Nick

In-Class Roundtable Outline: Minimum Wage

April 10, 2014 by Nick 1 Comment

In Class Roundtable Plan

My persuasive essay topic is minimum wage legislation in the United States. It seems to be a perennial issue in the world of politics, and it has once again been brought into the spotlight fairly recently, especially with the passage of a bill by President Obama to raise the minimum wage for newly hired federal contract workers to $10.10 per hour. Now the president and other lawmakers are pushing to raise the national minimum wage rate to $10.10 from its current level of $7.25. Many states have already enacted their own minimum wage legislation to set a rate higher than the national requirement, the highest of which is Washington state at $9.32. Additionally, a recent movement by some fast food workers sought a living wage from employers by demanding $15 per hour, which sparked outcry from opponents who claim $15 an hour is an outrageously high wage for the fast food industry.

It seems that the time has come for the United States once again to reconsider its minimum wage legislation, and in terms of the wage rate it seems that there are generally three options—raise, lower, or keep the same. Proponents of raising the rate maintain that higher wages have the ability to lift more of the country’s population from the depths of poverty, while opponents argue that an increase in the minimum wage rate will in fact hurt more than it will help, as employers facing higher labor costs choose to lay off workers, reduce hours, and/or raise prices to compensate.

My interest in America’s minimum wage discussion partially stems from my interest in examining how economies function and how government policies and regulations can alter the state of an economy—an interest that has lead me to pursue a minor in economics. A large part of the ongoing minimum wage discussion is based on its predicted outcome—what will actually happen in the real world if the minimum wage is raised? However, the vast number of variables acting within the US and global economies present an obstacle in determining an absolute outcome of any potential regulation. In essence, while a course on economics might choose to represent the debate with a simple graph that would seem to lead to an obvious choice of action, in reality the US economy is much more complex.

(Simplified) Minimum Wage Graph
Source: http://s3.amazonaws.com/answer-board-image/8585dc80-3f09-4db9-967f-4b24b43227fc.jpeg

Within my paper I want to explore and examine several options for national minimum wage legislation. Specifically, a Congressional Budget Office report released in February of this year proposed and analyzed two options—a raise to $9.00 and a raise to $10.10. Still, the findings of this report have been disputed, and other economic analysis has yielded conclusions in direct opposition to the CBO report. Perhaps America’s discussion (and much of its debate) about the minimum wage has more to do with the differences in economic philosophies across party aisles—an idea I will discuss in my paper.

My hope is that by reading my paper, the reader will come away with a more comprehensive understanding of the various viewpoints within America’s minimum wage discussion. Ultimately, my personal opinion is that the minimum wage should be increased, not necessarily due to the political aspects but more so due to the increasing cost of living and rate of inflation. I will likely propose that the minimum wage be tied to the rate of inflation, such that as inflation increases and the US dollar is devalued the minimum wage rises to compensate. But in the end my goal is to examine multiple opinions and options and, after the facts are laid out, to let the reader decide.

Filed Under: Works in Progress Tagged With: #economics, #king, #minimumwage, #persuasive, #policy, #rcl1314, #WIP

Science, Social Media, and Sensationalism

March 27, 2014 by Nick 6 Comments

Today I logged into Facebook, and near the top of my newsfeed was a link to an article that caught my eye. It was entitled “8 Beers That You Should Stop Drinking Immediately” from the website www.organics.org. In fact, this article has been shared so many times on Facebook today alone that the website has crashed due to the high traffic volume and has not yet been resorted at the time of this posting. The link was shared by one of my old high school teachers, and below it there were already a few comments thanking him for sharing such valuable information. What toxins could these adult beverages possibly contain—what ingredients could be so harmful to be warranted by such a fear-imbuing title? I decided to investigate—immediately! Lest someone consume one more bottle of these fermented killers.

At this time the only form of the webpage to which I have access is a Google cached version of the page from shortly before the website crashed. Here’s a screenshot of the article’s introduction:

The article proclaims, “All the work for your body can be ruined in a weekend out,” apparently as a result of harmful ingredients found in beer—“a HUGE mistake.” A Google search turned up a similar article from a website named foodbabe.com. Both articles enumerate the harmful ingredients we should avoid. Many of the listed harmful ingredients in the article are indeed controversial, from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to high fructose corn syrup and BPA. But what the article fails to mention is that, although these substances are controversial, they are found in a multitude of other foods that are commonly consumed in much greater quantities than beer. In essence, the premise of the entire article, claiming the harmful ingredients consumed from beer can ruin your body’s well-being, is a bit of a hyperbole with one blatant omission—the ingredient in beer that is most likely to do your body harm is the alcohol itself. So if you’re concerned about the harmful effects of caramel coloring in beer, it might be wiser to worry about getting alcohol poisoning from consuming the enormous volume of beer necessary for the caramel coloring to have an effect. Or just avoid everything else in your diet that has caramel coloring (hint: it would be difficult). So without further ado, let’s take a look at some of the ingredients and where they occur in much high quantities in a typical diet.

GM Corn – Do you eat corn or anything made from corn? Yes? Then if you live in the United States you probably eat genetically modified corn, considering the 90% of corn grown in the United States is of genetically modified varieties. Studies on the potential health effects of GM crops are ongoing, but no definitive links to adverse health effects have yet been proven.

