Astrophotography: Jupiter

Most of the pictures I have taken of space objects are considered deep sky objects.  Deep sky objects are mostly galaxies and nebula.   I know when I think about space I usually think about the planets before I think about another galaxy.  Yet, planets are one of the targets I have probably spent the least amount of time trying to capture.  The main reason is that planetary imaging is much different and in some ways more difficult at least in my opinion.

For deep sky objects the very basic plan is

1.  Take a bunch of images of the object with long exposure times or at least as long as possible for your equipment and location.

2.  Stack your images into one image.

3.  Process that image to "stretch" the date.  In other words pull out as much detail as possible while also adjusting for light pollution and other noise that is introduced

Again this is very general an I will eventually have some posts explaining each step in detail.  However planetary imaging is much different.  Planets like Jupiter, Saturn or Mars require very high magnification.  Besides having a scope that can go to high magnifications, you may also need something called a Barlow or Powermate to further push the magnification of your scope.  Take right off Wikipedia:

"In its astronomical use, a Barlow lens may be placed immediately before an eyepiece to effectively decrease the eyepiece's focal length by the amount of the Barlow's divergence.^[1] Since the magnification provided by a telescope and eyepiece is equal to the telescope's focal length divided by the eyepiece's focal length, this has the effect of increasing the magnification of the image.

Astronomical Barlow lenses are rated for the amount of magnification they induce. Most commonly, Barlow lenses are 2x or 3x, but adjustable Barlows are also available. The power of an adjustable Barlow lens is changed by adding an extension tube between the Barlow and the eyepiece to increase the magnification."

The Barlow just helps get your magnification up.  They are very small targets and you need these high magnifications, but the higher the magnification the more you are subject to turbulence from Earth's atmosphere.   That turbulence causes the planet to become blurred.

Our objective is still to get many images and stack them together;  With planets we will be dealing with the turbulence from the atmsophere and so we use a different approach to get our pictures.  Instead of taking a lot of still photos we get our frames by taking a video.  We can then separate each frame from the video and only stack the good ones. The best way to take that video is hook up a USB camera to your telescope

I use a a camera made by ASI called the ASI120MM.   Instead of a DSLR camera attached to my scope I just slide this USB camera in.  So for planets you will usually have USB video camera > barlow > scope.


Then we focus on the planet and record a video.  Watching the video points out how blurry things get.

Some software is then used to break the frams out, find the good ones and stack them.  My first attempt at planetary imaging is honestly not very good at all.  But hopefully I will have some better ones in the future.

9.7 billion by 2050 - Are GMOs the answer?

The world population is growing.  We all know this and hear about it all the time, but how are we going to feed all these people?   Are GMOs the answer?  Can conventional breeding keep up with the rise in population?    Some may argue that we don't need to worry at all.  They would say why worry when already have enough food for today's population, but we just re not distributing it around the world efficiently.   If we do a better job with food distribution then we can already feed more people.

  As a society we do waste more food than we should, but the reality is we are not feeding everyone in the world with our current system.  Sure we could make logistical improvements and feed more people.   However think about the situation we will be in when the population does indeed go up.  If we can't feed the world now, how are we going to feed the world with a population that continues to increase.

When we talk about the world's population increasing we are talking about a huge number of people.  Right now the Earth is home for 7.4 billion people as of 2016.  Estimates vary some about the actual population numbers in the future, but most models are pretty consistent.  Most estimates show that by 2050 our population will increase to approximately 9.7 billion in 2015.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html

There is one fact that cannot be argued.   As we have more people live on Earth we will need more food.  Even if we get better at food distribution and waste less, more people will eat more food.   So what is the solution?  I stumbled on a paper that I wanted to delve into.

The paper is about One crop breeding cycle from starvation? How engineering crop photosynthesis for rising CO2 and temperature could be one important route to alleviation

The paper has a lot of information that I will not get into, but there are a couple of take-aways from this paper that are thought provoking.

1.  We don't have infinite land to just grow more crops

Quoting from the paper:  'Human population growth is putting severe pressure on food production to keep up with increasing demand. Two-thirds of calories are derived indirectly or directly from just four crops: rice, wheat, maize and soya bean. In terms of global production of primary foodstuffs, these are the world's top four crops with 741, 716, 1018 and 276 million metric tons, respectively, produced in 2013 [1]. With rising population and changing diet, it is estimated that the world will require 87% more of these primary foodstuffs by 2050.'

