Astrophototography: Bubble Nebula

I think the bubble nebula may be my one of favorite targets to date.  There is just something captivating about a bubble of gas sitting in space. When you throw a rock into a pond you see a ripple travel through the water.  That ripple might even even travel the entire width of the pond.  It boggles my mind to think "ripples" of gas are traveling through the universe, but instead of pond size the ripples are light years in size.    In the case of the bubble nebula a very big star that is 45 times the size of our sun and hundreds of thousands of time brighter, has sent out its own ripple of stellar wind   The star's stellar wind has blown gas from around it, and the gas is contained in a tight bubble by a molecular cloud that happens to be in the same area.  The bubble we see in the picture is actually 10 light years across.

In astrophotography half the battle is taking the photos through the night.   However the other half of the battle is putting all of that data together to get your final picture.  I have tried several programs to get those final images and tend to use Pixinsight and StarTools the most.   The first picture is the final picture using Pixinsight.  It is probably the best representation of the nebula in terms of color, but the StarTools picture turned out decent as well.   These pictures just show that there is a lot of complex interactions going on when you combine 70 two minute exposures.  Every time you combine the data the final result is going to be a little different.

Is antibiotic resistance predictive of stagnic farm production?

So I know the title seems like a stretch.  How are antibiotics and farming even remotely connected and in reality they are not.  However there are correlations I see among both topics that I wanted to explore.

It all started when I was listening to a podcast (Raiolab) and  they were talking about the history of antibiotic resistance. It is a very interesting episode so take a listen:   RadioLab: Staph Retreat  We hear about antibiotic resistance all the time in the news.    MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) comes to minds as a particular nasty antibiotic resistance bacteria in our hospitals.   Lots of times the term "superbug" is is given to these emerging antibiotic resistant strains.  It is a real problem and so the first question to ask is why are there no more antibiotics coming on the market?

The first antibiotic was discovered in 1928 by Alexander Fleming and was a drug we have all probably taken at one point or another.  I still remember the pink bubble gum flavored penicillin I took as a kid.  With Penicillin the antibiotic revolution was kick started and the media was eating it up.

http://www.nww2m.com/tag/penicillin/

Penicillin was just the first of many antibiotics that  really got going in the 50s and 60s.  At that point there were so many antibiotics coming out that it looked liked we might have an answer for any bacterial infection. The figure below shows the peak of development before development declines.

http://www.scidev.net/global/health/feature/antibiotic-resistance-frequently-asked-questions.html

The other part of the antibiotics story is resistance.  Lots of drugs were coming out, but resistance was developing FAST!  Take a look this figure.

https://agreatcomplexity.wordpress.com/2012/05/05/the-cost-of-resistance-our-current-models-of-antibiotic-research-and-development-are-unsustainable/

Penicillin is introduced in 1941 with some resistance in the 40s.  Streptomycin is introduced in 1944 and resistance comes within a couple years.  Methicillin was introduced in 1952 and resistance was seen in 1960.   This list goes on with the same general trend.  When an antibiotic is developed the bacteria are very good at developing resistance and many times that resistance came 1-3 years after release.    Since the onslaught of new antibiotics in the 50s and 60s, the number of antibiotics have dramatically declined.   There are numerous reasons for this, but as the figure above mentions one of the biggest is that it is not appealing for pharma companies to spend millions on a drug that once released will only be used for a couple years before resistance pops up.    From a business perspective you can't blame them because if they can spend money on a drug that stays on the market for 10-20 years then they can recoup their R&D costs and turn a profit.   However as humankind we all are now suffering from those decisions.  There are very few antibiotics in the R&D pipeline compared to the peak of the 50s and 60s.  We now are live in a world where less new antibiotics are being released and bacteria are continuing to find resistance to what we do have.   As more resistance pops up and antibiotic choices dwindle, I think pharma companies will have to jump back into more R&D. I would predict this move purely on the the model of supply and demand;  especially if these superbugs start causing more and more deaths.  

