This is a super fact because surveys, such as this questionnaire from Gap Minder, show that the vast majority of the public (90%) believe that deaths from natural disasters have increased or stayed the same. Gap Minder is a Swedish highly respected non-profit founded by Hans Rosling that promotes increased use and understanding of statistics. Our World in Data (OWID), a renowned scientific online publication focusing on large global problems largely took its inspiration for Gap Minder and Hans Rosling.

The reason for the fewer deaths from natural disasters is not that there are fewer natural disasters, on the contrary, it is because we are now much better at predicting, handling and recovering from natural disasters. Our warnings systems, rescue systems and healthcare have improved significantly.

The graphics in this article from BBC show that the frequency of natural disasters has increased, and that the cost of natural disasters has increased, and yet the number of deaths has decreased.

The graph below comes from the Gap Minder article. It shows the annual deaths from natural disasters in ten-year intervals starting with 1930. In the 1930’s there were 971 thousand deaths per year from natural disasters and during the period 2010 to 2016 there were 72 thousand deaths per year from natural disasters, an improvement by more than 13 times.

However, it should be noted that there was a huge flood in China 1931 causing an estimated 3 million deaths, and it skews the numbers for the 1930’s interval.

Originally, I set the headline for this super fact to be “10 Times more people died from natural disasters a hundred years ago” but I changed it to “Natural Disasters Kill Less People Now Than 100 Years Ago” because I realized that the 1930’s peak is an outlier because of the 1931 flood. I don’t want my headlines to be click bait.

This does not mean that we should not worry about the increase in frequency and intensity of natural disasters from climate change. First of all, there are no warning systems and healthcare available for Koalas and Elephants, secondly cost matters, and thirdly there is no guarantee that we can keep improving our ability of predicting, handling and recovering from natural disasters enough to match the accelerating risks for natural disasters.

What People Believe Regarding Disaster Deaths

The Gap Minder article above report on a question survey conducted by Gap Minder. They asked large groups of people in 14 countries the following multiple-choice question “How did the number of deaths per year from natural disasters change over the last hundred years?” The choices were:

• A. More than doubled
• B. Remained more or less the same
• C. Decreased to less than half

Most people answered A, a lot

of people answered B, but only 10% got the correct answer C, decreased to less than half. In other words, if chimpanzees had answered this question by randomly picking an answer, they would have done better than people. This is why I consider this a super fact. Below is a graphics taken from the Gap Minder article that shows how people in different countries responded.

EF3 Tornado in Dallas

In October 2019 an EF3 tornado ripped through our neighborhood. It left a 2-3 miles long trail of destruction. Roofs were lifted off houses, cars and buses were flown around, hundreds of houses were destroyed, bricks were flying around in the wind, trees were uprooted, and tree branches were flying around, and pieces of concrete crashed into buildings and hit steel fences so forcefully that it bent even quarter inch thick steel fences.

Unlike many of our neighbor’s houses, our house stood, but our chimney was smashed by a piece of concrete coming off a neighbor’s house, we had to replace our roof, our garage door, the wiring in the attic, our fence and my grill flew around in the yard. The amazing thing was that no one in the neighborhood died.

Why did no one die? Was it maybe because no one was outside walking the dog, or driving around, because everyone had received the alarm on their mobile phone about the approaching tornado and was therefore sheltering inside in a safe place? Imagine the same thing happening in the 1930’s.

Below are a few photos from that day and here are two links with more photos, link-1 , link-2. On the five-year anniversary of this event NBC news interviewed me about this event. To see the interview click here . My interview is at one minute and ten seconds.

My wife Claudia asked me to go check on her parents. I drove about 50-100 yards when a neighbor’s roof lying across the road stopped me. I turned around but this time I was stopped by a large pile of trees lying across the street. So, I started walking, but this time I was stopped by a group of firemen telling me that it was too dangerous to be outside. They told me to go back home, and I did. The next day we were able to visit her parents and below is what we saw.

To see the other Super Facts click here

This is a super fact because surveys show that this is not what the public believes and yet it is true. The public incorrectly believes that there is a large disagreement among scientists on this topic. A note, to understand why the evidence is conclusive as to why global warming is happening and is caused by us click here.

