- Published on
***References embedded in the text as hyperlinks***
Business Insider - data reflects information prior to April 24, 2020
How can you reopen something that was never closed?
With several states relaxing “shelter in place” orders this past weekend, America is poised to find out.
To be clear, all this talk of reopening the economy and getting back to normal is premature; full stop!!!
This is a pandemic. The word pandemic means that this is a global epidemic. In other words, the virus is agnostic, and it does not care about or respect our manmade, imaginary state borders. It does not care what you or your Mayor or your Governor thinks, and it does not care that you need to get back to work. It will affect every state. In fact, it already has.
And although many states and local jurisdictions have taken extensive measures to “close” their economies, the USA as a whole has not. Several states have never issued shelter in place orders, and there is tremendous variation in what such orders mean from state to state. Now states are "reopening."
With several states relaxing “shelter in place” orders this past weekend, America is poised to find out.
To be clear, all this talk of reopening the economy and getting back to normal is premature; full stop!!!
This is a pandemic. The word pandemic means that this is a global epidemic. In other words, the virus is agnostic, and it does not care about or respect our manmade, imaginary state borders. It does not care what you or your Mayor or your Governor thinks, and it does not care that you need to get back to work. It will affect every state. In fact, it already has.
And although many states and local jurisdictions have taken extensive measures to “close” their economies, the USA as a whole has not. Several states have never issued shelter in place orders, and there is tremendous variation in what such orders mean from state to state. Now states are "reopening."
Business Insider - data reflects information as of April 27, 2020
So let me tell you a little story…
I’m originally from the cold weather state of Michigan. And in Michigan, if a door is open in a home in the cold of February, we close the door.
Why, you ask?
Because it’s cold outside!!!
If the door is 5-feet wide, closing it 4 feet and 11 inches is not enough. Yes, just 1 inch of cold air blowing inside of a warm home in the middle of February in Michigan is a problem; a BIG problem. If you don’t know where a cold draft is coming from, you look at every door and every window to find out where that cold draft is coming from. Once you find it, you close the door, ALL THE WAY!
And here’s the kicker; once the door is closed, NO ONE asks the question, “can we reopen the door now?”
You know why no one asks that question? BECAUSE IT’S STILL COLD OUTSIDE!!!
Ultimately, we reopen the door when the weather conditions outside have improved.
Did you get that?
Talk of reopening the economy is premature because:
By the way, we still don’t know so many things about this novel coronavirus. But we do know that shelter in place orders can limit its devastation. We know this from other countries that put in place shutdown orders. We also know this from cities & states here that are now seeing declining numbers of cases and deaths as a result of putting in place strict shelter in place orders (e.g. Seattle, New York).
Yet there are folks protesting such orders.
I find these “Constitutional Rights” protests at various State Capitals frustrating. I understand the protester’s fears, concerns and sentiments. And yes, we have a Constitution that guarantees us certain freedoms. But EVERYONE has these fears, concerns and sentiments; not just the protesters. The protesters are not unique in their desire to ‘restart’ the economy. Everyone wants to go to work to continue making a living. Everyone wants to be able to go to the malls, restaurants, churches, concerts and sporting events. We all want to freely visit our friends and loved ones. And we all want to exercise our Constitutional Freedoms.
The protesters ARE NOT SPECIAL!
Sadly, by not adhering to stay at home recommendations, regulations and laws, the protesters are prolonging the amount of time the economy suffers.
I find Mayors, Governors, and religious leaders who are “reopening” barber shops, beaches, tattoo parlors and churches while COVID-19 cases in their areas haven’t consistently declined – actions that are in direct defiance of the guidelines set out by the White House – to be irresponsible.
But here we are. So here’s my solution:
If people want to go to work, despite the advice of scientists & medical professionals from the CDC & NIH, and despite local & state regulations and White House recommendations, let them. BUT, those people should be required to sign a waiver indicating that they waive their right to be seen by doctors if they get sick with anything. The waiver needs to be strapped to the person at all times so 1st responders and hospitals know not to risk saving that person’s life. It would be likened unto a “do not resuscitate” notice that people put in their Wills. It would be those person’s way of ‘putting their money where their mouth is.’
To the states that reopen in direct opposition to the sensible guidelines outlined by the White House, go ahead and open up the businesses in your states. But in so doing, you forfeit any claim to future Federal aid that goes to states to combat the coronavirus.
Reopening the economy now is the wrong decision, and I can’t even believe we are having this discussion right now. It’s still ‘cold’ outside!
-Dr. Boyd “The Chemist”
So let me tell you a little story…
I’m originally from the cold weather state of Michigan. And in Michigan, if a door is open in a home in the cold of February, we close the door.
Why, you ask?
Because it’s cold outside!!!
