A perennial lament heard on the science-scene: "why is The Public so damn irrational!". The frustration of having perfectly sound science ignored or rejected out of hand by Folks must account for more than a few gray hairs (although it's probably good for beer sales). We're all pretty familiar with irrationality born of wacko-idealogies, like creationists, climate change deniers, or expanding earthers; from the stand point of Science, there's not really much you can do about those deeply rooted irrationalities that motive people like that.

The earth sciences (broadly defined) have a lot of interaction with the irrational public, largely because we deal with complex systems that have a definite effect of peoples' lives. It's hard to get worked up about quarks (beyond the "gee-whiz" factor, I suppose), whereas acid mine drainage, or peak oil, or ocean acidification have a very concrete ability to impact people and the environment. How do we engage people about these complex issues?

There's a really interesting story up from NPR, which previously aired on Morning Edition a week or so ago, titled "Why Cleaned Wastewater Stay Dirty In Our Minds". Briefly, some clever engineers down in California have been looking for solutions to the region's horrible water situation, and they came to a very reasonable, rational, and environmentally sound conclusion: recycle sewage water into potable drinking water for communities. Pretty good idea, huh?

BUT, when they tried to implement the plan, the public balked. Rather than gnashing his teeth, a UC-Santa Cruz Environmental Studies prof decided to tackle the question of WHY people reacted so negatively to such an eminently reasonable idea. And the way he attacked the problem was through psychology. What they found when they talked to people was that people was that, as in a lot of human experience, people were engaging in what is called "contagion thinking". A pretty clear example of this is given by a psychologist who participated in the study: if asked to value a family heirloom versus an EXACT replica of the heirloom, people pick the original, since it has a history (through contact) that makes it MORE valuable, even if two objects are identical physically.

This sort of thinking carries over into how people think about resources; if their water has ever been in contact with sewage, it's contaminated irrevocably, which gives rise to the completely rad phrase used in the study of "conceptual sewage". Even more interesting was what the study found in regards to people's view on preferred water resources. Given the choice, people would rather have water from a river or aquifer than from treated sewage, despite the fact that water in rivers or aquifers has, through a matter of course, at some point been in contact with something's digestive/excretory system. Unless we start synthesizing water directly from volcanic gases, or from the atomic furnaces of stars, you aren't going to be free of the historical fact that, at some point, someone or something pissed in your water supply. So why doesn't that bother people?

The question sort of get's at peoples' conceptualization of what is "natural" or "clean", and seems to hinge on the idea that, through the natural processes that feed rivers or supply aquifers, some sort of conceptual transformation in applied to the water that makes it "clean". In the article, it's suggested that, by introducing some sort of "naturalizing" aspect to the sewage treatment might make it more palatable (both figuratively and literally) for people. This despite the fact that, as noted in the story, pumping treated water back out into the environment is, objectively, going to degrade it's quality.

It's a really interesting article, and one that we as Earth Scientists should really be paying attention to. What we do and how our science is used impacts peoples lives, and we need to be aware that is in and of itself a transformative process. Science as an adviser to policy has to take into account the history, psychology, sociology, and cultural milieu that it's trying to influence, and that's something that we science-types just don't seem to think about all that often. Take the water issue discussed in the NPR story. One approach could have been to have just said, "too bad, we need to conserve water so we're going to recycle sewage". What response might that engender in the public? Maybe they start buying only bottled water, exacerbating water supply issues and producing mountains of plastic garbage. And poorer people might not be able to afford exclusivity bottled water, exacerbating class division and economic disparities. OR poorer people might decide that, since the water from the faucet is (cognitive) shit, they're just going to have to spend more of their money on only buying bottled water, stretching their fragile finances even further.

It's a complicated issue, and one that we really aught to be thinking about every day, and in a variety of situations. And the earth sciences are right at the heart of all these complex intersections between natural systems, people, society, economics...all that stuff that makes up the complicated mess we call the real world. The NPR report does a pretty good job introducing the topic, and the link above let's to listen to the audio version of the report that played on Morning Edition. Enjoy!

Recently, NPR had a story about the role of oil shale in the American petro-economy complex (I made that phrase up, but I think it sounds kind of neat), likening the Pieance Basin to an "American Saudi Arabia" rich in oil shale. It was an interesting story, particularly in the context of the recent reversal of an old Bush policy that made it easier for Companies to lease and explore oil shale production schemes. Now, I work in rocks of similar age to the Pieance (specifically, the clastic phase of the Wilkins Peak Member of the Green River Fm, famous for it's own oil shale), so I was a little familar with the crazy development schemes some folks have come up for these oil shale deposits. One of the things that always strikes me is the fact that very few discussions about oil shale actually tell you what the stuff is, which is kind of important, as prospecting and (potentially) developing oil shale economically is pretty different from the more traditional hydrocarbon methods. The picture below is a bit of organic-rich oil shale in Outcrop from the Laney Member of the Green River Fm. The richest oil shales are always that blueish-purple in outcrop.