Fish Bladder – Not as gross as it sounds. The article leaves out the key detail that it is the swim bladder of the fish that is used, not the type of bladder most people think of. The swim bladder in a fish stores air, which helps the fish control how much it floats—not fish waste, as the title might have you believe. Guinness uses it in the form of a powder to clarify their beer—the powder is filtered out after it does its job.

Propylene Glycol – The foodbabe.com article describes it as “an ingredient found in anti-freeze.” Well, kind of, but not. The problem with that description is that there is no one substance called “anti-freeze.” Many different chemicals can act as anti-freezes because they don’t freeze—a property that is not directly correlated with their toxicity. Ethylene glycol is a poisonous antifreeze, but propylene glycol is specifically used as a non-toxic anti-freeze. And just because it has properties that enable it to be effective as an antifreeze doesn’t mean it can’t perform other functions as well—it is labeled by the US Food and Drug Administration as GRAS (Generally Regarded as Safe) as a food additive.

Caramel Coloring – Another controversial substance as a result of the use of various acids and bases in its production, such as hydrochloric acid and ammonia. It is most commonly found in any type of dark colored beverages, such as colas and root beers, and it is one of the most widely used colorings in food products. It is also used to color breads, chocolate, cookies, liquors, and sometimes potato chips, as well as a long list of other foods, although there are different classes of the coloring that can be used in different types of foods.

The safety of some of the listed ingredients is indeed up in the air, and more scientific research is certainly necessary for further investigation—I can’t dispute that. However, it is extremely difficult—near impossible—to prove that a substance is completely safe, and therefore proving 100% safety of a chemical used in foods (or any substance) should not be expected by the public.

I do, however, believe that the sources of articles such as these should be taken to task for their incomplete, evidence-lacking, and selective journalistic practices that seem focused solely on attaining shares, likes, and retweets instead of on spreading accurate, fact-checked information. Both articles show evidence of a lack of thorough background research or obvious omission of key details that would lessen the “impact” and “buzz” of the article. I call into question the ethics behind this type of journalism, as I believe that such articles serve to alter the public perception of chemists, the chemical industry, and the entire scientific community in a negative manner. Yes, some ingredients and food additives could potentially be dangerous, but if you’re going to publish a seemingly investigative article, at least for the benefit of your readership and society in general perform the basic background research necessary to cite relevant sources and provide more than two sentences about each substance instead of an (apparently successful) sensationalist attempt to increase web traffic. Or maybe hire a proofreader–take baby steps.

Sources:

www.organics.org/8-beers-that-you-should-stop-drinking-immediately/

http://foodbabe.com/2013/07/17/the-shocking-ingredients-in-beer/

http://umpir.ump.edu.my/3162/1/CD5934_KHALIZATUL_RADHIAH_KASIM.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifreeze#Ethylene_glycol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caramel_color

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swim_bladder

Filed Under: Passion Tagged With: #chemistry, #food, #journalism, #king, #media, #passion, #rcl1314, #science

Works in Progress

March 20, 2014 by Nick Leave a Comment

What topic(s) will I select for my persuasive essay and advocacy project? That is the question, and although I have a few thoughts for each, I am in no way committed at this time, and my final topic(s) could and may very well be entirely different from anything I propose in this post.

My first thought for a topic that could encompass both the persuasive essay and the advocacy project is to follow on a similar path as my civic issues blog: environmental policy or perhaps just the environment in general. In my most current civic issues post, The Case for (and Against) Cap and Trade, I experimented with writing in an journalistic style, similar to articles I’ve read on online news sites. While my post was largely objective in nature, I did try to incorporate driving questions as section dividers, which enabled more of my commentary to enter the piece in a sort of editorial style. After reading both a journalistic style and a format scientific report for class, I believe that a journalistic style persuasive essay would be easier to read as well as be more engaging (if it can be pulled off in the context of the topic I choose). I was initially more inclined to write a scientific report, as that is the type of report I am most used to writing, and as an engineer that style is more applicable and relevant to what I will be doing in my career. I never realized that, despite the density of excellent information, fact, and suggestions, just how boring a scientific style report can be to read. Perhaps it was just that specific report to the president—I have read scientific journal articles that are significantly more engaging, even with additional technical jargon.

For my advocacy project, I could similarly develop a pro-environment type of campaign. The problem I’m having is that it seems too cliche and over-used. Penn State is strewn with campaigns for recycling, compositing, energy and water conservation, and sustainability, to name a few. It doesn’t need another one unless it is going to be truly innovative and more effective—a different approach. I’m not sure how much further you can go to try to make people recycle besides offering more incentive or using brunt force. Everyone already knows that taking shorter showers, turning off the lights, and recycling are good for the environment—it’s just that they choose not to do these environmentally beneficial actives. Also, I think I might have a hard time with an environmental advocacy project because I am not exactly an environmentalist myself. Therefore, it could be a bit hypocritical and I might not be able to stand fully behind that sort of advocacy project. Another option is related to the recent disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370—advocacy for the implementation of newer GPS and radar tracking technology in airports and airplanes to prevent similar cases. I am very interested in aerospace and flight, so that is a very possibly topic, but everything is fairly amorphous at this point.

