The brain study that made news last year was the first time I started to have some doubt in these studies. They reported >5000 ug of MNPs per gram of brain tissue. That's 5 mg/g, or 0.5% by mass. That's doesn't seem reasonable. A plastic grocery bag is ~5 g, and the human brain is about 1.3 kg. So 0.5% by mass is the equivalent of more than 1 plastic bag's worth of plastic in the brain.

That study did perform microscopy and identified what look like inclusions, but their analysis indicated the inclusions were carbon-containing, which while consistent with plastic, doesn't really exclude natural biological material.

The evidence that would be convincing to me is to perform these tests on tissue that either pre-dates the widespread use of plastic (maybe pre-1960's?), or from subjects that had far less exposure to MNPs than typical. Of course MNPs have been detected all over the world, but I would expect some island or Amazon native tribes would have less exposure than the average American, and would therefore show less in their brains.

I'm not sure if this is related, but I know that during those windstorms Boulder intentionally cut power to many areas in order to reduce risk of wildfire if a power line went down. This is in response to a devastating wind-driven wildfire last year. I'm wondering if some of the NIST clocks were subject to this.

You're clearly confused about what NCAR does, especially in regard to hurricanes. Feel free to follow that link and see what NCAR does in that regard.

NCAR is a world leader in hurricane research that informs the hurricane models that NOAA (and others) use. NCAR hurricane research saves lives and property.

Sweet mercy, you can just look this up in seconds. NOAA does the official predicting, but much of the modeling and development of physics behind the models is from NCAR. This is literally the first google hit for "NCAR hurricane research":

https://ncar.ucar.edu/hurrican...

The fact that you didn't even do that simple check tells me you're not interested in a rational discussion or what's actually true.

That's data. They literally just took data and reported it. Welcome to science. The fact that it's got political ramifications does not mean NCAR is advocating for political action. Just because politicians have made the topic political doesn't mean scientists can't research it anymore.

"nothing useful from that has resulted in decades."

There are millions of people along the gulf coast and southeastern U.S. that rely on hurricane prediction models to know whether they're in danger as tropical storms are evolving across the Atlantic into hurricanes. Hurricane prediction models, constrained by NCAR hurricane flight data and research, are crucial to saving lives and property.

What's sad is that so many people in the southeastern US who are cheering for this dismantling are also benefiting the most from NCAR hurricane research.

I'm an atmospheric and soil scientist returning right now from the annual American Geophysical Union meeting in New Orleans, where atmospheric science is one of the largest sections of the 25,000-person conference and >60,000-member Union.

There was an emergency town hall at the meeting after the NCAR announcement on Wednesday. One of the largest ballrooms in the convention center (New Orleans) was packed for the town hall. At one point, a (non-NCAR) scientist asked anyone to stand up if they have collaborated with or used NCAR data in the past few years. At least 90% of the people in the room stood up. It was quite moving in person.

NCAR is a resource that has spent decades performing world-leading research. They are notably non-political, they don't advocate policy, they perform research, acquire data, and report it. They do a very wide range of research that is important for defense, air travel, aeronautics, meteorology, hurricane and tornado prediction, climatology, and air pollution. Note that I tucked climatology in that list - it's a fraction of the research they do.

An important point: the proposed "break up" is enormously inefficient and expensive. These NCAR scientists are in the same place because their research all overlaps enough that there is benefit to them being together. If they split into different sections, people will have to be relocated, laboratories will have to be moved (short term costs) and new support staff will be required at every new site (long term costs). So not only is this a bad idea in terms of science, it's costly.

If you're interested in contacting your senators and representatives to advocate for saving NCAR, here's a link to do so provided by AGU.

https://agu.quorum.us/campaign...

I watched it and I don't really see how the AI/slop aspect would be what makes it a crappy advert. It's not great, but it's not what sinks the ad. I think it backfired because they come across as profiting from anti-christmas and anti-holiday frustration. Whether the holidays suck for you or not, having a commercial that's effectively saying they'd like to profit from your suffering is distasteful. I would also say that my stress level definitely doesn't go *down* when I walk into a McD's.