So, what exactly is "Oil Shale"? Well, to paraphrase a geologist who has worked extensively in these deposits, oil shales are neither Oil nor Shale. Actually, they are organic rich micrites, relatively common in some lacustrine deposits (such as those formed by Eocene Lake Gosiute in SW Wyoming). The organic matter is mostly derived from algae living in the lake, and total organic content can range considerably; in the Mahogany Zone, one of the major oil shale intervals of the Uinta Fm in the Pieance Basin, total organic carbon is 40%!



The picture above shows just how rich these rocks are in organics; pretty black stuff, huh? This picture is from oil shales in the Tipton Member of the Green River Fm, SW Wyoming.



This picture above is an interval of Oil Shale from the Wilkins Peak Mbr in core. Again, organic rich, huh?



YET ANOTHER picture, also from the Tipton; these rocks actually smell like petroleum, and sure enough you can set them on fire and they'll burn. Of course, they smell like a tire fire, but that's the price of Energy Independence, I guess.



And there are a LOT of these THICK intervals in the Green River Fm, too; the picture above is from the Tipton, again, showing a thick (whitish) interval of rich oil shale. Start thinking about this in 3-D, and you quickly realize that there is a considerable volume of these oil shales throughout SW Wyoming (in the Green River) and down into the Uinta Fm in the Pieance Basin, in Colorado.

Now, some folks start thinking about all that hydrocarbon, and can't help but get droolin' a little. But how would you get these at these hydrocarbons? Well, as you can see in the Green River (and the Uinta Fm), these intervals are fairly shallowly buried (if not directly exposed). You could mine them directly, and then cook the oil out in some sort of processing, I reckon. Of course, then you're left with a huge, ugly-as-hell open pit hole sitting there.

Other schemes are plentiful, of course, and include in situ heating, hyrdo-fracing, and all sorts of Strangelovian schemes that generally require a substantial input of energy, which changes the ol' equation a bit, you know? I sort of wonder what kind of efficiency you could hope to get out of subsurface extraction?

Oh, and remember how I said that these things smell terrible when burned? Well, turns out there are probably several good reasons for this; oil shales are dirty. Like, filthy. Like, Larry Flynt filthy, man. This study, done on an Estonian power plant that burns Oil Shale for energy, shows that these things have ridiculously high concentrations of heavy metals in them, much higher than even low-grade coals. Kinda grim, really.

All in all, I think I have to applaude Obama's "Hold-on-a-minute-there-pardner!" policy reversal in regards to Oil Shale development. It's fine to push technical and geological innovation, and I certainly think oil shales warrant further study. I can tell you, there are some VERY interesting stratigraphic relationships between these organic rich intervals, clastic phases, and evaporite phases in the Green River Basin (check HERE if you don't believe me!), and careful study of the stratigraphy and depositional processes associated will probably help us understand all sorts of source-rock issues (at least). BUT, I think that there are substantial economic, social, and environmental issues at stake here that really do need careful, considered, and multidisciplinary study before we dig up all of SW Wyoming in some mad bid to become "Energy Independent".

Alright Cats and Kittens; we are rapidly approaching Zero Hour. I hope all my fellow secret muslim marxists out there are ready for their mandatory abortions at their respective gay-marriage/Obama victory party combo events.




Of course, Brian over at Clastic Detritus is quick to splash some cold water on our fervent optimism, and not without good reason. If there's one thing the Republicans have shown themselves adept at, it's the subversion of Democracy and the rule of Law to support their own fascist policies. That's why I took the time today to procure two things: celebratory beer AND a couple of gallons of good ol' fashioned riotin' gasoline.

Anyway, as we await The Results, here's some Sarah Palin hilarity for you guys. The gist of the little story is that Sarah Palin is very disappointed in the blogosphere, which has just treated her so unfairly, gosh-darnit!

And here is a handy dandy little accumulation of all of the ridiculous videos of Sarah Palin doing stupid things, including Getting Blessed By A Witch Hunter, the "I Read All Of Em" nonsense, and my personal favorite, the Bush Doctrine Explanation.

Man, I am not gonna miss her, let me tell you...

See ya'll Wednesday!

The best way to celebrate the Fourth is to celebrate the kind of citizen driven public programs that really benefit people. To this end, I give you The Great Southern California ShakeOut!