The article points out that we needs to increase our staple crops by 87%.   From a study in 2005, we know that we use 40% of the Earth's land in food production.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1209_051209_crops_map.html

Just take a look at this map from National Geographic.  It is pretty clear that land is a finite resource.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-billion/

If we already use 40% and we need to increase by 87%, which is no small feat.  I would even say it is an impossibility.  We still need land to live and we still need to take care of environment.   Gaining access to more land means deforestation mostly of rain forests and this is just not a solution   I am sure humankind will use resort to more deforestation in the future but we also need to make more with less.  The is not what we want to continue:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-billion/

2.  Conventional breeding is not the only answer

Every culture has a staple crop and world has the big 4 consisting of rice, wheat, maize, and soybean.  When thinking about increasing food we have to focus on these.  These crops are what is going to feed the world which means these operations have to be high yielding and efficient.   The problem is that we have already spent years improving these four crops for yield through breeding.  We are seeing that conventional breeding just cannot keep up with the dramatic increase in food production we need.  Yield increases are are plateauing. Conventional breeding is still needed and I have no doubt it will continue to increase yields on its own merits.  However even conventional breeding is not a quick fix.   It takes 7-17 years to release a new cultivar.   If you are interested in conventional breeding development here is a great read:

http://www.cropj.com/shimelis_6_11_2012_1542_1549.pdf


So development of a new conventional breeding cultivar being developed today, which will only have small increases in yield at best, wont come due until possible 2033.  I feel there is the misconception that conventional breeding will fix all our problems just like it always has.  All of this technology whether conventional breeding or GMOs take time and resources.  More importantly they need support.

Quoting for our paper:  'Additionally, the time required by crop breeding and bioengineering to release improved varieties to farmers is substantial, meaning that any crop improvements needed to mitigate food shortages in the 2040s would need to start now.'


3. We need to use all the tools available

So what are the solutions?   There are many possibilities.  Conventional breeding is one.  Breeding will continue to make some gains.  There is also the possibility of insect farming.   Maybe your next loaf of bread will be made with cricket flour.   There is also the fact we spend a lot of our cropland providing food to feed animals.  I love meat in my diet, but the fact is we may need to improve our efficiency of raising animals too.  Lab grown meat is a possibility; we have already seen farm raised GM salmon that grow faster.  We can still become more efficient in how we farm.  Digital farming is becoming better and better to be able micromanage each area of a farm.  Yield maps can be made that correlate to soil parameters so that each part of field can be treated differently to maximize yields.     Of course we cannot rule out GMOs either.   As the technology improves I really believe it will be one answer to increase our yields.  The authors of the paper we have been discussing have talked about increasing a plant's ability to use carbon dioxide more efficiently to increase yields.  There are even more approaches from a biotech side that in combination with all these other tools can help make sure we feed everyone.

The take home is that we can't just wait until 2040 or 2050 to worry about this problem.  All the potential solutions on the table take time to research and develop.  It does not help when many are adverse to biotech solutions.   Even some governments are not asking science based questions when it comes to approving GMO crops.   We need to open our minds to all the tools, answer our questions with science and fact, and educate on this topic.  Just because we have food on our tables does not mean we are less responsible to make sure future generations have food as well .  We don't want to be "One crop Breeding cycle from starvation."


If you want to take a deeper dive into other solutions for feeding the growing population, the national geographic article is very good:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-billion/

The paper discussed in this article also has another blog post that covers some of the same opinions, but is also worth reading.  I did not get into organic farming and the increasing population which this blog does touch on.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-need-for-improved-food-production/




.

Science for Kids: Make a comet

I shared a post a couple weeks ago about taking my first photo of a comet.  Comets are amazing when you think about them as a big ball of ice and gas travels through space.  As it gets closer to the sun it begins to heat up and that gas and ice leaves a big tail that we associate with comets.

To understand exactly what a comet is, you can make a small scale version.  This was a project I had done last year at my son's school when they were learning about space.  The best part is you get to play with dry ice, which you can buy at certain stores.

There are a couple safety concern with this project.  Dry ice is is very cold so you should have the appropriate gloves to handle it.  It can cause burns very easily if it stays on exposed skin.  When dry ice sublimates it makes carbon dioxide which can displace oxygen in an enclosed space.  Make sure you are working in a large room.  As long as you are careful it is safe to work with.

The supplies you need are:

2-3 cups of dry ice
2 cups of water
Small handfull of dirt or sand
Garbage bags
Mixing bowl
Wooden mixing spoon
Hammer
Safety glasses and gloves

To make your comet you just need to follow these steps:

1.  Crush you dry ice.  Most dry ice comes in a block or in pellets.  Place the dry ice in a garbage bag.  Double bagging works best in case you have a hole.  Take a hammer and gently hit the ice in the bag.  This is easy done with the bag on a garage floor or a sidewalk.  It will crush easily.

2.  Place the ice in a mixing bowl that is lined with a garbage bag.   If the garbage you just used to crush the ice is still in good shape then just place it in the the bowl.  Open the bag so the ice is exposed.  Or you can pour the crushed dry ice in a new garbage bag that is lining a bowl.

3.  Add the sand or dirt and mix it into the ice.  The dirt is another component of the comet and will give it that dirty look.

4.  Pour the water into the mixture.  Quickly take the garbage bag and wrap it around the ice/water mixture.   The dry ice is so cold it will freeze the water and make your comet.    Shape the mixture into a big snowball comet.

