September 2009 Archives

Little hellions screaming, "Eat my shorts!" may no longer be speaking metaphorically if researchers are successful

Milo Minderbinder would be proud: Researchers at Texas A&M University have figured out a way to make cotton edible.

Lieutenant Milo Minderbinder, one of the main characters of Joseph Heller's acclaimed 1961 novel Catch-22, is ostensibly the mess officer for the Mediterranean island air base where the World War II-era story takes place.

But the always optimistic Milo, a parody of the "what's good for business is good for the country" type of thinking very prevalent in the late-1950s--the novel is as much a satire of American business in the post-war era as it is a black comedy about combat--has established "The Syndicate" and M&M Enterprises. These outfits buy and trade various products throughout the region, with shares for everyone involved convincing his commanding officers to allow Milo to use the Army Air Corps' bombers as cargo carriers.

Because he's always making a profit through some inexplicable form of economic logic that resembles a more complicated Ponzi scheme, consequently making everyone rich, Milo is made mayor to caliph in a range of cities and countries in the region, becoming as great a force in the war as either the Allies or Axis powers.

Milo finally stumbles when he tries to corner the Egyptian cotton market and is stuck with a surplus no one wants. Until he comes up with the scheme to sell the cotton to the Germans in exchange for bombing his own air base, Milo tries to convince everyone to eat the cotton, now coated in chocolate. Despite being reminded that they are shareholders in M&M, the airmen refuse to consume the cotton.

Yossarian, Catch-22's everyman anti-hero, is the only person whose opinion Milo will trust since Yossarian's the only person on the base not swayed by greed and Milo's offers of financial remuneration through the M&M share program.

The chocolate-coated cotton tastes awful, the honest Yossarian tells Milo, further depressing the young entrepreneur.

What neither Yossarian or Milo Minderbinder knew, we can suppose, is that cotton tastes bad because of gossypol, a chemical the plant produces to protect it from pests and bugs. But once you remove the gossypol, it has a great nutritional value.

According to Time magazine, cottonseed is 23% protein and "the current cotton crop produces enough seeds to meet the daily requirements of half a billion people a year."

Using RNA interference (RNAi) technology--yes, genetic modification--which will probably open up another can of worms later on, but let's cross that bridge when we get there, although there really should not be arguments like this when you're trying to solve starvation, but what can you do? --Texas A&M researcher Keerti Rathore, says New Scientist magazine, has removed "gossypol from cotton seed without affecting the toxin load in the rest of the plant, meaning the plant will contain edible seed but not be destroyed by crop pests."

Another researcher told the magazine the development would "allow cottonseed to be used more widely as an animal feed...and extend its uses as a substitute for other high-value oils, like canola (rapeseed) oil."

"It's not bad," Rathore told Time. "Tastes like chickpeas."

And you don't even have to coat it with chocolate!

If compact fluorescent lights actually delivered on their claims of superiority to incandescent bulbs, we'd be singing a different tune

These infernal new compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) that are being shoved down our collective throat are awful.
If I may use the vernacular, they suck!

But the European Union has already institutionalized the changeover from incandescent bulbs--still very similar to the one Thomas Edison perfected more than 100 years ago--to CFLs, and in the US, the clock is ticking towards a 2014 deadline.

There are many reasons to dislike CFLs, but my initial--and therefore to me, most important--reason for hating these government-imposed light bulbs is because they do not give off enough light.

Is this some massive plot to blind me?

"Will some energy be saved? Probably. The problem is this benefit will be more than offset by rampant dissatisfaction with lighting," writes Howard Brandston, lighting consultant, in The Wall Street Journal. "We are not talking about giving up a small luxury for the greater good. We are talking about compromising light. Light is fundamental. And light is obviously for people, not buildings. The primary objective in the design of any space is to make it comfortable and habitable. This is most critical in homes, where this law will impact our lives the most. And yet while energy conservation, a worthy cause, has strong advocacy in public policy, good lighting has very little."

Why couldn't have Uncle Sam made the law that only lights in public places needed the new bulbs--that citizens could still install the lights they prefer? Of course, tax or energy incentives could be made to encourage consumer purchases of CFLs, and legislation could (would?) of course increase taxation on incandescent bulbs to push the agenda--but it would still be a consumer's choice.

The light bulb replacement mandate also strikes me as a stunt of sorts--in that it's a very public, if not ostentatious display that something is being done. But is it really accomplishing what it claims?

"Such legislation imposes substantial costs on both consumers and the economy, but hides them so that legislators avoid blame," writes Martin Hutchinson, in Fortune.

The new light bulb rules could also be regarded--by those of you more conspiracy-minded readers--as a distraction:
By forcing everyone to bend to the will of Our Protectors, one thing is done right: it makes the public mad, and even more annoyed at "green" programs and their often inexplicable restrictions and/or requirements.

When a poll is taken on the public's approval ratings of the incandescent-for-CFLs scheme, the marks will be low.

And why not? Everyone is angry with these expensive bulbs that make you feel like you're in a sickly cave. Meanwhile, everyone is distracted from the perhaps more important environmental issues.

By the way, by using mercury vapor to provide its so-called illumination, CFLs also prove to be a disposal hazard--pop quiz: how do you dispose of household mercury?
As most of the readers of ICIS know, it is not the easiest of cleanup processes....

Then there's this: According to Walt McGinnis at the In These New Times website, "CFLs are energy hogs to produce, operate and dispose of."

McGinnis asks, "What is the real energy cost of a CFL? What does it cost to mine, manufacture, package, ship, sell, operate [and] dispose of CFLs on the environment? These are questions ignored by CFL promoters."

He says that CFLs should be thought of as "toxic technology."

My eyes certainly think so.