Filed Under: Works in Progress Tagged With: #advocacy, #king, #persuasion, #rcl1314, #WIP

The Case for (and Against) Cap and Trade

March 20, 2014 by Nick 7 Comments

The term “global warming” is today—and has been for quite a few years—a buzzword in any discussion of world climate. It is the phrase perhaps most associated with the word “environment.” It is repeatedly used by politicians and world leaders across the globe, environmental advocacy organizations, and in media coverage. Yet as a term it is quite abstract; it implies only that the temperature of the earth is rising. The cause of such warming, however, is constantly up for debate, with some evidence pointing the finger at humans as the cause and other facts supporting the idea of natural world climate cycles that are not affected by humans. But no matter whether you think global warming is dangerous or whether you believe it is caused by humans, the indisputable fact remains that humans are indeed producing more carbon dioxide now than ever. Carbon dioxide is considered a greenhouse gas because it has the ability to trap heat within the earth’s atmosphere, and out of all greenhouse gases it is the second most abundant (behind water vapor). Humans and animals exhale the gas, and it is a natural product of decomposing vegetation and other organic materials, but these sources are largely overshadowed by industrial activities—from electricity generation to transportation to manufacturing, anything that burns fuel releases carbon dioxide. And as CO2 emissions around the world increase (totaling 30 billion tonnes in 2008), forests around the world, which convert CO2 back into oxygen, are decreasing in size.

Source: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html

As a result, some countries have moved to implement policy to reduce and limit the amounts of various greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. The largest implementation of this type of policy is the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty adopted by many developed nations in 1997 and put into effect in 2005. In the Protocol, these nations agreed to place targets on their respective greenhouse gas emissions, which would decrease on a yearly basis. The entire European Union, as well as other large countries such as Russia, Japan, Canada, and Australia agreed to participate in the first period of the Protocol, which ran from 2008-2012. Most notably, the United States was the largest developed nation not to ratify the protocol.

Map of Kyoto Protocol Participation
Source: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html

But this agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was only the first step. The next was to figure out a system under which this reduction could be achieved. The European Union decided to implement a cap and trade program—the first and largest of its kind in the world.

What is cap and trade?

Sometimes called emissions trading, cap and trade is system for regulating the emissions of large greenhouse gas producers, such as power generation and metal and mineral industries. The regulating authority first determines the total amount of the greenhouse gas (eg CO2) that it will target for the entire system. In the EU, these permits are issued proportionally to all the participating countries. Each allowance owned by a firm allows the firm to release that quantity of the specified gas. For example, the allowances for carbon dioxide are issued on a per ton basis, so if a firm owns 100,000 allowances, it can release 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide in that year. However, if the firm releases only 90,000 tons of CO2 that year, they face an option: they can roll the extra 10,000 allowances over to use in the next year, or they may trade them to other firms who may have released too much CO2 and now are in need of more allowances. In this way, each allowance is essentially a voucher, and each firm is issued a number of allowances on a yearly basis. The free market sets the price of each allowance based on the demand of firms and the total supply of allowances. Therefore, firms have financial incentive to reduce their emissions because they can sell their unused allowances. Likewise, increased emissions are financially de-incentivized.

Are there other options to curb emissions using financial incentives?

Yes! Thanks for asking. Another main method for placing financial incentive/burden on greenhouse gas emissions is a tax. For example, a carbon tax charges a firm based on the amount of CO2 it emits. Similar to cap and trade, a carbon tax financially incentives firms to reduce their emissions so that they will pay less in taxes.

How is a carbon tax different from cap and trade?

A carbon tax and a cap and trade system are two different methods of addressing the same problem. However, there are differences in how they function in reality. A carbon tax does not limit the total amount of emissions released by firms. It only is a financial incentive to reduce emissions. Therefore, if the government sets the tax rate too low, the cost for a firm to invest in pollution reduction technology might be more than it would cost to simply pay the tax and continue at the current level of emissions. If the tax rate is too high, firms will respond by raising prices and possibly eliminating jobs. On the other hand, cap and trade places a limit on emissions through the issuance of allowances. The allowances can be traded, but the total cap on emissions will stay the same regardless of which firm owns the allowances. Cap and trade is more of a free market approach—the market determines the price of the allowances, and this market can more effectively respond to inflation and other economic events without the need for governmental intervention.

However, critics argue that cap and trade programs don’t do enough. They maintain that the targeted rate of decrease of emissions is not large enough to offset global warming. Opponents also criticize the distribution method for the allowances; initially, these allowances are often giving to firms, thus “grandfathering” them in at their current emissions levels. Some argue that as a consequence, the firm may not choose to reduce their emissions level for fear of being issued fewer allowances on the next go around (for example, if a firm is given 100,000 allowances but cuts their emissions in half, the regulatory agency will likely decrease the number of allowances they are issued in subsequent years).

Should cap and trade be implemented in the United States?

