Greenversations

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the author: Matthias Fripp is a doctoral student in the Energy and Resources Group at the University of California, Berkeley. His work is funded by an EPA Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Graduate Research Fellowship.

Before I started my studies, I thought that graduate students were free to study any topic they liked. That’s true in principle, but in practice we need to find funding for our research. Fortunately, I was granted an EPA STAR fellowship in 2006, allowing me to pursue a question I consider particularly important: how much wind and solar power should we use in the electricity system in upcoming decades?

Over the last couple of years, I’ve gathered data on the amount of power that could be produced every hour at potential wind farm sites and solar power facilities all over California. I’ve also collected information on existing power plants and transmission lines, and forecasted the cost of building new wind, solar or conventional power plants or transmission lines in the future.

Next, I built a computer model that determines which combination of new and existing power plants and transmission lines will give the least expensive electricity between 2010 and 2025, while also ensuring that the state has enough power every hour. I also use this model to see how much our power bills might change if we work seriously on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The results of this research are exciting. I found that wind and solar power are available at complementary times in California, so we can use them together to make a more reliable (and cheaper) power system than we could if we just used wind or solar alone. I also found that even if we didn’t care about greenhouse gas emissions, we should still plan to use a lot of wind power, because it is beginning to be less expensive than power from natural gas plants. Finally, I found that there is no sharp limit to the amount of renewable power we could use in California: power bills rise slowly as we build more and more renewables, but emissions could be reduced substantially with little or no extra cost.

The EPA STAR fellowship has made a huge difference, freeing me to focus all my efforts on this work, and providing the resources to do it right.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the author: Aaron Ferster, a science writer in EPA’s Office of Research and Development, is a regular contributor to Science Wednesday.

Last Spring, a pair of barred owls took up residence in the upper reaches of a tree just past the edge of our yard. They announced their presence during dinner one warm evening, a series of deep hoots in a pattern birders describe as “who-cooks-for-you.”

We caught a brief glimpse of one as it leaned off its perch and in a long, silent swoop faded into the shadows of the woods behind our house, disappearing like a ghost.

The owls didn’t disappear for long. The girls soon discovered a trove of owl pellets beneath the roost. By picking the pellets apart we learned what the owls were eating. Sometimes there were crayfish claws or fish scales, but the owl’s main course must have always included small mammals. Every pellet contained the tiny white vertebra and jaw bones of mice.

___
	Curtis Tackett adds a handful of sunflower seeds to one of the small, humane traps the survey team sets to survey mammal diversity. After examining the small animals, the team sets them free. (Click image to enlarge.)

Could owls and other wild neighbors be good for health by reducing the relative abundance of tick-infected mice? Last week I got to tag along with a team of Yale researchers surveying mammal diversity in the forests of Connecticut, part of an EPA-funded effort to explore just such questions.

Naturally, the team is taking a much more scientific approach than sifting through a handful of owl pellets. Instead, they set out small aluminum traps to humanely capture a representative sample of the local small mammal population.

Every critter caught was identified, ear-tagged (if not previously captured, a regular occurrence), and weighed. Before they were set free, each animal was thoroughly inspected and any black-legged ticks found were collected for further analysis. After the first day, we joined forces with another team conducting a similar survey of birds, part of an ongoing population study now sharing their efforts with the Yale team.

___
	Field coordinator Kim Tsao carefully examines each a white-footed mouse, counting and removing black-legged ticks for further analysis for the bacterium that causes Lyme disease. (Click image to enlarge.)

The few days I spent with the survey team is a small part of a larger, two-year study to better understand of the links between biological diversity, land use, and Lyme disease. I was happy to have the chance to escape the office for a few days in favor of the forest. It reminded me once again how fun it is to explore the woods and to learn more about our wild neighbors, some of which might prove to be important for our health.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the author: Grace Camblos is a writer and photographer. Since 2006 she has worked as a student services contractor with the Office of Research and Development’s Science Communication Staff.

If an EPA scientist were to tell you, “we use Bayesian analysis to find the range of possible parameter values for our pharmacokinetic models”…would you know what she meant? What if you read in an EPA report that “exposure to residual oil fly ash increases airway reactivity and pulmonary eosinophils during allergic sensitization”?

If you have a background in science, those phrases might make perfect sense to you. But what about those of us without degrees in molecular biology or organic chemistry?

To a large chunk of people, the language of science seems full of mysterious jargon and phrases designed to make our eyes glaze over – or worse, that threaten to overwhelm us and make us feel stupid.

As a writer with EPA-ORD’s Science Communication Staff, it’s my job to translate the language of science into words that everyone can understand, regardless of their familiarity with science. I help write the articles, press releases, fact sheets and web copy that people might find as they browse EPA’s Web site.

Translating science into English can be challenging, to say the least. It’s a balancing act: my words need to be accurate enough to convey what the scientists really mean, but understandable enough to keep the readers interested. It does no one any good if I write about a fascinating, important study, but the reader gives up after the first two sentences.