Note : I will use the term “global warming” in this review. Whether you call the phenomenon climate change, climate disruption, or global heating, is not important.

The Scientific Consensus

This extensive survey from 2013 of 12,000 climate papers (papers published over two decades) by Dana Nuccitelli and Cook, etc., concluded that 97.1% of climate scientists endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

They also did a science author self-rating which concluded that 97.2% of climate scientists endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. Another conclusion from the survey was that the consensus had increased from around 90%, perhaps less, in the early 1990’s.

A later review of six independent, peer-reviewed studies examining the scientific consensus about global warming have concluded that between 90% and 100% of climate scientists are convinced human-caused global warming is happening. A more recent study (2021) found that as many as 98% of climate scientists are convinced global warming is happening and is human-caused. Numerous other surveys have concluded the same thing.

People’s Beliefs About Global Warming

This 2024 survey from Yale University show that most Americans (61%) understand that global warming is mostly human caused. By contrast, 28% think it is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment. Most Americans (58%) <<Link-6>> understand that most scientists think global warming is happening. This percentage has trended generally upward since this survey began in 2008. By contrast, about one in five (22%) think there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether global warming is happening.

However, only one in five Americans (20%) understand that nearly all climate scientists (more than 90%) think that human-caused global warming is happening. The aforementioned Dana  Nuccitelli refers to this in his book Climatology versus Pseudoscience as the consensus gap. Again, this large discrepancy between public perception and reality makes the consensus gap a super fact. Research has shown that this discrepancy has a large impact on people’s other beliefs regarding global warming.

Why is there a Consensus Gap?

In his book Climatology versus Pseudoscience Dana Nuccitelli explains that a relatively small group of so-called climate skeptics, or more accurately called climate contrarians have received a lot of attention from media. Even though their science is bad, and they’ve published their error ridden papers in obscure or discredited journals, and the fact that their predictions have failed repeatedly many times over, they have had an enormous influence on public discourse. Conservative politicians, and many talk show hosts are blindly devoted to their falsehoods, whilst real scientists are being attacked.

It is not just rightwing media who are using them for their purposes, but mainstream media are giving the contrarians undue attention as well. Sensationalism is one issue. A science contrarian claiming that all the climate scientists are wrong, and that he is the only one who finally got it right is a lot more interesting of a story than a repeat of the consensus. Another issue is false balance. Journalist should not feel that they must give equal time to evidence-based science and nonsense, but that is often the case. To read my review of this book click here.

The Oregon Petition

I am mentioning the Oregon petition because I fell for it myself. The Oregon petition was an official looking petition circulated by climate contrarians, claiming that there is no evidence that human-caused global warming will cause catastrophic heating of earth’s atmosphere and disruption of earth’s climate, and that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere would even be beneficial for plants and animals. It got an impressive number of signatures, 32,000 after some years.

However, it turned out that the signatories rarely had climate expertise, and were not scientists, and the survey listed many falsified names such as the names of the Spice Girls and several fictional characters. Less than 200 of the signatories were climate researchers.

It was a con, but it was touted in a lot of media as the truth. I saw it over and over and I believed it. I was later surprised to learn that it was a con and that a scientific consensus existed on global warming / climate change. Learning that I had been bamboozled on this matter was one of the red flags that prompted me to start doing some fact checking on the issue global warming.

To see the other Super Facts click here

Below is a list of the four formats in which it comes on Amazon.

• Hardcover –  Publisher : W. W. Norton & Company; First Edition (May 2, 2017), ASIN : 0393609391, ISBN-10 : 9780393609394, ISBN-13 : 978-0393609394, 224 pages, item weight : 2.31 pounds, dimensions : ‎ 7.3 x 4.8 x 0.9 inches, it costs $6.21 – $13.26 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
• Kindle –  Publisher – W. W. Norton & Company (May 2, 2017), ASIN : B01MAWT2MO, 222 pages, it costs $9.00 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
• Audiobook –  Publisher : Blackstone Audio Inc (May 2, 2017), ASIN : B06XB2PX7G, it costs $10.20 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
• Audio CD –  Publisher : Blackstone Publishing; Unabridged edition (May 2, 2017), ISBN-10 : 1538408015, ISBN-13 : 978-1538408018, it costs $24.95 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.

