Thursday, March 24, 2011

Supercomputer is made up of 1,700 off-the-shelf PSt 3 Consoles | Syracuse.com

Published: Wednesday, March 23, 2011, 6:00 AM     Updated: Wednesday, March 23, 2011, 8:02 AM
Dave Tobin / The Post-Standard

2011-02-22-jb-romelab2.JPGView full sizeMorgan Bishop, a computer scientist at the Air Force Research Lab, in Rome, is surrounded by a high-speed, image-processing network of 1,716 PlayStation 3 systems linked to each other and other components.

Rome, NY -- Computer scientists just up the Thruway at Rome’s Air Force Research Lab have assembled one of the world’s largest, fastest and cheapest supercomputers — and it’s made from PlayStation 3s.

By linking together 1,716 PlayStation 3s, they’ve created a supercomputer that’s very good at processing, manipulating and interpreting vast amounts of imagery. This will provide analysts with new levels of detail from the pictures gathered on long surveillance flights by spy planes.

The PlayStation 3 is a video gaming console that originally sold for about $500. It was developed by Sony, released in 2006 and is known for its sizzlingly clear video graphics.

The Air Force calls the souped-up PlayStations the Condor Supercomputer and says it is among the 40 fastest computers in the world. The Condor went online late last year, and it will likely change the way the Air Force and the Air National Guard watch things on the ground.

The creation, while offbeat, illustrates the modern job for the operation that began as Rome Air Development Center in 1951, researching radar. It has survived the closing of Griffiss Air Force Base in 1995 to find a new niche.

These days, Rome Lab’s research focuses on information technology, particularly cybersecurity and high-performance computing. The lab employs 789 people in military and civilian jobs, with a payroll of $82 million a year. It oversees contracts worth nearly $3 billion.

Rome is helping the military face a growing problem: Great advances in airborne surveillance systems have the military drowning in visual data.

Meanwhile, the Air Force and the Air National Guard, as well as federal agencies such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which already gather surveillance video from the air, are pursuing technologies to gather more. The goal: constant surveillance over large areas.

2011-02-22-jb-romelab3.JPGView full sizeA PlayStation 3 video game console, one of the 1,716 systems linked together at Rome Lab to form a supercomputer.

The Condor helps meet that. The Air Force has begun using a new radar technology dubbed “Gotcha,” with far sharper resolution than previous radar. To maximize Gotcha’s potential, the power of a computer such as the Condor is needed.

The Condor will enable 24-hour, real-time surveillance over a roughly 15-mile-wide area, said Mark Barnell, director of high-performance computing at the Rome research lab.

Video processed from the radar signals can be viewed in real time or played back to investigate what led to an event — an explosion, an uprising or an ambush. As with a video game, a viewer can change perspectives, going from air to ground to look around buildings.

“You can literally rewind or predict forward (in the future), based on the information you have,” Barnell said.

Development of the Condor started nearly five years ago, shortly after Sony put the PlayStation 3 on the market. Richard W. Linderman, then senior scientist at Rome’s Air Force research lab, brought the new PlayStation 3 home and began experimenting. The PS3 can run Linux, a software operating system used in most of the world’s supercomputers.

At Rome Lab, Linderman asked his research team to try linking eight PlayStation 3s to see what they could do. Impressed, he increased the number to 336. That worked even better. What could more than a thousand do?

Rome Lab asked the Department of Defense for $2.5 million to assemble its supercomputer. By the time money to buy that many was approved in 2009, PlayStation 3s were hard to find. Rome Lab bought as many as they could — 1,700.

To custom-build a supercomputer without using commercial off-the-shelf PlayStation 3s would likely have cost 10 times as much, Barnell said. In addition, the Condor uses a fraction of the energy that comparably sized supercomputers use. Portions of it — say 300 machines — can be turned on while the rest are off, depending on a job’s needs.

Rome Lab plans to work with the New York Air National Guard’s 174th Fighter Wing, Barnell said. The 174th is seeking FAA permission to fly MQ-9 Reapers in Northern New York, starting this summer.

2011-02-22-jb-romelab1.JPGView full sizeMark Barnell, director of high-performance computing at the Air Force Research Lab, in Rome, stands with a data wall that displays the video output of the center's Condor Supercomputer. This sample image was made by a radar system aboard an airplane.

The Air Force is also using the Condor to process ground-based radar images of space objects, again with extraordinary clarity. Barnell shows images of a space shuttle orbiting Earth at 5 miles a second. Without Condor processing, the shuttle image is a blurry black triangle. With Condor processing, it is sharp and distinct. It’s clear that its payload doors are open.

“This is important because other countries are pursuing space missions, and we don’t always know their intent,” Barnell said.

The Condor’s third major use is for computational intelligence — a form of computer reasoning and decision-making. One example is with words: Condor can scan or process text in any language at 20 pages a second, fill in missing sections it has never seen with 99.9 percent accuracy and tell the user whether the information is important.

“Jobs that used to take hours or days now take seconds,” Barnell said.

Barnell cautions that the Condor is not the “Holy Grail of computing.”

Rome Lab is sharing Condor access with researchers at other government agencies, colleges and universities. Among them are Cornell University, Dartmouth College and the universities of Florida, Maryland and Tennessee. Researchers at Syracuse University and State University Institute of Technology at Utica/Rome are also expected to have access, Barnell said.

As impressive as the Condor is, it won’t be for long. Barnell envisions integrating smartphone processors into high-performance computing, putting the power of a Condor into a small surveillance drone the size of your fist, something weighing less than a pound and using the energy of a standard light bulb.

“In a couple of years, this will fade away,” he said.

Contact Dave Tobin at dtobin@syracuse.com or 470-3277.

© 2011 syracuse.com. All rights reserved

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Canadians losing faith as religion faces extinction | Montreal Gazette

Pope Benedict XVI waves as he leaves the Eucharistic celebration after giving to the 24 newly appointed cardinals their ring on November 21, 2010 at St Peter's basilica at The Vatican.

Photograph by: AFP, Getty

Religion may be on the road to extinction in Canada — mathematically speaking, that is.

Travelling with us are Australia, Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland.

A study presented Tuesday at the American Physical Society meeting in Dallas noted a steady rise in the percentage of those countries' residents who claim no religious affiliation, and explained how social factors could help push religion toward the dustbin of history.

Richard Weiner, a University of Arizona researcher and one of the study's authors, explained the formula's conclusions.

"There'll be a continuing loss of membership among people that identify themselves as belonging to a religion. Over time, we could reach a time where society is dominated by people who claim religious non-affiliation," he said.

The study attempted to link these countries' religious identities with the social motives behind belonging to particular groups. Researchers said that as the masses who claim religious non-affiliation swell, it becomes more appealing to join the ranks of that group.

"The model predicts that for societies in which the perceived utility of not adhering is greater than the utility of adhering, religion will be driven toward extinction," the study said.

"We tried to quantify . . . that the perceived utility of non-affiliation is greater than the perceived utility of belonging to a religion," added Weiner. "That effect is enough to start driving people to the group that's non-affiliated, and then as more people become non-affiliated, that makes the group more attractive."

Weiner speculated that social pressures are contributing to the decline in religious identification in these countries. "People no longer see the slate of benefits as being as great as they probably did 100 years ago. It's become less socially useful."

Daniel Abrams, one of the study's co-authors, used a similar model in 2003 to predict the decline of the world's lesser-spoken languages.

A 2006 Statistics Canada report noted that 16 per cent of Canadians reported no religious affiliation in 2001, up from four per cent 30 years earlier. However, young Canadians are even less religious, with close to half of 15-29 year olds claiming no religious identity in 2004.

In the Netherlands, where close to 50 per cent of the population identifies as not belonging to a religion, Weiner said they found that by mid-century close to 70 per cent of the country will be made up of non-believers.

