Beautiful, Clean, Coal?

Beautiful, Clean, Coal – Really?

       America’s chief executive, in his State of the Union address, once again assumed the missionary position for the energy lobby. His exact words? “We have ended the war on American Energy and we have ended the war on beautiful clean coal. We are now, very proudly, an exporter of energy to the world.”

       In truth, this is three lies. Two are venal sins, one mortal. To begin with, there isn’t, and never has been, a “war” on American energy. That’s simply Republicanese for “any attempts to preserve the environment for posterity.” Also, in truth, the United States is still a net energy importer at present, in spite of the Great Cheetoh’s claim to the contrary. When it comes to individual energy sources, the U.S. status as a net exporter of coal and refined petroleum products predates Trump and has nothing to do with the current administration. The third and far more egregious lie was the use of the word “Clean” in any sentence which also contains the word “coal.”

        I will for brevity’s sake, not revisit the medical effects on those who work in the production phase of coal, since there are (literally) volumes of data and a documented history of corporate denial and governmental inactivity on behalf of the thousands of black lung and cancer victims of the coal industry in Appalachia. Apparently, the assumptions of the corporate entities in New York (you didn’t really think they’d live in East Buttf**k Kentucky, did ya?) were:  a) “They’re poor and have no advocates” and 2) “They’re also illiterate and don’t vote.”

       Accordingly, and since I have not only the time and the disdain for coal fiction, but also because I worked for decades in an industry which unlike coal is safe and clean – nuclear power I offer the following. Yeah, it's long, so?

       To begin with, I have distilled relevant data from several reputable sources regarding “beautiful, clean coal.”  

       The American Lung Association (ALA) recently released a report on the dramatic health hazards surrounding coal-fired power plants.  The report, headlined  “Toxic Air: The Case For Cleaning Up Coal-Fired Power Plants,” reveals the dangers of air pollution emitted by coal plants.

One statement which leaps off the page is: “Particle pollution from power plants is estimated to kill approximately 13,000 people a year.” As it turns out, it isn’t even a contest, for who wins the air pollution derby.  “Coal-fired power plants that sell electricity to the grid produce more hazardous air pollution in the U.S. than any other industrial pollution sources.” The report further details, over 386,000 tons of air pollutants emitted from over 400 plants in the U.S. per year. Interestingly, while most of the power plants are physically located in the Midwest and Southeast, the entire nation is threatened by their toxic emissions.

       An ALA graph accompanying the report shows that while pollutants such as acid gases stay in the local area, metals such as lead and arsenic travel beyond state lines, and fine particulate matter has a global impact. In other words, while for some workers the pollution may be a tradeoff for employment at a plant, other regions don’t reap the same benefits, but still pay for the costs to their health.

        One facet of this report is the connection of specific pollutants to the diseases with which they are associated.  According to the ALA study, 76% of U.S. acid gas emissions, which are known to irritate breathing passages, come from coal-fired power plants. Out of all industrial sources, these plants are also the biggest emitter of airborne mercury, which can become part of the human food chain through fish and wildlife — high mercury levels are linked to brain damage, birth defects, and damage to the nervous system. Overall, air pollutants from coal plants can cause heart attacks, strokes, lung cancer, birth defects, and premature death.

       The three main pollutants from coal-fired power stations are sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and invisible particulate matter. Collectively, they act as irritants and cause inflammation in the lungs leading to asthma, chronic lung disease, and restricted lung growth in children. The small particles are associated with lung cancer and are also absorbed through the lungs into the blood stream to cause angina, heart attacks and strokes.

       Research estimates that 24 people die for every terawatt hours (TWh) of coal burnt. Children are at even higher  risk from air pollution because they breathe more for their body weight than adults.

Another report, authored by three University of Wisconsin researchers, was entitled “Estimating the Health Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Plants Receiving International Financing”

The authors summarized what is a large technical study thus: “Summary:  In addition to the environmental and human health harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions, coal-fired power plants emit massive amounts of toxic air pollutants that result in significant numbers of deaths and disease. We estimate that between roughly 6000 and 10,700 annual deaths from heart ailments, respiratory disease and lung cancer can be attributed to the 88 coalfired power plants and companies receiving public international financing.”

       “Air pollution from coal-fired power plants is also associated with other health outcomes, including infant deaths, asthma and other lung diseases.”  Clean and beautiful, huh?

Finally, some sobering numbers from a statistical survey actually done for the EPA (and, subsequently,  the subject of attempted suppression by the energy industry): “Coal is the largest energy source for generating electricity at U.S. power plants. There are approximately 1,200 coal-fired generators at 450 facilities in the United States. They generate about 44.6 percent of the country's electricity. There are approximately 125 coal-fired power facilities in the Southwest. Texas generates more electricity from coal-fired power plants than any other state in the country.

        Conclusions: “Coal-fired power plants are among the country's greatest sources of pollution. They are the biggest industrial emitters of mercury and arsenic into the air. They emit 84 of the 187 hazardous air pollutants identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as posing a threat to human health and the environment.”

        “Coal-fired power plants also emit cadmium, chromium, dioxins, formaldehyde, furans, lead, nickel, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. They emit volatile organic compounds, including benzene, toluene, and xylene. Emissions include acid gases such as hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride. Small amounts of radioactive materials such as radium, thorium, and uranium are also emitted.”

       A separate study done years later actually estimates the radioactivity (defined as the total amount of radioactive material released) of coal fired plant smokestack fly ash as 50 times that of any operating US nuclear power plant.

       Burning coal in power plants emits sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides react with precipitation in the atmosphere to form acid rain. Burning coal also produces particulate matter.    About 60 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 50 percent of mercury emissions, and 13 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions come from fossil-fueled power plants. Coal- and oil-fired power plants also account for about 60 percent of arsenic emissions, 30 percent of nickel emissions, and 20 percent of chromium emissions.

