Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is one of the most common forms of plastic. It is used to make those little creatures that sit on your desk as well as many other useful items, but until now, it has been impossible to degrade easily. Science magazine on March 11 reported the discovery of a bacterium that is able to break down PET and feed on it; this report was picked up and repeated by Science News. This bacterium was found living in recycling plant sludge, soil, and wastewater during a systematic survey of microbes in Japan. It uses two enzymes to crack PET down into its basic parts, ethylene glycol and terephthalic acid.
These two molecules can be metabolized for energy just as glucose is used by ordinary cells. The two novel enzymes produced by this bacterium are required to break PET down into environmentally benign molecules that can be used as a carbon source and to produce energy. The only barrier to breakdown of PET in the presence of this bacterium is its size– those little statues are solid PET. Prior to metabolism, the PET must be ground down into small particles. A recycling plant could use a grinder to break down large pieces of PET into bite-sized bits that the bacterium could easily eat.
The evolution of organisms that can feed on plastic is a straightforward example of how the process of “survival of the fittest” works. Anything that is available in the environment for consumption and anything that stands in the way of an organism’s survival will be a source of evolutionary drive. Whether it is an antibiotic or just a lump of plastic, something will evolve that can grow on it.
This is good news for the ocean; we have previously described the contamination of the world’s seas by countless bits of microplastic, covering and filling the earth with an invisible pile of plastic trash. The presence of so much plastic is a resource for the world’s micro-organisms that is impossible for them to resist.
I have been reading lately (I know, it’s a bad habit) and I picked up a couple of interesting books. The first is “God’s Battalion’s”. a 148-page, heavily referenced but highly readable book about the Crusades. The book makes the thesis that Christians should not feel guilty about the Crusades because it was part of a thousand-year-old world that just doesn’t exist anymore.
First, the Muslims who were evicted from (and massacred in) Jerusalem in 1099 had first evicted Greek Orthodox “owners” of Jerusalem a couple of hundred years earlier. The First Crusade was initiated in an effort to regain control of Palestine, known as the Holy Land, from the Muslims. The Muslim Arabs had themselves wrested control from the Constantinople-based Romans (after they had split off from the mother Church in Rome) shortly after the prophet Muhammad started a campaign of conquest in the seventh century.
The standards and practices of medieval warfare were violent in the extreme, and both Christian and Muslim warriors fought in ways we nowadays would consider most unchivalrous. European Christians, however, possessed technological and material advantages in warfare that greatly enhanced their fighting ability and made engagements with Muslims rather one-sided. Unless the Muslims were possessed of massive superiority of numbers, they were unable to win battles against the Christians. Their main advantages were the crossbow and heavy chain mail armor, combined with close-marching infantry tactics that Muslims on horseback could not penetrate.
The First Crusade was successful because of these military advantages. Despite their small numbers, European Christian knights were capable of overcoming the best Muslim armies in open warfare. They also had advantages in siege techniques that made it possible to overcome resistance from Muslims defending their cities. The later Crusades failed primarily because of insufficient material support from Europe; equipping field armies to fight two thousand miles from home was very expensive. The Europeans held parts of Palestine for over a hundred years, until the money from home ran out.
In the meantime, the Crusaders built a number of very strong castles that are still standing today. The Crusaders were motivated by religious devotion, in a way that we might find strange. Anyone who went on a Crusade was offered remission of all their sins, and the Crusaders were an extremely sinful lot. Many Crusaders promised to make the trip because they had committed outrages such as murder of a noble equal in status or making off with another’s wife and were promised salvation by their confessors.
In addition to military advantages, the Europeans also had cultural superiority on their side. The Muslims were supposed to have great sophistication in the sciences and art, but this was entirely specious. Their apparent advanced learning was due entirely to the non-Muslim people that were over-run in Muhammad’s conquests; they were allowed to maintain their prior status as long as they paid a tax to the conquerors and voiced their submission.