"That's very substantial growth over four decades," Weiner said. "It's not saying that religion will not exist, but it will very strongly change the makeup of society. Maybe in 100 years in some of these countries if this trend continues, there will be a very small percentage of people that still identify themselves as belonging to a religion."

However, University of Ottawa sociologist Diane Pacom cautioned against writing off religion as a part of Canada's culture.

"Even if Canadians say (their affiliation) to their friends, publicly they won't say it because it's not cool," she said.

Pacom added that religion's role in society is hard to capture, as traditionally religious activities like weddings are still commonly practised — even without the religious meaning it once had.

"Religion may not be seen as a practice, but as a way of living it's still very present. No mathematical formula can catch that," she said.

fappleyard@postmedia.com

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

The Cranky Dieter Explained: How Self-Control Makes You Angry

Have you ever noticed that people on diets are really crabby? While many might blame low blood sugar or a general lack of pleasure (rice cakes, cabbage soup — ugh!), recent psychological research suggests that it's actually the exercise of self-control that leads people to become irritable and aggressive at inappropriate times.

The prevailing theory is that because self-control is a finite resource, when you deplete it — say by consistently choosing carrots over cupcakes or by refraining from splurging at the shoe store — you're less likely to be able to control urges toward anger or aggression when they arise at inappropriate times.

"Research has shown that exerting self-control makes people more likely to behave aggressively toward others, and people on diets are known to be irritable and quick to anger," said researchers David Gal, an assistant professor of marketing at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, and Wendy Liu, an assistant professor of marketing at the Rady School of Management at the University of California San Diego, in a statement. (More on Time.com: Health-Washing: Is 'Healthy' Fast Food for Real?)

Now in a new study, the marketing professors further explore the association between self-control and anger, and find that the two may linked in a broader way: in their study, people who exerted self-control showed anger-related behaviors even in situations in which they weren't inappropriate and, thus, wouldn't necessarily have to be snuffed out.

In a series of three experiments, the researchers asked study participants to exercise self-control in various ways, then measured their tendency to make aggressive or anger-related choices. In the first experiment, participants were asked to choose between two snacks — an apple or a chocolate bar — before choosing a movie to watch. (Another group chose the movie first, then were given a snack choice after watching.)

Among those who made the good-for-you initial choice (the low-calorie, high-fiber apple), 64% subsequently opted to watch a movie with aggressive themes, like Anger Management (over Billy Madison) or Hamlet (over Romeo and Juliet). By contrast, 55% of those who did not have to choose a snack before the film picked an anger-themed movie. As for the people who got chocolate — either before or after the film — they chose anger-themed movies at the same rate.

Dieting isn't the only form of self-control that may cause aggression. In another experiment, a group of 139 women were randomly assigned to choose between a $50 gift certificate for a spa treatment (the indulgent, enjoyable choice) or for groceries (the responsible option) either before or after rating a series of six photographs of angry or fearful faces. (More on Time.com: Calorie Counts on Menus: Apparently, Nobody Cares)

The women who chose the gift certificate for groceries before rating the faces gave the angry faces a score of 3.75 (based on a 1-to-7 scale, where 1 is "not arousing" and 7 is "extremely arousing"); the group who selected groceries after rating faces gave the angry faces a score of 3.12 score. There was no difference in angry-face scores among the participants who chose the spa treatment.

In the final experiment, participants were again asked to choose between an apple or a candy bar either before or after reading a message that suggested exercise by using controlling words like "should," "ought," "must" and "need to." As expected, the people who chose an apple before reading the health messages were more likely to rate them as irritating.

"Given that most individuals are frequently engaged in self-regulation throughout any given day — whether it be resisting the urge to mock one's boss, to yell at a screaming
baby, to eat an extra slice of chocolate cake, to save instead of spend, or to play instead of work — our findings suggest that anger-related behavior might be more prevalent than previously assumed or reported," the researchers wrote. (More on Time.com: Diet Soda May Lead to Stroke Risk? Really?)

They also described some interesting marketing implications, suggesting, for example, that anger-themed movies and video games (like the mobile video game "Angry Birds") would do well to advertise in health-food aisles of grocery stores and other places where people do their best to exert self-control.

For policy makers, the authors suggest they remain mindful of the emotional consequences on the consumer of public-service admonitions to eat healthily or save for retirement, and try using more positive ways to persuade people to behave responsibly.

As for the angry, self-deprived consumer herself, the authors' best advice involves "avoiding self-control dilemmas in the first place or cognitively reappraising the situation so that the virtuous choice does not involve a denial of satisfaction." Try as you might to convince yourself, though, no apple is likely to satisfy you, if what you really want is a Hershey bar. So go ahead and splurge once in a while.

"That's Professor Global Hawk" | Flight Today | Air & Space Magazine

"That's Professor Global Hawk"

A remote-piloted warrior starts flying for science.

  • By Kara Platoni
  • Air & Space Magazine, May 01, 2011
Ready for its closeup The first demilitarized Global Hawk debuts in 2009 at NASA’s Dryden center in California where scientists will use it to study hurricanes pollution and other atmospheric disturbances. Ready for its closeup: The first demilitarized Global Hawk debuts in 2009 at NASA’s Dryden center in California, where scientists will use it to study hurricanes, pollution, and other atmospheric disturbances.

Chad Slattery

On an April morning last year beneath a bright desert sky, officials at NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center in California unveiled their newest tool for studying the atmosphere: a Global Hawk. In fact, it was the very first Global Hawk, produced in 1998 as a demonstrator to show the capabilities of the unmanned military airplane.

Originally developed to provide field commanders with high-resolution surveillance imagery and produced by Northrop Grumman, Global Hawks fly high and long. They reach altitudes of 65,000 feet, and can surpass 30 hours and 11,000 nautical miles in a single flight. For Earth scientists, loading a Global Hawk up with sampling gear and sending it into the stratosphere suggests intriguing applications: measuring levels of pollutants and greenhouse gases like ozone; studying the formation of hurricanes and the shrinkage of ice sheets; monitoring the effects of natural disasters. “Northrop Grumman and the U.S. Air Force have proved that you can use this plane to do reconnaissance,” says NASA atmospheric scientist Paul Newman, who helped oversee Global Hawk’s first climate research mission. “Well, science is just a different kind of reconnaissance.”

The Global Hawk is no diminutive drone—its slender wings span 116 feet, and its V-tail reaches 15 feet high. With its white paint job, snub nose, humped radome, and single Rolls-Royce AE-3007H turbofan engine, the Global Hawk cuts a figure both elegant and strange; its profile gives the vague impression of a beluga wearing a jetpack.

Global Hawks are well established as military aircraft: The Air Force has deployed them since 2001; 30 have been built and 26 remain operational. But last April marked the first time a Global Hawk had been used for Earth science. As scientists and NASA officials gathered inside a Dryden hangar to admire Air Vehicle-1, the first Global Hawk made, its sister airplane, AV-6, was heading up the Pacific Northwest coast on a 24-hour tour, one of five flights planned as part of the Global Hawk Pacific (GloPac) mission, a joint effort between NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to demonstrate the aircraft’s scientific utility.

NOAA commander Phil Hall was at the controls that day, although nowhere near the aircraft itself. Clad in a khaki flightsuit, he was controlling the airplane from inside a ground station housed in an ordinary-looking office building at Dryden. Using mouse and keyboard, he guided the Global Hawk on a path that would take it from off the Alaskan coast to near Hawaii. Along the way, the aircraft underflew a tracking satellite to calibrate instruments with it, sampled a chunk of polar air to measure its ozone content, and intercepted a dust plume drifting across the ocean from Asia.

A few months later, Hall was back on the team for another Global Hawk first: its maiden hurricane surveillance mission. Part of NASA’s Genesis and Rapid Intensification Processes (GRIP) experiment, the unmanned airplane was deployed during the August-September hurricane season to help scientists better understand the formation and behavior of these fierce storms.