Now let's jump to agriculture.   I was reading an opinion piece in the New York Times and realized that just like pharma companies not putting money into antibiotic development, the government is not putting money into agricultural development.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/opinion/we-need-a-new-green-revolution.html?ref=opinion&_r=2

So we went from 40% of American research towards agriculture in the 1940s to only 2% today.   Many other countries are also not contributing the needed R&D to keep yields going up.   If you go searching for yield gains for crops you will see increases.  However in many cases these increases are coming from private biotech or the fact we are just planting on more land!.

Examples of the impact of a private biotech trait on yield are seen in Bt and herbicides.



http://grist.org/food/why-gmos-do-matter-and-even-more-to-the-developing-world/

So while conventional breeding has shown a mostly linear progression of yield increase, there are points in history for several crops where we see what a GMO trait can do.  Of course we also have increases in yield because land use keeps going up as well.



http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131217/ncomms3918/full/ncomms3918.html

Look at how much land use has gone up in the last 10 years.  By using more land it is easy to mask the true issues we face.   Eventually the land will run out, but the population continues to grow exponentially.  The atricle for Nature sums up this point:

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131217/ncomms3918/full/ncomms3918.html

Our yields are plateauing and there are many reasons for this including "poor investment in agricultural research and development."


This brings us full circle  back to antibiotics.  I think the antibiotic shortage is predictive of the food shortage problem.  We should use the lessons from antibiotics as a warning.  If we are not going to spend the money and resources towards agriculture then instead of "superbugs we will may have a "super shortage."  GMOs are part of the answer, but we have to remember that the private industry is a compliment to academia and government research.    They are spokes on a wheel and without all three working together progress is much slower.   Academia is at a low for grant money received for agricultural research.  .Hopefully the trends will change.  The major symptoms are hidden in both cases.  There are still just enough antibiotics out there to make things seem alright even with the emergence of superbugs here and there.  There is still land to use that makes overalls yields go up each and every year.   If everything is working then why spend money.  Remember that the pipelines for both antibiotics and new crops can take as long as 10-15 years to get a product on the market.   So just throwing money at a problem may have positive effects, but not immediately.

Keep the pressure on the increase research in our universities.  And keep supporting the biotech industries.  They are all part of the effort to help keep everyone fed.  Here is one of many graphics that show the demand for food production is inevitably going to go up.  The question is whether we can keep the yields on pace.

Twitter @Bayer4Crops

What is on your organics? ...Bt for one

The term "GMO" has become tough to define.  For many it is an evil word, while "organics" are what is going to save the day.   I have nothing against organics, but while GMOs have a mixed reactions organics are the golden child that can do no wrong.  Organics have there niche and I am certainly not above buying them.   My biggest problem with organics is that they are very labor intensive and I do not see them as a sustainable option in the long term future as our population continues to expand drastically.   An even more common problem is the lack of information.    I do not think the general population fully understands that organics still receive some chemical treatment.  Just because something is organic does not mean it it was just grown in a field and nothing but pure water and sun ever touched the plants.

Let's take a look at one of the most common GMO products for insect control.   "Bt" corn and soy are widely adopted by farmers and do a great job controlling certain insects.  "Bt" stands for Bacillus thuringiensis.  Yhese bacteria make a natural protein that kills insects.  This is a similar concept to antibiotics.  Bacteria are always competing against each other and nature and thankfully make these compounds to keep them competitive against other organisms  competing in the same spaces.   The gene that produces this protein has been inserted into plants and when insects digest the protein they die.  But guess what?  Bt has been sprayed on plants for years and is allowed on organics because it is a natural protein found in nature.   In fact it accounts for up to 90% or of the organic pest control market (http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/organic_farming.html).   So GMOs are terrible because they have Bt, but Bt spray is fine.  Say what!!??