       The final and immutable truth is as follows, regardless of what the moron in charge alleges:

Coal-fired power plants account for 81 percent of the electric power industry's greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to global warming and climate change. The most significant greenhouse gas emitted by coal-fired power plants is carbon dioxide. They also emit smaller amounts of methane and nitrous oxide. The hazardous air emissions from coal-fired power plants cause serious human health impacts. Arsenic, benzene, cadmium, chromium compounds, TCDD dioxin, formaldehyde, and nickel compounds are listed as carcinogens in the Fourteenth Report on Carcinogens published by the National Toxicology Program. Furan and lead are listed as "reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens" in the Fourteenth Report on Carcinogens.

        Hazardous air pollutants emitted by coal-fired power plants can, and, statistically, do cause a wide range of health effects, including heart and lung diseases, such as asthma. Exposure to these pollutants can damage the brain, eyes, skin, and breathing passages. It can affect the kidneys, lungs, and nervous and respiratory systems. Exposure can also affect learning, memory, and behavior.

If, in the face of the above statistical data, you think coal is “clean” you are beyond either education or redemption.

        Now, one of the reflexive counters to the “facts of coal” argument is the mindless retort “Oh yeah, what about nuclear power?”  Let me lead off with two factual statements: Neither of the plant designs (especially safety systems) involved in the world’s two reactor accidents which resulted in the release of measurable contaminants to the environment (Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi) could have been licensed to operate in the United States.

       More significantly, there are other types of  reactor designs far more inherently stable and safe than current designs. If you still interested at this point, Google “liquid salt” reactors. We, the US, unlike earlier in the development of nuclear power, are lagging, vice leading, the rest of the industrialized world (Denmark, India, China, the UK) in the development of these, even safer, technologies. Further discussion here is therefore related to the current status and technology of US civilian nuclear power production.

       Perhaps the most powerful statement of the essentially zero effects of Nuclear power plants on the environment and its occupying humans comes from a former Boston investigative reporter, whose crusade took a radical change when she was subjected to real data.

        “As a reporter for a TV station in Boston I reported on a study suggesting an association between elevated leukemia rates and proximity to the Pilgrim Nuclear Power plant. I was proud to have broken such news, but subsequent investigation found no connection.”

     “Had I known then what I have come to know about the actual health effects of nuclear radiation I never would have reported the first story. And if critics of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission decision to end a new study on whether living near a nuke raises cancer risk were aware of this information, it’s likely they wouldn’t be as critical. Canceling it makes sense. Calling for the study in the first place didn’t.”

         “The science on radiation risk is clear. The risk is stunningly lower than commonly assumed, certainly far lower than I assumed when I reported on nuclear power issues. Even at the frighteningly high doses received by the hibakusha, the survivors of the atomic bombs in Japan who were within 3 miles of ground zero and were exposed not just in that one instant but for weeks and months and longer, the excess cancer risk is tiny. The chance of dying from radiation-induced cancer for the atomic bomb survivors was 2/3 of 1%! At more moderate doses, the 70 year-long and still-running Life Span Study of the hibakusha and their offspring (under the aegis of the Radiation Effects Research Foundation) has shown no rates of any radiogenic disease elevated above the normal rates in the non-exposed population. No multi-generational genetic damage either. (Even low doses cause birth defects if pregnant mothers are exposed.)”

“This all goes so dramatically against what is commonly assumed, and what I just took for granted in my reporting days. But it is hard evidence from one of the longest and most in-depth and independent epidemiological studies ever done.”

       Remember, this is a rare instance of a reporter discovering and then actually admitting that the data fails to support their initial belief and even more significantly showing that data and owning their error.

       And finally, not coal related, but as support for my assertion that nuclear power is a superior and light years safer alternative for Electric power production:

       This final paragraph comes from a study which, in its long form, is entitled, “Cancer in populations living near nuclear facilities. A survey of mortality nationwide and incidence in two states.” It is long, data filled, and technical, so I’ll close with just the abstract.

       “Reports from the United Kingdom have described increases in leukemia and lymphoma among young persons living near certain nuclear installations. Because of concerns raised by these reports, a mortality survey was conducted in populations living near nuclear facilities in the United States. All facilities began service before 1982. Over 900,000 cancer deaths occurred from 1950 through 1984 in 107 counties with or near nuclear installations. Each study county was matched for comparison to three "control counties" in the same region. There were 1.8 million cancer deaths in the 292 control counties during the 35 years studied. Deaths due to leukemia or other cancers were not more frequent in the study counties than in the control counties. For childhood leukemia mortality, the relative risk comparing the study counties with their controls before plant start-up was 1.08, while after start-up it was 1.03. For leukemia mortality at all ages, the relative risks were 1.02 before start-up and 0.98 after. (ed. Note: this is actually a lower cancer incidence than before the plants went on line! It also is absent any of the coal associated contaminants). If any plant specific cancer risk was present in US counties with nuclear facilities, it was too small to be detected with the methods employed.

        Summary. The next time Trump or anybody else tries to tell you that coal is clean or beautiful, you are encouraged to yell, “bullshit” at the television. Also, the next time some moron decides to play the nuclear scare card, inject a dose of sanity into the conversation. Finally, find out how your elected representatives feel on the coal/nuclear issue and then let them know how you feel.

Bulls**t by Any Other Name

Lies and platitudes we tell ourselves (and others)

            “There’s always room for Jello.”

No there’s not. Not “always.” Jello is just like any other liquid and it’s just as filling. The people who make Jello would like you to believe it is a magic, mass-less, flavor bomb, but it ain’t so. If it was, how would the carrots and cabbage stay in suspension? And, since we’re on the subject, I also find it difficult to imagine just how hungry the originator must have been when he or she looked at orange Jello, looked at carrots and said, “Hey! They’re both orange; I’ll bet these would be good together.” By this logic a lime Jello and green tomato mix should be really yummy!

        “MacDonald’s is only about fast food.”