Says Hall: “We’re doing a lot of things with the airplane that have never been done before.”

For many Earth science researchers, the moment they saw a Global Hawk, it was love at first sight.

Newman, who is normally based at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, first glimpsed a Global Hawk in 1999; he was at Dryden preparing one of the agency’s ER-2s for an ozone depletion study, and a group of scientists were invited across the runway to look at one. “Boy, were we wowed,” he recalls.

Researchers immediately grasped the promise. “With any conventional aircraft, it always seems that the phenomena you’re interested in sampling—a hurricane or the polar vortex up in the Arctic—is always just out of range of your plane,” says Newman. The two rides NASA atmospheric scientists have traditionally used for high-altitude research—the ER-2 (the agency’s version of the Lockheed U-2 spyplane) and the WB-57 (a variant of the B-57 bomber)—typically fly no more than eight- and 6.5-hour missions, respectively. The record for a Global Hawk flight so far is 33.1 hours. With that kind of endurance, an autonomous aircraft could let a crew stationed at a temperate location operate a mission that spanned from pole to equator in a single trip.

While atmospheric research has long been conducted with satellites, airplanes offer more flexibility: They can descend from altitude, take in situ as well as remote measurements, move in any number of directions (satellites are limited to either east-west or north-south), and loiter over a spot instead of just passing overhead once a day. Even better, scientists can easily swap instruments out for repairs or upgrades. With a satellite, says Chris Naftel, NASA’s Global Hawk project manager, “whatever you put in orbit, you’re stuck with that.”

The Global Hawk does have limitations. NASA’s ER-2 can carry 2,600 pounds; its WB-57, 6,000 pounds. The Global Hawk, by contrast, can carry a payload of 1,500 pounds. Scientists may have to choose a simpler payload than they would for a conventional airplane, says Newman.

The team at Dryden received its first two demilitarized aircraft in 2007. NASA also acquired the last demonstrator, AV-7, in 2009. The fully re-engineered AV-6 has flown all of NASA’s science flights until last May, when AV-1 flew its first NASA test mission.

To train pilots on its three drones, NASA hired a pilot who had flown all of them. Tom Miller had logged some 1,500 hours flying Global Hawks, including with the flight test squadron at Edwards Air Force Base in California and later as part of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. “It’s very cool to be asked to come back and fly them again,” he says.

Miller led training for the Pacific mission’s team and flew several of the missions himself. While some of the pilots had experience in manned high-fliers, like the U-2, none had previously flown a Global Hawk. Hall was the only one with a science flight background, having spent about 2,000 hours in NOAA’s Twin Otter.

Global Hawk pilots fly by desktop—in this case, from a brand-new ground station at Dryden dubbed the Global Hawk Operations Center. The center is divided into three compartments: a chilly lobby where air conditioners cool the giant stacks of computer hardware that keep the airplane flying, and two glass-encased rooms, both facing an enormous screen displaying a live camera feed from the aircraft. The pilots work out of the front room; in the back room sit more than a dozen payload operators, keeping their eyes on computer monitors as their instruments stream real-time data to them.

Global Hawk’s track is pre-planned; the aircraft flies on a scheduled airspeed and its bank angles are pre-set, although pilots can make mid-flight adjustments. “Typically—say, 75 percent of the time—we don’t stay on the canned mission plan because our mission objectives are usually things like weather and atmospheric phenomena, which move,” Hall says.

Pilots control the aircraft using four computer monitors, a keyboard, and a mouse. There’s no yoke—not even a joystick. Although they have a moving map that lets them track the aircraft’s progress over remote locations, there’s no feeling of motion. “You lose four of your five senses when you’re dealing with an unmanned vehicle,” says Miller. “You’re not in the airplane, so you don’t feel if the throttle comes back or you don’t feel it when it goes into a turn. Everything is based on sight, looking at the displays.” The pilots have no view out the aircraft’s window.

For the scientists, shifts can be long. Because some interesting bit of data could always come down the pipe, Newman says it was tempting to work long hours and late nights to get the data—“the scientific candy,” he calls it. He used to worry about ER-2 pilots flying over the Arctic: “If the engine flames out, if there is any problem with your ER-2, then you’re not getting that pilot or the plane back. There is no place to land up there, there are no runways, and it’s really brutally cold.” Now, he says, “I don’t have to worry about the pilots anymore—I have to worry about my own team and that they don’t drive off the road because they’re so tired.”

Because science and military missions have different objectives, NASA’s Global Hawk tried some new moves on its first two science flights. According to Chris Naftel, the Air Force had never taken a Global Hawk much past Fairbanks, Alaska, which is around 65 degrees north. Scientists want to get closer to the Arctic, a critical area for studying ozone depletion and other climate phenomena. On the Pacific flights, says Naftel, “we went up to 85 degrees—that’s about 300 miles short of the North Pole.” This is the farthest north a Global Hawk has ever flown.

Atmospheric scientists are equally interested in sampling near the equator, because that’s where greenhouse gases fountain up into the stratosphere before falling back toward the poles. For example, scientists would like to measure stratospheric water vapor—a greenhouse gas that is more insulating than carbon dioxide—to understand its effect on Earth’s surface climate.

But flying at high altitudes near the equator presents a risk: fuel freezing. “With our atmosphere, at 60,000 feet it’s actually colder at the equator than it is at the North Pole,” says Naftel. “The Air Force will fly around the equator for only about an hour, and now we have scientists that want to take eight or 10 hours of data there.” For such long-duration equatorial stays, NASA intends to take advantage of the Global Hawk’s heat exchange system, in which fuel is warmed through direct contact with the avionics equipment. The agency also hopes to utilize fuels that freeze at lower temperatures, says Naftel.

Ironically, one of the special requests scientists made during the Pacific mission was to have the high flier occasionally fly low. “We’re interested in other altitudes because some of the important things that we need to do are to take a cross-section of the atmosphere,” says Hall. “We’ll come down and loiter at a little lower altitude, maybe around 43,000 [feet] or so, and then go back up to altitude.”

The aircraft itself was also modified for the Pacific mission. While the Air Force had typically flown two sensing instruments, says Naftel, “we had 11 instruments on GloPac, and they were all over the place: some in the nose, some under the bottom, but some were on the back of the airplane, some on the sides of the airplane.” Northrop Grumman designed a modular honeycomb pallet system for two of AV-6’s payload areas that allowed instruments to be easily added or taken out and returned to the scientists for data analysis or repairs. Among the instruments flying on the demonstration mission: a cloud physics LIDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) instrument on the nose to profile dust and aerosols, ozone and water vapor samplers, and chromatographs for measuring greenhouse and ozone-depleting gases like nitrous oxide, methane, and CFCs (chlorofluorocarbon compounds).

For the 2010 hurricane surveillance mission, the Global Hawk carried four instruments—including a radar for profiling wind and rain, and a microwave radiometer for measuring temperature and moisture—and faced new challenges. Because Global Hawk’s endurance allows it such a long outbound leg, it faces a lengthy voyage home, with diminishing fuel and uncertain weather. (Flights to observe Atlantic Ocean hurricanes took about eight hours out, with eight on station, leaving eight to return.) But because the unmanned vehicle can fly only over sparsely populated areas, it has fewer landing options in emergencies. “When you’re coming back and facing weather diverts, you’re always wondering, ‘Do I got enough to make it home, or am I going to have to go into one of these emergency fields?’ ” says Miller.

Hurricane surveillance also involves less-than-friendly skies: turbulence, lightning, and precipitation, all of which the crew was eager to avoid. “If you look at that airplane, with its long wing, it’s designed for a flight envelope that does not have high amounts of turbulence,” says Hall. “So we’re not permitted to fly in moderate or severe turbulence.”