If the door is 5-feet wide, closing it 4 feet and 11 inches is not enough. Yes, just 1 inch of cold air blowing inside of a warm home in the middle of February in Michigan is a problem; a BIG problem. If you don’t know where a cold draft is coming from, you look at every door and every window to find out where that cold draft is coming from. Once you find it, you close the door, ALL THE WAY!
And here’s the kicker; once the door is closed, NO ONE asks the question, “can we reopen the door now?”
You know why no one asks that question? BECAUSE IT’S STILL COLD OUTSIDE!!!
Ultimately, we reopen the door when the weather conditions outside have improved.
Did you get that?
Talk of reopening the economy is premature because:
- We (the USA) have not yet fully closed the economy/society as a collective whole. Logically, it is impossible to “reopen” something that was never closed.
- It’s still ‘cold outside,’ and in some places getting ‘colder.’ The coronavirus pandemic is still very much alive in most of the country, with very few places having had a sustained, consecutive decrease in deaths or cases for the recommended 2 weeks.
- We still don’t have enough tests to confirm whether or not someone is coronavirus positive.
- There are still shortages in personal protective equipment (PPE).
By the way, we still don’t know so many things about this novel coronavirus. But we do know that shelter in place orders can limit its devastation. We know this from other countries that put in place shutdown orders. We also know this from cities & states here that are now seeing declining numbers of cases and deaths as a result of putting in place strict shelter in place orders (e.g. Seattle, New York).
Yet there are folks protesting such orders.
I find these “Constitutional Rights” protests at various State Capitals frustrating. I understand the protester’s fears, concerns and sentiments. And yes, we have a Constitution that guarantees us certain freedoms. But EVERYONE has these fears, concerns and sentiments; not just the protesters. The protesters are not unique in their desire to ‘restart’ the economy. Everyone wants to go to work to continue making a living. Everyone wants to be able to go to the malls, restaurants, churches, concerts and sporting events. We all want to freely visit our friends and loved ones. And we all want to exercise our Constitutional Freedoms.
The protesters ARE NOT SPECIAL!
Sadly, by not adhering to stay at home recommendations, regulations and laws, the protesters are prolonging the amount of time the economy suffers.
I find Mayors, Governors, and religious leaders who are “reopening” barber shops, beaches, tattoo parlors and churches while COVID-19 cases in their areas haven’t consistently declined – actions that are in direct defiance of the guidelines set out by the White House – to be irresponsible.
But here we are. So here’s my solution:
If people want to go to work, despite the advice of scientists & medical professionals from the CDC & NIH, and despite local & state regulations and White House recommendations, let them. BUT, those people should be required to sign a waiver indicating that they waive their right to be seen by doctors if they get sick with anything. The waiver needs to be strapped to the person at all times so 1st responders and hospitals know not to risk saving that person’s life. It would be likened unto a “do not resuscitate” notice that people put in their Wills. It would be those person’s way of ‘putting their money where their mouth is.’
To the states that reopen in direct opposition to the sensible guidelines outlined by the White House, go ahead and open up the businesses in your states. But in so doing, you forfeit any claim to future Federal aid that goes to states to combat the coronavirus.
Reopening the economy now is the wrong decision, and I can’t even believe we are having this discussion right now. It’s still ‘cold’ outside!
-Dr. Boyd “The Chemist”
- Published on
I might have the coronavirus, but I may never know!
On Tuesday, March 10th, I was at work when I started to feel what I thought were cold symptoms. I had a scratchy throat, the sniffles and a cough all of a sudden. I didn’t think it was of much concern, and it was near the end of the work day. Typically, I would’ve just stayed the last hour of the workday and gone home. But given the sensitivity surrounding the coronavirus, I decided that I didn’t want to get suspicious glares and awkward looks from my co-workers. So I immediately packed up my stuff, left my cubicle and went home.
On Tuesday, March 10th, I was at work when I started to feel what I thought were cold symptoms. I had a scratchy throat, the sniffles and a cough all of a sudden. I didn’t think it was of much concern, and it was near the end of the work day. Typically, I would’ve just stayed the last hour of the workday and gone home. But given the sensitivity surrounding the coronavirus, I decided that I didn’t want to get suspicious glares and awkward looks from my co-workers. So I immediately packed up my stuff, left my cubicle and went home.
Once I got home, I took some over-the-counter medicine to prevent the “cold” symptoms from getting worse. I stayed home from work the next two days, and on that Thursday, I called my doctor’s office to see if I could get an appointment because I had some congestion, and I was concerned that I had an ear infection. I was told that the doctor’s office was only taking patients who were likely coronavirus cases, but that I could go to the Urgent Care facilities that my physician was associated with. Because I didn’t think I had anything more than a cold and/or ear infection, I didn’t go to the Urgent Care place; it didn’t seem “urgent.”
