Category Archives: Science

Formaldehyde in Baby Shampoo: Cancer or Sensitivity Issue?

Posted on by

An article was recently published in Slate about Johnson & Johnson reformulating its baby shampoo to remove formaldehyde. The article discussed how some people’s somewhat misguided fears about a known carcinogen, formaldehyde, caused its removal from baby shampoo, when in reality if you are worried about carcinogenic exposure to formaldehyde, baby shampoo should be the least of your concern. As the article’s author, Tara Haelle, correctly points out, formaldehyde is a naturally occurring substance. It is produced in normal atmospheric reactions and when wood burns, both during natural forest fires and human caused fires. It is also produced during anthropogenic activity from numerous industrial processes and petroleum fueled combustion, i.e. cars, ships, airplanes (Salthammer et at. 2010).

I have a few issues with this article, however. First, it states “high enough doses of inhaled formaldehyde can cause cancer, leading OSHA and the EPA to set limits for safe exposures.” Second, it quotes two chemists who say in different ways that the toxicity of a chemical is related to its dose or the amount of exposure, and it essentially states that formaldehyde only causes cancer in high doses. Finally, it completely fails to mention another reason why formaldehyde may have been removed that has nothing to do with cancer.

The problem I have with the second point, is that formaldehyde is a carcinogen, and the toxicological theory with carcinogens, is that exposure to one molecule of a carcinogen can theoretically cause cancer, depending on the carcinogen’s mode of action. With non-carcinogens, it is appropriate and scientifically accurate to say that the dose makes the poison. There are substances that to be healthy you need in some dose, but exposure to too high of doses can lead to detrimental health effects, for example iron and a whole bunch of metals. There are others that you don’t need at all, but you can be exposed to a certain dosage with no ill effects. However, with carcinogens depending on the mode of action for the carcinogenicity, it is believed that there is no safe level of exposure. In theory, all it takes is one molecule to cause a cell to multiply out of control and cause cancer. This is where the carcinogenic mode of action is important. The carcinogenic mode of action refers to how a particular carcinogen actually causes cancer to be initiated. If, for example, a carcinogen’s mode of action is mutagenicity, like radiation, then exposure of any dose can potentially cause the effect that leads to cancer. Thus, there is considered to be absolutely no safe level of exposure to that carcinogen. Each additional exposure increases your risk of getting cancer. However, there are other carcinogenic modes of action, and carcinogens with certain other modes of action would be considered to have a exposure threshold below which no cancer would occur.

So what about formaldehyde? What is its mode of action for carcinogenicity? Is there a safe level of exposure below which there is no risk of cancer? In the US, that appears to be in debate. This brings me to my next point. It is misleading, and in my opinion just plain legally and scientifically incorrect, to state that OSHA and EPA set limits for safe levels of exposure. The EPA has calculated formaldehyde’s Inhalation Unit Risk (IUR) for cancer to be 1.3 x10-5 per µg/m3. “EPA estimates that, if an individual were to continuously breathe air containing formaldehyde at an average of 0.08 µg/m3 (8.0 x 10-5 mg/m3) over his or her entire lifetime, that person would theoretically have no more than a one-in-a-million increased chance of developing cancer as a direct result of breathing air containing this chemical.” The word “increased” is important. It means that it is already assumed that there will be a certain number of cancer cases, and this concentration would cause additional cases above background. Furthermore, EPA states that for calculation of cancer risk from formaldehyde exposure, a linear approach with a multistage procedure due to additional risk at higher concentrations should be used. A linear approach means that any exposure causes a cancer risk with each exposure increasing the risk, and the multistage procedure means that high concentration exposure causes risk to increase at a greater rate. A linear approach is the more conservative method with carcinogens and is normally used when there is not enough scientific evidence to devise a threshold or a different risk method. With that being said, EPA is currently reviewing its toxicity assessment for formaldehyde, and it is possible when that assessment if finalized, EPA will change it cancer risk approach. With respect to OSHA, they have set an permissible exposure limit (PEL) at 0.75 parts formaldehyde per million parts of air (ppm) as an 8-hour time weighted average. The reasoning behind this level is complex, but in part, they state “this PEL represents OSHA’s best judgment of the exposure limit, along with the ancillary provisions, necessary to eliminate a significant risk of harm to employees.” The phrase “significant risk” is in there because their calculations, like the EPA’s, involve uncertainty and probabilities. They are not stating that below the PEL there is no risk, it is just not as significant. Neither OSHA or EPA is stating that below some level of exposure, formaldehyde will not give you cancer. They are stating it unlikely or insignificant compared to a background cancer risk. Below the set levels, the risks are really low, but they still exist.