Technically, I suppose this is true, but conceptually, McDonalds is also symbolic of bland, mundane, ordinary “for the masses” retailing. I mean, the shakes will barely even melt, rather deteriorating into a sort of slimy, non-dairy, glop. Carried into other areas of American life, there are other non-food concepts which are “McDonalds.”

       People magazine, The National Inquirer, and in fact, every single type of checkout line reading material is/are McDonalds. Most on line quizzes touting your “genius” status if you can answer more than half of the 5th grade geography questions? McDonalds. Twitter, Pinterest, Snapchat? All McDonald’s, seeming to feed, but leaving you somehow unsatisfied. Jersey Shore, Real Housewives of (your town here), Big Brother, Survivor? All vicarious mental McDonald’s meals for those with no life. Worst of all? Fox News - claiming to be journalism while sandwiching massive slabs of loathsome, unhealthy, op-ed between very thin slices of actual factual reportage. On second thought, strike that last. Even McDonald’s food is more digestible that Faux News .

        “Good things come to those who wait.”

     Sometimes, possibly, but what this platitude slides right past is really the crux of its intent. If what you are waiting for is the result of planning, nurture and forethought, then many times gratification ensues. If, however, the waiting you engage in is, for example, the failure to address a medical issue, whether due to inability to pay, or “If I don’t see a doctor, then I won’t have to think about it” fatalism, then it is unlikely that your wait will result in anything good. In like manner if the wait involves taking no responsibility to educate yourself, or learn salable skills, then, like many in those towns in Kentucky and West Virginia filled with “out of work” miners who refuse to retrain, the only thing good to come is continued reliance on public assistance. The alternate version of this platitude is “The Lord will provide,” also a sop to those, too lazy, superstitious or stupid to act in their own behalf.

      “Trump’s “Wall” would stop most “illegal” immigration since Mexicans are the vast majority of undocumented immigrants.”

      This canard remains a favorite of some Trump sycophants who cling to a rapidly decreasing list of things promised which may still be “on the table.” This faint hope dims their view of the multitude of truly detestable actions and verbal attacks levied in all directions by this most non-presidential of presidents. Without a listing of the mountain of data available, there are several singularly inarguable considerations which apply.

1)The states with the largest percentage increases in influx of undocumented aliens as of 2016 are: Louisiana, Oregon, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. Last time I looked, none of these abuts the northern Mexican border.

2) A significant portion of the current numbers of undocumented aliens entering are coming by air. It had better be a really, really, tall wall!

3) In the absence of any wall, the Obama administration did far more than any previous administration to reduce “illegal” immigration across the Mexican border. I only mention this because Trump derides Obama at every turn, discarding fact along the way.

4) When all immigrants are considered, several things jump out. First, as of 2016 India and China are now the top sources of “legal” immigration, with Mexico now third. Additionally, more of these immigrants (30% more!) than native born Americans hold college degrees.

5) Not "wall" specific, but indicative of the monumental ignorance of the man, Of the 1.4 million African immigrants who are 25 and older, 41% have a bachelor's degree, compared with 30% of all immigrants o f the same age range. (One recalls the "shithole" countries label placed on African nations in general.) Of the 19,000 U.S. immigrants from Norway — a country Trump told lawmakers is a "good" source of immigrants — fewer (38%) have college educations.

A Scam by Any Other Name

       It must be phone scam week, since yesterday we got the "IRS" phone calls from the Philippines, judging by "Agent Smith's" heavy accent. Of course I laughed and hung up, since any-semi sentient person should be aware by now that the IRS never calls, they will write if they need to contact you. 

       Moving on to today, my wife and I each received cell phone calls today (unsolicited) from a group calling themselves the "American Police Officer's Alliance". After telling the man to have a nice day, I looked them, up (or tried to) on  Charity Navigator, Charity Watch, and the BBB "wise giving" listing. None of these lists this organization, but what was clear was that these are third party "professional"  solicitors,  getting paid as much as 80% of donations they scam up. This would be consistent, unfortunately with the majority of "Law Enforcement, or related" so called charities, the vast bulk of which have miserable ratios of funds solicited to funds applied. As a retired teacher, also a public employee, I am saddened by the thought that people are susceptible to scams of this sort.

       What is also troubling is the consideration that any Law Enforcement charities are even in existence or need to be, and here's why. A teacher can retire (in the county in which I taught) after either 30 years or at age 62. A 30 year retiree (under the system in which I worked) would retire with an annual (and taxable)  pension equivalent to 48% of their "high five" earning years. A law enforcement officer, if he chose would retire at a yearly 75% of his high five in 30 years! For the math impaired, that's half again as much money.

      Forget the "relative difficulty" bullshit. Each is retiring alive and well, and in the case of the former LEO almost certainly with better benefits. As a former 26 year member of the Submarine Force who spent 38 months of his life underwater, I receive no more retirement based on hazardous duty than any other service member. In fact many senior law enforcement personnel, simply retire at the 20 year point and (as they are allowed to) go to a force in another bargaining unit, and work another 15 or 20 years, pulling down large chunks of money. If the LEO, however, was unfortunate enough to have any line of duty residual disability or limitation, he (depending on the unit) will almost certainly get either more money or tax waiver. A teacher retiring will have to, especially if retiring on 30 years at, say, age 55, provide for healthcare coverage for another 10 years.

       This is not to say LEOs are overpaid, because they aren't, and they do us a valuable service, or at least the vast majority do. But, they also have powerful bargaining units, in most cases, and great benefits compared to most other public employees. Now the question: When was the last time a retired teacher (or anyone purporting to represent teachers) cold called you to ask for donations?

