Red Gold

Red Gold – America gets over 60 percent of its seafood from Alaskan waters. Now a proposed open pit mine, which would be one of the largest in the world, has some residents here concerned. They’re worried that regardless of the economic benefits, giant ponds that would be used to store waste from the mine could pollute Alaska’s pristine waters.

Glen Alsworth, Sr., is at the center of the mine debate firestorm that is pitting fisherman against villager, politician against sportsman, and environmentalist against businessman.

Alsworth is in the crosshairs because of his role as Chairman of the Lake and Peninsula Borough assembly, one of the 16 boroughs in Alaska. The equivalent of being a County Executive in other states, his support of the Pebble copper and gold mine in the region would carry a lot of weight.

Alsworth’s clout also stems from the fact that his father was a pioneer settling the area on Lake Clark now known as Port Alsworth, AK, in the 1940s. And because today, the 58-year-old commercial pilot is a successful businessman in the region with 50 people employed in several travel-related companies.

Often called Mayor, Alsworth says he is one of the 1,500 residents in his borough living near the potential mine site.

“Initially, I was very supportive of the project,” says Alsworth. “I am now avowed neutral, awaiting a site specific detailed plan, so I can make an intelligent response to a concrete proposal.”

Referred to as The Pebble Project, the proposed mine has been controversial from the very beginning, when exploration picked up in earnest in the 1990s.

Since then Alsworth has met many times with representatives of the mine owners, The Pebble Partnership, whose preliminary plans propose the mining and processing of 10 billion tons of ore, which if approved, would be among the world’s largest.

Construction of the mine at Pebble would be massive, taking years and costing billions of dollars. It will require many miles of roads and bridges across vast wilderness, pipelines for fuel and water, large amounts of electricity, and construction of perhaps the second largest earthen dam in North America to contain the toxic byproducts of the mining process.

The Environmental Protection Agency has raised questions about potential risks but is weighing whether to prevent the construction of the Pebble mine. The fate of southwest Alaska’s lifeblood -- fishing in the Bristol Bay watershed, which is home to the biggest run of wild salmon in the world -- is at stake.

The locals refer to the run of tens of millions of salmon each year as “Red Gold,” because it produces hundreds of millions of dollars in the annual revenue of commercial fisheries.

Sport fishing is also an important part of the area's industry. Alsworth owns one of many lodges catering to sport fishermen exploiting the tremendous salmon populations. The native Alaskans in the Bristol Bay region also rely on harvesting of salmon for year-round subsistence. In all, 7,500 people live in the Bristol Bay region near the proposed mine.

Opponents argue that the mine would pollute and threaten the entire Bristol Bay watershed. Proponents argue that the project is already creating desperately needed jobs, and will provide much needed tax revenue, too.

“Brain power short circuited by wild emotion produces a lot of noise, flaring tempers, personal attacks and much mudslinging,” say Alsworth, “but not many tangible, productive solutions. “Instead of being threatened by obstacles,” Alsworth says he is “energized to craft solutions.” Alsworth recommends that any development capable of harming water supplies be required to place monitoring devices in all waterways that can be policed 24/7 by anyone via the Internet.

According to their website, the mine owners say they are committed to developing a world-class mine environmentally sound, and economically beneficial to the people of Southwest Alaska.

Just about every living person in the small villages in the Bristol Bay watershed will be impacted by the EPA’s decision on whether or not the mine project gets a green light -- but perhaps no one as much as Alsworth.

An entrepreneur at heart, in addition to the lodge that caters to nature goers and sport fishers alike, Alsworth owns a small air service. He acknowledges that he is hedging -- planning for either outcome.

In addition to ferrying tourist who come to the largest state in America seeking outdoor adventure, he also makes money transporting those affiliated with the mine drilling test wells, providing logistical support, etc. “Seven out of every 100” passengers he flies in the region are “associated in some way or another with the Pebble mine project.” But Alsworth is realistic about the impact his leadership role in the community will play in the final outcome.

“I think there are some folks out there that think it’s a dictatorship or that I’m a King,” says Alsworth. “If I say, it’s going to go, it’s going to go. Or if I say, it’s going to stop, it’s going to stop. Realistically, the Supreme Court can do that, I cannot.”

Alsworth’s decision may not be the final word, but much like his father’s pioneering days, his actions may have a major impact on the next generation.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This reporter knows the area well...fished these waters many times. It is one of the best fishing areas in the world, especially this time of year when the salmon run. ( yahoo.com )

READ MORE - Red Gold

Antarctic ice melting from warm water below

Antarctic ice melting from warm water below — Antarctica's massive ice shelves are shrinking because they are being eaten away from below by warm water, a new study finds. That suggests that future sea levels could rise faster than many scientists have been predicting.

The western chunk of Antarctica is losing 23 feet of its floating ice sheet each year. Until now, scientists weren't exactly sure how it was happening and whether or how man-made global warming might be a factor. The answer, according to a study published Wednesday in the journal Nature, is that climate change plays an indirect role — but one that has larger repercussions than if Antarctic ice were merely melting from warmer air.

Hamish Pritchard, a glaciologist at the British Antarctic Survey, said research using an ice-gazing NASA satellite showed that warmer air alone couldn't explain what was happening to Antarctica. A more detailed examination found a chain of events that explained the shrinking ice shelves.

Twenty ice shelves showed signs that they were melting from warm water below. Changes in wind currents pushed that relatively warmer water closer to and beneath the floating ice shelves. The wind change is likely caused by a combination of factors, including natural weather variation, the ozone hole and man-made greenhouse gases, Pritchard said in a phone interview.

As the floating ice shelves melt and thin, that in turn triggers snow and ice on land glaciers to slide down to the floating shelves and eventually into the sea, causing sea level rise, Pritchard said. Thicker floating ice shelves usually keep much of the land snow and ice from shedding to sea, but that's not happening now.

That whole process causes larger and faster sea level rise than simply warmer air melting snow on land-locked glaciers, Pritchard said.

"It means the ice sheets are highly sensitive to relatively subtle changes in climate through the effects of the wind," he said.

What's happening in Antarctica "may have already triggered a period of unstable glacier retreat," the study concludes. If the entire Western Antarctic Ice Sheet were to melt — something that would take many decades if not centuries — scientists have estimated it would lift global sea levels by about 16 feet.

NASA chief scientist Waleed Abdalati, an expert in Earth's ice systems who wasn't involved in the research, said Pritchard's study "makes an important advance" and provides key information about how Antarctica will contribute to global sea level rise.

Another outside expert, Ted Scambos of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, said the paper will change the way scientists think about melt in Antarctica. Seeing more warm water encircling the continent, he worries that with "a further push from the wind" newer areas could start shrinking. ( Associated Press )

READ MORE - Antarctic ice melting from warm water below

Autistic boy,12, with higher IQ than Einstein develops his own theory of relativity

Autistic boy,12, with higher IQ than Einstein develops his own theory of relativity - A 12-year-old child prodigy has astounded university professors after grappling with some of the most advanced concepts in mathematics.