My own lack of a science background actually has advantages in this situation. I have no problem asking questions when talking to scientists, because if I don’t understand, then there’s a fair chance that readers won’t either. (On the other hand, not having a science background does make getting through those dense scientific reports more difficult. But then, it’s my job to read through the science-ese so others don’t have to. Just think of me as the Cliffnotes version of EPA science.)

Communicating EPA’s science to the public is an important job. As a federal agency, we’re answerable to the public, and clarity of language goes a long way toward more transparency in government. Plus, as more people understand and support the work we do to protect the environment, more funding for environmental protection may come available, creating yet more chances to do good work.

Good science communication: It’s a win-win idea.

To read articles written by the Science Communication Staff, check out www.epa.gov/ord.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the author: Sandy Raimondo is a research ecologist with the Office of Research and Development in Gulf Breeze, FL. She joined EPA in 2003 and models potential effects of toxicants on organisms and populations.

It’s a big ocean out there, little turtles! May the safety in numbers be with you.

Last evening I witnessed young loggerhead sea turtles emerge from their nest and swim off into the dark Gulf of Mexico that would be their home for the next 50 years or so. As a volunteer for the National Park Service, I was there to help hatchling sea turtles that might become disoriented by all of our shiny light pollution and head in the wrong direction after emerging. Without a doubt, it was one of the most amazing things I have ever seen.

I woke up this morning a groggy, happy camper and came to work, where I sit at a computer and model what-if scenarios involving pollution of the toxicological variety. If such-and-such happens and we do this or that, this could be the outcome. For as disconnected as the beauty of sea turtle hatching and computer modeling may seem to some people, this morning it was crystal clear to me. Several years ago I was reading some papers on population modeling and one on loggerheads stood out in my mind. Based on the results of their modeling, the authors offered suggestions on how to aid the conservation of the threatened species by focusing efforts on particular life stages. The results of these models have helped to guide national efforts to keep these amazing animals from becoming extinct.

It would be awesome if spending time with sea turtles was part of my job and I could go out at night and call it “just another day at the office.” But what if the modelers of loggerheads would have said that 20 years ago, and never took the time to sit in front of their computer to play with numbers? Maybe 20 years from now some bright-eyed volunteer will be out in an estuary somewhere and marvel at the diversity of life and the health of the water. That would be awesome too. And maybe somewhere in their subconscious they’ll even thank the people who sat at a computer to help keep it that way.

Learn more about sea turtles and their conservation.

Sneak preview: from sea-going reptiles to forest-dwelling mammals…
Aaron Ferster here. Next week, we’ll be coming to you from the forests of Connecticut. Monday, we’ll be using Twitter to send updates from the field as a team of researchers surveys small mammal populations. They’re studying the links between the landscape, biodiversity, and human health. Wednesday, we’ll post a full update here in Greenversations.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the author: Darius Davis is a summer intern in Cincinnati, Ohio.

I recently graduated from Withrow University High School and plan to attend Ohio State University in Columbus, OH in the fall of 2008. I will be studying Chemical Engineering with a minor in Pharmacy.

This is my second year interning at EPA through the black employment program. I feel that this program has not only opened up many opportunities for me, but allowed me to get a hands-on experience in the science field. The last two years I have worked in two different areas at the EPA. The first year, which was my junior year in high school, I worked with microbiology and this year with drinking water. While in the microbiology area, I worked and did experiments with E.coli bacteria. The name of this experiment was UV Disinfection on E. coli Bacteria. I really enjoyed working in this area because there were many chemicals involved and we used a lot of different machinery in order to carry out the experiment. This year with drinking water was also very interesting. I was able to work with a database and observe a lot about the copper pipes, which were sent in from various locations throughout the country. I was then able to make reports about the pipes and what we observed from them. The objective was to figure out why the water that ran through these pipes were forming holes in the pipe and what could be done to prevent the holes from forming within the pipe. While at EPA, I was also acknowledged for my once in a lifetime achievement of receiving the Gates Millennium Scholarship. This scholarship covers ten years of my college education through my doctoral degree at the college of my choice with ALL expenses paid, including one year of study abroad.

I feel that working at the EPA really broadened my horizons on what all goes into making the environment a better place to live. This experience also made me more confident with studying the sciences when I attend college. Anyone who is ever offered an opportunity like this one should definitely take advantage of it, because in the end it will all be worth it!

About the author: Kelly Leovic has been with EPA in Research Triangle Park, NC since 1987 and has served as the Project Officer for the Research Apprenticeship Program since 1996.

Last month I “introduced” eight high school student interns in EPA’s Research Apprenticeship Program, a collaborative program between EPA and Shaw University. The Program encourages high school students to pursue advanced degrees in environmental science.

The internship provides students with hands-on research experience by immersing them in an EPA laboratory or computer project. This summer, the students learned cell culturing techniques, identifying cell DNA damage, fluorescent microscope use, analyzing filters to measure air pollution, and the application of databases in environmental research and regulations.