Hall, who was at the controls when the Global Hawk overflew its first full hurricane—Earl, off the South Carolina coast—says the experience was more dynamic than the GloPac demonstration mission: As the team assessed the storm’s severity, they called for more rapid changes. At first Hall avoided the hurricane’s eye, but after the team decided it was calm enough, he transected it, crossing the eye seven times on that mission; he flew near it another two. But Hall still had to keep alert for cloud tops that could provoke turbulence, as well as for lightning—a mission rule forbade coming within 20 miles of it. “It was a fun flight because it was busy and kept us challenged,” says Hall.

Global Hawk proved to be an excellent hurricane observer, says research meteorologist Gerry Heymsfield, one of three GRIP scientists. (On a later flight, over Hurricane Karl in the Gulf of Mexico, the Global Hawk made 20 passes, including 12 over the eye. By contrast, an ER-2 typically does about six passes.) He points out that duration is especially important in studying hurricanes, which can intensify rapidly within 12 to 24 hours. In the past, long-term storm coverage required multiple airplanes.

The hurricane observation mission, which also involved DC-8 and WB-57 aircraft, focused on gathering clues about how tropical storms originate, and why some blow into hurricanes while others fizzle out. The team investigated how temperature, wind, and moisture in the environment around storms affect their direction and intensification; the mechanisms that cause a cluster of clouds to start spinning; and the role of convection in intensifying storms. The mission also studied easterly waves, weather disturbances off the west African coast that trigger thunderstorms, which sometimes become hurricanes. “We’re trying to learn why some waves develop and some don’t, because they all look similar,” says Heymsfield.

NASA officials have a long list of what they’d like to do next with their Global Hawks. A portable ground station, which would allow a pilot to launch and land the aircraft in the East Coast while the payload operators remain at Dryden, is in the works for next year. Cutting out the cross-country transit would allow future missions to observe hurricanes that are farther away and for longer periods, which means earlier in their development. NASA is planning a Hurricane and Severe Storm Sentinel mission for 2012 that will fly two Global Hawks, one over the storm and another to study its environment.

A synthetic-aperture radar pod mounted beneath a wing is also planned, and thanks to an East Coast base, says Naftel, “I can see us going to Greenland from Wallops Island [a NASA rocket launch site in Virginia] to map the ice surface up there, to track the changes that are occurring, and doing the same thing over the North Pole and the South Pole.”

Perhaps most significantly, Northrop Grumman is developing technology for mid-air refueling between two autonomous vehicles, potentially allowing the receiving vehicle to stay aloft for up to seven days. A demonstration program is planned for next year.

With longer-endurance aircraft and perhaps a larger fleet on the horizon, NASA scientists envision autonomous aircraft like Global Hawk playing a routine role in monitoring the world’s weather and studying its atmospheric changes. Chris Naftel calls it “nearly a perfect science platform.” Attention satellite manufacturers: You may want to watch your backs.

Kara Platoni is a freelance science writer living in Oakland, California, and an instructor at the University of California at Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism. Her most recent story in Air & Space/Smithsonian was “The Six” (June/July 2009).

BBC News - Quantum computing device hints at powerful future

Quantum computing device hints at powerful future

Four-qubit quantum device (E Lucero) Although comparatively small, the system's "scalable" architecture speaks to a bigger future

One of the most complex efforts toward a quantum computer has been shown off at the American Physical Society meeting in Dallas in the US.

It uses the strange "quantum states" of matter to perform calculations in a way that, if scaled up, could vastly outperform conventional computers.

The 6cm-by-6cm chip holds nine quantum devices, among them four "quantum bits" that do the calculations.

The team said further scaling up to 10 qubits should be possible this year.

Rather than the ones and zeroes of digital computing, quantum computers deal in what are known as superpositions - states of matter that can be thought of as both one and zero at once.

In a sense, quantum computing's one trick is to perform calculations on all superposition states at once. With one quantum bit, or qubit, the difference is not great, but the effect scales rapidly as the number of qubits rises.

The figure often touted as the number of qubits that would bring quantum computing into a competitive regime is about 100, so each jump in the race is a significant one.

"It's pretty exciting we're now at a point that we can start talking about what the architecture is we're going to use if we make a quantum processor," Erik Lucero of the University of California, Santa Barbara told the conference.

The team's key innovation was to find a way to completely disconnect - or "decouple" - interactions between the elements of their quantum circuit.

The delicate quantum states that they create must be manipulated, moved, and stored without destroying them.

"It's a problem I've been thinking about for three or four years now, how to turn off the interactions," UCSB's John Martinis, who led the research," told BBC News.

"Now we've solved it, and that's great - but there's many other things we have to do."

Qubits and pieces

The solution came in the form of what the team has termed the RezQu architecture. It is basically a blueprint for a quantum computer, and several presentations at the conference focused on how to make use of it.

"For me this is kind of nice, I know how I'm going to put them together," said Professor Martinis.

"I now know how to design it globally and I can go back and try to optimise all the parts."

RezQu seems to have an edge in one crucial arena - scalability - that makes it a good candidate for the far more complex circuits that would constitute a quantum computer proper.

"There are competing architectures, like ion traps - trapping ions with lasers, but the complexity there is that you have to have a huge room full of PhDs just to run your lasers," Mr Lucero told BBC News.

Quantum bit and resonator on a chip (E Lucero) The team has been steadily increasing the complexity of their quantum devices

"There's already promise to show how this architecture could scale, and we've created custom electronics based on cellphone technology which has driven the cost down a lot.

"We're right at the bleeding edge of actually having a quantum processor," he said. "It's been years that a whole community has blossomed just looking at the idea of, once we have a quantum computer, what are we going to do with it?"

Britton Plourde, a quantum computing researcher from the University of Syracuse, said that the field has progressed markedly in recent years.

The metric of interest to quantum computing is how long the delicate quantum states can be preserved, and Dr Plourde noted that time had increased a thousand fold since the field's inception.

"The world of superconducting quantum bits didn't even exist 10 years ago, and now they can control [these states] to almost arbitrary precision," he told BBC News.

"We're still a long way from a large-scale quantum computer but it's really in my eyes rapid progress."

GMOs and the myth of feeding the world - Chews Wise

GMOs and the myth of feeding the world

With food prices hitting record highs, people are rioting and political regimes are crumbling. We can only imagine what it will be like when the global population rises to nine billion in 2050 from just under seven billion now. More riots, more deforestation, more hunger, more revolutions? How are these people going to be fed? The unequivocal answer we so often hear: biotechnology.

Let's ignore for the moment the cause of rising food prices, which has been attributed to everything from bad weather and poor harvests to higher oil prices that push up the cost of fertilizers, the rise of biofuels, even commodity index funds (which are bidding up futures, though I'm skeptical they are leading the parade). The thing I get hung up on is the "nine billion." It makes a great sound bite but what's behind the figure?

So far the vast resources of commercial biotechnology have gone to commodity crops such as corn and soybeans (and soon alfalfa). The majority ends up as animal feed, and thus meat, which is the least efficient way to produce calories. Meat also happens to be available to the richest people, not the poorest. So, we haven't really used GMOs to "feed the world." Instead we've used them bring down the cost of industrial meat production and incentivize a transition to a meat-centric diet. The loss of calories that result from feeding grains to animals instead of humans represents the annual calorie needs of more than 3.5 billion people, according to the UN Environmental Program. In short, GMOs arguably are making matters worse by fueling the production of more animal feed and food-competing biofuels. 

Be that as it may, we're still stuck with the nine billion problem. Population is like compounding interest, with small changes producing big results down the road. So the growth rate is hugely important and it doesn't always do what's expected. National Geographic had an interesting take on this, showing that the argument popular in the 1960s about a "population bomb" largely turned out to be a fiction. By the early 1970s, fertility rates around the world had begun dropping faster than anyone had anticipated. Since then, the population growth rate has fallen by more than 40 percent.