Jacob Barnett has an IQ of 170 - higher than Albert Einstein - and is now so far advanced in his Indiana university studies that professors are lining him up for a PHD research role.

The boy wonder, who taught himself calculus, algebra, geometry and trigonometry in a week, is now tutoring fellow college classmates after hours.

Scroll down for video

Gifted: Jacob Barnett is so far ahead of his age group he is now leaving university he is developing his own theory on how the universe came into being

And now Jake has embarked on his most ambitious project yet - his own 'expanded version of Einstein's theory of relativity'.

His mother, not sure if her child was talking nonsense or genius, sent a video of his theory to the renowned Institute for Advanced Study near Princeton University.

According to the Indiana Star, Institute astrophysics professor Scott Tremaine -himself a world renowned expert - confirmed the authenticity of Jake's theory.

In an email to the family, Tremaine wrote: 'I'm impressed by his interest in physics and the amount that he has learned so far.

'The theory that he's working on involves several of the toughest problems in astrophysics and theoretical physics.

'Anyone who solves these will be in line for a Nobel Prize.'

But for his mother Kristine Barnett, 36, and the rest of the family, maths remains a tricky subject.

Speaking to the paper, Mrs Barnett said: 'I flunked math. I know this did not come from me.'

And it hasn't gone un-noticed by Jake, who added: 'Whenever I try talking about math with anyone in my family they just stare blankly.'

Jake was diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome, a mild form of autism, from an early age.

His parents were worried when he didn't talk until the age of two, suspecting he was educationally abnormal.

It was only as he began to grow up that they realised just how special his gift was.

He would fill up note pads of paper with drawings of complex geometrical shapes and calculations, before picking up felt tip pens and writing equations on windows.

By the age of three he was solving 5,000-piece puzzles and he even studied a state road map, reciting every highway and license plate prefix from memory.

By the age of eight he had left high school and was attending Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis advanced astrophysics classes.

Genius: Jake Barnett is now set to become a paid astrophysics researcher

His classroom presence is quite unnerving for many of the 18-plus year old students at his IPIU lectures.

Speaking to the Indy Star, Wanda Anderson, a biochemistry major said: 'When I first walked in and saw him, I thought, 'Oh my God, I'm going to school with Doogie Howser.'

She added: 'A lot of people come to him for help when they don't understand a physics problem.

'People come up to him all the time and say, 'Hey Jake, can you help me'.

'A lot of people think a genius is hard to talk to, but Jake explains things that would still be over their head.'

And his Professor John Ross said his performance in lectures had been 'outstanding'.

'When he asks a question, he is always two steps ahead of the lecture.

'Everyone in the class gets quiet. Poor kid. . . . He sits right in the front row, and they all just look at him.

'He will come to see me during office hours and ask even more detailed questions. And you can tell he's been thinking these things through.

'Kids his age would normally have problems adding fractions, and he is helping out some of his fellow students.'

According to his parents Jake has trouble sleeping at night as he constantly sees numbers in his head.

But far from complaining, Jake has turned the sleepless nights to his advantage - debunking the big bang theory.

The next step, according to professor Ross, is for Jake to leave class altogether and take up a paid research role. ( dailymail.co.uk )

READ MORE - Autistic boy,12, with higher IQ than Einstein develops his own theory of relativity

Boon or Bane for Sexuality?

Menopause: Boon or Bane for Sexuality? - To many women, menopause may seem like a time when almost nothing goes right. A woman may experience hot flushes, sleeplessness, mood swings, vaginal dryness, and loss of sexual desire, among other physical and mental disturbances.

During this time, her children are most likely reaching adulthood and moving away, leaving behind the dreaded "empty nest." And as physical beauty inevitably wanes, a woman may also notice that her sexual relationship with her partner suffers from a grinding, unexciting sameness.

With such a scenario, is there any chance that sexual pleasure and satisfaction can be sustained, let alone improved after menopause? Surprisingly, the answer is yes.

A recent large European study, soon to be reported in the scientific literature, found that as many postmenopausal women did well sexually as did poorly. Not all women go through the plethora of possible menopausal symptoms mentioned above. Most symptoms of menopause are due to the dramatic reduction in estrogen production as the ovaries shut down. In many women, these symptoms can be effectively treated with estrogen replacement regimens.

Loss of sexual desire is not due to menopause, as most people believe, but to reductions in the hormone testosterone associated with aging. Physicians can prescribe replacement testosterone just as they prescribe replacement estrogens, although this avenue of treatment is sought much less frequently. And with concerns about pregnancy and monthly periods in the past, many women feel much freer to enjoy sex. Postmenopausal couples can finally focus fully on sexual gratification for the first time in decades.

Sometimes the problem is not experienced by the postmenopausal woman herself but resides in her partner. Often, male partners of the same age experience physical maladies that may undercut their sexual functioning. Here, too, there is hope in the half-dozen or so drugs now available for men. Nearly 70 percent of men with erectile problems respond to these treatments.

Menopause is not synonymous with physical and mental discomfort and a lackluster sex life. With a little effort to deal with symptoms as they arise, the results may well be worth it. ( lifestyle.yahoo.com )

READ MORE - Boon or Bane for Sexuality?

Global warming 'triggered the arrival of the dinosaurs

Global warming 'triggered the arrival of the dinosaurs' - Global warming 300 million years ago triggered the evolutionary burst which caused lizards to evolve into dinosaurs, scientists revealed today.

The new research is focused on the Carboniferous Period, when the supercontinent of Pangea was covered in tropical rainforests ruled by reptiles.

Scientists now believe that the Earth became significantly hotter during this age - turning rainforests into 'islands' surrounded by arid deserts.

Huge dinosaurs like T-Rex and Triceratops may have only evolved after a sudden rise in global temperatures

This climatic change caused lizards to adapt to live in drier conditions and led to the evolution of different varieties of dinosaurs.

Dr Howard Falcon-Lang of Royal Holloway, University of London, who carried out the research, revealed this global warming indirectly caused the evolution of mammals.

He said: 'We now know that this climate change caused the rainforests to fragment into small 'islands' of forest.

'This change isolated populations of reptiles and caused each community to evolve in a different direction leading to an increase in diversity.

'The global warming set in motion the process which led to the evolution of dinosaurs and produced different species which adapted to the climate in different ways.

'We have discovered for the first time how this evolution occurred after analysing hundreds of fossils from around the globe.

'This initial burst of global warming significantly affected the evolution of the world and led reptiles to evolve into dinosaurs, birds and mammals.'

Around 300 million years ago the supercontinent of Pangea was covered by a huge rainforest and the reptiles which inhabited it were very similar.

