Albert Belle, a five time All-Star in Major League Baseball, should have done his homework before he cheated. If he had, he would have known that using an illegal corked bat (a baseball bat that is hollowed out and filled with less dense material, supposedly making it lighter without losing much power) was not worth his time, especially when you consider all the trouble it caused.

On July 15, 1994, in a game where his Cleveland Indians were playing the Chicago White Sox, Belle decided to use a corked bat.  Unfortunately for him, White Sox manager Gene Lamont was tipped off about the bat before the game.  Lamont challenged the bat, and the umpire crew had it confiscated and locked away in the umpire's dressing room before the game began, with the intention to inspect it later.

The Indians, knowing that Belle's bat was corked, sent one of their players to retrieve the bat.  In what can only be described as a real-life "Oceans 11" operation, relief pitcher Jason Grimsley maneuvered his way through the crawlspaces in the ceiling on his hands and knees and dropped down into the umpire's dressing room to steal back the corked bat while replacing it with a normal one.  The operation, while temporarily successful, was not carried out with exact precision, and the umpires quickly discovered the deception after the game.

The incident created quite a hoopla, and only after the American League threatened to involve the FBI did Albert Belle return the corked bat.  He was later suspended for seven games.

This could all have been avoided if Mr. Belle had considered basic physics.  A corked bat is lighter, and thus has less inertia.  Scientists have found that though players may be able to swing the corked bat faster, they still will not be able to hit the baseball farther.

Belle may have also fallen for the rumor of a mythical "trampoline effect" that occurs when a ball hits the corked bat.  But this has been found to be non-existent.  According to MythBusters, the cork inside the bat actually absorbs the kinetic energy from the baseball, thus hampering the batter's power.

Nine years after the Albert Belle affair, future baseball hall-of-famer Sammy Sosa was suspended eight games for using a corked bat.  Luckily, he had the good sense to forgo a covert cover-up operation, but he still could have avoided the situation entirely if he had simply done his homework before he cheated.

(The Newton Blog in no way advocates cheating.  We do, however, advocate doing your homework.)

Learning from a Disaster

Japan is almost 6000 miles from Monticello, but nuclear scientists working with Xcel Energy still detected increased levels of iodine and tritium in Minnesota from the nuclear accident at Fukushima-Daiichi. Though the increased levels pose no danger to the environment or to human health, they still serve as a stark reminder of the wide-ranging effects of any potential nuclear disaster.
 
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission understands this, and within a week of the accident in Japan, all nuclear power plants in the United States, including the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, were required to:

• Verify their capability to mitigate major challenges (aircraft impacts, natural events, fires, or explosions)

• Verify their capability to manage the loss of off-site power

• Verify their capability to mitigate flooding and the impact of flooding

• Perform walk-downs and inspections of important equipment needed to mitigate fire and flooding events

• Develop strategies to mitigate any identified vulnerabilities.

In the wake of Fukushima-Daiichi, Pickens believes that the Japanese must release as much information as possible about what exactly went wrong at the nuclear power plant. This is the only way to ensure that it will never happen again.

"We must be open and honest and make sure that we're communicating," he said.

Meanwhile, for the people of Monticello, Minnesota, life goes on. Living in the shadow of a nuclear power plant can be a source of anxiety for some, but to most it's second nature. They can rest-assured that the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant is in good hands.

"If there's one thing the United States nuclear industry is good at," Pickens said, "it's learning."

How the Disaster Relates to Monticello

Pickens continued his presentation by stating that the Monticello boiling water reactor is one of 23 in the United States that utilize the same design as at Fukushima-Daiichi. Despite this fact, he noted that there is little cause for concern. The Monticello reactor is actually designed to cope with the loss of off-site power and with the loss of the its emergency diesel generators (unlike Fukushima-Daiichi). In addition, all nuclear plants in the United States are regulated and scrutinized to a much higher degree than the plants in Japan.

There are also some other big differences between Fukushima-Daiichi and Monticello, Pickens continued. For one, all of the 23 U.S. reactors of the same design as Fukushima-Daiichi were modified in the 1980s to withstand the possibility of a large steam bubble forming and creating so much pressure (hydrodynamic load) that it could smash the torus (a large doughnut-shaped structure that contains water to which steam can be sent and condensed) of the nuclear reactor. This modification never took place in Japan, and it's possible that it was this hydrodynamic load that caused cracks in the torus of reactor 3 at Fukushima-Daiichi.