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 aimed to implement a cap and trade program in the United States that would have been similar to that of the European Union. However, that bill was ultimately defeated. Analysis of the program in the long run predicted that the proposed system would have only curbed worldwide temperature increase by 0.2 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. Opponents argued that if other big polluters such as India and China were not forced to limit their greenhouse gas emissions, the global effect of a US cap and trade program would be negligible. The US chose not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 on similar grounds—without the commitment of other large polluters, the Protocol would cause unnecessary harm to the American economy without substantial global benefit.

Cap and trade is not a catch all solution, nor is it easy to implement nor always effective. In short, when any new regulatory system is imposed, there will be associated costs and effects. Under President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is already taking steps to create new environmental policies to reduce United States greenhouse gas emissions, such as placing targets on vehicle gas mileage and working on implementing standards for large greenhouse gas producers, such as power plants. “Green” has become a marketing tool in the United States, for better or for worse (but that’s a whole other topic), and as a result some firms voluntarily choose to purchase offset credits to improve their “green” public image (for example, a firm pays to plant enough trees to offset the some or all of the CO2 they release). But in short, it doesn’t seem like the time is quite right for the US to implement a nation-wide cap and trade program. The benefits are simply not large enough to outweigh the costs at this point in time. With the failure of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 marking the second time widespread cap and trade has been defeated in the United States, it appears that it will take a new type of environmental policy to tackle the increasing greenhouse gas emissions not only in the United States, but in cooperation with nations worldwide.

Sources:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html

http://www.pbs.org/now/science/climatechange.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8422343/ns/politics/t/bush-kyoto-treaty-would-have-hurt-economy/#.UyunStwU0eF

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/31/carbon-tax-cap-and-trade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

Filed Under: Civic Issues Tagged With: #carbondioxide, #ci, #CO2, #environment, #globalwarming, #greenhousegas, #king, #policy, #rcl1314

To Shampoo, or Not To Shampoo?

February 27, 2014 by Nick 7 Comments

It seems like it’s been forever since I’ve written a passion blog post! My last was an investigation of what exactly is in laundry detergent, how it works, and an intro to some of the chemistry behind why it works. In a similar vein, this week I’ll turn the microscope on something each of us uses (hopefully!) every day—shampoo. (Thanks to Sarah for suggesting the topic!) I have to say I’m a big fan of long showers, and sometimes you just don’t want to step out into the cold just yet, but you’re getting a bit bored just standing there. So what do you do? Read the shampoo bottle, of course (…or am I the only one?) The ingredients list is my personal favorite—I always try to pronounce the long, complicated chemicals and compounds, some upwards of 30 letters. But more importantly, I’ve always wondered what each does. What exactly is shampoo, and why does it need so many seemingly complicated ingredients to get some dirt out of my hair? Let’s find out.

Ingredients

Above is a picture of my the ingredients list of my personal shampoo bottle—Suave, to be specific.

The first shampoos were similar to typical bar soap, but as it turns out, modern shampoos are actually closely related to the laundry detergent I previously described. That’s not to say that they are identical, but they function on the same premise. They both use surfactants to get rid of dirt and grime, only this time the dirt is on your hair instead of your clothes.

Now let’s go through the list.

Water: The base into which all the other ingredients are added: the foundation of the shampoo.

Sodium Laureth Sulfate: A surfactant and foaming agent (it removes dirt and helps create that nice lather). SLES can cause skin irritation.

Sodium Laureth Sulfate

Cocamidopropyl Betaine: Another surfactant and foam booster. It’s name sounds like “coconut” because it’s derived from coconut oil.

Cocamidopropyl Betaine

Sodium Chloride: Table salt. But what’s it doing in your shampoo? It’s used as a thickening agent.

Fragrance: To make your hair smell fresh and clean (but shampoo manufacturers aren’t required to list the specific chemicals in their “proprietary” fragrances)

Tetrasodium EDTA: Full name: tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (that’s “tetra-sodium eth-ul-lean di-am-mean tetra-aceetic acid” if you want to say it out loud). I actually used this chemical in my chem lab last semester. It’s technical term is a chelating agent. The problem with tap water is that it’s often “hard” (meaning that it has a lot of dissolved minerals). Water hardness depends on where your water comes from—what rocks and minerals it flows through and picks up on its way to your tap. Why is this a problem? Surfactants are attracted to these minerals, so they’ll go after them instead of targeting the dirt on your hair. That’s where tetrasodium EDTA comes in—it grabs on to the minerals allows the surfactants to work on the dirt on your hair instead.

EDTA “Grabbing onto” Mineral (M)

DMDM Hydantoin: A preservative for the shampoo (who knew it shampoo could spoil…) It slowly releases formaldehyde in the shampoo, which prevents microorganisms from growing in it. This is a bit controversial because formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen (in much, much, much higher concentrations that in your shampoo), but it still has some risk.

DMDM Hydantoin

Citric Acid: The acid that gives citrus fruits their sharp taste. It’s used in shampoo mainly to lower the pH (make the shampoo more acidic). It turns out that a slightly acidic (pH ~ 5.5) shampoo will make your hair follicles lay flat, making your hair feel smooth and shiny.