Pangea is the name that is given to the supercontinent that existed before tectonic shift separated them into different continents

However, a period of global warming caused the forest to fragment into 'islands' of trees, allowing each population of trapped reptiles to evolve in a different way.

The world became so hot that the polar ice caps melted and vast forests grew at the North and South poles.

The reptiles eventually moved out of the dwindling forests and into the arid desert lands before the dinosaurs arrived around 220 million years ago.

Fossils prove there was a diverse range of dinosaur species and researchers now believe this evolution was triggered by global warming.

The research team made their findings by analysing and carbon dating hundreds of reptile fossils from around the world and analysing how they evolved over time.

Professor Mike Benton of the University of Bristol, added: 'This is a classic ecological response to habitat fragmentation.

'You see the same process happening today whenever a group of animals becomes isolated from its parent population.

'It's been studied on traffic islands between major road systems or, as Charles Darwin famously observed in the Galapagos, on oceanic islands.'

Sarda Sahney, also of the University of Bristol, added: 'It is fascinating that even in the face of devastating ecosystem-collapse, animals may continue to diversify through the creation of endemic populations.

'Life may not be so lucky again in the future, should the Amazon rainforest collapse.'

The new findings were published today in the journal Geology. ( dailymail.co.uk )

READ MORE - Global warming 'triggered the arrival of the dinosaurs

Vitamin D supplements may not always make a difference in a child's bone density

Vitamin D supplements may not always make a difference in a child's bone density, a new review finds. - Children with normal vitamin D levels didn't show improvements in their bone density after taking vitamin D supplements, according to a review of six studies. The studies involved nearly 900 participants, ages 1 month to 19 years, who took a vitamin D supplement or a placebo for three months.

More research is needed to confirm that children with a vitamin D deficiency might benefit from the supplements, said researchers from the Menzies Research Institute at the University of Tasmania in Australia.

About 70 percent of U.S. children aren't getting enough vitamin D, according to a 2009 article in the journal Pediatrics.

Why they're deficient

Vitamin D - found naturally in milk and in fatty fish like salmon, tuna and trout, but in few other foods - helps the body absorb calcium, and therefore increases bone density, which helps to shield against broken bones and osteoporosis later in life.

Supplements are still a good idea if you're not eating enough vitamin-D-rich foods, said Connie Weaver, head of the Department of Foods and Nutrition at Purdue University, who was not involved with the study.

"There's hardly any place you can get it," she said.

Children and teens should consume 400 international units of vitamin D a day, according to recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics. To put that in perspective, a glass of milk has about 100 international units of vitamin D, Weaver said.

Fatty fish also have vitamin D, as does fortified orange juice, she said.

Weaver said the new research provided a good summary of what is known about vitamin D and its effects on children, but that variations in the studies reviewed mean the results shouldn't be taken at face value.

The wide age range of children in the studies could hide any benefits vitamin D supplements might have in specific age groups, such as pre-pubertal adolescents, Weaver said.

And because supplement dosages varied across the studies, there's no way to determine whether a particular dose of extra vitamin D might be beneficial, she said.

The effects of race

Studies should also be done to determine whether vitamin D supplementation is more effective in certain races, Weaver said. For example, Caucasians are more prone to osteoporosis, she said, but African-Americans are more likely to be deficient in vitamin D.

Aside from its role in bone density, vitamin D supplementation may benefit health in other ways. The nutrient has a role in controlling infection and lowering the risk of colon cancer, according to the Harvard School of Public Health. And it has also been shown to lower the risk of Parkinson's disease, according to a study earlier this year in the journal Archives of Neurology. ( LiveScience.com )

READ MORE - Vitamin D supplements may not always make a difference in a child's bone density

Ancient DNA shows interbreeding between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal

Ancient DNA shows interbreeding between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal. With the help of a pinch of fossil bone dust, scientists have discovered that modern human beings interbred with Neanderthals tens of thousands of years ago, and that 1 to 4 percent of the genes carried by non-African people are traceable to the much-caricatured, beetle-browed cavemen.

The Neanderthal project, which took four years and involved 57 scientists, is the latest and most astonishing example of the recovery of scientifically useful information from ancient DNA.

The new data answer a few of the many questions about modern human beings' relationship with their last big hominin competitors, who died out about 30,000 years ago. The data also hint at what Homo sapiens had -- but Homo neanderthalensis didn't -- that may have made the difference between survival and extinction.

"What this means is that Neanderthals are not totally extinct. In some of us, they live on," said Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, who led the genome reconstruction described in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

The findings show that modern humans and Neanderthals interbred, probably in the Middle East, between about 100,000 and 80,000 years ago, soon after modern humans migrated out of Africa and before they diversified, through chance and natural selection, into the ethnic groups that exist today. That's why northern Europeans, the Chinese and Papua New Guineans carry traces of Neanderthal ancestry, but Africans do not.

The Neanderthal versions of genes differ from the human versions by one or more DNA letters, known as nucleotides, in the string of thousands of letters that make up a gene. The Neanderthal versions are salted through the 20,000-gene human genome in no particular order. Whether they endow their holders with certain traits or hazards isn't known.

On the other hand, there are dozens of genes (and even some long stretches of DNA encompassing numerous genes) that are distinctly different between modern humans and Neanderthals. Whether those differences had real-world consequences when they crept in through mutation eons ago -- and whether they are keys to human success -- are among the tantalizing questions arising from the new research.

"This is a very powerful method for shining light on a really crucial time in human evolutionary history," said Richard E. Green of the University of California at Santa Cruz, who did much of the work as a postdoctoral student in Paabo's laboratory. He and other scientists are eager to study those genes and regions "to understand exactly what changed, and why."

Until recently, the recovery of genetic material from flora and fauna subjected to the elements for 400 centuries was the subject of science fiction. But new methods of toning up degraded DNA, along with fast and accurate nucleotide sequencing, and software that lets researchers assemble the equivalent of a million-piece jigsaw puzzle, have made it possible.

The Neanderthal genes were recovered from three bones excavated in a cave in Croatia about 20 years ago. One is 38,000 years old, another 44,000 years old and one is undated. They appear to be shin bones, and all are from females. They also seem to have been intentionally broken, possibly to get at the marrow to eat.

The researchers removed half a gram of bone powder with a dental drill. More than 95 percent of the DNA in the sample belonged to bacteria and fungi, not to the Neanderthals. The scientists used a variety of techniques to eliminate the microbial DNA, recover the non-microbial DNA through polymerase chain reaction amplification, and assure themselves they had Neanderthal material and not modern human contaminants.

Proto-humans and chimpanzees diverged from each other about 6.5 million years ago. Modern humans and Neanderthals diverged about 300,000 years ago. On a genetic level, Neanderthals and modern humans are almost as closely related as today's ethnic groups are to each other.

But the differences may be important.