About halfway through the internship the students began to get really serious and a bit nervous. Why? Because on July 18 they would be presenting their projects to nearly 100 people, including their peers, parents, and EPA mentors.

On July 16, my coworker Suzanne gathered the students for a “dry run.” Some needed more work than others, but this is why we practice. The next day, we did another practice session – things were getting better. We share tips from previous years such as avoiding slides that are too fancy and, my personal pet peeve, for every slide that has a graph EXPLAIN the x and y variables FIRST.

As the students took the podium on July 18, I could tell that they were ready. All gave professional presentations on very complex topics, showing their understanding of the work that they did during their internship. Once they completed their presentations, they would each pause to ask, “Any questions?” Fortunately, we had a lively audience, so most of the students had at least a question or two. Although they dread this part, I tell them that it will make them stronger and that they will appreciate it in ten years.

We are so proud of the students who have interned at EPA. As of June 2008, 109 students have completed the four-year program, and 100% of these students attended college, with 62% majoring in a field of study related to science or math. In addition, 57% have gone to graduate school. The extra support provided by the program has also helped many of the students to receive scholarships. I guess you could say that they “took the podium and kept on going!”

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the Author: Dr. Robert Lackey is a senior scientist in EPA’s Office of Research and Development’s laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon. He has been involved professionally with West Coast ecological issues for 44 years and was awarded EPA’s highest award, the Gold Medal, for his salmon work.

Recently I presented a talk to a group of community activists about why salmon populations along the West Coast have dropped to less than 5% of their historical levels. I’ve given such talks many times so I was confident that I had heard just about every question that might be asked. I was wrong.

The opening question was asked by a well known political activist. He was direct, pointed, and bursting with hostility: “You scientists always talk about our choices, but when will you finally tell us what we SHOULD do about the dramatic decline of West Coast salmon? Quit talking about the science and your research and tell us what we should do! Let’s get on with it!”

From the nods of approval offered by many in the audience, his impatience with science and scientists was broadly shared.

What does the public expect from scientists regarding today’s ecological policy issues? Some examples of such policy challenges include the decline of salmon; deciding on the proper role of wild fire on public lands; what to do, if anything, about climate change; the consequences of declining biological diversity; and making sense of the confusing policy choices surrounding “sustainability.”

The lament “if we just had some better science, a little more data, we could resolve this policy question” is common among both scientists and decision makers. Calls for more research are everywhere in ecological policy debates.

In most cases, even if we had complete scientific knowledge about all aspects of an issue, the same rancorous debate would emerge. Root policy differences are invariably over values and preferences, not science, data, and facts.

In a pluralistic society, with a wide array of values and preferences competing for dominance, the ecological policy debate is usually centered around whose values and preferences will carry the day rather than over scientific information.

So what was my answer to the emotionally charged question from the political activist? It was: “Science, although an important part of policy debates, remains but one element, and often a minor one, in the decision-making process. We scientists can assess the ecological consequences of various policy options, but in the end it is up to society to prioritize those options and make their choices accordingly.”

He wasn’t pleased.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. More Science Wednesdays.

About the author: Aaron Ferster is the lead science writer-editor for EPA’s Office of Research and Development. Previously, he has worked as an exhibit writer for a zoo, a first-mate on a whale watch boat, an elephant trainer, and as a stage hand for a travelling magic show.

I have a close friend who is a talented fiction writer. Occasionally, we good-naturedly give one another a hard time about our chosen crafts. “You get to make stuff up—how can anything be easier than that?” is my rhetorical reply whenever she points out what a painless gig I have as a science writer at EPA.

While I can’t speak for other science writers, I might just have to admit that what I do is easier than creating fiction. There never seems to be a shortage of fascinating stories unfolding at labs and field sites wherever researchers or engineers are running experiments, gathering data, or building the next prototype. And I’ve got the added benefit that my personal interests—the environment and human health—dovetail perfectly with EPA’s mission.

Come to think of it, I might be kind of spoiled.

I’m not the only one who has noticed there are a lot of good science stories being generated at EPA. If you’ve followed “Greenversations,” you’ve probably noticed the strong current of science that runs through many of the posts. Regular contributors include Robert Lackey, a senior EPA scientist who writes often about salmon restoration from EPA’s Western Ecology Division lab in Corvallis, OR; and Sandy Raimondo, a research ecologist from EPA’s Gulf Ecology Division lab in Gulf Breeze, FL who recently wrote about environmental research and sailing.

It’s a trend. The wealth of good science stories here at EPA has led me and my fellow Greenversations bloggers to declare that Wednesday posts will now be for science. “Science Wednesday” will feature experiences related to environmental science, brought to you by scientists, engineers, researchers, and perhaps the occasional science writer from across EPA.

Future posts will include entries on a long-term study on urban stream restoration, EPA’s ecological research programs, investigations on suburban runoff and the impact of pavement and parking lots, coral reef monitoring, research on the state of the marine environment, and many, many others on environmental science.

“Science Wednesday,” because you really can’t make this stuff up.