Citric Acid

PPG-9: Here we go with the abbreviations again. Its name is polypropylene glycol, and it’s a chemical that seems to be primarily used in industry as a thickener and stabilizer, but other than that I could not find what it’s used for.

Methylchloroisothiazolinone and Methylisothiazolinone: (meth-ul-chloro-iso-thia-zol-linone) Used in combination (in a dilute form) as a biocide to deter the growth of bacteria and other organisms. In concentrated form, the chemical is so strong that it can burn human tissue. Some studies conclude that it is toxic, but it is not officially classified as known or probably carcinogen.

Methylchloroisothiazolinone

Mentha Piperita (Peppermint) Leaf Extract: A soothing agent and fragrance. (No, you still can’t eat it.)

That’s a lot of ingredients! It can be daunting to figure out what exactly manufacturers mix up to put in your shampoo bottle, and this has lead some people to advocate for the less frequent use (or non use) of shampoos. The rationale is that shampoos strip your hair and scalp of oils, which the body in turn compensates for by producing those oils at an even faster rate—a vicious cycle of shampoo use. If you didn’t use shampoo, your scalp would simply produce less oil. Some choose instead to wash their hair with baking soda, vinegar, or even honey or just warm water.

I don’t know about not using shampoo… I think I just wouldn’t feel “clean” if I didn’t use shampoo. But perhaps the projection of regular use of shampoo as a social norm has made us feel compelled to use it every day. What do you think?

Sources:

http://www.dow.com/polyglycols/ppgc/na/products/ppgs.htm

http://health.howstuffworks.com/skin-care/cleansing/products/tetrasodium-edta-in-cleansers.htm

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/08/28/deconstructing-your-haircare-ingredients

http://wikipedia.org

All images from the respective Wikipedia pages of each compound. Used under public domain.

Filed Under: Passion Tagged With: #chemistry, #king, #passion, #rcl1314, #shampoo, #shower

What’s in your laundry detergent?

February 13, 2014 by Nick 36 Comments

Continuing my recent theme of investigating the sometimes seemingly unusual ingredients that make up some of the most ordinary products. Last week focused on azodicarbonamide, a chemical used both in commercially baked breads as well as certain types of foamed plastics, such as yoga mats. Previously, we looked at how a typical plastic water bottle is manufactured, its journey from ink-black crude oil to a thin, clear plastic. This week we’ll investigate another product that is made from crude oil: laundry detergent. That’s right—the essential ingredient in many detergents that cleans your clothes is derived from an extremely dirty looking substance.

Source: http://www.moneysavingmadness.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/tide.jpg

Source: http://www.commodityonline.com/images/21446208241380876995.jpg

There are several main ingredients in detergents that help them get your clothes fresh and clean, and each serves a specific purpose. The main obstacle in cleaning your clothes is the type of dirt that needs to be removed. We’re humans, and our skin sweats. Sweat and other dirt and grease found on your clothing, however does not dissolve readily in water and therein lies the biggest problem of all. This means that we can’t just swish our clothes around in water and expect them to come out clean. That’s why we need a detergent with a chemical that will remove the dirt from fabrics.

We know that grease won’t dissolve in water—oil and water simply will not mix. We need something that will dissolve oils and dirt. Oils will mix with other oils, but we can’t wash our clothes in oil! We fill our washing machines with regular old water. So we need a chemical that can dissolve dirt and dissolve in water so it can carry all the dirt down the drain. Meet the main ingredient of laundry detergent: a surfactant. This dirt-removing chemical has some pretty neat properties that allow it to get dirt and grime out of our clothes.

A surfactant molecule
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Sodium_dodecylbenzenesulfonate.png

There are many types of surfactants. The one pictured above is called a linear alkylbenzenesulfonate (I can’t pronounce it either…), a type of surfactant commonly used in laundry detergents. The special feature of a surfactant is that is has two distinct “ends”—a head and a tail. Its tail—the long zig-zag chain—is attracted to grease and oils. It’s hydrophobic (meaning that it repels water), but it will bind to the dirt in your clothes. The surfactant’s head, however, is attracted to water (hydrophilic). This is the part with the hexagonal shape in the picture. This is what allows the detergent to dissolve in wash water and carry the dirt away from the clothing (also known as lowering the surface tension of the water).

But where do linear alkylbenzenesulfonates come from? Crude oil, of course! Well, actually a chemical called benzene, which is a prominent component of crude oil. Another common place to find benzene: in gasoline (in small quantities). However, with a bit of chemistry, benzene can be transformed into a surfactant. And when combined with other ingredients that make up laundry detergent—such as enzymes that help break down dirt, bleaches that make clothes look brighter, and “antiredeposition agents” that prevent the dirt from going back onto the clothes—it makes for a very effective cleaning agent. Who would have thought?

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laundry_detergent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene
http://home.howstuffworks.com/laundry-detergent.htm
http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Laundry-Detergent.html#b

Filed Under: Passion Tagged With: #chemistry, #detergent, #environment, #king, #laundry, #passion, #rcl1314

What’s in your food?