I was also experiencing tightness in the center of my lower chest. I thought it was either gassy indigestion, or food that didn’t settle well in my chest and needed to just "pass through." I 1st noticed this on Wednesday, and it persisted through Thursday. Thursday I took some antacid tablets, believing it would release the pressure in my chest.
I was also experiencing tightness in the center of my lower chest. I thought it was either gassy indigestion, or food that didn’t settle well in my chest and needed to just "pass through." I 1st noticed this on Wednesday, and it persisted through Thursday. Thursday I took some antacid tablets, believing it would release the pressure in my chest.
Not feeling as bad as I had the prior few days, I returned to work on Friday (although the tightness in my chest was still very much present). But early in the workday, I had a free moment at my computer, and I read an article outlining symptoms of the coronavirus. The prevailing symptom seemed to be a fever, which I didn’t have. I had a cough, but it wasn’t particularly strong or dry. However, I did have a very noticeable tightness in my chest. And it was that symptom of the coronavirus that made me think that I should go see a doctor.
This time I actually just went over to my doctor’s office. Despite the tightness in my chest, his staff let me know that he was unavailable for anyone who did not have a fever and a dry cough (but especially a fever). So I immediately went over to the Urgent Care facilities. Fortunately, and perhaps surprisingly, there wasn’t a line. When I finally got checked out, I was tested for strep throat and the flu. I tested negative for both. The doctor did note that there was fluid in my lungs. To further establish this, I was placed on a nebulizer for a few minutes, and the difference in the sound of my lungs seemed to confirm to the doctor that I had pneumonia (or possibly bronchitis). I was given a prescription for levofloxacin, and told that if my condition worsened after taking the medicine, then (and only then) would they test me for the coronavirus.
This time I actually just went over to my doctor’s office. Despite the tightness in my chest, his staff let me know that he was unavailable for anyone who did not have a fever and a dry cough (but especially a fever). So I immediately went over to the Urgent Care facilities. Fortunately, and perhaps surprisingly, there wasn’t a line. When I finally got checked out, I was tested for strep throat and the flu. I tested negative for both. The doctor did note that there was fluid in my lungs. To further establish this, I was placed on a nebulizer for a few minutes, and the difference in the sound of my lungs seemed to confirm to the doctor that I had pneumonia (or possibly bronchitis). I was given a prescription for levofloxacin, and told that if my condition worsened after taking the medicine, then (and only then) would they test me for the coronavirus.
If you are wondering why I would be concerned about having the coronavirus after I had already been given a diagnosis of pneumonia, it is because many people who have COVID-19 (the disease caused by the coronavirus) are actually dying of pneumonia. And though I didn’t have the common fever, not everyone who has COVID-19 presents with a fever, or noticeable symptoms at all. I was also concerned because if I indeed had COVID-19, I could unknowingly pass it to others, like my wife and baby daughter.
After my diagnosis, I spoke with some of my friends who are doctors and nurses, and who are seeing COVID-19 patients. One of them told me that at her hospital, the pressure in my chest alone would have been enough to warrant a check for coronavirus. But not in my area of the country.
And this is one of the problems with how we are approaching this crisis. There is no uniformity in testing criteria for it, and there aren’t enough tests.
So I could be a carrier of the coronavirus and contagious. But because I didn’t meet the criteria of my local health officials to be tested, I may never know. Basically I need to run a fever, have a cough and still have tightness in my chest.
After my diagnosis, I spoke with some of my friends who are doctors and nurses, and who are seeing COVID-19 patients. One of them told me that at her hospital, the pressure in my chest alone would have been enough to warrant a check for coronavirus. But not in my area of the country.
And this is one of the problems with how we are approaching this crisis. There is no uniformity in testing criteria for it, and there aren’t enough tests.
So I could be a carrier of the coronavirus and contagious. But because I didn’t meet the criteria of my local health officials to be tested, I may never know. Basically I need to run a fever, have a cough and still have tightness in my chest.
Fortunately, since I began taking the levofloxacin, the tightness in my chest has substantially decreased. But as a precaution, I have not touched my wife or daughter in days. I’m staying in a separate room and using our guest bathroom exclusively. Yet I am worried that my wife and baby daughter are at risk because I could realistically be coronavirus positive and contagious.
Here is the critical question that we face as a nation:
If you can have the virus without showing symptoms, but we’re only testing people with the most obvious symptoms, how are we ever going to be able to stop it?
So I may indeed have the coronavirus, but because of the mishandling of this crisis, I may never know!
-Dr. Boyd “The Chemist”
Here is the critical question that we face as a nation:
If you can have the virus without showing symptoms, but we’re only testing people with the most obvious symptoms, how are we ever going to be able to stop it?