The researchers identified 73 genes for which all modern people have the same molecular version but for which Neanderthals have the more ancient, chimpanzee version. Five of the genes have two molecular differences between the human and Neanderthal-and-chimpanzee versions, suggesting there might be something especially distinct about the human version.

One of those genes encodes a protein that helps the sperm cell's flagellum beat. Another is for a protein that seems to be involved in the healing of wounds. A third is for a protein abundant in skin, sweat glands and hair roots. Successful reproduction, survival after injury and the ability to interact optimally with the environment: All are crucial to survival and obvious "targets" for natural selection.

Several other genes in which the human and Neanderthal versions differ are involved in important aspects of physiology and brain function. In damaged form, many of those genes are in turn implicated in human disease. ( washingtonpost.com )

READ MORE - Ancient DNA shows interbreeding between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal

Rare Borneo rhino caught on camera in Malaysia

Rare Borneo rhino caught on camera in Malaysia – A rare Borneo rhino, thought to be pregnant, has been caught on camera in Malaysia, and wildlife experts said Wednesday a new calf would be a lifeline for the near-extinct species.

Just 30 rhinos remain in the wild in Borneo island, which is shared by Malaysia, Indonesiaremote camera traps. and Brunei, and researchers are only able to monitor the population through images captured on

AFP/HO/File – This photo received from the Borneo Species Programme of the WWF-Malaysia, shows a night shot of a Borneo …

Images of the rhino, "believed to be a pregnant female, estimated to be below 20 years" were captured by a camera trap in February, the Malaysian arm of World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) - said in a statement.

"There are so few Sumatran rhinos left in the world that each calf represents a lifeline for the species," international rhino expert Terry Roth said.

The Borneo sub-species is the rarest of all rhinos, distinguished from other Sumatran rhinos by its relatively small size, small teeth and distinctively shaped head.

The Sumatran rhinoceros is one of the world's most endangered species, with few left on Indonesia's Sumatra island, the north of Borneo island and peninsular Malaysia.

Laurentius Ambu, wildlife director for Malaysia's Sabah state, where the female rhino was spotted, said two rhino calves had also been seen in a similar area and urged the government to do more to enforce laws against poaching.

"Habitat protection and enforcement have been recognised as the main strategies in ensuring the survival of the rhino population in forest reserves," he said.

The WWF said the rhino's future on Borneo island would depend on preserving sufficient forest reserves for the animal.

Raymond Alfred, head of the WWF's Borneo Species programme said data from an ongoing rhino monitoring survey programme showed the animal's home range was affected by the expansion of palm oil plantations.

Malaysia is the world's second-largest exporter of palm oil after Indonesia, and the two countries account for 85 percent of global production. (AFP)

READ MORE - Rare Borneo rhino caught on camera in Malaysia

Are mobile phones safe?

Are mobile phones safe?. More than 27 million people in Britain and more than 300 million worldwide own one. The total number of users in the world is expected to reach one billion by 2005.

But are mobile phones really safe? The Government has announced a multi million pound research programme looking into the possible health hazards of mobile phones. Here we look at the risks.

Fact File

History The first mobile phones cost around £2,700, but prices plummeted as technology advanced and many companies now offer handsets for free in special deals to attract new customers.

The risks Mobile phones emit microwaves similar to those used in microwave ovens, but at a much lower power level. They have generated a multitude of scare stories, including suggestions that they cause cancer and memory loss, but the industry insists there is no evidence they have any harmful effects. The main health effect noticed by researchers is the fact that drivers are at more risk of crashes while talking into the handsets.

Research Research into mobiles includes a study at the University Neurology Clinic in Freiburg, Germany, which claimed they can increase blood pressure - the rise was small, but could be harmful to people with high blood pressure, said researchers.

Dr Kjell-Hansson Mild, at the National Institute of Working Life in Umea, Sweden, conducted tests on 11,000 mobile users which suggested regular use could lead to fatigue, headaches, and skin irritation.

A University of Bristol team, led by Dr Alan Preece, found no evidence of mobile phone users suffering impairment of memory, spatial awareness or attention span.

Stress and cancer Research at the University of Washington, Seattle, USA, suggested that microwaves can induce stress. Swedish cancer specialist Dr Lennart Hardell has claimed to have found a correlation between which side of the head mobile users hold their handset and the location of tumours. ( dailymail.co.uk )

READ MORE - Are mobile phones safe?

Evolution's place in a created universe

The Structure of Scientific Evolutions. Evolution's place in a created universe. The quarrel between religion and evolution has taken an interesting turn. Instead of attacking religion, some Darwinists have embraced it as a product of human evolution. Now they're debating to what extent this evolution was biological. Evolution and biology are coming apart.

This is a tricky concept to grapple with in today's biologically dominated era of science. Let me try to explain where we are. Three years ago, while on a Templeton fellowship at the University of Cambridge, I heard one of those ideas that not only sticks in your head but starts to reorganize your thinking. The idea was convergence. The speaker was Simon Conway Morris, the Cambridge paleontologist and author of Life's Solution. Conway Morris affirmed evolution as a mechanical explanation of animal and human development. But he also argued that evolution takes place in an ordered world. Because similar features evolve repeatedly in different contexts, there must be something about the world that favors such features.

There's nothing inherently spooky or religious about this idea. We have a straightforward model of it in the well-known pattern of phase changes. At certain temperatures and pressures, this or that element will naturally change from solid to liquid to gas. The fact that such transitions can be explained mechanically doesn't erase the fact that the points at which they'll happen can be predicted independently. In that sense, they're caused not just by heating or cooling but by the pre-existing structure of the universe.

Conway Morris takes this idea a step further. He suggests that such structural causation might occur not just in physics but in biology. This is a gamble, since biology is more complex than physics or chemistry. In physics or chemistry, you can make solid predictions from a limited set of data and laws. Biology is a lot messier. With the emergence of life, organisms that arose from physics and chemistry begin to operate according to new patterns. Functional explanations replace chemical ones. You can't assume that an underlying order constrains biological evolution in the same way that the underlying order of chemistry constrains phase changes. But Conway Morris suggests, based on evolutionary convergence, that to some extent it does.

If he's right, two much bigger questions start to become serious. One is how far this architecture of the universe extends. If it influences developments at the chemical and biological levels, does it extend to the next level of complexity, the mind? How about the level beyond that, society? Are there mental and cultural laws? Does some pre-existing order favor, and thereby produce by adaptation or selection, certain kinds of cultural development?

The other question is what to think of this architecture. Is it just the way things are? Is it creation? Is it God?

If you're interested in either of these questions—and as the cutting edge of biological and cultural development, you should be—the guy whose work you ought to read is Robert Wright. Two confessions up front: One, I consider Bob a friend. Two, for several years (well, it seemed like years—maybe it was months), he routinely kicked my ass at squash. So I gave up squash and took up science writing. And guess what? Now he kicks my ass at science writing. (Check out his latest Slate piece on shamans and their sex, money, and protection rackets.)