Same for me. Paying online is more convenient for everyone, including the utility, since they don't have to pay someone to open the envelope and pull out the check. Yet they want to charge me for making their lives easier. No way.

Agreed. There is no reason not to bring one of the other cabins in quickly and then spend a few months/years replacing the spare. This feels like a lot of drama over a minor (albeit weird) event.

On the other hand if the flying maintenance cabin caused damage elsewhere on the pad, that's a different problem that may take longer to fix.

The company I work for has had good results with our anti-phishing efforts. Our IT folks now have about 10 yrs of data showing that the fail rate dropped dramatically once they started sending fake phishing emails that forced you to take a 10-minute waste of time training course every time you fell for them. When they let up on the frequency of the emails the fail rate went up. When they increased the frequency of them, the fail rate went down. They even stopped the program for a couple of years and then started it back up, and the initial fail rate was high, then dropped precipitously when the "punishment" for failure started to be enforced.

For our company at least, knowing that any suspicious email we get could have been sent from our own IT folks, and that if we click on it could result in a 10-minute waste of time, appears to be a deterrent.

I used to be pretty pissed with the nickel and diming of the whole industry until I realized that maybe we've just had it too good due to an antiquated model. When you go to a sports game, are all seat the same price? Do they give you free food and drinks? Do you have tons of legroom?

There's no fundamental rule that says all seats on a plane should be the same price, or that passengers are entitled to jam an oversized bag into overhead luggage without a fee, or that passengers are entitled to a snack and drink.

I predict there will be lots of complaining about the little annoying fees for the next few years, then we'll all adapt and just remember fondly those days when you didn't have to pay for nuts on a flight.

"unelected eggheads" have brought you cancer treatments, atomic clocks, humans on the moon, nuclear power, genome mapping, rovers on Mars, fewer deaths from heart disease, new chemical elements, the neutrino, and thousands of other discoveries. They did all that for Democrat and Republican presidents.

But I guess those achievements didn't make America great, so it would have been better if we hadn't put taxpayer money toward them. Yeah, definitely would have been better if China or Russia or Europe had figured that stuff out instead.

The investment loss is, in my opinion something that should really be resonating with people that are worried about reducing the federal budget, yet doesn't. Billions of dollars have been spent investing in government scientists, like those at NOAA, NASA, NIH, EPA, and other agencies. They have become highly skilled workers, trained and paid with taxpayer money starting in grad school. Firing them is a statement to the taxpayers that the administration doesn't care about their investment. On top of that, if they leave the U.S. for Canada, Europe, China, etc, we're providing taxpayer-money-trained scientists to other countries. That's a gift to those other countries.

If those scientists are working on something that doesn't align with the government's policies, then the government could alter the direction of the research internally. Stop providing internal funding for project A, and instead offer funding for project B. If the government feels that there is too much investment in a particular organization (e.g., NOAA), then they can freeze hiring to reduce the workforce as older scientists retire. In both of these cases (redirection and hiring freeze) you're either spending taxpayer money differently or slowly stopping the spending, but you're not abandoning the investment.

I work with many of these government scientists in the environmental sciences. They aren't so narrowly skilled that they can't shift gears. Of course there may be some that prefer to leave rather than shift gears to other projects. But that attrition will be far less than mass firings that get rid of people that could still be doing science that the government wants them to do.

This is, of course, predicated on the assumption that the administration is a) interested in federal research and truth-based policy-making, and b) is trying not to waste taxpayer money. I concede that both of those are questionable assumptions with this administration.

Because 10-15 years ago smartphones weren't in every high schooler's hands. It has become an ever more pressing issue in recent years with the explosion of social media platforms.

I'll believe this argument when there's actual evidence, as opposed to teachers' and school counselors' organizations that have been advocating for this for several years. As someone else said, high schoolers aren't using their phones the way adults do. They don't read the news in school, they don't care about current events in the way adults do. Cell phones are the mechanism by which they form their social structure. And since social interaction is so important to teens, it's what they primarily use their phones for.