Arab armies conquered Persia, Byzantium, and western India, and allowed the sophisticated cultures that existed there to continue to operate much as before. Much of the knowledge that these cultures possessed was translated into Arabic, and the great center of learning in Alexandria that had existed since the time of Alexander the Great was allowed to continue to function. Since the Muslim Arabs had no knowledge of boat-building, they were forced to rely on the ports of Syria and Egypt for construction of the fleets that they used to venture into the Mediterranean. They even had to use non-Arab sailors to pilot their ships.
As a result of their lack of sailing experience, the Arabs were unable to conquer Constantinople. A vivid example of their inferiority at sea was the defenders’ use of Greek fire, which only Constantinople knew how to make. This napalm-like substance quickly destroyed several Arab fleets; its precise formula has been sadly lost. Apparently the substance of Greek fire was a liquid which would burst into flame on exposure to air and which floated on water; it could be sprayed through long nozzles onto attacker’s ships, instantly setting them on fire.
It was only long after the Crusades that the Ottoman Turks (non-Arab Muslim converts) were able to capture Constantinople by siege; by then they had superseded the Arabs in the Near East and North Africa and had over-run Spain. The Ottomans ruled Jerusalem until their empire crumbled in the first World War. The British took over control of Palestine at the end of the war and promised the Jews that they could have a homeland there. This promise enraged the Arabs, who were living in Palestine when the Ottomans melted away and who had helped the British to drive out the hated Turks. One of the motives for the British promise to the Jews (known as the Balfour Declaration) was that the British were forced to borrow huge sums from Jewish bankers to underwrite their prosecution of the war against the Germans and the Turks.
The double promise of the British was partly responsible for the conflict in Palestine that came to a head after World War II. Jews, who had no other country in the world where they were really accepted, infiltrated soldiers into Palestine, declared a new sovereign country of Israel, and evicted 800,000 Arabs from the area. Unlike the Arabs, who in 700 AD had massacred a significant portion of the Greek Orthodox Christians in Jerusalem, and the Crusaders in 1099 who massacred the entire population of Jerusalem, they only killed a few thousand resisters. Some would argue that the genocide of six million Jews and the unsympathetic attitude of the rest of the world justified the Jewish occupation of Palestine and forcible removal of the Palestinian Arabs. I would only say that “force majeure” and it is by now a long-accomplished fact.
It was only at the time of the development of Arab nationalism in the late nineteenth century that the concept of the Crusades and crusaders was resurrected to provide an analogy to the colonizing activities of the European powers before and after WW I. Crusading had been forgotten for eight hundred years until the idea was given new life by Arab nationalists. The resettlement of the world’s Jews in Palestine gave especial motivation to the Muslim attitude of jihad and resentment of European interference.
To make a controversial point, the Muslim religion is highly exclusionary and allows for only one interpretation. Sharing Jerusalem with anyone, British or Jewish, was and is not on the agenda for devout Muslims. In fact, to a truly devout Muslim, the entire world rightly belongs to Muslims, particularly Wahhabis. The only correct place for Jews and Christians is as “dhimmis”, or subject populations who voice submission and pay a heavy tax. The only right for Hindus and Buddhists is to die since they are “polytheists”. Sharing the planet is not in the vocabulary of Muslims.
The book makes the point that the Crusades were a response to Arab Muslim aggression and should not be seen in isolation as a “greedy barbarian” invasion of a previously peaceful state. The book also does a good job of puncturing myths of Arab superiority in warfare and cultural sophistication.
In two cases that the New York Times described on April 4, undercover police officers in New York City approached poor addicts and supplied them with money to buy drugs. When the addicts returned with the small quantities (single “hits”) of drugs, they were arrested and charged with felony drug dealing. Both addicts were found not guilty.
This type of behavior is the laziest form of policing possible. Instead of going after dealers with significant quantities of drugs, they entrap poor, naive addicts and use their condition against them. One would think that a better approach would be to use the addicts to turn into informants against the higher level drug dealers– but that would be too difficult and would require actually pursuing people who might fight back– or might be more deserving of jail time than a poor addict.