Back to the baby shampoo. I do, in fact, agree with the point of the article that formaldehyde in baby shampoo is not a concern for cancer. However, I would not state it will not cause cancer. I would state that possible formaldehyde exposure in baby shampoo is highly unlikely to cause cancer. An additional point, which is not in the article, is that formaldehyde is not readily absorbed through the skin, and the amount of volatilization of formaldehyde, which could then be inhaled, from baby shampoo is likely to negligible.

With all that being said, I don’t necessarily agree that removal of formaldehyde from baby shampoo is a case of chemophobia and an overblown reaction by a company. It is possible that Johnson & Johnson removed formaldehyde not because of cancer concerns but because formaldehyde is a known sensitizer and allergen. Many skin care products contain formaldehyde or formaldehyde-releasing preservatives, which include quaternium-15, diazolidinyl urea, DMDM hydantoin, imidazolidinyl urea, bronopol, and tris nitro. While only a small percentage of people have a sensitivity or allergy to formaldehyde, for those that do, it is safest to avoid any exposure. Whether or not baby shampoo containing formaldehyde could cause a person to actually develop a sensitivity or allergy is another subject.

I have no idea why Johnson & Johnson actually decided to remove formaldehyde from baby shampoo, other than that it was a business decision. However by removing formaldehyde, regardless of any cancer concerns, there is now a small but real percentage of potential consumers who can buy their baby shampoo without concern of skin reactions due to their formaldehyde sensitivity or allergy. Thus assuming there is another safer preservative that can be used in place of formaldehyde, its removal would seem, to me at least, to be a good business decision, as they have increased their customer base to people with certain skin sensitivity and allergies.

Very Model of a Modern Engineer-Scientist

Posted on by

This is one of those times, where I have a very silly conversation, and then I take it even farther than it really should go. I can’t exactly explain how it started, other than Biochem Belle from Twitter, noted she was waiting for the song Modern Major Scientist from Chemjobber. I chimed in with a few lines from “I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General” only one of which did I manipulate for a scientist. I realized that about half the lines of the song would not have to be altered for a scientist as opposed to a military person. So here is where I take it too far, with apologies and great respect to Gilbert and Sullivan.

I am the very model of a modern Engineer-Scientist,
I’ve information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the kingdoms taxonomy, and I quote the sci papers historical
From The Lancet to Ecology, in order categorical;
I’m very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem I’m teeming with a lot o’ news,
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.
I’m very good at integral and differential calculus;
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous:
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Engineer-Scientist.
I know our engineering history, Imhotep and al-Jazari;
I understand acoustics, I know all types of VOCs,
I quote in equations all the laws thermodynamical,
In conics I can graph ellipses, hyperbolas, and parabolas;
I can tell undoubted amethyst from fluorite and lepidolite,
I know the croaking chorus of the Xenopus laevis!
Then I can name a chemical after I’ve seen its mass spectrum chromatograph,
And calculate its concentration with an internal standard added.
Then I can design a incinerator for hazardous waste destruction,
And tell you ev’ry detail of exposure risk reduction
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Engineer-Scientist.
In fact, when I know what is meant by leukotriene and histomine,
When I can tell at sight a purine from a  pyrimidine,
When such units as furlong and stones I’m more wary at,
And when I know precisely what is meant by ANSI hard hat,
When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern technology,
When I know more of statistics, microbiology, and toxicology –
In short, when I’ve a smattering of hydrogeology –
You’ll say a better Engineer-Scientist has never sat a gee.
For my science knowledge, because I’m nerdy and geeky,
Is never enough and I must always satisfy my curiosity;
But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Engineer-Scientist.