Another difference: the explosions in Japan were possibly due to the fact that they vented hydrogen through normal duct-work versus a hard pipe vent. This shoddy duct-work could have allowed hydrogen gas to escape, and eventually explode. In 1992, the Monticello plant and other plants like it were equipped with an added reinforced containment vent specifically designed to vent radioactive steam should the pressure grow too high.

A final difference lies not in the design of the plants, but with the procedures utilized in case of an emergency. In Japan, the decision to vent the Fukushima-Daiichi reactors came from the plant owners' corporate office, while in the United Sates, the decision to vent would come from the plant operators, themselves. Those working directly at nuclear facilities like Monticello would have the power to make the necessary life and death decisions, not corporate big-wigs who might be more concerned with the interests of shareholders than with the lives of local citizens.

"We Don't Take Any Chances."

Pickens also spoke about the preparedness of the Monticello power plant as it pertains to various possible environmental disasters or human-caused incidents. The Monticello plant is designed for a theoretical earthquake that is six times stronger than has ever been recorded in Minnesota. In addition, the plant is designed for all of its buildings and parts to withstand 300MPH tornado winds and any missiles (trees, cars, etc.) created by such winds. Also, the emergency diesel generators are contained and buried underground so there is no chance of them being flooded by the potentially rising waters of the Mississippi River.

But what about the gargantuan dry cask storage devices containing the radioactive spent fuel rods? These could be vulnerable to floods or terrorist attacks. If one of these were to leak or somehow be ruptured by a plane or rocket launcher, radiation could escape into the atmosphere.


Fortunately, these casks at Monticello are stored well above the 1000-year flood plain. In addition, they were tested and have been found able to withstand a direct hit from a shoulder mounted rocket launcher or a collision from an F-16 fighter jet.   

Perhaps the most interesting verbal exchange of the presentation occurred when Pickens spoke about the flood preparedness of the Monticello plant. 

"The Monticello facility is designed to withstand a 1000-year flood," he said.

With an incredulous look on her face, Elk River's environmental technician asked, "Don't you mean a 100-year flood?"

"No, I mean a 1000-year flood," Pickens responded.

"Oh. Wow.  I've never heard somebody even mention the 1000-year flood level in a practical setting," she replied.

"The 1000-year flood is what we prepare for.  We don't take any chances."

(Coming tomorrow: Learning from a disaster.)

A Town Like any Other

Situated along the banks of the Mississippi River, Monticello is like most small towns in Minnesota. The citizens work in the growing local industries and businesses, or commute either north to St. Cloud or south to Minneapolis to work in larger metropolises. At the end of the day, they all come home to enjoy the life of a quiet, tight-knit river town.

The people of Monticello can enjoy one of the many beautiful local parks, use one of the state's finest free community centers, watch local high school athletics, and stay up-to-date on community happenings by reading the hometown newspaper - The Monticello Times. Citizens can even pick-up free potassium iodide pills at local drug and grocery stores. Each winter, they can also watch hundreds of handsome trumpeter swans nest near Mississippi Drive Park, where the Mississippi River is warmed from the hot water discharged by the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant.


Common Sense Without Being Complacent

Minnesotans are a well-grounded people. Thus, when many of the residents of Monticello considered the nuclear catastrophe in Japan, they first turned to common sense, not to condemnation. Monticello is not going to be affected by tsunamis, nor does Minnesota rest on any active fault lines. To put it bluntly, what happened at Fukushima-Daiichi will almost certainly not happen here.

But the fact that Minnesota will likely not be touched by sundered earth or a raging ocean is no excuse for idleness. Thus citizens of Monticello, and the people of the other numerous towns and cities surrounding the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (in one of which I reside), expected action and answers from Xcel Energy, the power company that owns and operates the Monticello plant, as well as the Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant in Red Wing. I am pleased to report that these calls from citizens were heeded.

Last week, I had a chance to speak briefly with Terry Pickens, the Director of Nuclear Regulatory Policy for Xcel Energy, and to view a presentation that he gave to the Energy City Commission of Elk River, Minnesota (about 25 miles from the power plant). About ten to fifteen city leaders from the community were on hand to view the presentation.

A Brief Explanation of Fukushima-Daiichi

Mr. Pickens started off his presentation by providing a brief summary of what went wrong and what went right (yes, there were some things) at Fukushima-Daiichi.