In a series of books—Three Scientists and Their Gods, The Moral Animal, and Nonzero—Wright has pushed the idea of pre-existing architecture from the chemical to the biological to the cultural level. He believes that the structure of our world has favored the evolution of societies based on peace, commerce, reciprocal altruism, and mutual benefit. His latest book, The Evolution of God, takes this argument further: God may or may not have shaped biological and cultural evolution (just by establishing an initial algorithm), but these processes have definitely shaped Him. The evolution of the human brain led to religion, and our ideas about God have subsequently changed in concert with cultural progress. On the whole, despite history's ups and downs, God has become more peaceful, more beneficent, and more compatible with a scientific understanding of the world.

Not everyone is thrilled with Wright's version of God. To many religious people, a nonpersonal deity that never intervenes in the ordered world is no deity at all. But the more interesting critique has come from scientists. Many of them don't like theism, even in Wright's deistic form. They prefer simple explanations. They think that biological evolution can account for religion's emergence and that this form of explanation is uniquely God-free.

The most notable of these scientific critics is Nicholas Wade, a reporter for the New York Times. Wade is the author of Before the Dawn, an ingenious reconstruction of human prehistory from genetic and linguistic evidence. This fall, he has another book coming out: The Faith Instinct. In a preview on the Times Web site, he agrees with Wright that "morality has a genetic basis and may well have evolved over the millennia into forms that are objectively higher." But Wade thinks religion's original function was clear:

to instill, through group cohesion, morality within a group and hostility toward those outside it. So in very early human societies, groups with strong religious behavior would have prevailed over less cohesive adversaries. We are descended from the religious groups, the argument goes, and that is why everyone harbors a religious instinct. …

Wade concludes: "Natural selection also explains rather well how religious behavior would have conferred such advantages on early human societies that it became a part of human nature."

Wright disagrees. He calls religion "an incidental by-product" of biological evolution. "Religion arose out of a hodgepodge of genetically based mental mechanisms designed by natural selection for thoroughly mundane purposes," he writes. Those mechanisms include conformist bias (believing what your peers believe, in order to get along), a tendency to explain events in terms of personal agency (since our mental machinery for thinking about causality evolved in the context of social interaction), and interest in remote control (a bias toward beliefs that promise influence over predators, diseases, and bad weather). Given these biases, we're prone to believe in powerful, jealous, tempestuous personal deities.

But Wright doesn't think our consequent religious belief systems evolved in the same way that these underlying mechanisms did. He argues that

biological evolution isn't the only great "designer" at work on this planet. There is also cultural evolution: the selective transmission of "memes"—beliefs, habits, rituals, songs, technologies, theories, and so forth—from person to person. And one criterion that shapes cultural evolution is social utility; memes that are conductive to smooth functioning at the group level often have an advantage over memes that aren't. Cultural evolution is what gave us modern corporations, modern government, and modern religion.

Wade calls this theory "a disappointment from the Darwinian perspective." It isn't "real evolution," he concludes; it's "just the development of ideas about God." Therefore, "the God of [Wright's] title owes nothing to Darwin."

So who's right in this debate? Is religion a product of natural selection, cultural evolution, or God's truth?

Here's one possibility: all of the above.

I agree with Wade that cultural evolution is an exaggerated metaphor. Wright asserts that "just as genes are transmitted from body to body, down the generations, memes are transmitted from mind to mind." But that's a stretch. Memes don't pass from generation to generation the way genes do. One requires only procreation; the other requires parenting and education. For this reason, our cultural inheritance is vulnerable in a way that our biological inheritance isn't.

On the other hand, I agree with Wright that biological evolution isn't the only ordered process that shaped us. Life originally emerged from an architecture of physical and chemical laws. So natural selection isn't the first level of the cosmic order; it's at least the second or third. Why should we assume the architecture stops there? Shouldn't we look for directional patterns in cultural history? If such patterns exist, they'll be far more complicated than the patterns of biology, just as the patterns of biology are more complicated than the patterns of physics or chemistry. But science doesn't promise that everything can be explained with the same ease, or even in the same terms. You have to face the world as it is and develop new tools when the old ones fail.

Natural selection has become a tremendous tool for understanding biology. But it wasn't the first kind of science we invented, and it won't be the last. The notion that major components of our society or its development, such as religion, must be explained entirely through natural selection is no more scientific than the notion that they must be explained through physics or chemistry. All of these sciences, these levels of order, work together. We are physical, chemical, biologically designed, culturally guided organisms.

If this complex, multitiered, gradually emerging architecture is the concept of God we're heading toward, then yes, God owes plenty to Darwin. And Darwin owes plenty to God. ( slate.com )

READ MORE - Evolution's place in a created universe

The organic vs. conventional

The organic vs. conventional. Are Organic Veggies Better for You? Maybe, or maybe not. Either way, it's a useless debate..

Last week the United Kingdom's Food Standards Agency published an extensive report on organic food that concluded with this bombshell: "There is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs." The finding—based on a review of 55 relevant studies conducted over the past 50 years—now threatens an organic food industry that has been growing at an annual rate of 20 percent for the past couple of decades and is now worth something like $23 billion in global sales. The overwhelming success of the organics market has a lot to do with the pervasive belief that eschewing synthetic pesticides and fertilizers makes food more nutritious. Now we know that belief may be unfounded.

Many health professionals took the news in stride. Connie Diekman, a nutritionist at Washington University in St. Louis and former head of the American Dietary Association, said "it is good to see that a systematic review of the literature supports what has long been believed … if [consumers] choose conventionally grown foods or organic foods they will be meeting their nutritional needs." Laura Telford, national director of the Canadian Organic Growers, said, "We don't dispute what they found," before highlighting some non-nutritional benefits of eating organic.

Others, of course, were dismayed. "I'm angry and perplexed," explained Peter Melchett, policy director of the U.K.-based Soil Association, "We genuinely expected the FSA to report the facts. … I think it's outrageous." In more measured tones, Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at the Organic Center, charged the FSA with "downplay[ing] positive findings in favor of organic food," using data from "very old studies" and omitting measures of "some important nutrients."

This is a debate that tends to the extremes. If the past is any indication, here's how it will eventually play out: Boosters of the study will highlight a dozen supporting conclusions reached over the past two decades and stress that the FSA report was the most comprehensive examination of organic heath claims ever undertaken; detractors will highlight a dozen contrasting conclusions reached over the past two decades and note that the FSA report failed to measure for antioxidants and pesticide residues. Both sides have a leg to stand on with these critiques. What's lost in all the mudslinging and nitpicking, however, is a point that cuts to the core of the debate: Any comparison between such general categories as "organic" and "conventional"—no matter which side comes out ahead—is of very limited value. One might even say it's useless.