Book Review: “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks”

Posted on by

I finished reading The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot today. In 1951 when Henrietta Lacks was 30, she developed extremely aggressive cervical cancer. When she went in for surgery for cancer treatment, the doctor took a sample of the tumor. The cells from the tumor were cultured in a lab that had been trying unsuccessfully to find a way to keep human cells alive in culture. Ms. Lacks’s tumor cells, named HeLa by the lab, were the first cells they were able to keep alive in culture. Because they were able to keep them alive and growing, the cells would later become a vital tool for medical science. The scientist who first kept HeLa alive in culture gave the cells away for free to numerous other scientists who used them for various research. The cells helped in part to develop drugs for herpes, leukemia, influenza, hemophilia, and Parkinson’s. They helped develop the polio vaccine and in gene research, including most fittingly genes that cause and suppress cancer. Companies were created to use and produce the cells. Ms. Lacks’s family, however, did not know that the cells had been taken nor that they were being used for so much research. They did not know they existed until 20 years later and received no benefit from all this research. Sadly and ironically, they were so poor they couldn’t afford health insurance, and most were not educated enough to really understand how part of Ms. Lacks could still be alive or what it meant. To make matters worse, shortly after learning about the research on her cells, researchers asked family members to give a sample of their blood to them to aid them in their research. The researchers didn’t explain to the family what the samples would be used for, or at least they did not explain it in a way that the family members could understand.

Anyone who does research involving humans should read this book. Actually, everyone should read this book. It is incredibly interesting and well written. I loved learning some science from it, but it was also nice to learn about the people involved, both the Lacks family and the scientists involved with HaLa. The book gives recognition and a voice to Ms. Lacks and her family who for far too long had none. It is simply horrible how they had been treated in the past, and it is an important lesson to researchers on how not to treat research subjects and their loved ones. The book discusses a little bit of the history of human medical research and the ethics and techniques involved. The introduction of informed consent in medical research is discussed to a great degree. The concept of when a person loses ownership of their own tissue or fluid once the tissue or fluid is no longer a part of their body is discussed.

I, personally, am conflicted about the issue of ownership of body tissue once it it removed from the body. For my dissertation I did research that involved humans. Our research plan was reviewed by an Institutional Review Board as all human research studies are now. Our subjects gave informed consent. They willingly participated, allowed themselves to be outfitted with an air sampling device and to have medical tape placed on and then removed from their skin, and gave urine and blood samples. They knew the risks of participating, which really was only a possible reaction to the medical tape (which none had) and the prick of a needle if they gave blood. We explained what we were doing and why and hopefully they all understood in general what we were doing, even if they did not fully understand the details of the research. We took various steps to protect their identity and information. We made no money off of the research, but my advisor applied for grants based on it, and several of us obtained Master’s and Doctorate’s based on it.

Years ago I had two dental implants put in my mouth. The dentist who implanted them was a professor at the local school of dentistry, and because of certain characteristics of my dental history, I made an interesting case for her to operate on and later teach about. I was awake the whole time, and the surgery took much longer than it needed to because every 15 minutes or, she stopped what she was doing to take photos of the current status of my mouth. I get amused thinking about her students sitting in class viewing photos of my mouth while she discusses my case. However, I am confident my identity is protected, and furthermore I gave informed consent. I was awake. I knew full well she was taking photos and planning to use me as a case study, and I am rather pleased that I might be able to help some dentist and their dental patient in the future.

However as someone, who like the vast majority of people, who has ever given a sample of my body fluids analyzed for medical reasons, the idea that I don’t know what happens to the sample after it leaves me and who can run tests on it, makes me concerned. I once had an infected sebaceous cyst removed by a surgeon. I know it went to pathology to confirm the diagnosis that it was just a sebaceous cyst, but after that I have no idea. From what I have read in the book, it could have then gone on to an academic or commercial research lab. As a scientist, I certainly want scientists to have access to samples that can further science, but it bothers me a great deal that someone could potentially make money off of something found in my cells or fluids. If something unique is found in my tissue that can lead to the cure or treatment for a disease, I can support that, but the idea that a commercial research facility could use it to make money seems wrong to me. At the very least, I would like to know what ultimately happens to any of my tissue or fluid samples. Are they simply destroyed after analysis or are they stored somewhere or transferred somewhere? Who can analyze them and for what? I think that is another reason to read the book, so more people will talk about this subject.

#StandingwithDNLee

Posted on by

I’m privileged. I know I am. I have been my whole life. I’m a white woman who grew up in middle class suburbia. I went to good public schools through high school, and I went to very good public colleges and universities for my Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctorate. I grew up in the South, which I know many associate with racism, but I went to school with plenty of minorities. My one and only “disadvantage” is that I am female, in particular a female engineer and scientist. I do not consider being female a disadvantage, but females tend to get discriminated against as if we are less then males somehow.

