Homeopathy Really Does Work

Check out this hilarious video on Emergency Room Homeopathy:



Strong stuff this Homeopathy!

Tip: The White Coat Underground

Government Subverts Science For Env Impact Assessement Clearances

Environmental Impact Assessement (EIA) reports are a requirement for clearing big development projects. India Together has an eye-opening article by Shripad Dharmadhikary on how this process has been subverted by the government and relegated to a side show... a mere rubber stamp for official project clearance.

First and foremost, the basin studies have been effectively de-linked from the implementation of the projects as there is no requirement that the projects be conditional to the findings of the basin studies. Neither is there any explicit stay on the consideration and implementation of any of the projects pending the studies.

Logically, the basin studies should suggest what level of development, including hydro power projects, the basin can sustain. The projects should be planned based on this. However, the current planning and decision making turns this on its head. The numbers, locations, capacities, types and other details of the projects have already been decided. Many of these projects have already been allotted to (mostly) private developers who already have or would soon be approaching the Ministry for environmental clearance. In Bichom basin, the 600 MW Bichom (or Kameng) project is already under construction.

Assessment studies for big projects can take up to 2 years but this time period for many projects is reduced to just 6 months. And often the studies themselves are superficial .."farcical" according to the article.

That could happen for a number of reasons:

1) The Terms of Reference are crafted in a way that make any coherent analysis impossible.
2) The consultants hired to carry out the EIA are of poor quality.
3) The consultants / scientists know that their work and recommendations will not have any significant impact on the project details since the government has already decided what to do. So they have no real incentive to produce good work.

To me the last one is the most depressing of all. As a working scientist I would hate to be in a situation where I know in advance that my work will not be treated with respect and will make no difference as a practical matter.

Despite all the big talk from the government about the prime position of science in society examples like this one does not inspire confidence in the government's attitude towards the role of science in charting India's development. Talk is cheap but actions speak to the real intent. By these actions the government seems to be saying ..Oh you can have your little science project on the side.. but don't bother us with the details.

We know what is good for you.

Water Harvesting: Legal At Last In Colorado

This piece about water harvesting and conservation in NYTimes caught my eye:

“I was so willing to go to jail for catching water on my roof and watering my garden,” said Tom Bartels, a video producer here in southwestern Colorado, who has been illegally watering his vegetables and fruit trees from tanks attached to his gutters. “But now I’m not a criminal.”

I remember reading Marc Reisner's epic book Cadillac Desert which described the complex water regulations of the U.S. southwest. Every drop is owned by some state or water district or the other before it falls to the ground. But water allocation was apparently done during an unusual wet period and without anticipating the massive growth of population in the deserts. Climate change which is making the southwest drier and population pressures have increasingly made these allocations look unfair. At some point if there is just no more water then no matter how you try divvy up the pie someone is going to come up empty.

In India too damming streams and diverting water that would inhibit natural flow as defined by the local government agency used to be frowned upon and the law has always been unclear about the ownership of water harvesting structures and water. Indeed the state reserved the right to send you notice if it felt that the structures being built were unsafe or that blocking too much water would lead to a shortfall in the government canal and dam system allocations. But water harvesting is done at every level ( see this article) from recharging a well in the backyard to community efforts that have rejuvenated landscapes. The local water authorities don't always like it but don't prosecute because they really can't provide an alternative. Village communities and NGO's get massive grants for water harvesting from funding agencies for an activity that the government is finally realizing is the need of the hour. Many state governments are modifying their Command Area and Irrigation Acts to give farmers and local communities more rights to own and manage local water resources.

It usually takes a long time to change laws and regulations. Sometimes people's behavior and actions may act as a signal that times have changed and the rules must change along with it.

Triggering Earthquakes From Geothermal Energy Drilling

There is a very interesting article in NYtimes by James Glanz on the nascent geothermal industry in the U.S. and recent efforts to start projects to recover this energy. The article focusses on the efforts of one company AltaRock, who is currently in the process of getting through various permission to start a project north of San Francisco. They have received permission to drill from the Bureau of Land Management but are awaiting permission to fracture the rock.

And that is what the controversy and fears are about, that hydro-fracturing of the subsurface rocks might trigger damaging earthquakes.

This has happened once before near the town of Basel, Switzerland in 2006 and the article has quite a dramatic description of the events:

The opening of each fracture is, literally, a tiny earthquake in which subterranean stresses rip apart a weak vein, crack or fault in the rock. The high-pressure water can be thought of loosely as a lubricant that makes it easier for those forces to slide the earth along the weak points, creating a web or network of fractures.

Mr. Häring planned to use that network as the ultimate teapot, circulating water through the fractures and hoping it emerged as steam. But what surprised him that afternoon was the intensity of the quakes because advocates of the method believe they can pull off a delicate balancing act, tearing the rock without creating larger earthquakes.

