of things. Since organic-based fuels use carbon that is in the ground, it is not putting extra CO2 into the atmosphere. In a manner of speaking, with the right technology and fuel efficiency, cars could become carbon neutral. Unfortunately, at current technology levels, "producing corn ethanol consumes just about as much fossil fuel as the ethanol itself replaces." Using all our crops to produce "grown fuel" would only replace approximately 6% of our diesel and gasoline consumption.

Despite this apparent disappointment however, there is a bright star. Brazil, producing diesel from sugarcane, has managed to curtail its reliance upon imported oil. The United States government has pledged nearly $200 million to research, hoping to be able to replace up to 15% of our oil reliance by 2017. But the key, overall, is to produce oil from sources other than foodstuffs. If we can manage that, we will be better off. We will still have enough food to feed our burgeoning population as well as keep out livestock fatted.

The original car models ran on alcohol, but it was expensive and didn't provide nearly as much energy as conventional refined petroleum. But that has changed some, since the introduction of ethanol-gasoline fuel mixes. Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) was the additive used by oil companies for the same purpose. However, when it began to show up in aquifers (underground layers of water-bearing porous rock from which water can be extracted via wells), its use was banned. It didn't help that MTBE was believed to be carcinogenic (a cause of cancer).

An extra benefit to the biodiesel/ethanol industry is the fact that it can jump-start small town economies. With farmers selling their crops, plants that produce these fuels create numerous job opportunities. The prices of corn and soybeans goes up, up to $4/bushel.

Again, there are issues. E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) "delivers 30 percent fewer miles a gallon than gasoline." And it can only be burned in specially designed engines. BUT! It is cheaper than regular gasoline. Its transport can be rather costly, but with plants springing up (ha!) all over the place, it should keep prices comparatively low.

Ethanol is alcohol. It is distilled through a process that hasn't much changed through the centuries. The grain is ground, then mixed with water and heated. Enzymes turn starch into sugar, then yeast is added. In the fermentation tanks, the yeast converts the sugar into alcohol. The alcohol is then separated from the water. What is left is fed to cows or spread over crops to be used as fertilizer. The drawback comes from the use of fossil fuels to heat the mixture, giving off carbon dioxide (which is also produced by the yeast). Some studies claim that ethanol is a losing battle, others make it to be more beneficial. Either way, it is not a cure-all solution. "Biofuels are a total waste and misleading us from getting at what we really need to do: conservation," says Cornell University's David Pimentel, who is one of ethanol's harshest critics. "This is a threat, not a service. Many people are seeing this as a boondoggle." However, proponents of ethanol, especially those who produce it, believe they can do things better. "They plan to fire their boilers with methane from two giant four-million-gallon biodigesters fed with cattle manure from the feedlot next door–in effect using biogas to make biofuel." (This amuses me, I should like to point out.)

Good and bad go hand-in-hand in the ethanol/biodiesel industry. But look again the the example of Brazil. When OPEC put an embargo on oil, Brazil turned to ethanol for fuel. It has done so again and most Brazilian cars haven't burned gasoline in years. Ethanol has a high octane rating (113) and burns better at higher compression. What is the secret to Brazilian success? Sugar cane! Yes, the same cane used to produce refined sugar for our tables. The plant is already %20 sugar and begins to ferment almost immediately after being cut, unlike corn which needs to convert starch to sugar. And it produces nearly twice as much ethanol as corn. The wastewater from the process, just like that from corn-based ethanol, can be used as fertilizer. And that is just how Brazilian producers use it. Another plus for the Brazilians is that they do not burn fossil fuels, but waste products. A final plus, researchers believe cane-based ethanol produces less carbon dioxide than gasoline (55-90%!) and the ethanol can be made from the stalks and leaves of the cane plant.

So, how do we respond? There are at least two other possible methods of creating biofuel: cellulose (from plant material) and algae (green algae, to be exact). There are pros and cons to each process, mainly in the department of research and development. However, the processes are out there and they are gaining notoriety and popularity. I say, if we can make biofuel work, let's go for it. Thoughts? Reactions?