This morning much of my Twitter timeline was filled with fellow scientists and then many other people getting very mad at Scientific American over its treatment of one of its bloggers, Dr. Danielle N. Lee. I encourage anyone who reads this post first to go read Isis the Scientist’s blog post about what happened to Dr. Lee, which includes Dr. Lee’s original post. The original post was on Scientific American but now is no longer there, which you can read about in Isis the Scientist’s follow up post. The extremely short version of all this is that an editor a scientific blogging website asked Dr. Lee to write some articles for free and Dr. Lee said no, the editor called her a whore. [Seriously, go read Isis’s blog posts.] My first thought upon reading about all this was, so you think calling a woman a whore is the way to persuade her to do what you want? Really? Does that work for you normally?

Somewhere is the incredulous, anger, and sympathy and respect for Dr. Lee upon learning all the details of these events, I thought how lucky I am. I spent the better part of my childhood in Texas, which has more than its share of racist, sexist pigs, yet I can’t actually remember a time I truly had to deal with one on a personal basis. Last year, I wrote about how lonely it can be to be a female engineer, both in school and in the workplace. I’ve been surrounded by men in the classroom and workplace, since pretty much my freshman year of college. Truthfully though, with one glaring exception, all the men I’ve studied or worked with have for the most part treated me as an equal. Maybe they didn’t, and I was just too oblivious to notice.

The one glaring exception was at the company where I had my first full time job after finishing my Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees. My manager, a senior engineer, would occasionally make some remarks that made 26-year-old me rather uncomfortable, but I didn’t think were truly sexual harassment, and it has been so long ago, I don’t even remember what they were. Then shortly before my birthday, the other female engineer in the office and the female secretary happen to be in the copy room with him when upon the female engineer exclaiming “oh, it’s [GGE]’s birthday next week,” he said, “does that mean we get to spank her?” I was not in the room at the time, but this was a tiny office of about nine people. There are no secrets in an office that small, and I was good friends with the secretary. I heard about this comment pretty quick. To say this comment made me uncomfortable would be putting it mildly. I went to one of the other senior engineers, who happen to have previously been my manager, and I told him what was going on. I told him I didn’t want to make a big deal out of any of it, but I really wanted the comments to stop both for my and every other female’s sake. He assured me he understand, thanked me for coming to him, and promised to take care of it. Within a week or so, a human resources person from the company’s corporate office was in the office, and everyone was taking mandatory sexual harassment training. My former manager had my back. He took care of it, or really he made sure the company took care of it. Whether this engineering company that was definitely dominated by men took care of it because they seriously won’t take this kind of behavior, or if they were more motivated by fear of a sexual harassment lawsuit, I don’t know. What mattered was, they took me seriously, and they reacted exactly the way they should have.

So to return to Dr. Lee, I was thinking how lucky I have been to only have had one bad experience in my personal and professional life. Scientific American seems to not have her back, and the one time I had a problem, my company had my back. Then I stopped to think, why am I lucky to have only had to deal with one sexist idiot in my career? Why should a woman have to be lucky to not be called a whore? Why should I consider myself lucky for be treated like an equal in school and work? Why should I consider myself lucky for people respecting the career decisions I have made and for whom I would and wouldn’t work? Perhaps that is why I am a feminist because I am confident in the notion that I AM AN EQUAL. I have respect for myself. Calling me names will not induce me to do what you want. I will respect you if you respect me. Isn’t that what we learned in Kindergarten? Treat others the way you want to be treated? As for Scientific American, I cannot understand why they took down her post. I cannot understand why they are not supporting her. Their explanation makes no sense, especially to a regular reader of their blogs. They failed Dr. Lee, and they failed their readers by not supporting her. Their silence on her being called a very ugly name is deafening. People and companies who do not stand up against racism and sexism only allow it to continue. Until Scientific American apologizes publicly to Dr. Lee, I will be boycotting them. I am sure not going to go anywhere near the blog website whose editor called Dr. Lee a whore. I wish I could do more. I wish racism and sexism would end, but until they do, I intend to stand up for myself and anyone else who face them.