What went right: The plant went offline when it lost off-site power in the wake of the 9.0 magnitude earthquake and its diesel generators started up and were operating as intended. In addition, none of the dry-cask storage devices containing the spent nuclear fuel rods were damaged in the earthquake or tsunami. 

What went wrong: The emergency diesel generators failed when the generator room was flooded by the 40-foot tsunami wave.  The wave also ripped the diesel fuel tanks out to sea. Without power, the plant was unable to cool the fuel rods.

The International Atomic Energy Agency classified what followed as a "Level 7" nuclear accident.

(Coming tomorrow: A description of how "Fukushima-Daiichi" relates to Monticello and information on the preparations that the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant is taking to handle an environmental disaster or an act of terrorism.)

There has been a lot of talk about salmon in the past week. In case you haven't heard, the conversation revolves around an amendment approved to the agricultural appropriations bill which prohibits funding for Food and Drug Administration approval of genetically modified salmon developed by AquaBounty Technologies, a private company based in Massachusetts. 

The principal concern of activists who supported the amendment was that the genetically modified salmon would escape their holding pens and interbreed with wild populations. At first glance, this seems to be a valid argument. The genetically modified salmon grow much faster than natural breeds and could potentially overtake wild populations if they make it into the ecosystem. It was largely due to this argument and the small amount of facts available when the story first broke, that I reserved judgement on this matter.

But on Wednesday, in an article by Ron Bailey, Reason weighed in.

As it happens AquaBounty's fish are not bigger; they just grow faster. In any case, recent research [PDF] has found that genetically modified fish are actually at a selective disadvantage to wild fish. Similarly, another recent study reported that genetically modified coho salmon fared badly against wild ones when it comes to reproduction.

To make the risk even lower, AquaBounty salmon are sterile triploids, that is, instead of having the usual two sets of chromosomes, their fish have three sets. In addition, the company has devised a process that make essentially all of their fish females, so there are no males available to supply sperm even if the fish were fertile. Finally, the company plans to raise their biotech salmon in freshwater tanks in Panama. Panama has no salmon, and if the fish escape into the tropical waters they will die from the heat.

OK, the second paragraph does sound a little like Jurassic Park (we all know what happened there), but genetically modified salmon are not dinosaurs; and this is real life, not a movie.

As Alex Berezow, editor of Real Clear Science, wrote earlier in the week, this debate truly comes down to "votes and money." The elected officials who co-sponsored the amendment all come from states with huge stocks of wild salmon and large fishing industries. Ideology reigned supreme.

Now some of you may be thinking, "Why should I care? What's the big deal about a fish?"

This isn't just about fish. This is much bigger than fish.

Over the past few years, politics and science have become more and more entwined. The blame doesn't belong to one side or the other; activists from both ends of the partisan spectrum have infused their dogmatic political beliefs into a realm where they truly do not belong. Look at what has happened to climate change. Once thought to be consensus, the issue has now become so divisive that it's on the same level as moral issues such as gay marriage or abortion. Climate change, like those topics, is just one of those things that you don't bring up, unless you're ready for a fight.

The only remedy is a return to reason. When it comes to science, ideas should reign, NOT ideology.

The remote control is undoubtedly one of the most heralded inventions of the modern era.  Originally invented by Zenith physicist Robert Adler in 1956, the remote, then called the far more epic sounding "Space Command," initially cost over $100 ($765 when adjusted for inflation) and used ultrasound technology to wirelessly change the channels.  Despite the price, over 9 million people purchased it over the next twenty years.  Today, the modern remote uses infrared technology and isn't a luxury; it's a necessity.


In a 2010 global study commissioned by Logitech, 36% of American respondents said that they would prefer to give up sex for a month rather than give up their remote over the same time period.  The same study found that 27% would prefer to stop using their toothbrush rather than lose their remote.  One has to wonder whether people would rather give up their television than give up the amazing device which has effectively eliminated one's need to stand-up while at home.

Lets take a brief look at how the remote control has changed our lives forever:

Our Economy:

• There are hundreds of channels available to Americans, creating an industry the revenues of which total in the hundreds of billions of dollars each year.  Do you really think that we would have all those channels if not for the remote?  (Would anyone really get up to turn the channel to "Fuse" or "Boomerang?")

Our Behavior:

• We have developed a host of social norms and rules surrounding the remote.  For example, a 1994 study by Magnavox found that 62% of respondents said they found it rude when the person who controls the remotes constantly channel surfs.  How many relationships has the remote helped to destroy?
  