In industrialized countries it took generations for fertility to fall to the replacement level or below. As that same transition takes place in the rest of the world, what has astonished demographers is how much faster it is happening there. ...

“The problem has become a bit passé,” Hervé Le Bras (a French demographer) says. Demographers are generally confident that by the second half of this century we will be ending one unique era in history—the population explosion—and entering another, in which population will level out or even fall.

This is why numbers are important. On that score, Andrew Revkin had an interesting exchange on the dot earth blog at the Times that showed a range of opinion on what it would take to "feed the world." Revkin's post noted that Douglas Southgate, an agricultural economist at Ohio State University, "argues that a low growth scenario for population, leading to just under 8 billion people by 2050, could see a 26-percent drop in food prices even with substantial rise in consumption." This is considered the low-range for 2050, but considering how off the mark Malthusians were in the past, it shouldn't be entirely discounted.

But, let's say, we do get to nine billion. The impact on resources, it turns out, depends a lot on what we eat. Vaclav Smil, a University of Manitoba analyst, pointed out to Revkin "a menu of possible food lifestyles," which for a world of nine billion meant either bountiful supplies or scarcity.  Here's the spectrum: 

1) eating enough to survive with reduced lifespans (Ethiopia),

2) eating enough to have some sensible though limited choices and to live near-full lifespans when considering other (hygienic, health care) circumstances (as in the better parts of India today),

3) having more than enough of overall food energy but still a limited choice of plant foods and only a healthy minimum of animal foods and live close to or just past 70 (China of the late 1980s and 1990s),

4) not wanting more carbohydrates and shifting more crop production and imports to [livestock] feed, not food, to eat more animals products, having overall some 3,000 kcal/capita a day and living full spans (China now),

5) having gross surpluses of everything, total supply at 3,500-3,700 kcal/day, eating too much animal protein, wasting 35-40% of all food, living record life spans, getting sick (U.S. and E.U. today).

Obviously, we want to avoid option one and two, as much as possible. Option three and four would mean one billion people who lack enough food today would be better off. But Smil says, "The world eating between levels 3-4 would not know what to do with today’s food." In other words, we have enough already.  But, he also adds, "the world at 5 is impossible." Nor is it desirable, considering the obesity crisis and health risks.

So really, the question isn't how will we feed nine billion by 2050? The question is how many people will we really have and what will they be eating? 

Poverty of course plays a big role in both these issues because, as Juergen Voegele, director, agriculture and rural development, the World Bank, pointed out to Revkin: "We already have close to one billion people who go hungry today, not because there is not enough food in the world but because they cannot afford to buy it." 

Raising incomes, or course, is a difficult nut -- one that doesn't succumb to a solution hatched in a lab. But more income means better-educated families, and even declining population growth. The flip side, though, is that rising incomes are also associated with higher meat consumption, which can get us closer to option five on Smil's lifestyle if we are not careful. So the best case: to raise incomes and to incentivize less resource-intensive food consumption. 

But we don't need to become vegans to save the world (which would doom us even if we did because so few would go along). In many developing countries, such an approach would amount to culinary imperialism, given the importance of meat for both income generation, the result of having a cow or goat or two, and as a source of much-needed calories for children from milk and scant meat. Never mind the use of manure to grow crops. We're not talking about factory farms here, but animals that play a central role in cultures and livelihoods.

As the Nat Geo article concluded:

... it will be a hard thing for the planet if ... people are eating meat and driving gasoline-powered cars at the same rate as Americans now do. It’s too late to keep the new middle class of 2030 from being born; it’s not too late to change how they and the rest of us will produce and consume food and energy.

- Samuel Fromartz

BBC News - Breakthrough in delivering drugs to the brain

Brain cells Getting drugs to brain cells has hampered medical advances

A new way of delivering drugs to the brain has been developed by scientists at the University of Oxford.

They used the body's own transporters - exosomes - to deliver drugs in an experiment on mice.

The authors say the study, in Nature Biotechnology, could be vital for treating diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Muscular Dystrophy.

The Alzheimer's Society said the study was "exciting" and could lead to more effective treatments.

Research barrier

One of the medical challenges with diseases of the brain is getting any treatment to cross the blood-brain barrier.

The barrier exists to protect the brain, preventing bacteria from crossing over from the blood, while letting oxygen through.

However, this has also produced problems for medicine, as drugs can also be blocked.

In this study the researchers used exosomes to cross that barrier.

Exosomes are like the body's own fleet of incredibly small vans, transporting materials between cells.

Many potential drugs have not been properly tested because you couldn't get enough of them into the brain”

End Quote Dr Susanne Sorensen Alzheimer's Society

The team at Oxford harvested exosomes from mouse dentritic cells, part of the immune system, which naturally produce large numbers of exosomes.

They then fused the exosomes with targeting proteins from the rabies virus, which binds to acetylcholine receptors in brain cells, so the exosome would target the brain.

They filled the exosomes with a piece of genetic code, siRNA, and injected them back into the mice.

The siRNA was delivered to the brain cells and turned off a gene, BACE1, which is involved in Alzheimer's disease.

The authors reported a 60% reduction in the gene's activity.

"These are dramatic and exciting results" said the lead researcher Dr Matthew Wood.

"This is the first time this natural system has been exploited for drug delivery."

Customised

The research group believes that the method could modified to treat other conditions and other parts of the body.

Dr Wood said: "We are working on sending exosomes to muscle, but you can envisage targeting any tissue.

"It can also be made specific by changing the drug used."

The researchers are now going to test the treatment on mice with Alzheimer's disease to see if their condition changes.

The team expect to begin trials in human patients within five years.

Dr Susanne Sorensen, head of research at the Alzheimer's Society, said: "In this exciting study, researchers may have overcome a major barrier to the delivery of potential new drugs for many neurological diseases including Alzheimer's.

She said the blood-brain barrier had been an "enormous issue as many potential drugs have not been properly tested because you couldn't get enough of them into the brain."

She added: "If this delivery method proves safe in humans, then we may see more effective drugs being made available for people with Alzheimer's in the future."

Dr Simon Ridley, head of research at Alzheimer's Research UK, said: "This is innovative research, but at such an early stage it's still a long way from becoming a treatment for patients.

"Designing drugs that cross the blood brain barrier is a key goal of research that holds the promise of improving the effectiveness of Alzheimer's treatments in the future."

Exosomes may have other medical applications.

Alexander Seifalian, a professor of nanotechnology and regenerative medicine at University College London, told the BBC: "Experimental evidence indicates that exosomes can prime the immune system to recognize and destroy cancer cells, making them a potential tool as cancer vaccines."

He also said exosomes "could well form the cornerstone of nanoscale drug delivery systems of the future."

He added: "The apparent versatility and established biosafety of exosomes underscores the potential of these biological membrane vesicles to be of tremendous potential in the realm of nanotechnology and regenerative medicine."

Monday, March 21, 2011

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste | Scientific American

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste

By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation

nuclear-power-plant-with-radiation-sign CONCENTRATED RADIATION: By burning coal into ash, power plants concentrate the trace amounts of radioactive elements within the black rock. Image: ©ISTOCKPHOTO.COM

Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

The popular conception of nuclear power is straight out of The Simpsons: Springfield abounds with signs of radioactivity, from the strange glow surrounding Mr. Burn's nuclear power plant workers to Homer's low sperm count. Then there's the local superhero, Radioactive Man, who fires beams of "nuclear heat" from his eyes. Nuclear power, many people think, is inseparable from a volatile, invariably lime-green, mutant-making radioactivity.

Coal, meanwhile, is believed responsible for a host of more quotidian problems, such as mining accidents, acid rain and greenhouse gas emissions. But it isn't supposed to spawn three-eyed fish like Blinky.

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. * [See Editor's Note at end of page 2]

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.

Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas.

In a 1978 paper for Science, J. P. McBride at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and his colleagues looked at the uranium and thorium content of fly ash from coal-fired power plants in Tennessee and Alabama. To answer the question of just how harmful leaching could be, the scientists estimated radiation exposure around the coal plants and compared it with exposure levels around boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water nuclear power plants.

The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants.

McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors.

Dana Christensen, associate lab director for energy and engineering at ORNL, says that health risks from radiation in coal by-products are low. "Other risks like being hit by lightning," he adds, "are three or four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants." And McBride and his co-authors emphasize that other products of coal power, like emissions of acid rain–producing sulfur dioxide and smog-forming nitrous oxide, pose greater health risks than radiation.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains an online database of fly ash–based uranium content for sites across the U.S. In most areas, the ash contains less uranium than some common rocks. In Tennessee's Chattanooga shale, for example, there is more uranium in phosphate rock.

Robert Finkelman, a former USGS coordinator of coal quality who oversaw research on uranium in fly ash in the 1990s, says that for the average person the by-product accounts for a miniscule amount of background radiation, probably less than 0.1 percent of total background radiation exposure. According to USGS calculations, buying a house in a stack shadow—in this case within 0.6 mile [one kilometer] of a coal plant—increases the annual amount of radiation you're exposed to by a maximum of 5 percent. But that's still less than the radiation encountered in normal yearly exposure to X-rays.

So why does coal waste appear so radioactive? It's a matter of comparison: The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants—they're just somewhat higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million to one in a hundred million for coal plants."

Radiation from uranium and other elements in coal might only form a genuine health risk to miners, Finkelman explains. "It's more of an occupational hazard than a general environmental hazard," he says. "The miners are surrounded by rocks and sloshing through ground water that is exuding radon."

Developing countries like India and China continue to unveil new coal-fired plants—at the rate of one every seven to 10 days in the latter nation. And the U.S. still draws around half of its electricity from coal. But coal plants have an additional strike against them: they emit harmful greenhouse gases.

With the world now focused on addressing climate change, nuclear power is gaining favor in some circles. China aims to quadruple nuclear capacity to 40,000 megawatts by 2020, and the U.S. may build as many as 30 new reactors in the next several decades. But, although the risk of a nuclear core meltdown is very low, the impact of such an event creates a stigma around the noncarbon power source.

The question boils down to the accumulating impacts of daily incremental pollution from burning coal or the small risk but catastrophic consequences of even one nuclear meltdown. "I suspect we'll hear more about this rivalry," Finkelman says. "More coal will be mined in the future. And those ignorant of the issues, or those who have a vested interest in other forms of energy, may be tempted to raise these issues again."

*Editor's Note (posted 12/30/08): In response to some concerns raised by readers, a change has been made to this story. The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from "In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste" to "In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." Our source for this statistic is Dana Christensen, an associate lab director for energy and engineering at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as 1978 paper in Science authored by J.P. McBride and colleagues, also of ORNL.

As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.

Lest you think coal-fired power plants don't produce radioactive waste.

Saturday, March 19, 2011

Many Banks Are Clinging to Billions in Bailout Money - NYTimes.com

DealBook - A Financial News Service of The New York Times

March 18, 2011, 9:31 pm — Updated: 6:22 pm -->

Many Banks Are Clinging to Billions in Bailout Money

Minh Uong/The New York Times

Even as the nation’s biggest banks stepped further out of the government’s shadow on Friday, hundreds of financial institutions were still clutching to billions of taxpayers’ dollars.

Nearly 600 institutions, ranging from large regional powerhouses to small community banks, are holding on to more than $30 billion — about 13 percent of the $245 billion handed out to banks at the height of the financial crisis.

Some of the money will be paid back quickly. Two of the largest remaining bailout recipients, SunTrust and KeyCorp, swiftly announced plans to return their bailout funds, after getting a clean bill of health from the Federal Reserve on Friday.

But others will be slower to part with their federal money. A number of institutions like Synovus Financial and Regions Financial are struggling to return to profitability. Relatively healthy banks like M&T Bank and MB Financial are holding on to their emergency cash, while using the money to acquire other banks, make more loans and buy investments for their portfolios.

The rest of the bailout cash is scattered among community banks across the country. Many small lenders remain dependent on the low-cost capital. Dozens more like Security Business Bank of San Diego are simply swapping their federal rescue money for potentially cheaper financing from the same source: the government.

The situation underscores how difficult it is for the government to extricate itself from the financial system and the broader economy.

At the height of the financial crisis, the government opened its coffers, injecting much needed capital into the banking industry through the highly contentious Troubled Asset Relief Program. Wall Street titans, eager to shed the stigma and restrictions on executive compensation, quickly repaid the TARP money. A few smaller institutions did the same this month, putting the bank bailout program within a few dollars of breaking even.

The New York Times

The Treasury Department now estimates that it will turn a $12 billion profit on the initial bank bailout, mainly from its investment in Citigroup. “This program helped to support the nation’s small, medium and large banks during an unprecedented financial crisis,” said David Miller, the Treasury’s chief investment officer. “Since then, the markets have begun to stabilize, and we now estimate that taxpayers will see a healthy return on their investment.”

The government plans to earn $20 billion from all of its emergency investments in the banking industry. But its ultimate gain will depend on the 600 or so banks that are sitting on taxpayer dollars.

Some banks desperately need the money. More than 140 banks have missed their recent dividend payments to the government, according to an analysis by Linus Wilson, professor of finance at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. The financial institutions — including Bank of Blue Valley in Overland Park, Kan., and Anchor Bank in Madison, Wis. — risk defaulting on their federal debt, said Professor Wilson. The group collectively owes the government about $4 billion.

Mark A. Fortino, Blue Valley’s chief financial officer, said his bank has enough capital to catch up on its dividend payments. The bank, however, may hold on to its original bailout funds for up to three years, Mr. Fortino said.

“Frankly, a 5 percent dividend is very attractive financing,” Mr. Fortino said. “It’s given us the cushion to be an active lender.”

Anchor Bank did not returns calls asking for comment.

Other banks like Synovus Financial are current on their payments, but bleeding money. The lender based in Columbus, Ga., which owes the United States nearly $1 billion, recently posted its 10th consecutive quarterly loss. It also faces civil lawsuits stemming from soured investments in luxury resorts.

“The repayment of TARP is not their greatest concern at this point,” said Brett Scheiner, an analyst with FBR Capital Markets. “The main thing they care about is reducing their troubled loan balances.”

Synovus did not return calls seeking comment.

For banks in similarly weak positions, the only way to get off the government dole may be to find a deep-pocketed buyer. In December, Marshall & Isley, which owes the government $1.7 billion, agreed to a takeover by the BMO Financial Group of Canada. BMO plans to pay off the TARP cash before the deal closes.

The Whitney Holding Corporation, the oldest bank in New Orleans, agreed in December to merge with the profitable and healthy Hancock Holding Corporation. Hancock expects to repay Whitney’s $300 million in bailout funds, too.

“TARP is a driver of mergers,” said Christopher McGratty, an analyst with Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. “The solution is: Why not sell and let them pay it off for me?”

Dozens of other small banks are looking to the government to help them repay their bailout funds because many are finding it difficult to raise money in the capital markets

Under a new program designed to spur small business lending, community banks can exchange their rescue money for a potentially cheaper capital. So far, about 400 small banks have applied for $6 billion through the program, with about half planning to repay their bailout. Institutions that take advantage of the program can cut their government borrowing costs from 5 percent to as low as 1 percent, if they meet certain lending targets. Paul Rodeno, chief executive of Security Business Bank of San Diego, calls the program a “breath of fresh air” since he will immediately lower his interest payments — and use fresh money to pay back the bank’s $5.8 million bailout.