Here is my augment summed up nicely from http://grist.org/food/slate-anti-gmo-activists-say-the-darnedest-things/

There are also many other things that may be used on organics that you may not be aware of.   Here is the list of things that are allowed by federal regulations in the US:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7


Check out this article on the same subject.  It is very informative.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/12/07/myth-busting-on-pesticides-despite-demonization-organic-farmers-widely-use-them/

The point here is that insects are a problem and in order for you to have food to eat insects have to be controlled whether you are eating GMOs or organics.  I feel that organics have this reputation that they have absolutely nothing on them.  I understand the appeal of organics and there is some great tasting and quality food coming from organic farms. However, they still still use options to control insects. including Bt that has been an argument for anti-GMO activists for years.  The good news is Bt is safe whether in your GMO or organic food.

Science for kids: Parallel vs Series Circuits

It has been awhile since I last sat down to type, but hopefully I can get back to my rambling.   We are finally getting settled down into a new home and I can start looking at a computer more than boxes!  What a good feeling!

We are heading into Christmas and the holiday period.  So maybe you have some time off work with your  kids or just to be a kid yourself. This is an easy project I did with the scouts a couple weeks ago for one of the Adventures in Science requirements.  The boys had to understand the difference between a Series and Parallel circuit and build each circuit.

There is a very easy way to build these circuits and understand the differences using the following supplies:

1. 2 pieces of paper
2.  Glue and Scissors
3.  Aluminium foil
4.  9 V battery
5. 2 small wattage bulbs:  I used a 6 W indicator bulb, but make sure they are only 12 V bulbs and not      120 V bulbs

Have you been putting up lights on a Christmas tree and one light goes out followed by all the lights going out?  This is a fun project because it will be easy for the kids to grasp why that happens.

Here are the circuits  my son made.  Just cut the aluminum foil into strips and glue them down on the paper.   The foil should be making very good contact with other piece of foil in places where you are connecting pieces so don't use too much glue.   For both the series and the parallel circuit leave a small gap at the top for the 9 V battery.    These circuits are set up to light 2 bulbs at a time.  The pictures below just show 1 bulb lighting up because you need a second person to hold the other bulb and I was being lazy.  .

The series circuit is how many Christmas lights are set up.  Looking at the pictures below you can see that if one light is removed you break the circuit which makes all the lights go out.  Using one light at each of the 2 gaps will make both lights work, but remove one light and they both go out.

The Parallel circuit is better because the circuit is still complete even when one light is removed. The top gap is again for the battery.  Then one light is used for each of the two gaps.  Removing one light will not affect the other light.

In order to make the lights work you need to make a strand of aluminum foil.  The socket part of the light should be wrapped tightly.  The bottom of the light should make contact with the circuit aluminum foil and the opposite end of the foil wrapped around the light should span the gap of the circuit you created and touch the aluminum foil.

To get light, make sure the battery is on the foil where you made a small gap at the top of the circuit.  With the light wrapped with a strand of foil place the light firmly on one side of a gap.  The other end of the strand attached to the light should cross the gap and make contact with the foil.  You can place another bulb at the bottom of the circuit to light two lights at a time.  Play around with removing either light.

The series can be set up the same way. In the picture below I added a "switch" instead of a second light by placing a small piece of foil across the second gap.  Remove lights or the switch to see what happens.

Have fun playing with electricity in a safe manner.  Once you place the battery down on the foil, it will start discharging and can become pretty hot. Just watch how hot it gets and don't leave it discharging too long. It will run the battery down pretty quickly as well.

Fireworks Galaxy

It was back to galaxies for my next target.   I wanted to try to image the Fireworks Galaxy or NGC 6946.   It amazes me how these interstellar bodies were found so long ago.  William Herschel first documented this galaxy in 1798.  Wow!

The target is somewhat difficult for my set-up because you have to image it through some interstellar matter of the Milky Way.  It took approximately 1.4 hours of light gathering to finally get the final picture.  However the work was worth it.  The intermediate spiral galaxy is full of some beautiful color and really does look like a firework bursting in the sky.  This firework is only about one-third the size of our own Milky Way galaxy and is only 18 million light year away!   My brain has a hard time comprehending that distance. It has an even harder time realizing the light my scope is gathering from this galaxy took millions of years to reach the Earth.  We are literally looking back in time and it is beautiful sight to see.