February 6, 2014 by Nick 8 Comments

This week’s passion blog post was inspired by a social media trending topic. Multiple sources are carrying the story that the sandwich shop Subway is eliminating the use of the chemical azodicarbonamide in their breads. The topic was just too hard to pass up—just this past weekend I recorded my “This I Believe” essay, which I wrote about how I bake my own bread. In fact, I even listed the same chemical in my essay to exemplify the unfamiliar, hard to pronounce ingredients that are commonly used in processed breads as further reason for me to bake my own bread. It turns out most news sources are jumping on the fact that azodicarbonamide is also used in the manufacturing of foamed plastics—such as yoga mats.

Ingredient: Azodicarbonamide
Source: http://www.studlife.com/files/2013/02/Subway-Bread.jpg

Ingredient: also azodicarbonamide Source: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71cwPmthlJL._SL1500_.jpg

Ingredient: Azodicarbonamide
Source: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71cwPmthlJL._SL1500_.jpg

So today I’m going to further investigate the chemical azodicarbonamide, as well as some other food additives that are used in products other than food.

To start off, azodicarbonamide is indeed approved as a food additive by the US Food and Drug Administration, achieving “generally recognized as safe” status in concentrations below 45 parts per million—that’s 0.0045% by weight. Its use in food is banned in Australia, Europe, and Singapore. It is added to flour as a dough conditioner and strengthener, and it can be found in many brands of commercially produced breads. The ingredient did not become controversial overnight, it seems—while researching the topic I came across all sorts of blog articles about this reportedly dangerous food additive surrounded by attacks on the processed foods industry. It’s hard to figure out which articles are accurate and not just angry venting against artificial foods. I did some research about the chemical itself and some scientific studies conducted to test its safety, and it appears that azodicarbonamide can indeed by harmful in its raw form. Accordingly, the UK does label it as a respiratory irritant, indicating that it can be harmful to workers who inhale the chemical.

Azodicarbonamide Chemical Structure
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Azodicarbonamide.png

Azodicarbonamide in its Powdered Form
Source: http://pantryparatus.com/media/wysiwyg/All_Images_2013/Other_Peoples_Photos/azodicarbonamide.jpg

However, when used in bread, azodicarbonamide doesn’t actually stay in its raw form. When it is combined with flour and water, studies found that “it is rapidly and completely converted into biurea, which is stable under baking conditions” (www.inchemg.org). Biurea has been found to be rapidly eliminated from the body after consumption. Other by products besides biurea need further investigation to determine how much of a threat they pose to humans, but by all studies it seems that azodicarbonamide, at or below the maximum allowed proportion, does not pose as significant of a threat as some news headlines would have you believe.

A main non-food use of azodicarbonamide is in the manufacturing of foamed plastics, such as the material yoga mats are made of. It’s important to note that there is a distinction between the chemical that is delivered to bakers and that which is used in plastics manufacturing—as a food product, the quality and purity standards are higher. But in making a yoga mat, azodicarbonamide is what makes the foamy texture. It produces gases when it is heated, and those tiny gas bubbles are trapped in the material, creating a springy, cushioned foam.

But azodicarbonamide is just one of many food additives that is used in other ways besides food. Take, for intense titanium dioxide. It is a chemical pigment and whitener that is commonly found in sunscreens because of its ability to block UV rays from the skin. It is also used in cosmetics. But where is titanium dioxide also used? Sometimes in skim milk and low fat cheeses—products that may not be as bright white due to their decreased fat content. Titanium dioxide is used to make them look brighter and more appealing—closer in color and appearance to their full-fat versions. Titanium dioxide is also an airborne irritant, but is otherwise rather chemically nonreactive and harmless.

Ingredient: Titanium dioxide
Source: http://pics1.ds-static.com/prodimg/214628/300.JPG

(Possible) Ingredient: Titanium dioxide
Source: http://images.wisegeek.com/pitcher-of-milk-cream.jpg

I can definitely understand the public reaction to the use of azodicarbonamide in bread products as well as other artificial ingredients in various food products, and I generally believe that simple and natural is usually better in terms of food. My only concern would be that the food industry will find another chemical to use instead—a chemical that no one will notice until someone investigates and petitions bakeries to stop using it. And who knows how long that would take.

Sources:

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/09/11/ingredient-found-cereals-breads-also-found-foamed-plastics-rubber/

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/06/health/subway-bread-chemical/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium_dioxide/

http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/40abcj28.htm

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/09/11/ingredient-found-cereals-breads-also-found-foamed-plastics-rubber/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azodicarbonamide

http://www.inchem.org/documents/cicads/cicads/cicad16.htm#PartNumber:2

Filed Under: Passion Tagged With: #azodicarbonamide, #bread, #chemistry, #food, #ingredients, #king, #passion, #rcl1314, #Subway, #titaniumdioxide

Could tighter regulation prevent environmental disasters?

February 6, 2014 by Nick 6 Comments

On January 9th of this year, a roughly 1-inch wide hole in a storage tank at a Freedom Industries facility in West Virginia resulted in the release of an estimated 10,000 gallons of the chemical 4-methylcyclohexane methanol (MCHM) into the Elk River. I discussed the nature of the chemical in a previous blog post. The incident left over 300,000 West Virginians without safe drinking water and the area in a state of federal emergency. Further investigations revealed the mired history of Freedom Industries, including a co-founder found guilty of stealing over a million dollars of employee payroll tax withholdings for his personal usage, personal tax fraud, and (no less) selling cocaine. But that’s another article…

Similar environmental disasters (in varying levels of severity) have occurred across our country, from the Exxon Valdex oil spill to the more recent Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico. But how does society react to environmental disasters? What lead to the leakage of MCHM into the Elk River, and could more effective regulatory policies have prevented the entire incident in the first place?