The polls are closing in Wisconsin as I speak, and early returns on the NYT website show Cruz winning by 51% to Drumpf’s 31%, a resounding defeat for the most ill-mannered candidate in American history. What is Drumpf going to say now? “Stop the primaries because I was winning!”
Drumpf has already demanded that Kasich drop out of the race for the nomination because he isn’t getting enough votes and he’s interfering with Drumpf’s majority search. In fact, he even claims that a near-majority is enough. He is desperate to avoid a loss on the first ballot, because after that, delegates will be free to vote for whomever they choose. Many delegates are sure to desert him after the first ballot.
Ted Cruz, too, wants Kasich to bow out, because he claims that Kasich will help Drumpf win his majority. Both Cruz and Drumpf want the race to themselves. Cruz is said to have spurned Kasich’s offer to split up the remaining primaries in order to play to their respective strengths and beat Drumpf (see this NYT story.)
Some say that Wisconsin’s tradition of humility, decency, and civility is rubbed the wrong way by Drumpf’s abrasive personality. Whether it is his personality or his lack of preparedness for the office of president, Drumpf has hit his ceiling. Whether the contests in the Northeast are more suited to Drumpf’s personality remains to be seen.
Bernie Sanders has also done extremely well in Wisconsin, beating Hillary Clinton by 54 to 46 percent. Again, Wisconsin’s tradition of left-leaning representatives has come into play, helping Sanders win a much needed primary contest.
An antiparallel story to the one yesterday about exclusion of Planned Parenthood in Texas and increased birth rates is the one from last year about Colorado’s program to provide long acting contraceptives to women. Multiple stories in the media have covered the reduction in birth rate that occurred after the program was instituted; one example is this New York Times article from July 6, 2015.
Teen birth rates have been dropping nationwide for years; there are many explanations but no single accepted story. This post from Health and Human Services states that there was a nine percent drop in birth rates among girls aged 15-19 from 2013 to 2014. In Colorado, about one-fifth of women aged 15-44 use long acting contraceptives, while nationwide only seven percent use them. This is still a dramatic increase from 2002, when the rate was only 1.5 percent.
Closer examination of teen pregnancy rates shows that the rate dropped dramatically from 1990 to 2002, but then remained stable for several years until falling again from 2009 on. Just since then, the rates have dropped from 40 per thousand in 2008 to 24 per thousand in 2014. Rates in the 2002-8 period were about 40 per thousand after falling from 60 per thousand in 1990.
For unknown reasons, the teen birth rate has dropped dramatically in the last few years; it is possible that this is related to the dramatic increase in use of long acting contraceptives by teenagers. Colorado has been particularly successful in encouraging long acting methods by providing them for free to Medicaid-eligible women, and their birth rates have dropped even faster than the nationwide rates. The New York Times article cites a drop of forty percent in teen birthrates in Colorado from 2009-13.
Unfortunately, the Colorado program was cancelled by the state legislature; fortunately, a private grant is supplying the contraceptives for at least a limited time.
Real experience shows that providing the means to teenage women allows them to choose not to have children, and they make the choice. Experience also shows that with-holding the means from women forces them to have more children. Our planet cannot support any more people with a reasonable quality of life, and whatever means necessary to reduce the birthrate is justifiable. Most justified are the simplest, most reliable, and cheapest methods like IUDs and implants. Abortion is a method of last resort, and would be unnecessary if adequate preventive measures were in place.
Denunciation of Unfair School Funding
I have previously complained about unfair funding for the country’s primary schools, those which all children are required to attend (usually at least until age sixteen.) These schools were initially funded by property taxes, an entirely local affair. Over time, however, it became obvious that some school districts would not be able to support their primary schools simply from property taxes, even if they taxed themselves at unrealistically high levels. State governments then stepped in to provide additional money to districts.