Amazon’s Description of Astrophysics for People in a Hurry

Over a year on the New York Times bestseller list and more than a million copies sold.

The essential universe, from our most celebrated and beloved astrophysicist.

What is the nature of space and time? How do we fit within the universe? How does the universe fit within us? There’s no better guide through these mind-expanding questions than acclaimed astrophysicist and best-selling author Neil deGrasse Tyson.

But today, few of us have time to contemplate the cosmos. So Tyson brings the universe down to Earth succinctly and clearly, with sparkling wit, in tasty chapters consumable anytime and anywhere in your busy day.

While you wait for your morning coffee to brew, for the bus, the train, or a plane to arrive, Astrophysics for People in a Hurry will reveal just what you need to be fluent and ready for the next cosmic headlines: from the Big Bang to black holes, from quarks to quantum mechanics, and from the search for planets to the search for life in the universe.

This is my four-star review for Astrophysics for People in a Hurry

The reason I gave the book four stars instead of five is because I felt that if you have an interest in the topic, you will have heard it all before. However, in retrospect that might not be a good reason to deduct a star. After all, the book seems to be targeting people who do not know much about the subject and thus will not have heard it all before.

Quick and Entertaining Overview of Astrophysics

I’ve read a number of Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s books and I love them. This book is a compressed version of what he has been explaining in other books. If you’ve already read a number of Neil De Grasse books, or perhaps other popular science Astrophysics books such as those by Stephen Hawking, you will not find much new in this book. However, I think it is a brief but good summary of Astrophysics written for a layman. It is 208 pages, each page having about half as much text per page as a typical popular science book. It is an easy and fairly quick read.

He briefly explains the Big Bang, physical laws, spectra, nebulae, the speed of light, very briefly relativity and quantum physics, the cosmic background radiation, galaxies, gravitational lensing, dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars, the composition of the solar system and exoplanets. He covers a lot of ground quickly and he makes it easy to understand without simplifying so much that it becomes misleading. This book is exactly what the title says. However, as I mentioned, if you’ve read a lot on the topic already, especially if it is Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s books, you’ve seen it before. I still think it was very enjoyable though and I still learned something new. He is a very entertaining author.

To see the Super Facts click here

There Are Three Types of Mammals

Placentals, Monotremes, and Marsupials

All mammals are warm-blooded, have fur, and produce milk. However, there are three main types of mammals, placentals, monotremes, and marsupials, distinguished by how they give birth. Placentals give birth to well-developed young, and they nourish their young in the uterus through the placenta. Examples include gorillas, humans, whales, rodents, tigers, and bats. Monotremes lay soft-shelled eggs. Examples include the platypus and the echidna.

Then we have Marsupials, which give birth to small and underdeveloped young. Most female marsupials have pouches. Examples include kangaroos, wallabies, wombats, possum, opossum, Tasmanian devils, and koalas. Below is a kid friendly overview of the three types of mammals.

Marsupials on Three Continents

Close to 70% of the 334 extant marsupial species are concentrated on the Australian continent, including mainland Australia, Tasmania, New Guinea, and nearby islands. The remaining 30% are distributed across the Americas, primarily in South America. The Virginia opossum is the only marsupial native to the United States, but it is quite common. For example, we have lots of them in our neighborhood in Dallas. It should also be noted that there are a lot of marsupial fossils in Antarctica, which means that marsupials once lived there.

DNA evidence supports a South American origin for marsupials, with Australian marsupials arising from a single Gondwanan migration of marsupials from South America, across Antarctica, to Australia. These continents were connected and part of the supercontinent Gondwana back then. The ancestors of the marsupials, the metatherians split from placentals around 100 million to 120 million years ago during dinosaur times.

Bamboozled by an Opossum

We’ve found opossums in our house, behind our laundry machine. We’ve seen them along the street, on lawns in the neighborhood and we’ve seen them climb trees. They are pretty common in our neighborhood. It should be noted that they are not possums even though they are sometimes called that. Possums is an Australian relative to the Opossum.