So I may indeed have the coronavirus, but because of the mishandling of this crisis, I may never know!
-Dr. Boyd “The Chemist”
- Published on
In my lifetime I’ve driven through the tropical storm remnants of a hurricane, experienced several blizzards and have lived through dozens of storms that have spawned tornados. The anxiety that accompanies natural disasters is real and can be very unsettling. That anxiety is amplified when there is no place to go for shelter ahead of the storm, and no place in which to take refuge during or after the storm. Unfortunately this anxiety, which is currently on full display in the wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, is felt and experienced by millions of Americans far too often.
In August 2011, I was in Washington, DC when the rare and unusual magnitude 5.8 earthquake hit the area. Once the ground began shaking, many people were immediately worried that a bomb had exploded and that the city was under attack. This was understandable considering that many of the people in the area were also around for the 9/11 attacks a decade earlier. What surprised me, though, was how disorganized and unprepared for an attack (or an earthquake) the nation's capital was 10 years after 9/11 and 6 years post-Hurricane Katrina. There was a mad crush of people attempting to drive home, causing major traffic jams (thus making everyone more vulnerable had it been an actual attack), and cell phone service was hampered with everyone trying to call loved ones in the moments after the quake. Procedures on how to properly evacuate or where to shelter were unclear, leading to further distress. And I kept thinking, had this actually been an attack we would have been in really bad shape. I have a similar feeling now as I watch millions of people scramble to find shelter before Irma and after Harvey.
In the aftermath of events like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, shouldn’t we be better at disaster sheltering and evacuation efforts as a nation? What (civilian) procedures are in place if we are attacked again??
In August 2011, I was in Washington, DC when the rare and unusual magnitude 5.8 earthquake hit the area. Once the ground began shaking, many people were immediately worried that a bomb had exploded and that the city was under attack. This was understandable considering that many of the people in the area were also around for the 9/11 attacks a decade earlier. What surprised me, though, was how disorganized and unprepared for an attack (or an earthquake) the nation's capital was 10 years after 9/11 and 6 years post-Hurricane Katrina. There was a mad crush of people attempting to drive home, causing major traffic jams (thus making everyone more vulnerable had it been an actual attack), and cell phone service was hampered with everyone trying to call loved ones in the moments after the quake. Procedures on how to properly evacuate or where to shelter were unclear, leading to further distress. And I kept thinking, had this actually been an attack we would have been in really bad shape. I have a similar feeling now as I watch millions of people scramble to find shelter before Irma and after Harvey.
In the aftermath of events like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, shouldn’t we be better at disaster sheltering and evacuation efforts as a nation? What (civilian) procedures are in place if we are attacked again??
Now let me say very clearly that for numerous reasons, natural disasters are very difficult to prepare for, and there are thousands of incredible disaster-relief workers who do a tremendous job in bringing assistance to areas that have been ravaged by events like hurricanes. I am grateful for these people and do not disparage them at all.
That said, I think it is time for us to have a serious national conversation about what we can do better in disaster relief, such that people aren’t distressed about having no place to go when an imminent storm (such as Irma) is headed their way. There should also be a better way to do communications such that cell phone service is not impeded when large groups of people, gathered in one location, seek to send or receive calls. And what can we do about infrastructure; including places to house or shelter people?
This is perhaps where people working in the STEM fields can help out. We can design better levee systems to prevent floods and storm surges in flood vulnerable areas. Through technological innovations we can develop new ways to do telecommunications. In terms of infrastructure, architects and engineers could propose new types of buildings that can better withstand natural disasters, and that can also house large numbers of people. Maybe engineers, geologists and environmental scientists could build safe and environmentally friendly ‘storm shelters’ reminiscent of (but better than) the ‘bomb shelters’ that were created during the early years of The Cold War. Perhaps local and state governments should have yearly evacuation drills in which everyone is required to participate. And what about the dramatic increase in gas prices accompanied by fueling stations running out of fuel (need I also mention the long gas station lines?); is there a way that statisticians can aid these fuel pump pricing and long line situations to make the process affordable and smoother?
I don’t have the answers on exactly what to do or who specifically to seek out for help, but I do know that we do not have mass evacuation plan discussions in most cities and states, and I’m convinced that the processes we do have in place can be significantly improved. Just ask the millions of people who were stuck in miles of traffic, or the folks who were at airport counters frantically trying to secure a flight out of recent storm-threatened areas.
How many times do we have to have the same distressful natural disaster response before we brainstorm ways to improve the process in earnest? I say that the time is now!
-Dr. Boyd ‘The Chemist’
That said, I think it is time for us to have a serious national conversation about what we can do better in disaster relief, such that people aren’t distressed about having no place to go when an imminent storm (such as Irma) is headed their way. There should also be a better way to do communications such that cell phone service is not impeded when large groups of people, gathered in one location, seek to send or receive calls. And what can we do about infrastructure; including places to house or shelter people?