.

The Firework galxy take with my Celestron 8 inch SCT

The details of the final picture of the Galaxy

Location of the Fireworks Galaxy in our sky

1783 GMO studies = ZERO Hazards

Are you looking for the facts to help convince you or other's that GMOs are safe?   Check out:

http://www.foodinsight.org/biotechnology-gmo-food-safe-who-infographic?utm_content=23166078&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter#sthash.SHtiPPZq.LMghjZZZ.dpbs


The main allure of the shot article on this website is the info graphic:

There is one thing to point out that is not always obvious with GMOs.  Some people chose not to eat GMOs, but up to 90% of the feed fed to farm animals in the US is derived from biotech crops.   So GMOs are being used extensively whether you know it or not.   The animal also provides scientists another population to study effects of GMOs.  Researchers at UC Davis looked at health trends of animals before and after biotech feed was introduced and found no significant differences in animal health.   With the thousands of animals being fed GMOs we would see effects if there were some.

There also have also been many other studies on GMOs over the years.  The University of Perugia has recently analysed 1783 studies on the safety and environmental effects of GMOs and so far there are ZERO hazards found.

Science is nothing more than the continual pursuit of new knowledge to challenge the current way of thinking.  Science cannot definitively prove that GMOs pose no threat at all.  And that is why people keep doing studies because science could  show the potential of health threats.  Even a couple of legitimate findings could really change the scientific dogmas associated with GMOs.  And science can get things wrong.  That is why in science. findings must be repeatable by multiple scientists. We are our own worst critics.  If s an experiment told you something, well it is not a real result unless I can repeat it and get the same results.   This is what makes science work.  We will eventually get to the truth.     Yet after 1783 studies showing no health effects isn't it time to start believing a little that  it is OK to eat them?  In the next 30-40 years we may not have any choice as the population continues to grow.

Let's teach our kids Science

We love to give tests and use those scores to make all kinds of comparisons.   That is a can of worms for another day.  But the fact is test scores are used globally to compare kids, schools, states, and even countries.  A fairly recent study took school tests and ranked countries on how kids are performing in science and math.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32608772?nl=nytnow&em_pos=large&emc=edit_nn_20150513

Notice the US doesn't even make the top 12 list.  They are ranked 28.  I have two kids in school and they are getting a good education.  However the fact remains that other countries are starting to really compete with the US.  Asia is becoming a power house in science and math scores.  So if you believe test scores are an indicator of sucess, the the US has some room for improvement.  

I bring this up because science can be fun, and I love to try and get kids involved in science.   I stumbled across a resource for teaching kids about a part of science I hold dear to my heart:  Biotechnology.  The PDF has many different lessons from DNA to GMOs and there are some cool hands-on activities like extracting DNA from a strawberry.  These are exercises you can do with your kids and even share this resource with your kid's teachers.  Let's get more science out to our kids while also making it fun.  

Bring Biotechnology to Life PDF (ages 7-10)

Photopsia

I apologize for the lack of blogging lately.  We are in the process of moving and selling and that process has kept me quite busy over the last few weeks. Hopefully by the end of the year we will be all settled in and things will be back to normal.

However I did have a story to share with a little science thrown in.   It all started on a camping trip with the boys.   Everything started like a normal trip. The boys were playing and having a good time.  We cooked supper, roasted marsh mellows and went to bed.  Everything we good until about 5:00 in the morning when the little one woke me up saying he was was seeing things in the tent.  I just thought he was having a bad dream and had him get a little closer to me in the tent.  That worked until about 5:30 when he woke me up again and said he was still seeing things.   I put him in the sleeping bag with me, but again that only worked until about 6 AM when things really went downhill.  He woke me up saying he was seeing red bugs and they were everywhere.  He said they were coming out of my skin and going into his skin.  He started swatting at them and freaking out.  I could not console him.  He stated to scream to get him out of the tent.   We were were camping on a lake, so at this point I picked him up and walked him down to the lake where I tried to console him for a while and after about 45 minutes had calmed him down.  The rest of the day he was fine and playing just like any other day.