Oprah Hears a Woo

         Oprah Hears a Woo (reprinted from the Far Corner Café, where it ran in January three years ago.) I don’t want to say I “Like” Oprah, if it means I agree with every “15 second of fame” fad she has espoused in the name or ratings. Even more ingrained is my loathing of her support of two of the most  fraudulent hucksters ever foist upon the television viewing public (with the exception, of course of Duck Dynasty’s entire inbred cast of semi-sentient turnips, who are, at least honest in their imbecility and racist venality)) - Drs. Oz and Phil. They of holistic aromatherapy hogwash and the originator of 30 second psychoanalysis.

        Having said all that, I still believe Ms Winfrey to be an impressive, accomplished self- made person,  acutely perceptive and a very bright diviner of “what the public wants.” In many cases that is precisely what she provides. Does that even remotely qualify her to be considered Presidential timber? Perhaps by contrast with the current bottom of the barrel Cheetoh in Chief, but in my opinion, not in the real world.  Accordingly here is a little poem, not of my composition, remember, which does a really good job of summarizing Oprah’s real talents and exposes her limitations. Again, Kudos to the “producers” of the Far Corner Cafe  

                  Oprah Hears a Woo

On the fifteenth of May, in Chicago they say,

In the cool of the studio shielded from the heat of the day,

She held court, enjoying daytime TV’s great joys...

When Oprah, media mogul, heard a faint noise.

So Oprah stopped talking - just for a moment, fear not.

Her heart pounding from that excited feeling she'd got.

She looked towards the sound. “That’s funny,” she thought.

“There’s no experts around.” Then she heard it again!

Just a very faint yelp, As if some tiny minded person were calling for help.

“I’ll help you,” said Oprah. “But what’re you peddling and Where?”

She looked and she looked, but could see nothing there,

But a small mote of smoke blowing past through the air.

Though lacking in substance it made up for it in dazzle.

And wanting to see more in the mist left her quite afrazzle.

As she gazed into that smoke with its hues that amazed,

Though it lacked real substance, her credulity was unfazed,

"Enough with the facts, pretty colors hold sway,

suffer greatly will any expert who dares get in MY way."

“I say!” murmured Oprah. “I’ve never heard tell,

Of a small mote of smoke that is able to yell.

So you know what I think?... Why, I think that there must,

Be some substance within this wee, wispy gust.

Something of importance that the experts have missed,

But I, being Oprah, I’ll no doubt get the gist.

Some poor little champions alone with their memes,

 Shaking with fear, that their unfounded opinions are lost amongst real science piled high by the reams."

"I’ll just have to promote them. That's what I will do.

Because, though they're not experts at all,

I like how they talk and their point of view,

I’ll accept their statements as facts, no matter the evidence is small."

"Oh thank you, thank you came some very faint crying,

We were hoping you’d not look too closely nor do too much prying.

Those pesky scientists scattered us all on the mist,

but you can redeem us with your mighty media fist."

Said Oprah to this, “Egad who are you? “

"Not ‘who’ was the response - but the champions of “Woo”, And we couldn't be gladder to come to know you.

Our town is called Woo-ville, and we spread it on thick,

keeping our answers vague and playing the victim when cornered is our best trick.

Mainstream science conspires against us cause we've little or no facts.

But who cares about science? it’s all about how the lay public reacts!

And cause our message is clearer and unencumbered by truth,

Your listeners will lap it up like they did that silly Book of Ruth."

Said Oprah, "I must agree",

So come here and sit down close by me.

"So, gently, and using the greatest of care,

she broadcast their “woo” message over the air.

Each took a turn on the couch next to hers,

And spread their woo message to her legions of listeners.

From Woo-ville came this,

"Causality's not the least concern to those like myself,

Just place two factors in proximity and my books simply leap off the shelf.

Of course we have mountains of evidence in our support,

I just can’t take time now nor bother to produce the report"

“You mean...” Oprah gasped, “you have evidence that your claims are indeed true?”

“Oh, yes,” piped the voice. “We most certainly do,

Although it is too small to be seen by scientist’s instruments and I can’t really show you,

But trust me there are vast stores of knowledge in the ethereal vaults of woo...

"Oh joy, that’s more than enough for me,

Let’s book you again and people will be talking about it by three."

“Harrumph,!” came a voice. Twas a sour old expert,

The perils of woo came he, the public to alert.

And not just one, but many came too,

Each in a row waiting their chance to dispel woo.

But legions of scientists who tried to sway her,

Were no match for some feller with a brand new best seller.

“Believe me,” said Oprah. “I tell you sincerely,

My mind is quite keen and I heard you quite  clearly.

But I know there’s truth in there, though don’t dare ask me why,

It’s all in his or her book that you simply must buy."

"All you, expert haters of anything new,

Your journals and meetings are no match for my media empire of woo.

They’ll listen and believe if I say drink the sand,

What I say, not what you know, holds sway in this land."

Said She, "Facts and figures are dull and make for lousy TV,

Much better an author who smiles large spouting sound bites and says, 'You must trust me'.”

The public eats it up whenever some egghead is brought low,

Especially by an actor who could not possibly know.

No one trusts an expert who earned his or her PhD,

But they'll trust someone implicitly who played one on TV."

Her legions of followers must certainly have thought,

As they checked out the back cover of that book they just bought.

"She has done great works elsewhere with profits from her fame.

Surely she has an army of fact checkers to verify each claim."

The Woos down in Woo-ville were beside themselves with glee,

Each shouted. “the residuals alone will make a millionaire of me!

Thank you, thank you, they cried out again,

For without your amplification our voices could not have risen so far above the din.”

So Oprah was contented to roll back the clock,

And receptivity to science did her efforts block.

Study after study might refute what they say,

But that just means they must not be looking in quite the right way.

Said Oprah, to the scientists, “Woo has all my answers and I hear it quite clearly,

And even though scientists can’t see or hear them at all,

I’ll accept them as facts, no matter, the evidence is small"

It is sad that in this  area, like Trump, Oprah is gullible enough to advocate for anything which, it seems, her viewers (voters) might think make her (or him)  righteous or wealthy.  

Trump Did What?