This is perhaps where people working in the STEM fields can help out. We can design better levee systems to prevent floods and storm surges in flood vulnerable areas. Through technological innovations we can develop new ways to do telecommunications. In terms of infrastructure, architects and engineers could propose new types of buildings that can better withstand natural disasters, and that can also house large numbers of people. Maybe engineers, geologists and environmental scientists could build safe and environmentally friendly ‘storm shelters’ reminiscent of (but better than) the ‘bomb shelters’ that were created during the early years of The Cold War. Perhaps local and state governments should have yearly evacuation drills in which everyone is required to participate. And what about the dramatic increase in gas prices accompanied by fueling stations running out of fuel (need I also mention the long gas station lines?); is there a way that statisticians can aid these fuel pump pricing and long line situations to make the process affordable and smoother?
I don’t have the answers on exactly what to do or who specifically to seek out for help, but I do know that we do not have mass evacuation plan discussions in most cities and states, and I’m convinced that the processes we do have in place can be significantly improved. Just ask the millions of people who were stuck in miles of traffic, or the folks who were at airport counters frantically trying to secure a flight out of recent storm-threatened areas.
How many times do we have to have the same distressful natural disaster response before we brainstorm ways to improve the process in earnest? I say that the time is now!
-Dr. Boyd ‘The Chemist’
- Published on
As Texas and Louisiana recover from Hurricane Harvey, and while several Caribbean islands and Florida brace for Hurricane Irma, it has been heartening to see so many people – celebrities and common-folk alike – step up to the plate and provide assistance to those directly affected by Hurricane Harvey. But as I see footage of the devastation, it occurs to me that Hurricane Harvey hit during the same time of year that many students and teachers typically head back to school. In fact, it is common for major hurricanes to form and make landfall during ‘back-to-school’ time. Some of the most devastating storms hit during this time of year; Andrew hit Florida (and later Louisiana) in late August of 1992, Katrina made landfall August 29th, 2005, then Harvey made its presence felt just ahead of Labor Day a few days ago. And while schools in Texas and Louisiana are now closed due to the devastation left by Harvey, schools in Florida are closed in anticipation of Irma.
This got me thinking…
…what can scientists do to aid in situations like these?
No doubt, scientists are people too, and thus can assist by donating money, blood, food, or supplies. We can also assist by housing those displaced by the storm or by traveling to the devastated areas and assisting in rebuilding efforts.
But with respect to schools, I presume that many school buildings have been left destroyed in the wake of Harvey. And along with the buildings...books, computers, Bunsen burners and beakers were also likely destroyed or swept away. Furthermore many teachers will probably need several weeks themselves to recover from personal losses, and it is possible some of them may be among the fatalities. So it is obvious to me that one thing that scientists could do in the aftermath of Hurricanes is to specifically provide schools in the affected areas with resources to get the science programs back up and running.
In the same way that there are ‘clothing drives’ and ‘food drives’ that compassionate people can donate to in order to help disaster victims, maybe we can have ‘science class supply’ and ‘science textbook’ drives. Perhaps scientists who are available to teach could travel to the affected areas and fill-in as substitute science teachers while the local teachers get back on their feet. Maybe science ‘apps’ or software can be developed that students can use to learn from while their schools are rebuilt.
Now it could be the case that such outreach activities are already in place, and I just don’t know about them. If they are, great (and please, send me info about them)! But if not, I think there should be.
This got me thinking…
…what can scientists do to aid in situations like these?
No doubt, scientists are people too, and thus can assist by donating money, blood, food, or supplies. We can also assist by housing those displaced by the storm or by traveling to the devastated areas and assisting in rebuilding efforts.
But with respect to schools, I presume that many school buildings have been left destroyed in the wake of Harvey. And along with the buildings...books, computers, Bunsen burners and beakers were also likely destroyed or swept away. Furthermore many teachers will probably need several weeks themselves to recover from personal losses, and it is possible some of them may be among the fatalities. So it is obvious to me that one thing that scientists could do in the aftermath of Hurricanes is to specifically provide schools in the affected areas with resources to get the science programs back up and running.
In the same way that there are ‘clothing drives’ and ‘food drives’ that compassionate people can donate to in order to help disaster victims, maybe we can have ‘science class supply’ and ‘science textbook’ drives. Perhaps scientists who are available to teach could travel to the affected areas and fill-in as substitute science teachers while the local teachers get back on their feet. Maybe science ‘apps’ or software can be developed that students can use to learn from while their schools are rebuilt.
Now it could be the case that such outreach activities are already in place, and I just don’t know about them. If they are, great (and please, send me info about them)! But if not, I think there should be.