Mulching Plant Tour

Posted on by

About a month ago, I got a chance to tour a recycling plant. This Arlington County municipal recycling plant focuses on recycling yard waste. In the spring, Arlington County has curbside collection of yard waste in paper bags including invasive vines, leaves, dead plants, pine cones, etc. In the fall, Arlington County picks up leaves in paper bags from residents and also from curbside vacuum collection. All year long, Arlington County also picks up brush curbside. All of these waste streams are treated separately at the plant, and the plant also handles dirt and rock excavated during utility work.

The plant manager said he likes to think of the plant as a reutilization plant because something goes in, they process it, and then something goes out. Their operation is really quite impressive, especially when its 2.7 acres total yard size is considered. It is mainly this plant size that limits their ability to accept more waste for processing. Their biggest issue is dirt from pipe breaks etc. that is processed here. They reuse the processed dirt and rock for backfill, but if they can’t find a use for it, they have to dispose of it in a landfill.

The yard waste has to get to 140°F to kill any invasive weeds. Because the plant is located near a residential area, they do not accept food waste because of the odor it produces. They use lime on the yard waste solely for odor control. [Lime the inorganic material, which generally means calcium oxide (CaO) with some calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) not lime the fruit.] With the leaf waste, they achieve a 66% volume reduction to the leaf mulch product. Leaf bag collection mulch is mixed with dirt for final product.

Tub grinder that processes leaf, brush, wood, and spring yard waste

Tub grinder that processes leaf, brush, wood, and spring yard waste

Dirt processing machine that sorts material by size

Dirt processing machine that sorts material by size

Stone crusher machine

Stone crusher machine

Material going into trommel screen for separation. The trommel screen sorts dirt and big aggregate.

Material going into trommel screen for separation. The trommel screen sorts dirt and big aggregate.

Material coming out of trommel screen after separation

Material coming out of trommel screen after separation

As is often the case, fixing a piece of equipment involves a guy standing on the bucket of a front loader using a pole to move things.

As is often the case, fixing a piece of equipment involves a guy standing on the bucket of a front loader using a pole to move things.

Rock and concrete after separation

Rock and concrete after separation

Dirt for separation by size

Dirt for separation by size

Leaf mulch product

Leaf mulch product

Wood mulch product

Wood mulch product

Yard waste mulch product

Yard waste mulch product

The plant uses the product dirt to create this vegetable garden. It had wonderful looking vegetables, and in the past, they have entered the vegetables in the county fair.

The plant uses the product dirt to create this vegetable garden. It had wonderful looking vegetables, and in the past, they have entered the vegetables in the county fair.

Luray Caverns

Posted on by

Unlike Skyline Caverns, which I visited yesterday, Luray Caverns let visitors take self guided tours through the caverns. This was very nice, as there were employees along the way to ask questions of if you had one, but I didn’t have to listen to a guide telling me what the various formations look like. Luray Caverns has fantastic stalactite, stalagmite, and column formations. It has a couple of small ponds that create perfect mirrors for the formations above, and it is absolutely beautiful and amazing to view. Luray Caverns also has the Stalacpipe Organ, which plays music by hammering stalactites instead of using pipes. It is rather interesting to hear.

Cavern formations

Cavern formations

Flowstone with columns

Flowstone with columns

Up close view of flowstone

Up close view of flowstone

Drapery stalactite

Drapery stalactite

Drapery stalactite

Drapery stalactite

Mirrored lake

Mirrored lake

Mirrored lake

Mirrored lake

Two huge columns

Two huge columns

Close up view of column in photo above

Close up view of column in photo above

Even more up close view of column in two above photos

Even more up close view of column in two above photos

Flowstone cross section

Flowstone cross section

Stalactite cross section

Stalactite cross section

Stalactite cross section

Stalactite cross section

Below is a video of the Stalacpipe Organ. It has a few still photos of the organ’s parts, and then a video with audio of the Stalacpipe Organ playing. Turn the volume way up to hear it.

Skyline Caverns

Posted on by

I visited Skyline Caverns today in Front Royal, Virginia. I have decided that caverns and other attractions that have some science involved need to have two different tours: one for people interested in the science, such as the geology of cave formation, and others who just want to see the pretty stuff and be told that a particular formation looks like Snoopy. Skyline Caverns has some nice formations and some neat underground rivers and lakes, The lakes are really neat to see because the water is completely still and forms a mirror reflecting all the formations above it. The best part of the tour of Skyline Caverns was the anthodites, which are absolutely beautiful six-sided calcite crystals. According to the tour guide, their existence was first discovered in Skyline Caverns by Walter Amos, the geologist who discovered the caverns.