In recent years, all primary schools have received significant state support in addition to their local property taxes. In some states, districts that were particularly poor were given additional funds. In other states, all schools received the same amount of funds. But in the majority of states, poor districts receive less money from the state than do rich districts.
A large document that provides data for all the states is called “Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card” produced by the Rutgers Graduate School of Education. The most recent, fourth, edition of this document was published in the spring of last year. It is an extensive and intensive examination of state funding levels for the entire US. The result: the vast majority of primary schools are funded at a neutral or regressive level. The results are particularly bad when we see that funding from federal stimulus money was used by most states to fill holes in their budgets for schools, and that federal stimulus money ran out by 2012.
I don’t intend that you should read this report because it is fifty-six pages long. I only wish to note that there is extensive documentary evidence that primary schools in the United States are unfairly unfunded. Rich districts receive more funding than poor districts, and as a result, poor districts have bad schools. Children living in poor districts start out with a disadvantage compared to children in rich districts.
This is manifestly bad for our country because it means that our children will not be adequately educated to take on useful roles in society as contributing members. When they grow up, they will not be prepared to take jobs that require skill and patience. They will be doomed to unemployment, poverty, crime, and drug abuse. Worst of all, they will be fated to be idle, alienated, and dispossessed.
Please take a thought to vote for political leaders who will address this disparity in primary school funding and provide sufficient tax revenue by progressive taxation to develop our infrastructure. We need sensible spending on essential services to make our country a dynamic, growing place where everybody works and everybody has help to participate in society.
Comment of the Day
Those who have been following the news are aware that Kansas under Governor Brownback has dramatically cut taxes and is trying to cut spending at the same time. As a result, the economy of Kansas has grown at half the national rate over the last year. The state government is facing serious deficits because there has been an unforeseen falloff in tax receipts on the order of $53 million. The expected increase in growth from tax reductions has not been realized. As a result, funding for the state’s primary and secondary schools was cut, but the State Supreme Court over-ruled the cuts, saying the state’s constitution forbade such niggardliness. The Republicans in the state’s legislature have reacted angrily and accuse the Supreme Court of “activism” and meddling in politics. Large amounts of money have been applied to political ads in an attempt to influence the State Supreme Court’s “retention” elections.
Details for those not familiar with Kansas’ system of retaining judges: first, the Supreme Court judges are nominated by a nonpartisan committee and selected by the governor from among the nominees. Second, after six years in office, the judges are subject to elections in which they run without opposition but are removed if they don’t command a majority of the vote. Many states have similar elections, but the US federal government doesn’t have judicial elections.
As a result of these retention elections, the judges are vulnerable to the same type of money-fueled advertising that infects legislative and executive elections. Several states, Wisconsin, Arkansas, and Oklahoma among them, have had large amounts of money injected into judicial elections recently. In Pennsylvania, Democrats were able to retain judges they felt were sympathetic by winning the money-advertising war; in most other states, the Republicans have won. Spending on ads in judicial elections exceeds a million dollars in each of these small states.
This comment is in response to an article in the NYT about the situation in Kansas, a state particularly hard hit by Tea Party Republicans and their plans to reduce taxes and spending.
Tom B.
is a trusted commenter
April 1, 2016 6 AM PDT
Next-door neighbors Kansas and Colorado, both featured in the New York Times today, offer a stark illustration of the difference between moderate, pragmatic leadership of Democrats and the right-wing extremism of Tea Party Republicans.
Colorado is blossoming with good jobs, smart investments in education, and a beautiful, well protected environment — it’s one of the top destinations in the country for creative people.
Kansas, by contrast, is traveling the road to poverty and ignorance, unable to pay its bills, its economy falling apart, smart people fleeing the state in droves, its public schools in crisis. Its elected officials obsess on their right-wing Christian agenda instead of offering stewardship and leadership to the state in an economic crisis that was created by their own bad leadership.
Elections have consequences, people. Whatever you do, don’t let the wrong people get elected because elections have consequences. Please keep that in mind this November.
