He started off with the new gas issue, mentioning that he will be checking with State Senators Kopp and Alquist to verify their commitment to getting scientific tests done.
He then called attention to a report in the latest issue Science News, stating that the sponge and towels you keep at the kitchen sink are one of the biggest sources of bacteria which cause food poisoning in the home. The two main bacteria are streptococcus and staphylococcus. The solution: clean these items with bleach, or simply throw them out and replace them. (Oh, come now, sponges aren’t that expensive.) If you do want to clean them, fill a quart container with water, and then add a few tablespoons of bleach—no more.
He also reported that recent studies by the National Institutes of Environmental Health, the Department of Energy, and Cambridge University, have produced new studies that show previous reports (from 1982) of the dangers of electromagnetic fields having undesirable effects on living cells were faulty, and not reproducible. The new studies used the exact same procedures, and in some cases, even the same cells from the original researchers’ work, and still show no effects at all on the cells. Another wonderful case of fraudulent science that has wasted tons of money that could have been better spent on other research or fixing other problems. Later in the show, he stated that the American Physical Society stated exactly this in a recent issue of the journal Science. This fraud has resulted in between 20 and 30 Billion in wasted money, including lost value in property located near power lines that are now proven to be perfectly safe.
Reported that there is an article about Dr. Bill in this week’s West Magazine (the supplement to the San Jose Mercury News’ Sunday paper. The article was about Bill’s spiral-tube robot, but also contained some interesting background on him that doesn’t normally come out in his show.
Joe in Burlingame asked how horsepower is defined, and what the difference between horsepower and brake horsepower.
A: The definition of 1 horsepower is the ability to raise 550 pounds 1 foot high in 1 second. Another way of saying that is “550 foot-pounds per second”;.
Brake horsepower is the vehicle’s horsepower measured where the power is delivered (for example, at the rear axle of a truck tractor. Shaft horsepower is the power measured at the engine itself, before any losses from the clutch or differential occur.
Trivia: A human can only output about ¼ of a horsepower on a continual basis.
Mike from Milpitas wanted to know (actually, his 3-year old wanted to know) what caused a glow-in-the-dark toy to glow green, after being exposed to light.
A: It’s a fluorescent material. Such materials typically absorb ultra-violet light, charging the molecules, which then emit light invisible frequencies, but usually faintly enough that the effect can only be see in the dark. Other uses for fluorescent materials are in clothes detergent, which has the effect of brightening your clothes. Some clothes are also colored with dyes which have fluorescent materials.
Caller wanted to know if the orbit was circular or elliptical, and how to observe that fact.
The orbit is actually elliptical, as are most orbits in our solar system. The way to prove this is to measure the apparent diameter of the full moon at different times of the year, since the moon will be further away (by about 50,000 miles!) and thus appear smaller at certain points during its orbit. The technical terms for an orbiting object’s closest and furthest approach to the object it is orbiting are peerage and apogee, respectively.
Stephen (a 9th grader) wanted to know how the two halves of a DNA strand which has been taken apart (denatured) recombine.
A: The molecules which form the DNA are one of four nucleotides (called: A,C, G, and T) which connect to each other only in specific pairs, so that when two nucleotides are separated, each remaining molecule will only recombine with its matching molecule. The two pairs are AT and CG.
The whole point to this process is the replication of DNA. A complete strand will split into two whole parts, with each half then replicating its missing strand from the pool of nucleotides in the cell’s nucleus. Also, a DNA strand must separate its two halves in order to produce protein (one of DNA’s key roles). In this case, only one of the halves is used to create protein. The other strand is known as the nonsense strand.
According to Bill, the California EPA’s new smog check program is going into effect this year, and is likely to needlessly target 60% of the total cars on California’s roads as polluters, when they are not causing a significant problem, which is in fact being created by a small number of super polluters, that could and should be caught by other, less-expensive means.
Don’t believe him? According to the July 2, 1993 issue of Science (page 37) by scientists from UC, MIT, Caltech, and NOAA, “approximately 10% of the cars on the road are producing 50% of the pollution…” and “A relatively small amount of the overall pollution (or emissions) comes from the very old cars because they contribute such a small amount to the total vehicle miles traveled.”
Tom from Greenbay is a retired chemical engineer from the petroleum industry who had some insight into the reason one gasoline company wanted this gas. According to him, one major oil company, 5 of 6 years ago found itself with excess methanol and isobutylene in its gulf coast oil reserves. (These are the two ingredients of MTBE—Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether or Methyl Tri-ButylEther). They found that when added to gasoline, this reduced carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions created during combustion, but only in cars without catalytic converters, but not in cars with them.