       A recent Daily Sun (our local, Right-slanted "News" paper) letter to the op-ed page urged anybody  having issues with Mr. Trump to withdraw funds and support from the stock market if they don’t like him. Yeah I know; "Say what?" 

       The writer’s apparent implication was that recent market increases are in some magical way attributable to an administration whose only actual legislative efforts in the area are reductions in consumer credit protection and easing of restraints on the very same commercial banks largely responsible for the credit and housing bubble collapse of 2008. These efforts have largely been of the "make it easier to fleece the sheep" variety. and hardly constitute any conceivable contribution to current market trends, which in truth, have been almost constantly upward following the housing bubble fiasco of 2008-2009. Like so many, the writer has spent too much time listening to Mr. Trump proclaim his stable genius and far too little educating himself regarding what the administration actually has (not) done.

       However, in the spirit of the letter writer’s “If you don’t like their politics, don’t use their programs” rhetoric, I have some additional suggestions regarding what he could do to put his money where his mouth is, as he himself suggests. This might also require him to extricate his head from its present locus as a first step.

        First, send back your Social Security checks, since that’s an FDR program enacted by an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. This includes disability and/or  survivor's benefits (you know, those funds which helped Paul Ryan's mother, but which he doesn't think you should have?) Then, refuse any Medicare participation, since that program is a Lyndon Johnson initiative, passed by a Democratic Congress. Also return all, if any, Workman’s Compensation ever received, since that’s another almost entirely Progressive program. Also, return any and all GI Bill benefits, including the interest you saved because you got a guaranteed loan. Finally, if you have benefited in any way from the Veteran’s Administration, thank Harry Truman who signed the public law restructuring the VA into its current form, shortly before the Republicans regained control of Congress.     

        Also, stop using FDIC insured banks, never look at the weather forecast from the National Weather Service, don’t ever review your credit report as guaranteed by law, only buy unlabeled food and drugs, don't worry about the roaches and dead cats, if any,  in your local restaurant, and the list goes on.   

Hidden Figures or Hidden agenda?

       I had a rather protracted FB “discussion” last night with an individual who claimed the “Star Spangled Banner” was racist. Not, mind you, because the words are (they’re not) or that the subject matter was (the original title of Francis Scott Key’s poem was “The Heroic Defense of Fort McHenry). Born into a slave holding Maryland family, Key had owned slaves, but became later in life strongly against slavery, freeing his own and hiring one former slave as his foreman. He also became a mover in the movement which resulted in the foundation of Liberia.

       My point to the individual was that considering something as racist simply because an individual associated with it was, is illogical. I used the analogy of the Bayer chemical company. In WWII they were part of I.G. Farben and Nazi supporters. Bayer developed several elements of chemical warfare and mass extermination of Jews (Chlorine Gas, Zyklon B and VX); using forced labor during World War II. Obviously racist (anti-Semitic) Has anyone suggested we should ban use of their invention which has become synonymous with the product for many…..Aspirin?  Didn’t think so. (This back and forth was, in part, in the interest of full disclosure, based on the fact that two of my maternal forebears were in Fort McHenry at the time, and I have a bit more information on the events than most.)

        I should also mention that I have an opinion on playing the national anthem (Key’s words and an English barroom ballad tune) before public sporting events and that is “Why?”  Actually, No one did until 1918, when it was played at a Boston Red Sox game during WWI.

        Reflecting on this “baby with the bath water” condemnation made me think of the Constitution, written by slave owner James Madison. Pretty good document, really, and has served us well. That led to my feeling that while there are serious issues of racism in America and we should address all of these, there are also those who transfer the label to things which, like Key’s poem, are not racist in either intent or content.

        This brought to mind an essay I wrote in 2018, after reading an article (portrayed as scholarly, but not really “all that”) in which one of the authors actually insisted that the ability to comprehend mathematics was “White Privilege.” I doubt that Neil DeGrasse Tyson would keep a straight face reading it. She further alleged that all math is derived from “the Greeks and Europeans.”  It was at this point that the my inner Historian screamed an internal “Bull Shit!!” 

         The Article I wrote follows this intro, but for clarity sake, I am not minimizing the reality of racism in America or my antipathy to it which has been a lifelong trait and that of my parents. I am however wary of those who demean a noble cause by painting with too broad a brush. If you like math, read on to find out how(mostly) brown people invented it.     

           Hidden Figures or Hidden Agenda?


        Sooo. Let me get this straight…one writer out of 40 who collaborated on a math education book has decided that math is “whiteness” (or, at least, chose that unfortunate way to describe a common issue in education) and the Far Rightists will claim that this is representative of the entire educational establishment’s “liberal bias?” Puhleeze! That is no more true than to say that Charles Manson’s racist rants were representative of all White people or that Tiny Tim reflected the epitome of American musical talent.

       It’s hard to decide which is more egregious – Rochelle Gutierrez’ ignorance, or the willingness of the moronic right to paint half a nation with her brush. What is, unfortunately, lost in the shuffle is that among Ms. Gutierrez’ statements, many of which reflect her own ignorance, are some basic truths which are rather less racial than simply the variety of human talents and focus.

       “School mathematics curricula emphasizing terms like Pythagorean Theorem and pi perpetuate a perception that mathematics was largely developed by Greeks and other Europeans." This is a quote from some of Gutierrez’ commentary. Is it true? As far as modern teaching, yes, in too many cases, it is. This reflects as much as anything that many westerners are ignorant of the history involved in the refining of mathematical constructs, as well as the fact that geographical separation, amplified by religious bias, under- emphasizes early efforts because of the origins of the theorists.