A study just published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) showed an approximately 35% decrease in on-time return visits for long-acting (three months) injectable contraceptives and a 1.9% increase in births paid for by state Medicaid in the affected areas after Texas excluded Planned Parenthood (PP) from its state-paid family planning services. Both changes were significant, the first being p<0.001 and the second p<0.01 (significant enough for physicists as well as biologists.)
This study shows that Planned Parenthood was effective at reducing the birthrate for mothers dependent on Medicaid for family planning services, and that banning PP resulted in an increased birthrate in the counties where PP was providing services.
The Texas Health and Human Services (THHS) Commission was not happy with this article. One of the authors had been employed by Texas since 2001, and he was forced to retire to avoid disciplinary action after a state senator claimed that he was using at-work time to produce the article. The THHS asked NEJM to add a disclaimer to the article, which they did, since it was purely a formality, stating that the article does not represent the views of THHS. In the letter to NEJM, the THHS even claimed that the article was inaccurate, an absurdity since there was no room for inaccuracy in the numbers. See the Retraction Watch (RW) post revealing the disclaimer for a full discussion of the THHS’ behavior in regard to this article.
The letter from THHS, quoted in the RW post, claims that “The article also includes incorrect statements concerning the birth rate and number of births in Texas.” If you read the article, you will see that it does not refer to the total number of births in Texas, only those paid by Medicaid in the counties affected by the THHS purge. Numbers don’t lie, but statements like those in the letter from THHS can wrongfully cast aspersions on the integrity of a NEJM article.
The attitude of the THHS is to be expected, since everything done in Texas government is forced to toe the Tea Party line promulgated by the Republican governor. That party’s line includes outright lies as well as forged statistics, wrong reasoning, a blinkered outlook, and false moral outrage.
This Plot Has Been Used Already
OK, so I’m a little behind in my movie watching… I’m sure you’ve seen “Kingsman: The Secret Service” already, and you’ve probably forgotten all about it. I’m now going to remind you of the “existential danger” plot in that movie; this is a subset of the adventure movie plot. In order to create adequate tension, a catastrophe that the movie’s heroes must avert, the bad guys have a plan which, if it succeeds, will result in loss of lives and destruction sufficient to keep the viewer’s interest. This is the part of the plot of movies that involve “secret agents”, supermen and superwomen, demigods, and heroes with special abilities that come into play in the process of foiling the bad guy’s plans.
In “Kingsman” the villain, played by Samuel L. Jackson tells the story about half way through the movie, before the hero’s companion is killed: a group of powerful people have have decided to kill almost everyone in the world to save the Earth from global warming. They use the following reasoning:
Humanity is like a virus infecting the planet Earth. When an organism is infected by a virus, the organism starts to run a fever in an attempt to throw off the virus. In an analogous fashion, global warming is the fever that the Earth is developing when it tries to stop the infection by humans. The end result is the virus kills the host or the host kills the virus; partial solutions are also possible, in which the two coexist for a period of time.
The group of powerful people intend to cure the Earth of the human infection, in this particular movie by controlling certain people with microchips implanted in their brains who are then commanded to kill everyone around them.
I won’t reveal the end of this movie, but you can be sure the world is saved from immediate massacre, without mentioning what happens if global warming continues. The point I am making is that this is a subset of the adventure movie that involves the myth of the “secret agent” a la James Bond, and it is necessary for this type of movie that there be a gigantic evil conspiracy that has malignant intentions towards the rest of the world. It is important for the plot that the evil conspiracy have a particularly sinister goal in mind. In this case, the goal is the extinction of nearly all of the human race in order to improve living conditions for a tiny minority.
Please read that sentence again: the goal is the extinction of nearly all of the human race in order to improve living conditions for a tiny minority. I won’t accuse any Republican senators of being in on this conspiracy, but it’s really not much of a stretch.
For inte fan gör det det
I looked and looked and finally I found a “manhole cover”– at a rest stop on Highway 99…
(PS does “inte…” mean “no-one gets out of here alive”?)