I recently (~10 minutes ago) found out about The Great Southern California ShakeOut, which is a fantastic initiative designed to educate Californians about earthquake preparedness. Set to run the week of Nov. 12-16, the ShakeOut is a series of events that includes the world’s largest earthquake drill, a conference on earthquake policy, and state-wide emergency response drills. The USGS is participating in the effort, and the whole thing has a slick website with many links, as well as a Blog designed to keep the updates rolling.

In addition to the laudable goal of helping people who live in hazard zones deal with the inevitable clash of geology and civilization (which, at last score, was something like Geology – 109, Civilization – 0), efforts like this could also be used to help folks learn about the science behind these natural systems. As seen in the recent flooding in the mid-west, fundamental misunderstandings regarding Earth system processes still permeate the public mindset (i.e., multiple “500-year floods” within a short period); the first step to adequately preparing for disasters is to understand the processes at work, whether they be fault motions, drainage basin processes, or hurricane dynamics.

To this end, the USGS and the ShakeOut initiative has put up a couple of circulars, including a 300+ page Open File Report detailing the science behind the simulation scenario (a 7.8 magnitude earthquake), and provides some nice, simplified science outreach material. Hopefully, in addition to taking the preparations to heart, people will also start to appreciate how much of an impact fundamental science can have on their lives. Good job, ShakeOut!

Geomorphology-based frameworks are a part of the fundamental theoretical base upon which much of stratigraphy and sedimentary geology is built. This is most commonly seen in facies models, which use geomorphic organization of modern systems as a template to interpret (via Walther’s Law) the paleoenvironmental significance of a deposit (maybe in a future post I’ll cast all sorts of aspersions on this premise, to the tune of Roscoe Jackson).Anyway, what we, as sedimentologists, always have to keep in mind is the theoretical background deployed by geomorphologists in their work, and what the potential ramifications of this geomorph worldview is.

A recent paper in Science (Milly et al., 2008, Science v.319, 1 Feb) suggests that one of the sacred cows of modern geomorphology, the concept of stationarity, may be dead. Stationarity is the idea that natural systems, such as rivers, fluctuate around a mean value within a well defined and stationary envelope of variability. It is this concept that allows fluvial geomorphologists to take an instrumental record and establish a probability density function for various magnitudes and frequencies of events, such as peak floods.

Milly et al. (2008) however identify anthropogenic disturbances to drainage basins, channels, floodplains, and watsersheds as having effectively destroyed to stationarity concept at the local scale, while anthropogenic climate change has changed the concept at the global scale by altering long term precipitation patterns.

In fact, the authors question whether stationarity ever existed in observed systems, due to land-use changes that have been in place for hundreds of years and which have shown severe effects on the fluvial systems. The picture at left is from Providence Canyon, GA, and shows around 150 m of erosion that occured post 1850 due to poor agricultural processes. Clearly, humans can and have had a strong impact on natural systems. All this has considerable impact on planning and policy-making, which are founded on stationarity models for prediction of flood frequency and water availability.

How does this effect sedimentological facies models? Fluvial facies models are predicated upon the concept that the river system is striving to achieve some equilibrium state, with minor perturbations from the mean being accommodated within the system via feed-back loops and channel evolution. Thus, the very concept of the meandering, braided, and anastomosed river channel planform, which (unfortunately) are the basis for our sedimentological facies models, have the concept of stationarity built-in.

If natural systems, observed at the geomorphic scale, behave in a non-stationary way, then how appropriate are these models for developing interpretations at the stratigraphic scale? In some ways, we should expect the preserved record of fluvial processes to represent only non-stationary systems, since the preservation itself implies the system has been perturbed (by subsidence, or increased sedimentation) beyond the capacity of the channel-system to transport its load. Maybe our facies concepts have given us conceptual models that have made us interpret processes in a completely unrealistic fashion?

I just got one of them there "automated e-mails" through the tubes from the ScienceDebate 2008 folks. Seems like they have set a date for the debate (April 18), a place (Philadelphia), and have invited the current batch of candidates, who of course have yet to respond. As a reminder, the Science Debate 2008 crowd are trying to organize a debate for the candidates focused on issues of science and technology in America. This is something we desperately need, given the fact that our current pres. is a barely literate baboon who has refused to allow stem cell funding, believes in an all-father sky deity, and denies evolution. IF you haven’t signed up yet, go to ScienceDebate2008.com immediately and GET WITH THE PROGRAM!

As I said above, the various camps haven’t yet responded, apparently. Hopefully they'll get on and agree; this ain't no small time debate. It has considerable names, including Nobel laureates and leaders of the scientific communities, large national science societies, and many of the major research universities in the country. Can you imagine Huckabee in this things? Or how about good ol' McCain, trying to walk a tightrope between his various camps, all the while hoping to win over the dumbasses in the Bible Belt. We have a word for that: rad.

Rad as hell.