I attributed these visions of "red bugs" to a really bad and vivid dream.   But then we came to night time and no sooner had he gone to bed than we heard crying.  He was seeing the bugs again.  And he was definitely seeing something.  He was shaking and would physically try to push them way from him.  The only thing to remotely calm him down was him sitting on the couch with me downstairs in the light.  At this point I was starting to get concerned.   I knew better than google hallucinations but dit it anyway and of course and it says things you don't really want to hear.   The next night ended up being the same.  We could only get him sleep by putting him in the bed with us.  We had him draw what he was seeing and once we did that, the drawings were very much in line with what a floater might look like.  This all started to make a little sense.  Floaters move and it could easily look like a bug coming out of your skin or going into someone.  Over the next couple nights he started to realize that even though he was seeing these things, they were not hurting him and he would at least go to sleep now.

We took him to the doctor to get his eyes checked out and sure enough he was seeing floaters which is called photopsia. There are different reasons to see these, with one of the most common being retinal detachment.  In his case, everything looked fine with his eyes.   But in some people, photopsia is caused from actually seeing the shadow of the blood vessels in your eyes.  They can appear as red, clear, purple floaters.  In some people they can be very bad especially against certain backgrounds and the person will need to stop what they are doing to focus on a different landscape or background.
He says he still sees the floaters but now that he can rationalize what is going on he lives with it wtih no problem.  The doctor says they may eventually go away or he may see the floaters off and on the rest of his life.  In either event, it is a harmless phenomenon, but one that gave us quite a scare.

Astrophotography: North American Nebula

The next target on the list is the North American Nebula.  This nebula is an emission nebula approximately 1600 light years away from Earth,  An emission nebula is basically just a big cloud of gas that is being excited by a nearby star and thus glowing.    The most prominent gas being ionized in this nebula is Hydrogen.  The nebula is huge, approximately four times the size of the moon, but its surface brightness is pretty low meaning you need binoculars or a low powered telescope to see a foggy patch in the sky.  That didn't stop William Herschel from discovering the nebula on Oct. 24, 1786.

The nebula is called the North American nebula because if you use your imagination you will see North America.  Canada is at the top with Florida jutting out as you follow the East coast.  Mexico rounds out the bottom of the nebula.  My photo is not the best out there and in the hands of more experience photographers the features of North America are even more prominent.

The location of the North American Nebula:

• 

The technical specs of the photo I took are:

A good story at the expense of GMOs

Its hard not to get frustrated with some of the journalism out in the world.  Here is one that I came across this weekend entitled "Genetically modified food: Worries outstrip science."   As a scientist this is the kind of article you read and can do nothing but just scratch your head.

This is a an emotional article and I don't want to take away from the worry and hardship these parents have gone through with an autistic son.  I have 3 kids and fully understand that you will do anything to protect them them even when it may not seem rationale to those looking on.  It is just what we as parents do.

However, I will not be as kind to journalism that uses a parents hardship to pursue an agenda of Anti-GMO sentiment.  The parents in this article as just much a victim as the public in that the story is just using them to further plant doubt and fear.  If you read this article you may easily link GMOs to causing autism.  Just like there are all kinds of articles that will link vaccines to autism even when science says the contrary.   How about this quote from the article:  "It’s just another change the Gioscias have accepted as they prioritize parental instincts and their children’s future over unclear science."  Really?  There is study after study showing the safety of GMOs and absolutely no evidence of GMOs as causing autism.  Even if you have gone to all organic, do you really think the crops you are eating have not gone through genetic modification?  Conventional breeding over years and years is rearranging genomes more than any GMO.  Just look at the pictures below.  Does corn look like that anymore?  The reason it or many other crops you eat on daily basis do no look this way anymore is because of a huge manipulation of the genome through genetic modification.   Yet he public is fine with the concept of conventional breeding even though in reality all our food is GMO whether from conventional breeding or using nature's on tools to insert genes into food quicker than conventional breeding can do.