We have this Popular Science article on the need to 'regulate' e-cigarettes, whatever that entails. I smell vested interest involved in this article. In fact the reek of it is palpable!

 http://www.popsci.com/article/science/e-cigarettes-not-harmless-should-be-regulated-cigs-study-says?src=SOC&dom=fb

Looking at the abstracts for the two studies Popsci cited as indicating second-hand vapor being possibly harmful. The inline citations in the article link to abstracts only for both studies which is a concern, in and of itself. You must pay a fee to see who funded the study and the methodologies. Even though any regulation put in force would affect ALL of us, only some of us will have access to the studies due to fees. This raises an important question. Should studies that are used to determine public policy NOT be available to that SAME public free of charge?

There are other problems with these studies being cited. The first study they used does not accurately reflect the main statement of the paragraph, that second-hand vapor may also be harmful, in the abstract alone. Financial associations were not indicated in either abstract.

If all of the issues concerning secondary-vapor is not properly peer-reviewed or scrutinized by objective non-vested parties then... I don't know what... We base policy and laws on incomplete science! If secondary vapor is revealed to be harmless to present non-smokers by diligent, competent, rigorous and objectively applied scientific method, then that would be the basis for the well justified and vociferous demand by a proactive public to its lawmakers:

"Inform and educate, but DO NOT LEGISLATE!"

ETA: Other than requiring placement of concise and well researched, life-saving info on the containers, of course...

Electric Vehicles: Stop With the Inanities!

So we have this inspiring and informative bit of news about large EVs coming into their own. In this case they are starting to use all electric buses:

http://www.zeitnews.org/applied-sciences/transportation/electric-bus-goes-700-miles-without-recharging

Of course, this almost invariably attracts silly and poorly thought out comments like this:

"So was it coal that supplied the electricity or natural gas?? Hmm.."


Ahhhh, the understated brilliance and savvy... Umm; no, not really!

I wish people would use their heads on the whole, 'what supplied the energy' question!

For one thing, NOT ONE of these careless thinkers has considered the fact that having more electric vehicles on the road IMPROVES the air quality AND reduces noise pollution in high population density areas where much traffic (and thus emissions) is present.

Second, they NEGLECT the math on comparing 'carbon footprints' and power generation efficiency.

Finally, they refuse to acknowledge that using renewables at centralized power generation facilities is an ongoing effort. That even coal and natural gas is cleaner (not clean enough, but the interests along the power production chain including utilities are grudgingly working on it) AND that nuclear, despite all the scaremongering and poor planning is not quite off the table yet.

First post!

Ok, starting a blog. Without further preamble I would like to get into my first post about UFOs on Mars. I did a brief analysis of an Examiner article about a 'cylindrical UFO' flying toward the horizon of Mars on April 28, 2014.
Here is the article:

http://www.examiner.com/article/huge-cylindrical-ufo-captured-by-mars-curiosity-rover

From the article:

"If time lapse photography was not used in generating the NASA JPL images showing a cylindrical UFO, then that would rule out any of the Mars orbiters."

Time lapse photography WAS used according to the time stamps from the JPL site. Look for yourselves:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/m...

Note that time lapsing and exposure time are TWO distinct and important factors involved with this situation. I didn't find any information on exposure time. This obvious oversight raises some questions of its own. This article is either an example of shoddy investigative journalism, or a 'honeypot' to derail and distract serious inquiry and undermine the legitimate questions raised by the UFO phenomenon.