Alarmed, Mr. Häring and other company officials decided to release all pressure in the well to try to halt the fracturing. But as they stood a few miles from the drill site, giving the orders by speakerphone to workers atop the hole, a much bigger jolt shook the room.
“I think that was us,” said one stunned official.

Analysis of seismic data proved him correct. The quake measured 3.4 — modest in some parts of the world. But triggered quakes tend to be shallower than natural ones, and residents generally describe them as a single, explosive bang or jolt — often out of proportion to the magnitude — rather than a rumble.

Triggered quakes are also frequently accompanied by an “air shock,” a loud tearing or roaring noise.

You can just imagine the panic in the nearby community after this sequence of events. The project was shelved.

AltaRock claims it has learned from Basel and has a developed superior method that minimizes risk. They say that the area they have chosen in Lake and Sonoma counties has a history of only small earthquakes and their project will steer clear of large faults.

Its not clear though how they or any other company could stop small tremors from cascading into a larger earthquake. The situation is not at all similar to say capping a well if you want to stop production. I am not a seismologist but I don't think we know enough about stress initiation and propagation through fracture networks to be confident about thresholds. Stop hydro-fracturing if earthquakes reach say 1.5 on the Richter because anything above that is a potential trigger for a larger one. I doubt if we are confident about the science to use arbitrary thresholds to minimize earthquake risks.

Another point I wanted to put out is that such geothermal projects will necessarily be located in areas of high earthquake risk. Geologically active regions will be the ones with enough heat nearer the surface and it makes economic sense to take advantage of this shallow natural heat and avoid drilling too deep. Which mean that the geothermal industry if it has to grow rapidly without getting tangled in litigation and protests must have a transparent and honest dialogue with various stakeholders about the current state of the science of earthquakes and the risks hydro-fracturing entails. For the people living near these project areas, this is not just a Not In My Back Yard because it spoils my view kind of a protest situation.

In this regard AltaRock has not made a good start. At least going by the NYtimes article the company has been less than forthright about the risks involved. For example in the seismic risk report it filed it did not give due importance to the connection between the Basel earthquake and the geothermal drilling despite Swiss seismologists agreeing that the drilling and fracturing of the rock did cause the earthquake. Even senior BLM engineers involved in giving permissions were unaware of the Basel incident and acknowledged that this information should have been disclosed.

Geology Majors Have Higher Debt Than Other Science Graduates

American Geological Institute's Geoscience Currents has put up 2003 data that shows levels of debt among science majors and graduate students. Geoscience graduate students have higher debt levels that other science and engineering majors with the exception of life science. Debt levels of geoscience undergraduates are also among the highest.

Source: Geoscience Currents

There is no explanation given for the higher debt levels for aspiring geologists. Any ideas why debt levels are higher for geoscience majors? Do additional expenses like field camp for undergraduate degree requirement or field work during Master's thesis work make a difference? Or do geology majors for some reason take a little longer to graduate than other sciences?

I consider myself lucky in this regard. I received an assistantship and a tuition waiver for my graduate education in the U.S. In India the situation was different, there is usually no assistantship or tuition waiver support for most undergraduate and graduate programs in India. But science education in State Universities is considerably less financially burdensome than what unsupported students experience in the U.S. even in state colleges.

I am comparing just the fees, not other expenses which will vary depending upon an individual's circumstances.

I finished my Master's from Pune University (State supported) India and the fees for a two year Master's course were ludicrously low. I don't remember the exact amount but I paid around Rs 6000/- for the two year course as fees and spent an additional Rs 2000 or so in field work and other expenses. Geosciences stream was not offered through private universities in India in the late 1980's, but overall a science education will cost much less than what I would have paid if I had opted for a management or medical degree or an engineering degree with a private college. This was in 1989. If you want to put a dollar figure on this, using a 1990 exchange rate between Indian rupee and U.S dollar of $1 = Rs 16/-, I paid about $ 500/- for my Masters education in 1990!

Most students going in for higher education will manage to pay these fees without incurring much debt!

State Universities are highly subsidised in India as you must have guessed.

Fees are still quite low. In fact fees are probably lower than 1990 if you account for inflation and how much that money is worth today. The current course fee for a Master's degree for University of Pune is about Rs 12,000 per year for in-state students and double that for out of state students. For foreign students the fees are about Rs 60,000 or so for geosciences. Using today's exchange rates of $ 1 - Rs 48/- in- state students are paying about $500/- for a degree in 2009 and foreign students about $ 2500/- in course fees. Compare this with the fees some private colleges are charging for earth science related courses such as Geographic Information Systems. The fees are Rs 150,000 per year ( ~ $3100/-) more than 10 times that of a state college.

Want to come to India for a geosciences degree? :)