One day when my wife and I were out walking the dogs we saw an opossum lying on the alleyway behind our house. He looked dead. However, when I checked, he was warm and appeared to be alive even though he was unconscious. We put him in a box containing a soft blanket and took him to the veterinary. We were willing to pay for any treatment or surgeries needed. At the veterinarian he woke up and they later placed him in a nature sanctuary. We did not need to pay anything.

Later on, we learned that when an opossum is threatened or harmed, they will “play possum“. They mimic the appearance and smell of a dead animal. This response is involuntary, like fainting, and not a conscious act. That might have been what was going on. So, I might have been bamboozled by an opossum. Bamboozlement seems to be the story of my life. Luckily, he was a male and the veterinary said it looked like he had been hit by a car, so us taking him to the veterinary probably did not do much harm. However, the “playing possum” thing is something to keep in mind with these animals.

Australia and our Photos of Marsupials

When our kids were young, we traveled to Australia where we encountered a lot of marsupials in the wild, in nature preserves and at zoos We encountered a lot of kangaroos but also wombats, koalas, and Tasmanian Devils. I can add that checking out kangaroos and other marsupials was not the only thing we did in Australia. We also spent a week in Great Barrier Reef where we did snorkel and scuba diving.

The first picture below was from our visit to the Blue Mountains. We stopped to have lunch, and I decided to go and take a leak. As I approached a bush, I heard some noise and when I looked behind the bush, I saw that there was a kangaroo behind it. What you see in the picture below is what I saw. The kangaroo was just two yards away. He seemed to be as startled as I was, and we stared at each other for a few seconds. I had my camera hanging around my neck, so I decided to take a photo. Then he hopped away. I am so glad I did not pee on his lunch.

Note : Koalas are often called Koala bears, but they are not bears.

One interesting fact about Wombats is that they produce cubic shaped poop. This makes the poop stackable, and the wombats use it to mark their territory and attract mates.

To see the Super Facts click here

In general recycling is beneficial, because you conserve natural resources, reduce climate change, save energy and reduce waste and pollution. Battery recycling is particularly important since it reduces toxic waste and reduces the risk of a future shortage of certain minerals. Recycling is often viewed as a very important activity that everyone should participate in, and neighbors often shame those who fail to comply.

The shocking news is that even though recycling in general is good for the environment it may not be as beneficial as it is assumed. It turns out to be complicated. As you will see later, most people think that recycling is the most impactful action you can take as an individual to reduce carbon emissions, when in fact it is of very marginal importance. This is what made me consider this a super fact.

Recycling and Greenhouse Gases

According to EPA recycling saves 193 million metric tons of carbon emissions, which sounds a lot until you consider that the US emit 6,343 million metric tons per year according to EPA making it 3%. According to this website consumers can save 732 kilograms of CO2 assuming they do the recycling correctly. This should be compared to the average carbon footprint for an American (US), which is 16 metric tons, making the savings for good recyclers 4.6%.

According to our World in Data (Not the End of the World page 114), based on this research, giving up an average SUV for a sedan would save 3.6 metric ton, or 22.5%. Switching to a plant-based diet would save 2.2 metric ton per person, or 13.8%. Actions saving more greenhouse gases than recycling that we as consumers can take, are for example: give up SUV, go car free, have a plant-based diet, avoid transatlantic flights, buy green energy, switch to electric car, switch from electric car to no car, avoid medium flights, laundry in cold water, and hand dry clothing.

Surveys across 21,000 adults in 30 countries showed that the two actions that people believed saved the most greenhouse gases were recycling (59%) and upgrading lightbulbs (36%). Upgrading lightbulbs have an even smaller effect than recycling. It is of course still a good action to take.

However, what this data demonstrates is that we are bad at guessing which actions are impactful. We need to get better informed and not make assumptions. It should be noted that the efficiency of the recycling efforts varies from country to country. Among the 32 developed countries for which there is data the United States ranks 25.

Recycling and Plastic Waste

Greenhouse gas emissions is certainly not the only issue to consider. What about plastic waste? As it turns out plastic is very difficult to recycle (depending on the kind of plastic) and according to the EPA less than 9% of plastic is recycled. According to Our World in Data and the book “Not the End of the World” by Hannah Ritchie the US and Europe have well managed landfills and good waste management systems that make our plastic problem less of an issue. That’s good news.