Our Health:

• Studies have shown that we change the channel anywhere from a low of 1.73 times per hour up to a high of 36.6 times per hour.  According to Nielsen, Americans watch television for an average of four hours per day.  The current life expectancy is 78.7 years.  Assuming that we start actively watching television at five years of age and that the distance from the couch to the television is 12 feet, the average American would have had to walk an extra 846.2 to 17904.1 miles during their lifetime.
  

• For a 160lb person walking at a 3mph pace to change the channel, this exercise could have burned 115,090 to 2,349,958 calories over their lifetime. (Calculation performed using American Council on Exercise data.)
  

• "A new study by the University of Arizona Microbiology Professor, Dr. Chuck Gerba ranks the TV remote control as holding the highest level of bacteria in a patient's hospital room." The remote was even compared to bathroom objects.

• The remote control has NOT been found to cause cancer... yet.

The effects of the remote control upon our lives surely extend beyond this meager list.  What else can you think of?

Renowned designer and author, Stefan Sagmeister, recently delivered a TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) lecture examining the seemingly simple topic of happiness.  During his presentation, Sagmeister discussed the conscious and unconscious mind's effect on our well-being and shared some basic rules that he believes could help us lead happier lives.

Sagmeister also reported some findings from his research of a wide-spectrum of studies on happiness.  (He has been performing research for an upcoming documentary on the topic.)

For example:

• Men and women have similar levels of happiness
• The climate where you live plays no role in determining happiness
• If you make more than $50,000, any salary increase will only have a minute affect on your sense of well-being
• People of difference races are equally happy or unhappy
• Attractive people and unattractive people are equally happy or unhappy
• Age does not make a difference.
• Health does not make a difference.
• Being social and having a lot of friends has a HUGE impact
• Married people are likely to be much happier than single people

It should come as no surprise that having meaningful and nurturing relationships greatly augments our happiness.  We are, by nature, a social species.

But it is surprising that many of the key "superficial" traits commonly thought to make us "happy" (wealth, looks, age, where we live) have little do with one's actual well-being.  If it's possible to be rich, attractive, young, live in a villa in the Bahamas, and still be miserable, does this mean that our happiness is mostly or entirely controlled by our subconscious?  ("I have everything!  Why am I unhappy?")

I'm not sure that this, or any question about happiness can truly be answered.

Stefan Sagmeister did, however, offer some personal advice on how he tries to make himself happier:

"I try to do more of the things that I like to do and fewer of the things that I don't like."

This sounds like something we all can control.

Plastic seems to be everywhere these days.  It's the bag that carries our groceries.  It's the bottle that holds our water. It's the plate that we eat off of.

There are countless materials and products composed of plastic.  But, one place we can all agree where we don't want it, is on our dinner plate.  Unfortunately, some scientists believe that this is precisely where the widespread substance could end up.

Right now you're probably picturing the plastic "toy-food" hamburgers, pizzas, and tacos that you may have played with (and hopefully not actually eaten) in kindergarten.  But the likely source of plastic that could appear in your diet is from seafood.

 It's plastic... and it's making me hungry.

Pelagic plastics make up a large portion of oceanic pollution, and compose the vast majority of the giant "Great Pacific Garbage Patch," the enormous expanse of floating and submerged garbage formed by the oceanic currents of the North Pacific Gyre.  Though the exact size of the patch is unknown, many scientists estimate the patch to be twice the size of Texas. 

Over time, the plastics from this floating garbage photodegrade down to the molecular level, while still remaining a polymer.  This molecular plastic then enters the food chain when it is ingested by tiny planktonic organisms.  The substance could then bio accumulate up the food chain in the same manner as mercury.  (Big fish eats little fish; bigger fish eats big fish; and so on and so forth.  All while the concentration of the substance rises with each escalation in trophic level.)

The effects of this plastic bio accumulation on humans is currently unclear, but marine animals have experienced hormone disruption and poisoning from the toxic chemicals released by degrading plastic.

I wonder how plastic tastes?  Too bad we can't ask the myriad of marine animals that have already found out.

Yum.

Much has been reported over an alleged Republican or conservative "war on science," but this is a myth. The truth is that assaults upon science take place from both sides of the aisle. Science illiteracy is a bipartisan problem, and in demonstration of this, a bipartisan group of Congressmen has proposed banning the FDA from approving genetically modified salmon.