First, the demographic profile of organic consumers makes this debate one that's hardly worth having. There's no broad public health issue at stake here. Organic food costs 60 percent more than conventional and comprises a mere 2.5 percent of the food eaten in the United States. Advocates of organic agriculture often argue that there's no such thing as a "typical" consumer of organic food. It's true that organic consumers are rapidly diversifying, but the fact remains that consistent buyers of organic goods tend to be female, college-educated, and at least somewhat well-off. All these demographic factors happen to correlate with better access to health care and basic nutritional awareness. Why should we worry whether an already healthy, wealthy, and well-informed cohort absorbs minimally more nutrition from an organic apple? It's far more important that we get more fresh food—organic or not—to those wide swaths of the country that sociologists now call "food deserts."

Another factor undermining the FSA study is the fact that the terms "organic" and "conventional" encompass a wide spectrum of practices. It's so wide, in fact, that accurately comparing the categories is virtually impossible. For example, it's well-known that large, industrial farms overuse pesticides and fertilizers, but many conventional family farms practice integrated pest management, selectively employ advanced fertilizers to reduce runoff, spray very selectively, and establish grazing systems for livestock that rely on environmentally sound rotational schedules. Likewise, the environmental virtues of organic agriculture are conspicuously (and deservedly) touted, but the glowing reports rarely note that most organic food comes from large corporate operations, that some organic farmers rely heavily on natural pesticides that are toxic in high doses, that organic compost can contain more contaminants than conventional fertilizer, and that soil erosion can be as bad or worse on organic farms. There is no standard "organic" or "conventional" farm, so any broad comparison is little more than speculative.

That's part of the reason why these organic vs. conventional studies have yielded such maddeningly mixed results—which, in turn, allow consumers to cherry-pick whatever data support their preconceived notions. Proponents of organic agriculture can cite, if they want, a 2007 report from Newcastle University showing that organic produce has 40 percent more antioxidants than conventional produce. Whereas the naysayers might refer to a 2000 study that found no effect on the levels of healthful phenols in organic strawberries and blueberries. Or perhaps they'd choose a report that found higher rates of naturally occurring toxins in organic foods on account of their being grown without the benefit of synthetic fungicides. All are sound science, but what do they tell the health-conscious consumer who's trying to decide whether to go organic?

To choose one study and declare a position on the debate, as so many advocates do, is not only intellectually dishonest; it ignores the underlying complexity of agriculture itself—a complexity that includes variables that transcend the organic/conventional divide, including plant genetics, cultivars, soil type, farmer skill, harvest methods, timing of harvest, place, and climate. To pick one example, the use of seeds with high yields (by both organic and conventional farmers) may have much more to do with the decline in the nutritional content of produce since World War II than any other factor in agricultural production.

Perhaps most important, our obsession with proving one system better than the other obscures a more critical public health issue. As a nation, we eat far too much meat (273 pounds per year each on average, as of 1999) and not nearly enough fruits and vegetables. According to B.J. Friedman, a nutritionist at Texas State University-San Marcos, only one-quarter of Americans eat the recommended five or more servings of fruits and vegetables each day. "We should be concentrating on encouraging people to eat more fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables," she says. "I'm all for eating organically and locally to protect our environment, but this way of eating is economically and geographically out of reach for most Americans." Her point is getting lost in the debate over last week's FSA report. Let's first focus on what we eat before we start fighting over the details of how, exactly, it's grown. ( slate.com )

READ MORE - The organic vs. conventional

How destructive is snorkeling or diving at a coral reef?

Reefer Sadness. How destructive is snorkeling or diving at a coral reef?. I'm about to leave for my long-awaited tropical vacation, and now I've gotten myself in a tizzy over whether my swimming and snorkeling might contribute to the destruction of coral reefs. How can I be a more responsible ocean visitor? And what about these reports I've heard about sunscreen killing corals—is that true? Should I let myself burn to save the reefs?

You're right to worry. The world's coral reefs are not in such great shape: According to a comprehensive 2008 report from the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, approximately 19 percent of the world's coral reefs are "effectively lost"—meaning that they're so degraded or polluted they can no longer support healthy ecosystems or provide other benefits—and another 15 percent are in serious danger of joining that category within the next 10 to 20 years. Reefs are more than just awe-inspiring and gorgeous; they're also brimming with wildlife. They provide local communities with food and money—both from fishing and from tourism—and help protect coastlines from storms and rough waves.

Vacationing snorkelers and scuba divers aren't the biggest threat facing coral reefs—that dubious honor belongs to the trifecta of global warming, the fishing industry, and land-based pollution. But tourism is still a major area of concern: In 2002, the United States Coral Reef Task Force identified "recreational overuse" as one of six priority threats facing our country's coral reefs (PDF). The deleterious effects may be even more pronounced in developing countries, where rapid expansion of the tourism industry isn't always coupled with well-managed conservation efforts.

Ocean frolickers can damage corals intentionally—by touching them or breaking off branches as souvenirs—and unintentionally, by standing, walking, or dragging their gear over them. Snorkelers and divers can also kick up clouds of sediment with their fins. When that grit lands on a reef, it blocks the sunlight that zooxanthellae—the algae that live in and nourish the corals—need for photosynthesis.

When wading in shallow waters, make sure you're walking over sand or gravel, particularly if you're dragging a surfboard. Another way to protect the reefs is to practice swimming before you go—so you're nimble enough in the water to avoid touching the corals. (Klutzy landlubbers like the Lantern should wear a snorkel vest and make sure to get some training before heading in.) Photographers need to be extra cautious: Your extra gear and desire to get sweet close-up shots make you a special hazard.

Boats that drop their anchors into reefs can also cause a lot of damage, so if you're planning on taking any kind of boat tour, look for a responsible company that uses mooring buoys instead of anchors. For a list of tour operators around the world that have pledged to follow ocean-friendly practices, check out the Project AWARE Foundation's ECO Operators program.

Regarding the sunscreen issue: Chances are, you read one of the many alarming news stories on an Italian study published last year that found that common chemical sunscreen ingredients can trigger viral infections in zooxanthellae, causing the corals to "bleach" and weaken. There's still considerable debate over the extent to which the study's findings can be applied in the wild, but in the meantime, it seems prudent to avoid sunscreens that contain the problematic ingredients—namely, oxybenzone, octinoxate, 4-MBC, and the common preservative butylparaben.

Some news reports have recommended zinc oxide or titanium oxide-based sunblocks as "coral-friendly" alternatives.* But the Lantern is a bit wary of that claim: So far, she hasn't seen any data that prove these sunblocks are coral-safe, just a lack of data showing that they're dangerous. As she noted in her previous column about sunscreens, there's still a lot we don't know about the fate of these products in the environment. Luckily, there's an easy, lotion-free way to stay protected while snorkeling: a long-sleeved T-shirt and leggings.