        What this really reflects is that the lady is ignorant of much of the history related to her own subject. She apparently cannot process that the Pyramids, exhibiting the application of considerable math skills, were built by civilizations which would not be considered “white.” The Pyramids are an indication of the sophistication of Egyptian mathematics. In addition to claims that the pyramids are first known structures to observe the golden ratio of 1: 1.618 (which may have occurred for purely aesthetic, and not mathematical, reasons), clearly, they knew the formula for the volume of a pyramid (1⁄3 times the height times the length times the width) as well as of a truncated or clipped pyramid. They were also aware, long before Pythagoras, of the rule that a triangle with sides 3, 4 and 5 units yields a perfect right angle, and Egyptian builders used ropes knotted at intervals of 3, 4 and 5 units to ensure exact right angles for their stonework (in fact, the 3-4-5 right triangle is often called "Egyptian triangle”). The Berlin Papyrus, which dates from around 1300 BCE, shows that ancient Egyptians could solve second-order algebraic (quadratic) equations. (with which this writer struggles!)

       In similar manner, she is apparently unaware that some of the math she maligns as “Greek” was developed elsewhere and previously. She is simply ignorant as are many westerners.

“ दीर्घचतुरश्रस्याक्ष्णया रज्जु: पार्श्र्वमानी तिर्यग् मानी च यत् पृथग् भूते कुरूतस्तदुभयं करोति ॥“

The above Sanskrit in Roman characters becomes:

“dīrghachatursrasyākṣaṇayā rajjuḥ pārśvamānī, tiryagmānī, cha yat pṛthagbhūte kurutastadubhayāṅ karoti.”

In English: “If a rope is stretched along the diagonal’s length, the resulting area will be equal to the sum total of the area of horizontal and vertical sides taken together.” This is, of course, a rewording of the concepts iterated by the Pythagorean theorem.

       It is translated from Baudhayana Sulbasutra, one of the earliest Sulba Sutras written. The SulbaSutras are appendices to famous Hindu tradition Vedic scriptures and primarily dealt with rules of altar construction. In the Baudhayana Sulbasutra, there are several mathematical formulae that told how to precisely construct an altar. In essence, the Baudhayana Sulbasutra was more like a pocket dictionary, full of formulae and results for quick references. It was also written about 800 BCE, probably 350 to 400 years prior to Pythagoras’ discussion of the same construct. Oddly enough, the Greeks also made it (math) into a semi-religion, while it had had similar attachments to it for altar construction. As early as the 8th Century BCE, long before Pythagoras, the “Sulba Sutras” listed several simple Pythagorean triples, as well as a statement of the simplified Pythagorean theorem for the sides of a square and for a rectangle (indeed, it seems quite likely that Pythagoras learned his basic geometry from the "Sulba Sutras"). The Sutras also contain geometric solutions of linear and quadratic equations in a single unknown, and give a remarkably accurate figure for the square root of 2, obtained by adding 1 + 1⁄3 + 1⁄(3 x 4) - 1⁄(3 x 4 x 34), which yields a value of 1.4142156, correct to 5 decimal places. Mantras from the early Vedic period (before 1000 BCE) invoke powers of ten from a hundred all the way up to a trillion, and provide evidence of the use of arithmetic operations such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, fractions, squares, cubes and roots.

        In the 14th century, The greatest of all Indian mathematicians, Madhava, went further and linked the idea of an infinite series with geometry and trigonometry. He realized that, by successively adding and subtracting different odd number fractions to infinity, he could home in on an exact formula for π (this was two centuries before Leibniz was to come to the same conclusion in Europe). Through his application of this series, Madhava obtained a value for π correct to an astonishing 13 decimal places. He applied the same mathematics to obtain infinite series expressions for the sine formula, which could then be used to calculate the sine of any angle to any degree of accuracy, as well as for other trigonometric functions like cosine, tangent and arctangent. Perhaps even more remarkable, though, is that he also gave estimates of the error term or correction term, implying that he quite understood the limit nature of the infinite series.

       Madhava’s use of infinite series to approximate a range of trigonometric functions, which were further developed by his successors at the Kerala School, effectively laid the foundations for the later development of calculus and analysis, and either he or his disciples developed an early form of integration for simple functions. Some historians have suggested that Madhava's work, through the writings of the Kerala School, may have been transmitted to Europe via Jesuit missionaries and traders who were active around the ancient port of Cochin (Kochi) at the time, and may have had an influence on later European developments in calculus.

        Among the greatest mathematicians of ancient China was Liu Hui, who in 263 CE, produced a detailed commentary on the “Nine Chapters,” an earlier Chinese text, containing concepts dating as far back as two millennia BCE. The ancient Chinese numbering system was a decimal place value system, very similar to the one we use today - indeed it was the first such number system, adopted by the Chinese over a thousand years before it was adopted in the West - and it made even quite complex calculations very quick and easy. Master Liu was one of the first mathematicians known to leave roots unevaluated, giving more exact results instead of approximations. By an approximation using a regular polygon with 192 sides, he also formulated an algorithm which calculated the value of π as 3.14159 (correct to five decimal places), as well as developing very early forms of both integral and differential calculus, more than 1800 years before Newton and Leibnitz began bitch slapping each other over who “invented” it.

       The importance of astronomy and calendar calculations in Mayan society required mathematics, and the Maya constructed quite early a very sophisticated number system, possibly more advanced than any other in the world at the time. The Mayan and other Mesoamerican cultures used a vigesimal number system based on base 20. The pre-classic Maya and their neighbors had independently developed the concept of zero by at least as early as 36 BCE, and we have evidence of their working with sums up to the hundreds of millions, and with dates so large it took several lines just to represent them. The Mayans produced extremely accurate astronomical observations and measured the length of the solar year to a far higher degree of accuracy than that used in Europe (their calculations produced 365.242 days, compared to the modern value of 365.242198), as well as the length of the lunar month (their estimate was 29.5308 days, compared to the modern value of 29.53059).Of course white guys (Spanish priests) later attempted and largely succeeded in the destruction of all Mayan codexes in the name of Gawd-uh.