In the case of the Freedom Industries spill, there are many areas of regulation (or lack thereof) that apply. There were many variables at play this incident, which, combined, resulted in the widespread effect of the leakage.

1. The Freedom Industry facility is located on a river—this is to facilitate transport of the chemicals by barge. But not only is the facility located on a river, but it is only a mile and a half upstream from the only intake for the area’s public drinking water supply. I understand that if a chemical facility is going to be on a river, it will be upstream from something. But in such close proximity to a drinking water intake—the only one for the area—you might think further consideration would have been made regarding the relative location of the two. Since they were so close, any chemical spill would flow directly downstream to the intake, perhaps before anyone was even notified.

Pink: Freedom Industries
“B”: Water Intake
Source: maps.google.com

But the water company was notified within a few hours after the spill. So of course they closed the water intake to prevent any more of the chemical from entering the water supply? Nope. They instead opted to put a carbon filter on the intake in an effort to prevent the chemical from entering the intake. Since MCHM is a liquid, it is likely that anything water could pass through (i.e. the filter), MCHM could also pass through. In this case, I think that the water authority is also partially to blame for this issue—if the area water supply had been shut off as soon as notification of the spill was received, it is likely that not as many people would have been exposed to the chemical. Sure, the water supply would still be cut off, but not as many people would be in the hospital.

2. Now for Freedom Industries. But first, some background. Storage facilities such as the one owned by Freedom Industries are not federally regulated (although the federal government does set many environmental policies through the Environmental Protection Agency). Instead, the federal government allows states to determine how (or if) they regulate such facilities. West Virginia, however, has a reputation for being friendly to industry—it doesn’t choose to impose aggressive regulatory policies on businesses within the state. It is important to note that Freedom Industries is a distributor of chemical products—manufacturers synthesize the chemicals and send them to companies like Freedom Industries, which carry out end delivery to customers. But West Virginia does not require the inspection of chemical storage tanks such. Residents of a neighborhood near the Freedom Industries site did complain about various odors emanating from the facility, prompting an inspection by the state. However, inspectors apparently failed to notice a crack in a concrete wall designed to contain potential spills from the tanks and prevent them from entering the river. The company did, however, admit that it knew about the crack and set money aside to fix it, but repairs were never started.

Freedom Industries facility, aerial view
Source: businessweek.com

Could tighter regulation have prevented the spill? It would appear that they might. Regularly scheduled inspections of chemical storage facilities could allow problems such as these to be avoided. But inspections must occur more often and yet be detailed enough to reveal potential problems. For state investigators to conduct an inspection on the plant but not discover a crack in a containment wall—a seemingly integral part of a chemical storage facility located on a river. The company maintains that the tank was punctured as a result of a pipe breakage under the tank that froze and expanded upwards into the tank. But the hole in the tank wouldn’t have been an issue if the containment wall was in proper shape—the wall would have done its job and prevented the chemical from entering the river. Furthermore, on the day of the spill, several residents contacted 911 and complained of a licorice smell coming from the plant. EPA inspectors arrived, and they were told by company officials that everything was fine and the facility wasn’t having problems. The inspectors then toured the facility and discovered the leak.

In this case, I believe that slightly tighter regulation on chemical plants such as these could have in part prevented this incident. Private businesses have one goal: to maximize profit. And that is not inherently bad or evil. But for Freedom Industries, seemingly unethical behavior and/or negligence and failure to act on a problem it knew about—the broken wall—is evidence that some (not all) private businesses seek to maximize profit without care for the environment and its citizens. Furthermore, on January 17, following the flood of lawsuits beginning to be filed against Freedom Industries, the company filed for bankruptcy in an effort to decrease their liability for the spill. A week later, the state ordered Freedom Industries to cease operation and dismantle all of its 17 storage tanks at the facility, citing that all of the tanks did not have enough protection against spills. The action came too late for citizens left without drinkable water, but perhaps future regulation reform could prevent similar incidents from occurring.

Sources:

http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/181557-who-runs-freedom-industries-west-virginias-chemical-spill-mystery

http://www.npr.org/2014/01/29/268201454/how-industrial-chemical-regulation-failed-west-virginia

Filed Under: Civic Issues Tagged With: #4methylcyclohexanemethanol, #chemical, #ci, #environment, #king, #policy, #pollution, #rcl1314, #regulation, #westvirginia

This I Believe – Work in Progress

January 30, 2014 by Nick Leave a Comment

Currently in progress is my “This I Believe” essay/podcast. I chose my topic to be bread making. It is one of my most favorite hobbies—it’s my way to take part in my Italian heritage while also combining it with my passion for science. In my essay I wanted to emphasize how these two mesh.