Certainly natural disasters come in a smorgasbord of ways, and can occur at any time of the year. Thus my suggestions are not limited to late summer hurricanes, but could also apply to victims of earthquakes, tornados, wildfires, floods, etc. And though science is my particular focus, these suggestions to assist schools in getting back to their feet certainly apply across the educational spectrum.
I’ll just finish this post by imploring anyone who has not donated some form of relief to the victims of Harvey to please do so; you never know when it will be you who needs assistance.
-Dr. Boyd ‘The Chemist’
I’ll just finish this post by imploring anyone who has not donated some form of relief to the victims of Harvey to please do so; you never know when it will be you who needs assistance.
-Dr. Boyd ‘The Chemist’
- Published on
I like to travel. I think it is always a great experience to see new things, discover new places and enjoy cultures different from my own. One of the cool things about being a research scientist is the fact that I frequently get the opportunity to travel to various places, both home and abroad, specifically because I am a scientist.
Let me explain…
One of the most important aspects of research science is the exchange of ideas, theories and data. And although there are many ways to exchange scientific ideas, including via the internet, one of the oldest and most effective methods is by actually discussing these ideas in-person and face-to-face. Because scientific research is being practiced in every corner of the earth, these in-person interactions often require scientists to travel.
Whether it is a small conference with less than 100 attendees, an invitation to present research at a college or university, or a massive international meeting featuring more than 10,000 researchers, traveling as a scientist can be both scientifically informative and location-wise explorative. Some conferences are located in the warmth of the tropics, while others can be found in the heart of skiing territory.
If you are a student or a post-doctoral researcher, there are often travel grants that can be used toward your travel and/or lodging to attend a conference. Take advantage while you can, because once you are a professional, costs go up. Plus, this will expose you to such scientific events like poster sessions, plenary lectures, and professional development seminars. And if you plan your time wisely, you can always find a way to take a moment for yourself and explore the area that the conference is located in.
In my short scientific career, I’ve traveled to Maine’s Atlantic coast, seen the Grand Teton Mountains in Wyoming, watched the sun rise over Sandia Mountain in New Mexico, and soaked up the sun at a resort town called Carefree, Arizona. Not only have I traveled to wonderful places within the USA, but I’ve also had the opportunity to present my research in other countries, like Cancun, Mexico and along the Mediterranean Sea in Spain. Had it not been for research events in those places, it is very unlikely that I would have ever seen them in person because outside of science, I had no particular reason to ever visit those specific places. Well maybe I would've visited Cancun, but not the others! :-)
And certainly, I’ve also presented my work at countless research conferences in familiar large cities (e.g. Atlanta, Boston, Detroit, DC, Indianapolis, LA, Miami, Orlando, San Diego, San Francisco) as well as at numerous large universities and small colleges throughout the country.
Although we are not wined and dined quite as luxuriously as a free agent athlete looking for a new team in a major sport, I have found that traveling as a scientist can be done at a reasonable cost, and it can provide the opportunity to expand your horizons intellectually and globally. Indeed, scientists travel too!
Pretty cool, huh?!!!
-Dr. Boyd, “the Chemist”
Let me explain…
One of the most important aspects of research science is the exchange of ideas, theories and data. And although there are many ways to exchange scientific ideas, including via the internet, one of the oldest and most effective methods is by actually discussing these ideas in-person and face-to-face. Because scientific research is being practiced in every corner of the earth, these in-person interactions often require scientists to travel.
Whether it is a small conference with less than 100 attendees, an invitation to present research at a college or university, or a massive international meeting featuring more than 10,000 researchers, traveling as a scientist can be both scientifically informative and location-wise explorative. Some conferences are located in the warmth of the tropics, while others can be found in the heart of skiing territory.
If you are a student or a post-doctoral researcher, there are often travel grants that can be used toward your travel and/or lodging to attend a conference. Take advantage while you can, because once you are a professional, costs go up. Plus, this will expose you to such scientific events like poster sessions, plenary lectures, and professional development seminars. And if you plan your time wisely, you can always find a way to take a moment for yourself and explore the area that the conference is located in.
In my short scientific career, I’ve traveled to Maine’s Atlantic coast, seen the Grand Teton Mountains in Wyoming, watched the sun rise over Sandia Mountain in New Mexico, and soaked up the sun at a resort town called Carefree, Arizona. Not only have I traveled to wonderful places within the USA, but I’ve also had the opportunity to present my research in other countries, like Cancun, Mexico and along the Mediterranean Sea in Spain. Had it not been for research events in those places, it is very unlikely that I would have ever seen them in person because outside of science, I had no particular reason to ever visit those specific places. Well maybe I would've visited Cancun, but not the others! :-)
And certainly, I’ve also presented my work at countless research conferences in familiar large cities (e.g. Atlanta, Boston, Detroit, DC, Indianapolis, LA, Miami, Orlando, San Diego, San Francisco) as well as at numerous large universities and small colleges throughout the country.