A terse amendment (pdf) offered by Reps. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) and Don Young (R-Alaska) would ban FDA from spending any funds on genetically engineered salmon approvals beginning in the next financial year. Less than a dozen lawmakers voted by voice to attach the amendment to an agriculture spending bill expected to pass the House this week.

This amendment passed despite the fact that genetically modified food is widely used (70-75% of grocery store food contains at least one GM ingredient), extremely useful, and generally considered safe (not just by the FDA but by the scientific community at large).

Besides fallacious health concerns, opponents also claim that GM salmon may have a detrimental impact on the environment. However, the fish in question would be grown in isolation.

So, why are GM salmon so objectionable?

Should the bioengineered salmon be approved and grown profitably in inland tanks, the fish could undermine traditional ocean-based farms and give AquaBounty a dominant position in the industry.

Now, the truth finally may be coming out. Money, money, money. The bipartisan group of Congressmen also happens to come from the Pacific Northwest, which has an economic stake in the salmon industry. These politicians don't want to see their constituents (read: donors) hurt by a Boston-based biotech company.

At the end of the day, politicians want two things: votes and money. Anything standing in the way, including solid science, is immediately thrown under the bus for the sake of political expediency.

It is admirable that the USDA is concerned about giving proper nutritional guidance to Americans. Recently, they replaced the Food Pyramid with "MyPlate," an easier way to visualize what a proper dinner is supposed to look like.
But, really. Who eats like that? The last time vegetables took up that much space, your correspondent was being fed while seated in a high-chair. Fruits are tasty, but the only ones worth eating (strawberries, watermelon) aren't always in season. Grains are fine, as long as they are processed into the form of a hamburger bun.

So, what does your correspondent typically eat? Something like this:
Notice the prominent role meat plays in your correspondent's diet. When you think about it, anything less is disrespectful to the millions of years of evolution which placed us at the very pinnacle of the food chain. Plop down a healthy piece of meat. You deserve it.

Potatoes are, technically, a vegetable. Enough said.

Naturally, your correspondent rewards himself for a job well-done with dessert and an iced vanilla latte. Sure, Newton may not live as long eating a diet the government does not approve of, but he will live a happier life.

Remember when mom told you not to eat dirt? It turns out she was wrong on this one. Not only does eating dirt ("geophagy") appear to have health benefits, it also is quite common around the world. Science Codex reports on research which indicates that dirt can protect the body from toxins and pathogens:

The database shows that geophagy is documented most commonly in women in the early stages of pregnancy and in pre-adolescent children. Both categories of people are especially sensitive to parasites and pathogens, according to Young and her colleagues. In addition, geophagy is most common in tropical climates where foodborne microbes are abundant. Finally, the database shows that people often eat earth during episodes of gastrointestinal stress.

Another potential benefit of eating dirt would be to expose our germophobic society to more bacteria. An idea called the hygiene hypothesis states that the increase in autoimmune disorders observed in developed countries is attributable to our lack of routine exposure to bacteria and parasites. Perhaps getting a little dirty (and licking our hands) isn't quite so bad, after all.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has announced that cell phones could cause cancer... maybe. Cell phones are now classified by the WHO as Group 2B carcinogens, which is a list of chemicals or agents which may or may not cause cancer. No matter how weak or inconsistent the data is on a particular agent, even scant evidence that it might cause cancer is enough to get it blacklisted.

Just to provide context, here are examples of other agents which have been classified as Group 2B carcinogens:

-Coffee (despite that many studies show it prevents cancer)
-Caffeic acid (a molecule found in most plants)
-Daunomycin (an antibiotic used to treat cancer)
-Gasoline
-Pickled vegetables (but only the traditional Asian kind, whatever that means*)

The standard to become a member of the Group 2B carcinogen list is incredibly low. Adding cell phones is yet another example of the precautionary principle run amok. Assuming that an agent is bad until proven otherwise sets an impossible scientific standard, not to mention that is also impractical. Then, there's the pesky issue that basic physics suggests it is impossible for cell phones to cause cancer.

From a health policy perspective, the WHO's decision becomes even more puzzling. Some people will overreact (probably those who were already afraid of cell phones), and the rest will continue to become increasingly jaded and skeptical of any medical information they receive from the mainstream media. When everything causes cancer, people tune out. Is that the response the WHO wants?

"Better safe than sorry" is simply not a realistic or pragmatic science policy. Now, back to my triple-shot vanilla latte and pickled carrots.