All of this said, the tourism industry has the potential to be a net positive for our oceans. Swimmers and divers who've experienced the spiny majesty of a coral reef firsthand are more likely to press hotels and tour operators to adopt more sustainable practices. Meanwhile, vendors who want to keep tourists happy have a strong economic incentive to maintain beautiful, healthy reefs.

So before you get in the water—and before you even leave home—do your part by supporting businesses with established conservation policies. Choose hotels that properly treat their wastewater and sewage: If these polluting effluents wind up in the ocean, they encourage algae blooms that can overwhelm coral reefs. When planning your beach excursions, try to patronize marine protected areas, which are managed in ways that promote long-term ecosystem health.

Finally, to really green up your vacation, consider donating some of that leisure time to conservation-oriented activities, like the Reef Environmental Education Foundation's Volunteer Survey Project. If your trip is taking you anywhere within REEF's monitoring areas, you can sign up to collect data on the fish you see on your dives. Your data will get fed into much larger data sets that scientists can use to study population trends. Sun, sand, and citizen science—what could be better? ( slate.com )

READ MORE - How destructive is snorkeling or diving at a coral reef?

Bulimics 'are more impulsive'

Bulimics 'are more impulsive'. Bulimics are more impulsive than other people, a new study has found. Scientists have found that patients with the condition are less able to control their urges and more likely to act on instinct than non-sufferers.

Tens of thousands of people in Britain are thought to suffer from bulimia, although the true figure could be much higher as many sufferers hide their condition.

The illness came to prominence in the mid-1990s when Diana, Princess of Wales,
admitted that she had been a sufferer
Photo: GETTY IMAGES

The illness came to prominence in the mid-1990s when Diana, Princess of Wales, admitted that she had been a sufferer.

Researchers found that during psychological tests sufferers reacted more impulsively than non-sufferers.

Asked to give an answer to a simple test they were more likely to plump for an answer more quickly, even when it could be wrong, the findings show.

Brain scans also showed different responses in the part of the mind that regulates behaviour.

Bulimia, in which sufferers binge eat and then purge to avoid gaining weight, often affects people in their teenage years or early adulthood.

It is most common in women and is often associated with a feeling of a lack of control.

"Patients with bulimia exhibited greater impulsivity than (non-sufferers), responding faster and making more errors," according to the findings, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry journal.

Even immediately after they had got one of the questions wrong they would still go on to make another unforced error for the same reasons, the study found.

This inability to regulate their behaviour could be part of the reason why they become bulimic, the researchers believe.

They called for more research into the problem and into ways that doctors can help patients to manage their impulses.

The study, by researchers from Columbia University in New York and the New York State Psychiatric Institute, tested 40 women, half of whom had the condition and half who did not. Figures released earlier this year showed that young people suffering from anorexia and bullimia were waiting an average of more than six months for treatment, with some waiting almost two years.( telegraph.co.uk )

READ MORE - Bulimics 'are more impulsive'

One in five young women 'has an eating disorder'

One in five young women 'has an eating disorder'. One in five young women suffers from an eating disorder, an NHS survey suggests.

The "snapshot" of the nation's mental health shows that 20 per cent of 16 to 25-year-olds showed signs of a problem with food.

The figure is more than twice the female average, the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity in England 2007 study, found.

An NHS survey shows that 20 per cent of 16 to 25-year-olds showed signs of a problem with food
Photo: GETTY

The most common forms of eating disorder are anorexia, where patients start to starve themselves, or bulimia, in which they binge on food and then purge.

Experts warn that both conditions typically start in childhood or adolescence and can vary greatly in severity.

The study also shows that one on four of those suffering from an eating disorder are men.

While nine per cent of women appeared to have a problem, so did three per cent of men, the study found.

The problem of male anorexia and bullimia has traditionally been a taboo subject, but was pushed to prominence last year when John Prescott admitted that he had suffered from bulimia in the past.

Overall the study found that around 6.4 per cent of adults had an eating disorder.

Another 19 per cent screened positive for a possible eating disorder and 1.6 per cent said that their feelings around food had a significant effect on their life.

Although the problem appeared to diminish with age, one woman in a 100 over the age of 75 was still thought to have some form of eating disorder.

Lucie Russell, from the YoungMinds campaign, said: "These statistics reflect a worrying trend that there is a generation of young people growing up unhappy and depressed, leading often to problems such eating disorders.

"We have to start intervening early. One in three children in every classroom has a diagnosable mental health disorder and that's just the ones that have been classified.

"There is still a huge stigma around mental health which means children and young people are not getting the support they need." ( telegraph.co.uk )

READ MORE - One in five young women 'has an eating disorder'

'One in ten women suffer eating disorders'

'One in ten women suffer eating disorders'. More than one in ten women suffer from eating disorders such as binge eating and bulimia, according to new research.

The investigation established a link between eating behaviours and 'self-rated health' - saying deviant eating behaviours are more likely to occur in women who perceived themselves to be in poor health.

Lise Gauvin, a professor at the Université de Montréal Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, said: "Our results are disquieting.

"Women are exposed to many contradictory messages. They are encouraged to lose weight yet also encouraged to eat for the simple pleasure of it."

Dr Gauvin said the study sheds new light on binge eating and bulimia - which are characterized in part by excessive eating accompanied by feelings of having lost control.

She went on: "About 13.7 percent of women interviewed for this study reported binge eating one to five days or one to seven times per month."

It was also discovered that 2.5% of women reported forcing themselves to vomit, use laxatives, or use diuretics to maintain their weight or shape.

Over 1,500 women took part in the phone survey on eating disorders and disordered eating. Not one participant had been classified as anorexic before the study.

The average age of these urban-dwelling participants was 31, and the majority were non-smokers and university graduates.

Another finding of the study was that 28 percent of women complete intense exercise twice a month with the sole objective of losing weight or influencing.

Dr Gauvin said: "We practice a sport for the pleasure it provides, to feel good, but when the activity is done to gain control over one's weight and figure, it is indicative of someone who could be excessively concerned about their weight.

"Our data suggests that a proportion of the female population displays maladaptive eating patterns."

The new study from the Université de Montréal and the Douglas Mental Health University Institute has been published in the International Journal of Eating Disorders. ( telegraph.co.uk )

READ MORE - 'One in ten women suffer eating disorders'

Controversy flares over space-based power plan

Controversy flares over space-based power plan. Some hope to harness solar power in orbit; others worry about hype. Space solar power advocates may soon get their day in the sun, as different projects aimed at beaming energy to Earth from orbit begin to take shape. But at least one space power scientist worries that a U.S.-based project may be promising too much, too soon.

Last week, California regulators proposed a plan to approve a 15-year contract with the American company Solaren Corp. to supply space-based solar power to utility giant Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) by 2016. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has also teamed up with a private Japanese coalition to design a solar space station for launch by the 2030s.

JAXA

In this artist's impression from Japan's space agency, a solar power satellite transmits energy down to Earth via lasers.