Even so, it’s hard to shake the “son of TARP” or “TARP Jr.” moniker that some Republicans initially gave the program. After all, banks are simply trading one form of federal aid for another.

While bigger banks have better access to capital, some are reluctant to repay the government, even though they are in decent financial shape. “There are definitely banks healthy enough to repay,” said Jim Sinegal, an analyst at research firm Morningstar. “Some of the more high-quality banks should be ready and willing to repay. It’s clearly a management decision at this point.”

Some banks worry that issuing new stock would hurt existing investors. The banks would prefer to delay offerings for months, in the hopes their stock prices will be higher. “They see tomorrow as a better day,” said Mr. Scheiner of FBR.

Meanwhile, banks are using the emergency funds to finance long-term operations. In November, M&T, which owes taxpayers $750 million, bought another bailout recipient Wilmington Trust, for $351 million. At the time, M&T said it was aiming to repay TARP funds “at some point in the near future.” The bank turned a $736 million profit last year.

Citizens Republic Bancorp in Flint, Mich., which has $300 million in bailout capital, used the money to make more loans and buy mortgage-backed securities, according to government records.

But politicians and federal officials want healthy banks to follow the lead of SunTrust and KeyCorp, rather than worrying about the stock price or other issues.

“It’s a better deal for the shareholders, not the taxpayer,” said Representative Patrick T. McHenry of North Carolina, the Republican chairman of the House oversight committee’s bailout panel. “Any institution that’s financially stable should pay back taxpayers as soon as possible.”

DCSIMG

Friday, March 18, 2011

The Forgotten Millions - NYTimes.com

March 17, 2011

The Forgotten Millions

More than three years after we entered the worst economic slump since the 1930s, a strange and disturbing thing has happened to our political discourse: Washington has lost interest in the unemployed.

Jobs do get mentioned now and then — and a few political figures, notably Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House, are still trying to get some kind of action. But no jobs bills have been introduced in Congress, no job-creation plans have been advanced by the White House and all the policy focus seems to be on spending cuts.

So one-sixth of America’s workers — all those who can’t find any job or are stuck with part-time work when they want a full-time job — have, in effect, been abandoned.

It might not be so bad if the jobless could expect to find new employment fairly soon. But unemployment has become a trap, one that’s very difficult to escape. There are almost five times as many unemployed workers as there are job openings; the average unemployed worker has been jobless for 37 weeks, a post-World War II record.

In short, we’re well on the way to creating a permanent underclass of the jobless. Why doesn’t Washington care?

Part of the answer may be that while those who are unemployed tend to stay unemployed, those who still have jobs are feeling more secure than they did a couple of years ago. Layoffs and discharges spiked during the crisis of 2008-2009 but have fallen sharply since then, perhaps reducing the sense of urgency. Put it this way: At this point, the U.S. economy is suffering from low hiring, not high firing, so things don’t look so bad — as long as you’re willing to write off the unemployed.

Yet polls indicate that voters still care much more about jobs than they do about the budget deficit. So it’s quite remarkable that inside the Beltway, it’s just the opposite.

What makes this even more remarkable is the fact that the economic arguments used to justify the D.C. deficit obsession have been repeatedly refuted by experience.

On one side, we’ve been warned, over and over again, that “bond vigilantes” will turn on the U.S. government unless we slash spending immediately. Yet interest rates remain low by historical standards; indeed, they’re lower now than they were in the spring of 2009, when those dire warnings began.

On the other side, we’ve been assured that spending cuts would do wonders for business confidence. But that hasn’t happened in any of the countries currently pursuing harsh austerity programs. Notably, when the Cameron government in Britain announced austerity measures last May, it received fawning praise from U.S. deficit hawks. But British business confidence plunged, and it has not recovered.

Yet the obsession with spending cuts flourishes all the same — unchallenged, it must be said, by the White House.

I still don’t know why the Obama administration was so quick to accept defeat in the war of ideas, but the fact is that it surrendered very early in the game. In early 2009, John Boehner, now the speaker of the House, was widely and rightly mocked for declaring that since families were suffering, the government should tighten its own belt. That’s Herbert Hoover economics, and it’s as wrong now as it was in the 1930s. But, in the 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama adopted exactly the same metaphor and began using it incessantly.

And earlier this week, the White House budget director declared: “There is an agreement that we should be reducing spending,” suggesting that his only quarrel with Republicans is over whether we should be cutting taxes, too. No wonder, then, that according to a new Pew Research Center poll, a majority of Americans see “not much difference” between Mr. Obama’s approach to the deficit and that of Republicans.

So who pays the price for this unfortunate bipartisanship? The increasingly hopeless unemployed, of course. And the worst hit will be young workers — a point made in 2009 by Peter Orszag, then the White House budget director. As he noted, young Americans who graduated during the severe recession of the early 1980s suffered permanent damage to their earnings. And if the average duration of unemployment is any indication, it’s even harder for new graduates to find decent jobs now than it was in 1982 or 1983.

So the next time you hear some Republican declaring that he’s concerned about deficits because he cares about his children — or, for that matter, the next time you hear Mr. Obama talk about winning the future — you should remember that the clear and present danger to the prospects of young Americans isn’t the deficit. It’s the absence of jobs.

But, as I said, these days Washington doesn’t seem to care about any of that. And you have to wonder what it will take to get politicians caring again about America’s forgotten millions. 

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Barbour Inflates Obama’s Job Losses | FactCheck.org

Barbour Inflates Obama’s Job Losses

March 15, 2011

Haley Barbour grossly exaggerated the nation’s job losses under President Barack Obama in a March 14 speech in Chicago.

Speaking to the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, the Republican governor of Mississippi urged his audience to look at the Obama administration’s record "in the last two years" on spending and job creation.

Barbour, March 14: Well, let’s look at their record: in the last two years the federal government spent $7 trillion and our economy lost seven million jobs. I guess we ought to be glad they didn’t spend $12 trillion!

Although not in Barbour’s prepared remarks, the New York Times reported that Barbour added to his joke when actually delivering his speech, saying: "I guess we ought to be glad they didn’t spend $12 trillion. We might have lost 12 million jobs.”

Barbour was going for a laugh, but he’s taking liberties in his laugh line. Let’s look at the record.

It’s true that the federal government has spent about $7 trillion over the past two fiscal years: $3.5 trillion in fiscal year 2010 and an estimated $3.8 trillion in the current fiscal year, as Table 1.1 of the president’s latest budget proposal shows. (It’s not exactly "the last two years," since the current fiscal year doesn’t end until Sept. 30, but it’s close enough.)

But Barbour is dead wrong about job losses in the last two years. He’s not even close.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, total nonfarm employment (the standard for measuring jobs) decreased by 3.24 million in Obama’s first two years in office, from January 2009 through January 2011. The job loss is even less if you look at "the last two years" — that is, the most recent 24-month period, from February 2009 through February 2011. By that measure, the job loss was 2.32 million jobs. That’s a lot of people out of work in either case, but it’s not even half the number that Barbour claimed.

It’s true that nearly 8.8 million jobs were lost between the most recent peak in January 2008 and when the job slump ended in February of 2010, according to recently revised BLS figures. (The loss was even worse than BLS had thought when we last looked at this subject.) About half were lost under Bush and half under Obama. But in the past year nearly 1.3 million jobs have been regained.

Any way you look at it, Barbour was way off.

We asked James Richardson, Barbour’s spokesman, how the governor arrived at the 7 million figure. We are waiting for a response and will pass it along if we get one.

– by Lauren Hitt

Monday, March 14, 2011

Short Sharp Science: Fukushima update: cracked fuel rods threaten meltdown

Fukushima update: cracked fuel rods threaten meltdown

| -->18:45 14 March 2011
=

nuke.jpg

(Image: DigitalGlobe)

Andy Coghlan and Michael Marshall, reporters

The situation at Japan's embattled Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant has grown worse. One of the plant's four reactors is now close to meltdown, and while that's bad, it's not as apocalyptic as it might sound. New Scientist asked nuclear scientists to explain what has happened, and what the risks are.