5.  Unwrap the comet to see it's unique shape.  Make sure you still have some cold resistant gloves to hold the comet.


Just like a real comet, as this miniature iceball heats up the carbon dioxide gas from the dry ice will smoke.  This is just like the gas from a real comet forming a tail.  You make even hear popping as large pockets of carbon dioxide that were trapped are released.  The surface of a real comet would be highly unstable just like this.


If you demo this, practice it first.  You may find that certain rations of water to dry ice give you the best results.

What are the arguments against GMO labeling?

Whether you like it or not, I think GMO labeling is coming to food near you.  It is all because of Vermont.  They passed a bill that will require GMO labeling starting in July.   If you are a food manufacturer the logistics of providing a GMO label is about to become very complicated.  The easiest solution for many food manufactures is just to label all their products with GMO labels whether a state requires it or not.  If they don't then they will have to be careful how they distribute food from state to state.

You can argue that consumers should have the transparency of what is in their food.  So are there reasons not to label GMO products?  I think the answer is yes on multiple fronts.

Food Manufacturers stand behind the safety of their products. 

Press releases have started to surface showing that is the stance food manufacturers are already taking including ConAgra Foods, General Mills, Kellogg's and Mars.  They will label all GM products and the business decision is sound.  If they only label in one state then they will have to increase costs to consumers and they don't want to do this yet.   They are being forced in a corner, but I am happy to see they all still stand firmly behind the science.  They all believe in biotechnology and GM food.   They know it is safe.   Take a look.

http://www.mars.com/global/press-center/gmo.aspx

Labels imply different

 A GMO label on a product implies that is a GM food is fundamentally different from its non-GMO counterpart.  And let's be honest, that difference is an implied danger.   Do you notice a trend in the food manufacturer press releases:  "we stand behind the safety," and "GMOs are not a health or safety concern". The GMO labeling hype is because people think GMOs are unsafe and want to see how to  avoid them.    A GMO crop was indeed engineered with one or maybe even 5 genes.  The DNA that encodes that gene is precisely sequenced and known down to every base pair.  That sequence is run against allergen databases.   It is tested for years in all kinds of studies.  The results of those few genes are tested and then tested more for safety.   When you conventionally breed crops to introduce a new cultivar you are changing and introducing hundreds of new genes.  But corn (or insert any crop) is corn right?.  Take a look at what conventional breeding did with corn and think about the thousands of genes needed to make that change.  There are NO labels when food from a brand new cultivar is released in the grocery store from conventional breeding.

http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/23/corn_domesticated_8700_years_ago/

The sad thing is the GMO labeling issue at the federal level was heading in the right direction in my opinion.  The bill H.R. 1599 Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act had passed the House, but is stalled in the Senate.  This bill states (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1599):

Subtitle A--Food and Drug Administration

(Sec. 101) This bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to continue the voluntary consultation process established under the FDA’s "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties." In that process, the FDA evaluates a scientific and regulatory assessment provided by the developer of a food produced from, containing, or consisting of a plant that is a genetically engineered organism (GMO).

The FDA may require a GMO food to have a label that informs consumers of a material difference between the GMO food and a comparable food if the disclosure is necessary to protect public health and safety or to prevent the label from being false or misleading. The use of a GMO does not, by itself, constitute a material difference.

The bill states it exactly right:   "The use of a GMO does not, but itself, constitute a material difference,"  anymore than a new plant variety.  However, the Vermont bill will imply there is a difference.

Consumers are going to be even more confused

Consumers are emotional and can change opinions from reading one false Tweet or Facebook post.  When it comes to GMOs, I think many consumers are confused.  This isn't a jab at consumers.  I think there is a "fog of war" when new technologies come out.  It takes a while for consumers to learn about the product and for it to find acceptance, but this particular labeling in Vermont is not going to help this cause.  A survey I found from 2014 shows some US public perception.  Take a look http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/chapter-6-public-opinion-about-food/

If we dive into the survey we see that 67% of US adults generally think GMOs are unsafe.

The second graph shows what happens to that view as education level goes up. As education level goes up, safety concerns by US adults goes down.  This tells me that the biggest problem we have with GMOs is education.  We need to get the science out to the consumer.  A GMO label does not educate but sows more confusion especially when every state is trying to introduce its own individual labeling law.

In ending I could not sum it better than a farmer in Iowa.  Read the opinion in full, but here is great synopsis:

"Consumer confusion

This is a recipe for bewilderment among consumers.

Moreover, these laws are bad on the merits. GMO foods are safe and healthy. They don’t need warning labels, as organizations ranging from the American Medical Association (AMA) to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) have said.

I don’t know about you, but I’d rather entrust my food labels to the experts who work at the FDA and listen to the advice of the AMA and the NAS — and not to a few politicians in Vermont.

Labels should educate, conveying reliable information rather than propaganda. We must honor their basic purpose, not let them become marketing devices for favored groups."

Full post found at:  https://www.iowafarmbureau.com/Article/Mandatory-GMO-labeling-is-a-recipe-for-consumer-confusion