Such projects encourage scientists who dream of harnessing the sun's power directly, without the interruption of cloudy skies and Earth's day-night cycle. Marty Hoffert, a physicist at New York University and one of the staunchest supporters of space solar power, suggests that today's technologies allow space solar power to provide energy as cheaply as the usual solar panel arrays on Earth.

"The problem is that we're treating space solar power as something that has to compete with coal right now," said Hoffert, who gave a recent talk on beamed power at the New Jersey Institute of Technology. "Nothing can compete with coal."

Despite his enthusiasm, Hoffert remains skeptical of Solaren's plan. And he warns that failure to deliver could deal a life-threatening blow to the dream of space solar power.

A decision by the California Power Utility Commission on Solaren's plan for PG&E could come as early as Thursday, according to a Dow Jones wire report.

Harnessing the sun

Solar panels in space can receive seven times more solar energy per unit than ones on Earth and don't have to deal with weather or darkness. The challenge in harnessing that energy comes from the expensive costs of launching material into space, as well as figuring out how to beam energy back down to Earth.

Microwave beaming has long been the favored delivery option for space solar power advocates. Space power stations using this method would convert the electricity generated by solar panels into radio frequency (RF) waves for beaming down to an Earth receiver several kilometers wide.

A former NASA scientist demonstrated the RF concept last year by beaming 20 watts between two Hawaiian islands — barely enough energy to power a dim light bulb. That experiment cost just $1 million. A full-scale space solar power setup would require much bigger and more costly receivers.

Another more recent choice has arisen in the form of solid-state lasers. Such lasers now have enough power to deliver energy as a tightly focused optical beam that requires much less costly equipment in space and on the ground. But unlike RF, lasers can run into bigger problems with atmospheric interference and weather.

"Microwaves can beam through clouds, which lasers can't," Hoffert explained. "With lasers you're going to have to have receivers in desert sites that are cloud free, and maybe backup receivers in several sites."

Hoffert still favors lasers because of the lower costs required up front for a tech demonstration. By contrast, Solaren weighed its choices and decided to go with RF technology.

"Basically we chose RF because it is more efficient and has all-weather capability for the reliable delivery of electricity to our customers," said Cal Boerman, Solaren's director of energy services.

The cost of space power

Hoffert is wary of Solaren's latest step forward and the company's promise of delivering 200 megawatts to PG&E utility customers in California by 2016.

Hoffert estimates that Solaren could manage to get about 50 percent transmission efficiency in a best-case scenario, meaning that half of the energy collected by space solar panels would be lost in the transfer down to Earth.

Solaren would then need to launch a solar panel array capable of generating 400 megawatts. The total launch weight of all the equipment would be the equivalent of about 400 metric tons, or 20 shuttle-sized launches, according to Hoffert.

But Solaren says that it would just require four or five heavy-lift rocket launches capable of carrying 25 metric tons, or about one fourth of Hoffert's weight estimate. The company is relying on developing more efficient photovoltaic technology for the solar panels, as well as mirrors that help focus sunlight.

"Solaren's patented SSP [space solar power] system dramatically reduces the SSP space segment mass compared to previous concepts," Boerman told SPACE.com.

Solaren has not provided details on just how its technology works, citing intellectual property concerns. But it expects that its space solar power can convert to RF energy with greater than 80 percent efficiency, and expects similar conversion efficiency for converting the RF energy back to DC electricity on the ground in California. The company also anticipates minimal transmission losses from the space to the ground.

Hoffert remains unconvinced without knowing the details of Solaren's technology. He frets that "premature optimism" over unproven and perhaps scientifically implausible concepts could end up ruining the reputation of space solar power, even as advocates desperately want to see their vision come true.

"Too many space power guys have been silent, perhaps to not give comfort to opponents," Hoffert noted in a recent e-mail to colleagues. "But scientists should not do this."

Beaming into the future

Hoffert still believes strongly in the promise of space solar power, and has calculated that it can even prove as cost-effective as ground-based solar panels. That's because solar farms on Earth must build expensive storage systems to hold energy reserves during cloudy days or nighttime — although Hoffert still sees solar farms as an ideal complement to space solar power.

Space solar power has to deal mainly with expensive launch costs of about $15,000 per kilogram, as well as the huge capital costs of building ground arrays if RF technology is involved. Hoffert has pushed for the laser beaming approach as newly effective cost-cutting measure, and even submitted a proposal with his son to ARPA-E, the U.S. Department of Energy's new agency.

"The cost to first power doesn't have to be in the hundreds of billions," Hoffert said. His proposal includes laser transmission tests on the ground in an NYU lab, and then a space experiment launched to the International Space Station.

Such beaming tests could even provide temporary power to isolated places on Earth along the space station's ground track, although a true solar space power station would sit in geostationary orbit.

Hoffert approved of Japan's own space solar power effort, led by JAXA, which would test both RF technology and lasers as means of energy transmission. He envisions the possibility of space solar power becoming commercially viable within a decade — but only if all the science bears out the technology behind private efforts.

"Some of it is physics and engineering, and some of it is business and promotion," Hoffert said. "But in the long run, you can't fool Mother Nature." ( space.com )

READ MORE - Controversy flares over space-based power plan

Society must decide if it 'will accept relationships between humans and robots'

Society must decide if it 'will accept relationships between humans and robots'. Society must decide if it is willing to accept relationships between humans and robots before the machines become so sophisticated they start demanding rights, a legal expert has warned.

Rapid advances in technology mean cyborgs, or human-like robots, are no longer a vision of a distant future.

Arnold Schwarzenegger in the fim Terminator Photo: COLUMBIA FILMS

The machines have been made famous by films like Terminator and Blade Runner but real life is increasingly catching up with fiction.

Earlier this year researchers announced they had created robot ‘scientists’ – complete with the ability to think for themselves.

As the machines become more sophisticated, they will increasingly seem more like humans and could demand ‘human rights’, Anna Russel, from the University of San Diego warns.

One of the flashpoints could be over relationships, including sexual relationships, with humans, she claims.

In an article titled “Blurring the love lines” she warns: “While this humanoid is a giant leap forward technologically, if a self-aware, super-intelligent, thinking, feeling humanoid is developed, the legal system will be hard-pressed to distinguish this creature legally from human actors on grounds not stemming from a religious or moral prejudice.”

Lawyers have to start thinking now about what rights should be accorded to cyborgs, she argues.

Most societies will want to regulate such relationships but Russel claims they have to prepare themselves for how they would respond if the cyborgs clamoured for sexual freedoms.

As the technology improves “it will be inevitable that legal issues would be raised and the love lines blurred,” she warns.

“In what way would such sexual activities be regulated, however, and how regulation would work is not clear.” ( telegraph.co.uk )

READ MORE - Society must decide if it 'will accept relationships between humans and robots'