We Must Not Have a Mind-Shaft Gap!

The Real Science Gap

Sorta-long article which argues that the current research framework in the US is untenable. It suffers from the misconception that the only career path of a scientist is to become a university professor, and only occasionally acknowledges this isn’t the case. What it does point out, though, is that we have a glut of post-docs, about half of whom are foreign students here on H-1B visas, and (paradoxically?) argues that we have plenty of home-grown scientists. The result of this is that there is no financial incentive to enter the field, which is why domestic students are shunning science. Color me skeptical. This completely ignores the effect of simply loving science, and going on to get a degree might have something to with liking your work, rather than the cold pursuit of money.

By focusing on the labor aspect it also completely misses one of the supporting arguments for improving science education. Not all people studying science need to become scientists, and it is not a tragedy if you take science classes, or major in a science field, and don’t become a scientist. There is value in being scientifically literate, and it’s painfully clear that we have a large chunk of scientifically illiterate people in the US. I think we’re better off having a population that can call bullshit on some of the howlers our politicians try to pass off as the truth; I’d like to set the bar a little higher than recognizing Reagan’s trees cause more pollution than automobiles do as baloney. If you aren’t savvy enough to know that antibiotics don’t affect viruses, or reject evolution in favor of creation, can you make effective decisions about biological research like stem cells? Can you be informed enough not to cower in fear when the subject of radiation or nanotechnology comes up?

Sigh

iPhone city San Francisco is first in U.S. to demand radioactivity warnings on mobiles

The home city of the iPhone has passed a law requiring warning radioactivity warning labels on new mobiles.

San Francisco retailers will soon have to provide information on the specific absorption rate (SAR) of all handsets stocked.

Repeat with me: “Radiation” and “radioactive” are not the same thing.
The specific absorption rate in question is of radiofrequency radiation, which is non-ionizing, and in no way implies that the source is radioactive (i.e. comes from a spontaneous nuclear reaction), because it doesn’t.

On the other hand, it’s the Daily Mail. They apparently handle science no better than Robert Green handles weak shots-on-goal by Americans. (Bang!)

As far as the legislation goes, I think it’s antiscience being sold as informing consumers. But what information is being provided? I think specific absorption rate is being abused here, because it’s not being explained. If I have a mass of 100 kg, does a phone with an SAR of 1.6W/kg mean it is emitting 160 Watts? And for a user who has a mass of 70 kg, the power magically drops to 112 Watts? No. SAR is measured using a calibration standard of one gram of tissue (in the US; in Europe it’s 10 grams) meaning the gram of tissue absorbs 1.6 milliwatts of radiation from the source, under some geometry. The actual power emitted by a cellphone is of order a Watt. But even that information is almost useless without context; the human body radiates somewhere around 800-900 Watts in a more-or-less blackbody spectrum. Is that a cause for concern?