First, "there is no possibility of a nuclear explosion," explains Richard Wakeford of the University of Manchester's Dalton Research Institute. He says any such fears are "science fiction", as there is nowhere near enough radioactive uranium 235 in the reactor to create a nuclear explosion.

The real fear is that harmful radioactive material will escape from the reactor core.

Although all four reactors automatically shut down immediately after Friday's earthquake, engineers have struggled to cool down the reactor cores, because pumps that should have driven cooling water into the reactors failed. This meant that the reactors overheated, turning the water into steam.

The buildup of steam meant the pressure inside the reactor increased, making it impossible to pump more cooling water in. So the engineers vented the steam, carrying some radioactive caesium-137 and iodine-131 (both of which are produced by the uranium in the fuel rods) into the environment.

Michael Bluck of Imperial College London explains that the fuel rods are tubes of zircoloid stuffed with uranium dioxide. When these are not cooled enough, they swell up and can crack. At that point, radioactive caesium and iodine gases can escape. Bluck says:

When caesium was detected, that indicated that some of the rods had ruptured.

As the zircoloid heats up, it reacts with the cooling water to form hydrogen, which is a highly explosive gas. This was to blame for the dramatic explosions that damaged the outer buildings of reactors 1 and 3.

However, it is now reactor 2 that is causing the most concern. Replacement pumps intended to inject cooling water have repeatedly failed, meaning that water levels fell and the fuel rods overheated still further. According to Kyodo News:

Water levels sharply fell and the fuel rods were fully exposed for about 140 minutes in the evening as a fire pump to pour cooling seawater into the reactor ran out of fuel and it took time for workers to release steam from the reactor to lower its pressure, the government's nuclear safety agency said.

Then within the last few hours a further accident occurred. Kyodo News reports:

Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Monday fuel rods were fully exposed again in the No. 2 reactor of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant as of 11 p.m. TEPCO said a steam vent of the pressure container of the reactor that houses the rods was closed for some reason, leading to a sudden drop in water levels inside the reactor.

Meltdown?

This series of coolant failures has increased the chance that the fuel rods will start to melt. Bluck says:

If you fail to cool it, the uranium can melt and it will all fall to the bottom as a big soup.

But even if the rods do melt and sink to the base of the reactor vessel, this shouldn't be a problem unless the vessel itself breaks open. "The big question is whether the containment holds," says Wakeford. "There was a meltdown at Three-Mile Island in New York, but the vessel remained intact."

Wakeford says there is no chance of a "China syndrome" scenario, with the fuel burning its way right through to the earth's core with potential to blow up the planet.

The repeated coolant failures have made the situation much worse, because temperatures and pressures will have risen much more. The pressure vessel that contains the fuel rods will have some threshold beyond which it cannot cope, and will break open.


Health

If the pressure vessel does burst, radioactive gases would be released, mainly caesium-137 and iodine-131.

Radioactive iodine is the biggest problem, because if it contaminates drinking water or milk, it can be taken up by the thyroid gland, potentially leading to thyroid cancers as seen in the wake of Chernobyl. Wakeford says:

Children continued to drink heavily contaminated milk and got big doses. That's why we ended up with an excess of thyroid cancers after Chernobyl.

But Wakeford says that the Japanese authorities have not taken any chances, evacuating people to 20 kilometres away from the stricken reactors, dispensing iodine tablets which prevent take-up of the radioactive form of the element, and making sure they do not eat any contaminated fluids or food. Iodine 131 is short-lived, with half of it decaying away every eight days, so it will be gone "in three or four months," he says.

Much more long-lived, with a half life of 30 years, is the other potentially dangerous element that could be released: caesium-137. This has been the most problematic legacy of Chernobyl, as it was carried throughout western Europe by the wind. Wakeford says that the Japanese authorities need to do whatever they can to prevent it escaping.


Stopping it

The key to stopping radioactive material escaping is to cool down the reaction, and thus ensure that the pressure vessel remains intact. Bluck says:

You have to keep pumping water in to cool that mass, for as many years as it takes.

This is why the engineers at the plant have kept pumping water in, even though (as mentioned above) they had to keep venting the steam off to relieve the pressure, thus allowing some radioactive caesium and iodine to escape. He says that, based on the available information, the decision to keep venting the steam was "entirely reasonable", in order to avoid the far worse consequences of the pressure vessel bursting.

Japan has officially asked the IAEA to help with the crisis, Reuters reports.

This graphic illustrates where the affected power plants are:

6_1190311.jpg

1400 GMT, Monday 14 March 2011

Michael Marshall, environment reporter

japannuclearblog.jpg

A child evacuated from areas surrounding the Fukushima nuclear facilities damaged in Friday's massive earthquake is checked for radiation exposure with other residents Sunday, March 13, 2011, in Koriyama city, Fukushima prefecture, Japan. (Image:Wally Santana/AP/Press Association)

Japan is still battling to deal with the devastating consequences of Friday's magnitude-9.0 earthquake, the largest in the country's history, and the ensuing tsunami. The situation is being compounded by the threat of a nuclear accident - and now an erupting volcano is adding to the problem.

Engineers at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant are struggling to stabilise two reactors and prevent a serious radiation leak. At present, things seem to be taking a turn for the worse.

The plant has four reactors. An explosion destroyed the building surrounding reactor 1 on Saturday, but the reactor core apparently remains intact.

Reactor 3 is a greater threat because it uses a plutonium-uranium fuel mix, which poses a greater radiological risk. At 11:01 this morning (local time), the outer building exploded, but again the core appears to remain intact.

The Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), which runs the plant, is injecting seawater into the reactors to cool them down. But it is struggling with reactor 2, which has stopped cooling properly.

Reuters is now reporting that falling levels of seawater exposed at least some of the fuel rods to air, allowing them to heat up by several hundred degrees and possibly begin to melt. Tepco says it has begun pouring water into the reactor again to try to cool the rods down, but it cannot yet rule out a meltdown.

A meltdown could release significant levels of radiation into the environment, as the BBC explains:

This opens the possibility of a serious meltdown - where molten, highly radioactive reactor core falls through the floor of the containment vessel and into the ground underneath.

Three other nuclear power plants have reported problems, but as previously reported these appear to be under control.

Meanwhile, the New York Daily News reports that seventeen US navy crew members have been exposed to low-levels of radiation during disaster relief missions in Japan:

They were treated with soap and water and their clothes were discarded... The helicopters were also decontaminated. The US 7th Fleet... moved its ships further away due to "airborne radioactivity" and contamination found on its planes.

However it seems any danger is minimal:

The military noted, however, that the level of contamination was very low, and the ship movement was merely a precaution. "For perspective, the maximum potential radiation dose received by any ship's force personnel aboard the ship when it passed through the area was less than the radiation exposure received from about one month of exposure to natural background radiation from sources such as rocks, soil, and the sun," the Navy said.

Elsewhere, on Japan's southerly island Kyushu, the Shinmoedake volcano has begun erupting again. The volcano is part of the Kirishima volcano cluster. According to the LA Times:

Sunday's eruption, which was the biggest volcanic activity in Shinmoedake in 52 years, caused widespread destruction and panic. The blast could be heard for miles, and shattered windows four miles away. Hundreds of people fled the area as the volcano spewed debris, including hot ash and rocks, more than 6,000 feet in the air.

Shinmoedake erupted several times between 26 January and 4 February. After the eruptions ceased, heavy rain turned the accumulated ash to mud. On 17 February residents were urged to evacuate because of the risk of mudslides. Then a "lava dome" grew inside the volcano's crater, prompting volcanologists to warn of a further eruption.