       Perhaps the most rapid explosion of mathematical advance, however, happened while Europe and most of the “white” world was languishing in the Medieval period, when knowledge and its pursuit was a “Church” thing and clearly restricted and defined by that institution. Again, it was persons who today would be considered “non-white” who led the way.

         The 10th Century Persian mathematician Muhammad Al-Karaji worked to extend algebra still further, freeing it from its geometrical heritage, and introduced the theory of algebraic calculus. Al-Karaji was the first to use the method of proof by mathematical induction to prove his results, by proving that the first statement in an infinite sequence of statements is true, and then proving that, if any one statement in the sequence is true, then so is the next one. He also used mathematical induction to prove the binomial theorem. The coefficients needed when a binomial is expanded from a symmetrical triangle, are, today, usually referred to as Pascal’s Triangle after French mathematician Blaise Pascal, although many other non-white, non-European mathematicians had studied it centuries before him in India, Persia, China and Italy, including Al-Karaji.

       Even some hundred years after Al-Karaji, Omar Khayyam (perhaps better known as a poet and the writer of the “Rubaiyat”, but an important mathematician and astronomer in his own right) codified Indian methods for extracting square and cube roots to include fourth, fifth and higher roots in the early 12th Century. He carried out a systematic analysis of cubic problems, revealing there were actually several different sorts of cubic equations. He did, in fact, succeed in solving cubic equations, and is usually credited with identifying the foundations of algebraic geometry.


       Among other Arab mathematical exploits: The 13th Century Persian astronomer, scientist and mathematician Nasir Al-Din Al-Tusi was perhaps the first to treat trigonometry as a separate mathematical discipline, distinct from astronomy. Building on earlier work by Greek mathematicians such as Menelaus of Alexandria and Indian work on the sine function, he gave the first extensive exposition of spherical trigonometry, including listing the six distinct cases of a right triangle in spherical trigonometry. One of his major mathematical contributions was the formulation of the famous law of sines for plane triangles, a⁄(sin A) = b⁄(sin B) = c⁄(sin C), although the sine law for spherical triangles had been discovered earlier by the 10th Century Persians Abul Wafa Buzjani and Abu Nasr Mansur.

       Other medieval Muslim mathematicians worthy of note include:

       Thabit ibn Qurra, who developed a general formula by which amicable numbers could be derived, re-discovered much later by both Fermat and Descartes(amicable numbers are pairs of numbers for which the sum of the divisors of one number equals the other number, e.g. the proper divisors of 220 are 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 20, 22, 44, 55 and 110, of which the sum is 284; and the proper divisors of 284 are 1, 2, 4, 71, and 142, of which the sum is 220);

       10th Century Arab mathematician Abul Hasan al-Uqlidisi, who wrote the earliest surviving text showing the positional use of Arabic numerals, and particularly the use of decimals instead of fractions (e.g. 7.375 instead of 73⁄8); the 10th Century Arab geometer Ibrahim ibn Sinan, who continued Archimedes' investigations of areas and volumes, as well as on tangents of a circle; the 11th Century Persian Ibn al-Haytham (also known as Alhazen), who, in addition to his groundbreaking work on optics and physics, established the beginnings of the link between algebra and geometry, and devised what is now known as "Alhazen's problem" (he was the first mathematician to derive the formula for the sum of the fourth powers, using a method that is readily generalizable); and

     The 13th Century Persian Kamal al-Din al-Farisi, who applied the theory of conic sections to solve optical problems, as well as pursuing work in number theory such as on amicable numbers, factorization and combinatorial methods;

       The 13th Century Moroccan Ibn al-Banna al-Marrakushi, whose works included topics such as computing square roots and the theory of continued fractions, as well as the discovery of the first new pair of amicable numbers since ancient times (17,296 and 18,416, later re-discovered by Fermat) and the first use of algebraic notation since Brahmagupta.

         With the stifling influence of the Turkish Ottoman Empire from the 14th or 15th Century onwards, Islamic mathematics stagnated, and further developments moved to Europe. Curiously enough it was a case of bureaucracy throttling progress, previously the domain on the Roman catholic Church!

       By the 13th century and from that point on, mathematicians like Fibonacci and other early theorists began shaking off the shackles of Church driven dogmatic focus on the pressing theosophical “issues” such as “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” and rediscovered the works of earlier persons of other colors and cultures in the fields of mathematics and science. 

       

       Again, in a perhaps unintentional but nonetheless meaningful turn, this resulted in primarily Greek (white?) works being of interest in Europe, since the Bible had been written in Greek and Latin from earliest times (Paul wrote in Greek), and were considered appropriate subjects for study when considering the Trivium (pre-Renaissance  university curricula in logic, rhetoric and  grammar). It would have been incredibly difficult for a Northern European to access works in Sanskrit, Chinese or Arabic for obvious reasons, including the Church's consideration of them as heretical or pagan. How pervasive this attitude was and remained can be shown by Darwin's hesitation to publish, even in 1859, the work he had begun decades before.

       A large part of the rate of such advances in the West was the commercial explosion in Europe where the quest for locally unavailable raw materials became the driving force behind colonial exploits, which were themselves held back at first by a Church dictated world view of an earth of which five sixths was land surrounded by the remaining one sixth of the surface – water. The Chinese and Islamic states knew, and had known, better for centuries.

        Now, back to the issue which triggered all this (remember, history is what I do, not math!) If, in the teaching of mathematics, there is a focus on “White” mathematicians, that is wrong, and wrong-headed. It is also largely the result of ignorance of history, a subject frequently under attack from the Far Right, if it doesn’t agree with the party line, which for some seems to be condensed to “White guys did everything good in the world.” I know that when, as a world history teacher, I discussed the Gupta dynasty in India and innovation of the use of zero, or the Arab invention of algebra (the word itself “al-jabr” is Arabic) I was telling tenth graders something they’d never heard in math class. So perhaps Ms. Gutierrez makes a semi legitimate point hidden in her  biased diatribe.