However, catalytic converters have been standard across the US since the mid 1970’s, so according to these original tests, there should have been no expectation of reduced pollution in the overwhelming majority of cars on the road. (Look around you—how many cars do you see that were made before 1974? Ten percent of those on the road? Less in metropolitan areas?)
He then reiterated that these tests showed that in a relatively new car (one which has a working catalytic converter and which is properly tuned), burning the old gas and the “new” gas produced exactly the same amount of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons—consistent with tests performed by KGO-TV on dynamometers by a laboratory.
He also reported that CARB threw away 80% of their test data which showed this to be the case, resulting in a “scientific” report that had no element of the scientific method in it.
Bill then referred to the report in Science mentioned above, providing additional details of what it said: That reformulated gasolines can reduce some pollution if you take out substances such as sulfur, and improve the volatility and reduce the vapor pressures, but that other changes, such as adding substantial oxygenates (such as MTBE) and reducing aeromatics do not result insignificant reductions of pollution.
What these later two changes do accomplish, however (according to both Tom and Bill), is the reduction in energy per gallon of gasoline, which thus lowers gas mileage, causing more gasoline to be burned when the car travels the same distance. Think about that. In a car with a catalytic converter (which according to the initial tests won’t pollute any less) burns this gas, it is clear that it must be producing more pollution per mile traveled. In a car without a catalytic converter, though, the decreased gas mileage is very likely enough to offset the reduced pollution of the reformulated gas, thus resulting in either the same amount of pollution per mile as before, or possibly even more pollution.
So instead of reducing pollution by 15% as CARB claims, the net reduction is probably more on the order of 1%, in Tom’s estimation.
Bill also referenced the Science report again, which stated that in the history of such regulation, no government program has ever achieved any better than 50% of what was advertised.
Bill found that everything that Tom stated during his call was consistent with the reports from listeners, and all of the tests done by KGO-TV and others in the state, so this guy isn’t just blowing smoke.
The next caller was a smog technician, who said his own experience matches exactly with Bills past statements and those of Tom, saying that he’s even seen a few cars from the late 60s that were passing 1996 emissions standards. He also reminded us that the new smog testing rules eliminate any cost ceiling on how much you can be forced to spend to repair a car that has failed the smog test, and that any car that fails the test is now called a gross polluter, which means that car must be tested at a centralized state testing facility, and will then have to get their car tested yearly, instead of every other year.
He also was visited by a representative of the Bureau of Automotive Repair (the agency responsible for smog tests), who told him “If it takes $4000 for this person to replace the engine to beat the smog standards, they’ll do it, and if they don’t agree to do it, we’ll take it off the road, period.” At that point, they get to confiscate your car, and pay you no more than $695 for it, even if it’s worth five or ten times as much. And you can’t stop them, either.
Gary, in Berkeley reports that US Representative Tom DeLay (R) Texas (of their 22nd District) has introduced HR 479, which intends to undo the excesses of the clean air act of 1990. Tom also happens to be the house’s Majority Whip, so he has a fair amount of power.
In looking at the status of this bill, however, it appears to be dead. No action has been taken on it since early 1995. Oh well…
Beverly in Gilroy works for NASA’s Ames research center, and had details about the ER-2’s use (see Saturday’s show notes).
According to her, one of their ER-2’s takes off from Moffett Field at about11:00 AM each weekday. They are used to watch over the rain forests, wild fires, and other things.
During this call, Bill lamented that NASA should have saved some of the SR-71 Blackbird spy planes for scientific research. Well, actually, Bill, they saved three of ’em!
Two SR-71 aircraft are being used by NASA as test-beds for high-speed, high altitude aeronautical research. The aircraft, an SR-71A and an SR-71B pilot trainer aircraft are based at NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA. They have been loaned to NASA by the U.S. Air Force. Developed for the USAF as reconnaissance aircraft more than 30 years ago, SR-71s are still the world’s fastest and highest-flying production aircraft.
Data from the SR-71 high speed research program will be used to aid designers of future supersonic/hypersonic aircraft and propulsion systems, including a high speed civil transport.
Other Flight Research Projects at NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center
Roger in San Francisco reports there is a bill in the US Senate (S. 343), designed to require a rigid formula for analyzing the risk of pollution, and a cost-benefit analysis on any proposed solutions.
This page was last modified on .
Related Information |