Underground lake

Underground lake

Underground lake

Underground lake

Flowstone

Flowstone

Drapery stalactites

Drapery stalactites

Stalactites

Stalactites

Water dropping from forming stalactites

Water dropping from forming stalactites

Anthodites

Anthodites

Anthodites

Anthodites

Tiny growing anthodites

Tiny growing anthodites

Anthodites

Anthodites

Anthodites with moss

Anthodites with moss

Science Education with a Corpse Flower

Posted on by

During my two weeks of daily visits to the US Botanical Garden (USBG) to see the corpse flower, I talked to many people about the corpse flower at the USBG, on Twitter, on Facebook, and face to face in many other places. My website got record traffic. The news media ran stories about the corpse flower. On July 22, the day it was in peak bloom, there was a mass of people waiting, including me, to get into USBG before it opened at 10 am. My post for that day is titled Corpse Flower: July 22 am because I intended to get a second set of photos that afternoon. However, when I went back that afternoon at 5 pm, there was a line three blocks long of people waiting to get in to see it. I decided I didn’t have time to wait in that line. People were clearly interested in this plant. It was a big thing. I and thousands of other people were watching this plant every day on a live cam. To be clear, while this plant did grow amazingly fast, it was not so fast that you could see it growing if you just stared at it. We were watching a plant sit there, and many of us were obsessed.

Even better than this obsession watching it, was people’s interest in knowing more about it. Everyone wanted to know when it would bloom and why does it smell. Many people also wanted to know where it was from, was it really the largest flower in the world, where is its leaves, and how does it reproduce. Many of the people I talked to were perfect strangers who did not have a science background or would normally be interested in science type topics, but they found this plant interesting. It was a perfect opportunity to educate people about science, nature, and conservation. While I was happy to see how some employees and volunteers at USBG responded to all the interest, I have to admit I was really disappointed at some very squandered opportunities of which USBG on the whole did not take advantage.

Part of my disappointment with USBG is that I am comparing it to what happened when a corpse flower named Lois bloomed at Houston Museum of Natural Science (HMNS) in 2010. HMNS set up a live cam also and also set up a Twitter feed to run on the same webpage as the live cam where any tweets with a designated hashtag would show up, so people could discuss the corpse flower. Like many corpse flowers, Lois was unpredictable and seemed to be taking too long to bloom. So while everyone was waiting for Lois to finally bloom, someone not associated with HMNS, set up a parody Twitter account called @CorpzFlowrLois, and the first tweet was “Maybe I’ll bloom, maybe I won’t.” This pretty much summed up the plant. The tweets from @CorpzFlowrLois kept getting funnier and funnier as Lois was given a diva personality complete with a personal assistant who was constantly late bringing her her cappuccino, an ex-boyfriend back in Sumatra who wanted her back, and the real life HMNS horticulturist whom she thought touched her too often. HMNS had no idea who was behind @CorpzFlowrLois, but they just went with it and linked to the account on their website with a disclaimer because as @CorpzFlowrLois got more and more followers, HMNS got more and more admission-paying visitors to the museum as well as website visitors. HMNS hosted webinars and educated everyone about the corpse flower and the related science.

Thus, it is probably slightly unfair for me to compare USBG to HMNS because partially thanks to @CorpzFlowrLois, Houston and the internet went absolutely nuts over Lois. I saw two different parody Twitter accounts set up for USBG’s corpse flower, but neither of them were as prolific or as funny as @CorpzFlowrLois. Also, for whatever reason, USBG did not embrace social media at all. Even though they knew they were going to get more visitors and interest because of the corpse flower, they didn’t seem to know what to do with it. The fact that they don’t charge admission may have something to do with their response. However, they also didn’t do what I think would be incredibly easy things to help educate people and satisfy their curiosity. They had two small posters set on either side of the corpse flower with some information about and photos of corpse flowers. They passed out pamphlets with some information and also had some information and photos on their website. However the information was somewhat basic and did not answer many of the questions I constantly heard people ask them. They also did not have many photos, and to be blunt, I think my photos were much better. When I talked to people at USBG, I always referred them to my website to see more photos, especially if they wanted to be able to see the progression of it growing as you couldn’t do that on USBG’s website.