Although we are not wined and dined quite as luxuriously as a free agent athlete looking for a new team in a major sport, I have found that traveling as a scientist can be done at a reasonable cost, and it can provide the opportunity to expand your horizons intellectually and globally. Indeed, scientists travel too!
Pretty cool, huh?!!!
-Dr. Boyd, “the Chemist”
- Published on
Reduce. Reuse. Recycle!
That was the mantra that became the battle cry of the environmental revolution a few decades ago. It was in television commercials, printed on paper bags and emblazoned on common paraphernalia. There were even public service announcements emphasizing the phrase in children’s TV programs like “Captain Planet.”
Thanks to efforts such as the annual “Earth Day” observance beginning in 1970, the 1979 passing of the Resource Recovery Act, the founding of the EPA in 1980, and the “Three R’s” mantra, most Americans today have at least some level of awareness about earth conservation efforts. I would even venture to say that most people make some conscious effort to participate in these efforts, such as choosing to place a plastic water bottle in the recycling receptacle instead of the trash can while waiting to board a flight at the airport.
It is a good thing that a baseline environmental awareness level has been established about small things that we can all do to preserve our planet. But that baseline is clearly not enough!
I recently attended the Fall National Meeting of the American Chemical Society in Philadelphia, and I noticed something a bit surprising. At each National Meeting there is an Exposition, which is a large event featuring scores of vendors and companies who showcase their products to the conference attendees. At the opening of the Exposition there were small snacks, drinks and desserts served. Naturally these light refreshments were served on common plastic plates with plastic utensils and paper napkins. Upon finishing my treats, I ventured to the trash (to dispose of my plate and utensils) where I noticed two large waste receptacles; one was blue and labelled for recycling, and the other was black and was labelled ‘landfill.’ To my dismay, each container essentially became ‘trash,’ because the same waste items were present in each receptacle in roughly equivalent amounts.
This was disappointing.
I thought to myself, if the chemists – many of whom signed a ‘green’ pledge at this very conference – if they don’t know what is recyclable and what isn’t, then who does?
That was the mantra that became the battle cry of the environmental revolution a few decades ago. It was in television commercials, printed on paper bags and emblazoned on common paraphernalia. There were even public service announcements emphasizing the phrase in children’s TV programs like “Captain Planet.”
Thanks to efforts such as the annual “Earth Day” observance beginning in 1970, the 1979 passing of the Resource Recovery Act, the founding of the EPA in 1980, and the “Three R’s” mantra, most Americans today have at least some level of awareness about earth conservation efforts. I would even venture to say that most people make some conscious effort to participate in these efforts, such as choosing to place a plastic water bottle in the recycling receptacle instead of the trash can while waiting to board a flight at the airport.
It is a good thing that a baseline environmental awareness level has been established about small things that we can all do to preserve our planet. But that baseline is clearly not enough!
I recently attended the Fall National Meeting of the American Chemical Society in Philadelphia, and I noticed something a bit surprising. At each National Meeting there is an Exposition, which is a large event featuring scores of vendors and companies who showcase their products to the conference attendees. At the opening of the Exposition there were small snacks, drinks and desserts served. Naturally these light refreshments were served on common plastic plates with plastic utensils and paper napkins. Upon finishing my treats, I ventured to the trash (to dispose of my plate and utensils) where I noticed two large waste receptacles; one was blue and labelled for recycling, and the other was black and was labelled ‘landfill.’ To my dismay, each container essentially became ‘trash,’ because the same waste items were present in each receptacle in roughly equivalent amounts.
This was disappointing.
I thought to myself, if the chemists – many of whom signed a ‘green’ pledge at this very conference – if they don’t know what is recyclable and what isn’t, then who does?
And to be sure, I’ve definitely seen similar behavior in other public spaces in which both trash and recycling receptacles are present. Almost without fail, both receptacles are full of the same types of materials and are indistinguishable from each other apart from the label and/or the color on the exterior of the container.
In order to fix this, I think we need further, ‘yell it from the mountaintop’ awareness and education about what, where and how we can recycle the many things that often wrongly end up in the garbage. Because of those earlier efforts I mentioned, some things are commonly known to be recyclable. This list includes brown paper bags, soda bottles, white printer paper, soup cans, newspaper and glass beverage containers. We all know those things are recyclable, and indeed many people make an effort to place such items in the appropriate container so that they can be properly recycled. But as I peered into the trash and recycling receptacles at the ACS Exposition, I began to question my own understanding of what is recyclable and what is not.
Those plastic forks we used to eat with…are they recyclable? What about those black plastic plates we ate on? Are they recyclable?