I began my essay with a story of me being inspired to bake break—walking down the supermarket aisle and not being able to pronounce the ingredients in the commercially made breads. I then describe making the first loaf, failing miserably, but ultimately after several tries getting it right. This example of failure was meant to highlight how my treatment of bread making as a bit of a science has helped me improve my art. To emphasize this, I included a couple measurements as an appeal to logos.

Ultimately, I wanted to portray how the moral of the story is how I enjoy using my own talents to contribute to and to carry on a tradition of my heritage. In the end, it’s all about making my family proud, loaf by loaf.

I thought the proofreading activity on Wednesday was helpful for the assignment. Hearing it spoken by someone else really highlighted the need for it to be written for performance. There were definitely a few instances of unpronounceable words (such as the chemical names), tongue-twisting word combinations, and wording that just sounds a bit awkward. It was also helpful to read/listen to other essays. In comparison, my essay seemed a bit lengthy and drawn out. It definitely needs some revision for clarity’s sake. I really liked the essays that managed to be brief but meaningful, having good details and description where necessary and clear writing throughout. Therefore, I plan to make my essay’s meaning more clear and direct with further revision. I may need to cut some of the story to add perhaps more detail to highlight the family tradition.

Filed Under: Works in Progress Tagged With: #baking, #bread, #heritage, #Italian, #king, #rcl1314, #ThisIBelieve, #tradition, #WIP

The Journey of the Plastic Bottle

January 30, 2014 by Nick 4 Comments

Ah yes, the ubiquitous plastic bottle. Despite the growing trend of reusable bottles, America is still in love with disposable, one time use plastic bottles. According to the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA), bottled water consumption in 2012 amounted to 9.67 billion gallons, just large than a 6% year over year increase. Bottled water is a multi-billion dollar industry—$11.8 billion in 2012. Why do people consume bottled water? Our nation is in constant motion; with so many people constantly on the run, perhaps bottled water is a convenience factor. The IBWA asserts that “[Consumers] know that safe, convenient, refreshing bottled water has zero calories and is the healthiest option on the shelf.” I’m no expert, but I would hope the general public is educated enough not to need to be informed by the bottled water industry that water is a healthy, zero calorie beverage. I would hope.

But no matter how they sell it, bottled water, along with the billion dollar market for carbonated beverages, it means one thing: they need a whole lot of plastic bottles. But how do you make a plastic bottle? Physically making the bottle is simple compared to the task of making the plastic itself. What even is plastic? Most plastics begin miles below the earth’s surface, in the form of viscous black liquid petroleum—crude oil.

But how is that black oil turned into a clear plastic bottle? Most plastic bottles are made out of polyethylene terephthalate (there’s a reason why they abbreviate it PETE). These bottles are lightweight and are imprinted with the recycling code “1.” The entire process requires many complicated steps, the technicalities of which will not be described in detail here. The concept is that plastics are polymers. “Poly” means many, and “mer” comes from the Greek merlos, meaning part. Thus, polymer means “many parts.” This is indeed the case. A polymer is essentially a chain of monomers (“one part”). One simple structure repeats itself in a seemingly endless chain. The repeating part of PETE is shown below.

In a (complicated) process called polymerization, these parts are linked together to form a long chain—the polymer.

But if only it were that simple. It turns out that crude oil can’t simply be processed directly into plastic. There are several other processes that must occur to transform crude oil into intermediate products that can then be used to make the plastic itself. After the plastic itself is made, it must be shaped into whatever shape specified by the beverage company. A common process for this is to first mold it into a test-tube shape with threads for a cap, called the preform (pictured at right). The walls of the preform are intentionally thicker than the walls of the finished bottle. This is because the preform is placed between two halves of another mold, and air is injected into it until it conforms to the shape of the mold. Essentially, the preform is inflated like a balloon until it reaches its final shape. Pretty cool, huh?

All in all, crude oil has to be drilled from a well and shipped from the well to a crude oil refinery. From there, intermediate products must be produced, and finally the plastic itself. After that, it still has to be formed into a bottle shape. All steps have potentially involved transportation of the finished or unfinished products to and from different facilities. And the bottle doesn’t even have water in it! The bottles still have to go to the beverage maker’s facility to be filled and then shipped to local distributers and stores.

The moral of the story? In the case of the plastic bottle, there’s more than meets the eye. So think twice before you choose bottled water over tap water.

Sources:

http://www.bottledwater.org/us-consumption-bottled-water-shows-continued-growth-increasing-62-percent-2012-sales-67-percent
http://www.theworldofenergy.com/blog/how-deep-petroleum-companies-look-for-oil/

Filed Under: Passion Tagged With: #bottle, #chemistry, #environment, #king, #passion, #plastic, #rcl1314, #soda, #water, #week02

In-Class Roundtable Outline: Minimum Wage

Science, Social Media, and Sensationalism

Works in Progress

The Case for (and Against) Cap and Trade

To Shampoo, or Not To Shampoo?

What’s in your laundry detergent?

What’s in your food?

Could tighter regulation prevent environmental disasters?

This I Believe – Work in Progress

The Journey of the Plastic Bottle

Categories

Post Calendar

Recent Comments

Meta

Categories

Post Calendar

Recent Comments

Tags

Meta