People, including myself, were asking them everyday if the corpse flower was still growing or how tall it was. The staff measured the height and width of the corpse flower daily if not more often, so generally the staff member who was near the corpse flower would know the latest information and could answer those questions. While I suppose I should have suggested it, I don’t know why they didn’t just set up a white board or post on the website the growth information so people wouldn’t have to find a staff member to ask. People wanted to know more about the reason for the smell and how the plant reproduced, but the information that USBG had was minimal.

However, my greatest annoyance with USBG was with a few of the staff members. To be clear, most of the ones to which I either talked or listened, were knowledgable and great, if somewhat exhausted from the nonstop questions. However I heard two different staff members not only not take advantage to educate but also just plain use wrong terminology. On one of my daily corpse flower visits, I heard a man tell some people it was the largest flower in the world. I turned around, smiled, and said it is actually the largest unbranched inflorescence. He said well yes, of course, that is actually a spathe, but he finds it best to avoid technical terms around non-technical people. I later realized he was actually a staff member, but he didn’t have his ID badge displayed prominently. He said he was plant educator and if you use technical terms, which evidently includes spathe and spadix, then people get disinterested and confused. I said I found the opposite to be true, if the subject is explained well, then people can not only understand technical terms but want to know more. For example, if you explain that what they are looking at is not actually a flower, then people want to know where the flowers are and why. Further, if you give a person the wrong information like calling the copse flower the largest flower in the world, then how exactly did you educate them?

This is not just my opinion though of people wanting to know the technical terms and full explanation, it is my experience. As I stated, I talked to complete strangers while at USBG. Many times our conversation would start off because someone would state to their friend or just out loud to whomever “I wonder when it is going to bloom” or “why does it smell.” When I could do so without seeming to be a know-it-all or intruding in their conversation, I would engage them in conversation and educate them when I could. If the question was about when it was going to bloom, I would often show them some of my photos on my iPhone and describe the changes. I would always state I am no expert, but here is how it has changed. I would also state what I heard from staff and what I could observe, such as there was one last sheath (green petal like structure) that needed to fall or the staff member said it grew another six inches yesterday, and it needs to stop growing before it will bloom. I had wonderful, sometimes long conversations with people, and I always used proper botanical words when I knew them, showing the people how the structure we were waiting to open was actually a spathe that was protecting the real flowers inside it. Never once did a person get disinterested or tell me they didn’t understand me. They just asked me more and more questions that I tried to answer if I could. Many times while talking with one or two people, I would essentially draw an audience, and 15 minutes later I was surrounded by people all wanting to know more about the plant. I would always be forced to give everyone a disclaimer that I am not a botanist, I am just obsessed with the corpse flower and spend too much time on the internet.

When talking about the copse flower, if you just call it a flower, then you can’t really explain why it smells or other topics people were so interested in knowing. Sometimes when talking to people I would use the word blossom initially instead of spathe. I did that so that I did not incorrectly call it a flower, but once I talked more about it, I could explain how it was really an inflorescence. When talking about the corpse flower to people, I think back to high school chemistry where students are originally taught the Bohr model of the atom. The teachers explain, this model is not correct. but it was a good way to initially describe the atom, and later students will be confused with the quantum model of the atom because no one really understands the quantum model of the atom. As the statistician George E.P. Box stated “essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.” Thus calling the corpse flower a flower is a wrong model, and it can be useful, if and only if, the true structure of it is later described.

I did not write this blog post to bash USBG. I really appreciate how they set up the live cam, had extended hours (although I wish they had extended their hours on the night it actually bloomed), and made their staff available to educate people who came to see this magnificent plant. I just wish they had taken more advantage of the amazing opportunity to educate people who would normally not come to a botanical garden about nature and science. It can be difficult to interest people in nature and science, and when something comes along that grabs people’s interest, you have to take advantage to educate. I took advantage of it to talk to and educate friends and complete strangers about the science of this fascinating plant and how amazing nature is, and it was a wonderful experience that I will never forget.

Mu is Not U

Posted on by

Time for another blog post where I try to improve science grammar.