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait!!!
The napkins that I used to wipe my mouth and hands with that are now covered in whip cream, frosting, maraschino cherry juice and chocolate. Can I recycle them…in that condition??
In the ensuing days my thinking and questions began to expand…
What about the wrapper that the gummy worms at the gas station convenience store come in; the ones that are sealed by a paper label, adhesive and staples at the top. Is that wrapper recyclable? If so, do I need to painfully remove the adhesive bound paper labeling and/or the staple??
What about the burrito wrapper that I ate from today that appears to be aluminum (a metal) on the exterior, but paper on the interior? Can I recycle that?? And I always wash and recycle plastic bottles that had food in them (e.g. strawberry jelly, salad dressing), but what about those household cleaning product containers that can be clear transparent, white, or a combination of colors (e.g. toilet boil cleaner, scratch removers, glass cleaner)…can I recycle those?
How about the paper that my snail mail comes in that has a plastic see-through window where my address appears? Can I recycle that…how?? How about all that plastic that encases my deodorant; I’ve always just thrown those away once the deodorant was used up. Should I be recycling that too?
Then there are spray cans, ranging in use from bug spray to cooking oil to air fresheners. What in the world do I do with them once the spray has been used up? How about used light bulbs, expended batteries, old cell phones and computers????
Overwhelming, you say? Agreed. And I know I’m not the only one with these questions…I’ve seen what people put in the recycling receptacle.
My concern is that certainly some of the things I mentioned above can be recycled, while others may not be. My suspicion is that some of the items that could and should be recycled aren’t being recycled in part because the infrastructure to do so does not exist. Developing such an infrastructure requires research which costs time and money. This is a consideration that large companies and government entities are typically unwilling to seriously entertain without significant public outcry.
In order to fix this, I think we need further, ‘yell it from the mountaintop’ awareness and education about what, where and how we can recycle the many things that often wrongly end up in the garbage. Because of those earlier efforts I mentioned, some things are commonly known to be recyclable. This list includes brown paper bags, soda bottles, white printer paper, soup cans, newspaper and glass beverage containers. We all know those things are recyclable, and indeed many people make an effort to place such items in the appropriate container so that they can be properly recycled. But as I peered into the trash and recycling receptacles at the ACS Exposition, I began to question my own understanding of what is recyclable and what is not.
Those plastic forks we used to eat with…are they recyclable? What about those black plastic plates we ate on? Are they recyclable?
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait!!!
The napkins that I used to wipe my mouth and hands with that are now covered in whip cream, frosting, maraschino cherry juice and chocolate. Can I recycle them…in that condition??
In the ensuing days my thinking and questions began to expand…
What about the wrapper that the gummy worms at the gas station convenience store come in; the ones that are sealed by a paper label, adhesive and staples at the top. Is that wrapper recyclable? If so, do I need to painfully remove the adhesive bound paper labeling and/or the staple??
What about the burrito wrapper that I ate from today that appears to be aluminum (a metal) on the exterior, but paper on the interior? Can I recycle that?? And I always wash and recycle plastic bottles that had food in them (e.g. strawberry jelly, salad dressing), but what about those household cleaning product containers that can be clear transparent, white, or a combination of colors (e.g. toilet boil cleaner, scratch removers, glass cleaner)…can I recycle those?
How about the paper that my snail mail comes in that has a plastic see-through window where my address appears? Can I recycle that…how?? How about all that plastic that encases my deodorant; I’ve always just thrown those away once the deodorant was used up. Should I be recycling that too?
Then there are spray cans, ranging in use from bug spray to cooking oil to air fresheners. What in the world do I do with them once the spray has been used up? How about used light bulbs, expended batteries, old cell phones and computers????
Overwhelming, you say? Agreed. And I know I’m not the only one with these questions…I’ve seen what people put in the recycling receptacle.
My concern is that certainly some of the things I mentioned above can be recycled, while others may not be. My suspicion is that some of the items that could and should be recycled aren’t being recycled in part because the infrastructure to do so does not exist. Developing such an infrastructure requires research which costs time and money. This is a consideration that large companies and government entities are typically unwilling to seriously entertain without significant public outcry.
But we need to have a much deeper dialogue about options to improve our recycling practices, and then take the necessary steps to implement them. This will require a significant amount of education for the general public about exactly what can or can’t be recycled. It will also require a commitment by the government and large corporations to research better ways to provide consumers with products that can be recycled.
We are long overdue for a nationwide recycling evaluation, because we definitely need to raise that baseline awareness bar concerning recycling. We can do much better!
-Dr. Boyd, The Chemist
We are long overdue for a nationwide recycling evaluation, because we definitely need to raise that baseline awareness bar concerning recycling. We can do much better!
-Dr. Boyd, The Chemist