        On the one hand, her implication that most students are fed a diet of “white developed” math is accurate. It was so in my own educational experience and, I suspect in most schools today in America. As a historian I regret that. If I were a math teacher knowing what I know as a historian, I’d do it differently. What is lost, of course,  in the fog of ethnocentric sour grapes is the fact that mathematics is colorless, odorless and tasteless. It just is. Like any language, it is a tool, not an end in itself.

         Additionally, Ms. Gutierrez alleges that mathematics expertise becomes synonymous with “intelligence” in some circumstances. Of course, it does! We live in a technological world, based on the application of mathematics to almost everything we touch, use, watch or listen to in everyday life. Those who provide, moderate, invent, and/or manipulate these technologies are regarded by many as “smart,” like the booger eating, dandruff ridden tech guy who plugs the computer in when the erudite and well dressed exec can't "make it work."  Would she have us become Luddites, smash the looms (and TVs, cell phones, computers, airplanes, etc…?)

       Finally, she states that math skill is seen as “whiteness” in society and here I lose the thread, if any, of her logic. Looking at the burgeoning Indian and East Asian participation in engineering and applied math areas, worldwide and in the USA, clearly, she isn’t really referring to “mathematics ability” as an exclusively Caucasian stronghold, or if she is, she’s as blind to current applications as to the history of her discipline. If she is referring to some White, Black and Hispanic American students preferring to avoid math or seeing  it as something they’d rather not do, that is another and even more tragic current reality and perhaps what she's really lamenting. 

        Equating math ability with intelligence is a slippery slope, and Ms. Gutierrez should be aware of where that comparison is sometimes made and by whom, since perhaps it’s actually originating in the groups she purports to be “defending” from discrimination. Is “acting white” being conflated with academic effort and ability? Don’t tell that to the ladies of “Hidden Figures!”

Trust Us, We're Corporate America and We Care About You!

        As I’ve said before, I may not always agree with op-ed columnist Mona Charen, but, unlike the execrable Michelle Malkin, she makes a good faith effort at objectivity and proffers reasonable talking points for her opinions. Having made that point, her column today is generally aimed at “Government regulation” with examples of bad legislation in the area.  I can agree with Ms Charen that there is at times (all too often, actually) overreach and excess in that area, both at State and local levels.

 It bothers me a bit that there is some inference that said overregulation is done at the Congressional level for personal gain of those involved in its passage. I cannot say that I know or believe that to be true, but I wouldn’t generally label the entire body as corrupt in that particular area. In voicing a general dissatisfaction and critique of what the Far Right generally refers to as “Government meddling’ with business, Ms. Charen has sidled perilously close to the John Stossel camp, which is a dark place filled with misinformation and in too many cases simply lies.

I have a good friend who, although university educated, is of the same persuasion. In a discussion, post golf, one day, he announced that the problem with drug costs on America was “too much regulation and government interference.”  I reminded him that “on patent” drug prices generally are so high precisely because the government (Medicare/Medicaid) cannot bargain drug prices, due to the 2003 Part D legislation, passed by a Republican controlled Congress (both houses) and signed into law by a Republican President ergo, the prices for many drugs, which are listed at astronomical levels but bargained lower by all private insurers, are paid at asking price by Medicare/Medicaid. In short, the issue isn’t too much, but too little regulation.

On the other hand, Thalidomide was kept off market in the US precisely because of the “dreaded” government regulation.  

The standard business school curriculum defines the purpose of the corporation, simply and without any concern, whatsoever, for consumers, as “to maximize shareholder profit.”  If there be any reader who believes this implies any degree of conscience or fairness in the use and allocation of resources, they are fools. As a historian, who is familiar with the abuses of the unprotected consumer perpetrated by the likes of Rockefeller, Morgan Gould and their ilk, allow me to disabuse you of the idea that, left alone, as John Stossel, so strenuously says they should be, the vast majority of business or corporations will act in even handed fairness.

 It is true that some corporations attempt, generally in the interest of popular good will, to be fair and equitable in their field, but remember, the stockholder comes first; always has, always will.  Accordingly, Theodore Roosevelt, Republican Progressive, flew in the face of most of his party’s luminaries in calling for regulation “in the public interest” and for the protection of consumers (food and drug regulation as well as meat inspection). Have regulators overstepped their good intentions at times? Certainly, they have but the lack of regulation in the interest of the general public has led to far worse and more pervasive evils.  

       Remember the Great recession? It was the legacy of an essentially unregulated free for all in the investment banking industry, coupled with grotesquely unscrupulous lenders, eager to blame the government for their own greed and lack of character. The same is true of credit card companies and banks such as Wells Fargo which turned creating new, and fraudulent accounts into a growth industry. If the federal government fails to regulate these institutions, who will?  State legislatures are far too close to the money to act against predatory financial practices.

Sadly, and almost (to me) inexplicably, many of those who join in the cry against “excessive” regulation are among those who suffer from its lack. In many cases, they are ignorant of the niceties involved in the position, but have been told by politicians they adore that they should join in the partisan rhetoric, ignorant of real issues or not. This manifests itself in weird and ironic ways, sometimes. Just recently, I saw two bumper stickers side by side on a pickup truck tail-gate. The one on the left announced “Proud Union Retiree.”  Inexplicably, next to it was a Trump sticker. I wondered how the owner could have been a union member without realizing how hostile to unions his chosen President has shown himself to be over recent years. He has refused to pay for work done by Union labor at various properties, even solicited, then stiffed, caterers, citing that they should consider themselves “privileged” to serve him.  His administration has been universally hostile to organized labor, even to the point of disbanding a select committee on labor affairs.

       So, complain all you want about those pesky regulations, but in general they serve to protect the less powerful from unconcerned and unaccountable abuse by corporate America. If any individual actually expects large business concerns to “do the right thing” simply because they are altruistic and socially conscientious, they’d better prepare for disappointment.