This is the lower case Greek letter mu: μ. This is the lower case Latin letter u: u. Latin letters are, of course, what are used in the English alphabet as well as many, many other languages. While μ and u look similar, they are different. The Greek letter mu, uppercase Μ, is closer to the Latin letter M. The Latin letter U (uppercase, or u, lowercase) is more related to the Greek letter Upsilon (uppercase Υ, lowercase υ).

So now that I got that out of the way, when it comes to science in particular, μ and u are NOT interchangeable. In the International System of Units (SI), otherwise known as the Metric system, μ is the symbol used to represent the prefix micro-. “μ” can easily be added into a document using a insert symbol compound. It is an easy procedure, and there is no need to be lazy and just use “u”. “u” does not mean micro-. It is wrong. Don’t do it.

Speaking to High School Students

Posted on by

I was asked to speak at The Washington Youth Summit on the Environment (WYSE) to a small group of the delegates about my career as environmental engineer/health scientist. The delegates are high school students. I’ve never done anything like this before, and I can’t remember the last time I’ve spoken to a group of high school students about anything. I was told to talk about my career and talk about specific projects on which I’ve worked. I prepared a few slides on the basics of risk assessment as that is the general field in which I work now and then quite a few slides on my dissertation and a few slides on the project I am currently working at work. I wasn’t sure what to expect. Would they be interested in this at all? Would my slides be interesting or too far over their heads? I took out what I thought were the more advanced and complicated slides and just focused on graphs and photos. I wanted to focus on the big picture.

Part of my problem with giving this presentation was, the more educated you become, the more you take for granted what other people know. At least, I have that problem. I have had so much math education including three semesters of calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, probability, statistics, and biostatistics, that I’m flabbergasted when I meet people who can’t do or understand basic algebra or understand what a square root is. Certainly, you can make an argument that this is a sign of the failure of the US education system, but people’s education level is what it is. If you want to explain something to someone, than you have to be able to explain it to them on their level. These are high school students, and I can’t expect them to know information that is not taught until college or after. Thus, I have a group of high school students that I need to talk to about the work that I do and the work I did to earn my Ph.D. I am not entirely sure how to do this. I don’t quite frankly remember what I knew in high school. I have no idea what these students know. I don’t want to bore and confuse them by talking at so high a level that they can’t understand me, but I don’t want to insult them by explaining things they already know.

I am really not sure how I did. The one thing I am fairly sure about is that I babbled and rambled a few times. I am really not the best speaker. I am not a bad speaker, but I do much better if I have a set text that I am reading or very specific things with high points written on slides. I didn’t do that for this talk because I wanted to be able to change what I was saying once I got there and started getting questions. They did ask me questions. They asked me great questions in fact. However those questions made me realize just how much I know and forget that other people don’t know. That is in no way meant to be an insult to these students. I was really impressed with them. Like I said, they asked great questions. Also, they were very polite and politely listened even when I am sure I started to ramble. I really appreciated their attentiveness, and I loved their questions.

For example, one of the first questions I got was on one of my first slides, which had the word epidemiology on it. I was asked “what is epidemiology?” This is probably where it hit me that I had no idea what they knew. It didn’t really dawn on me that some (or all) would not know what that word meant and what that science field is. Again, that is not an insult to them. If anything, I was annoyed with myself for not considering when I learned that word. I am glad I was asked the question. It gave me a chance to tell them about John Snow and the London cholera epidemic. I am fairly sure all epidemiology courses are legally required to start with a discussion on John Snow and the London cholera epidemic, so I had fun telling them about it.

I can’t remember all the questions I got, but I got quite a few. I loved this because that meant the person asking the question was listening and engaged. When I describing issues related to soil and groundwater contamination, I got a very simple question as to how these chemicals get into the soil and groundwater. I LOVED this question. I can’t describe all the reasons why I loved this question, but one is because I am an engineer, and I get frustrated when people think we build things and then no maintenance is ever needed. Bridges in the US keep falling down, and the American Society of Civil Engineers gives our infrastructure a D+ grade. One of the reasons is lack of maintenance. I got to explain to the students about maintenance and inspections and things simply not being designed or built to last forever. I also explained how decades ago, people used to just dump chemicals in the ground or water and never think of the consequences.

I also got some questions of how to find out more information on different topics and things I discussed. They wanted to know more. As I always want to know more, how could I not like these students? I hope some of them already have or are now on the internet reading more about the topics I only lightly discussed. Maybe one day I will meet them again professionally.