But what about the awful problem with plastic in the ocean? Plastic ending up in the ocean is indeed a bad problem. However, 81% of all plastic in the ocean come from Asia, and the rest mostly comes from Latin America. Only 1% come from the United States and 1% from Europe and Oceania. According to Scientific American 93% of plastic in ocean come from just 10 rivers. Eight of them are in Asia: the Yangtze; Indus; Yellow; Hai He; Ganges; Pearl; Amur; Mekong. Two are in Africa – the Nile and the Niger.

None of them are in North America or Europe. Therefore, if we in the developed world greatly improve our recycling of plastic, it would not make much of a difference with respect to the problem of plastic in the ocean. What we need to do is assist China, India and southeast Asia with improving their waste management systems.

Another issue to keep in mind is that uneducated consumers can do a lot of damage to the recycling process. For example, throwing a greasy pizza box into the recycling bin can ruin the entire batch. You are not just recycling incorrectly you are ruining the recycling efforts of your neighbors too. There are many ways to ruin the recycling process, by throwing items in the recycling that don’t belong there. Recycling requires consumers to pay attention to the instructions. It should also be noted that some companies have been found to ignore the recycling process and throw all recycled items in with the trash. There are also neighborhoods that don’t have recycling.

Conclusion

In summary, recycling may not be as great as it is often made out to be. You should still do it if you care about the environment. Just be aware that there are actions that you can take and that your government can take that are much more impactful.

One of the conclusions you can draw from this discussion is that if you are driving a big SUV or eating red meat every day you should probably abstain from shaming your neighbor for not recycling.

To see the other Super Facts click here

Freedom to Roam Everywhere

When I was a kid, I used to roam around a lot, in the forest and on the mountains, and I liked to swim and fish in the rivers and the famous deep lakes in the Swedish countryside. Sweden has 97,500 lakes larger than 2 acres and many of them are deep lakes with clean and clear water surrounded by forests, typically coniferous forests. A small deep clean forest lake is referred to as a “tjärn”. I can add that there are no alligators or venomous water snakes in Swedish lakes.

Sweden offers a type of freedom that is rare in the world, and it does not exist in the United States and certainly not in Texas where I live. It is the freedom to roam or more specifically allemansrätten. Whether the land is public or private you have the right to roam, to hike, to camp, to swim, to pick wild berries, to pick wild mushrooms, to fish, and no one can stop you. Landowners are not allowed to tell you to get off their land and they cannot put up fences to stop you or animals from roaming on their land. Everyone has the right to roam and swim everywhere. It is a freedom Swedes love, and if you one day come to experience it you will know why.

Allemansrätten

The Swedish freedom to roam or allemansrätten, is a right for all people to travel over private land in nature, to temporarily stay there and, for example, pick wild berries, mushrooms, flowers and certain other plants. It is important to point out that you must respect the landowner’s property. You can pick wild berries but not anything the landowner is growing. You cannot destroy or break things or start fires, use ATVs, cut branches off trees, etc. You also need to stay 70 meters or 230 feet away from any dwelling.

As a landowner in Sweden, you can buy land and use it for farming and forestry, and you have the right to prevent people from damaging or stealing your crops. You can buy land for mining, and you have the right to your proceeds and the right to prevent people from stealing from your mines. In addition, people don’t have the right to get close to your house. However, you do not have the right to prevent anyone from roaming on your land.

Other countries with similar laws are Norway, Finland and Iceland. Limited forms of allemansrätten exist in Austria, Germany, Estonia, France, the Czeck Republic, and Switzerland. In the United States, where  allemansrätten does not exist, 63% of all land is private and in Texas 93% of all land is private. Since there is no law in the US protecting your freedom to roam there is noticeably something missing, especially if you are an outdoors person.

Concentric Circles

In addition to evoking my memories of Swedish lakes and allemansrätten, Kevin’s picture tickles my mathematical sense, specifically regarding concentric circles. Concentric circles are beautiful, dreamy, and interesting mathematical phenomena. I could watch concentric circles in the water all day long.

When you jump and play in a lake, when raindrops fall on a lake or a pond you’ll see concentric circles. You see concentric circles on a tree stumps, when you cut an onion, some flower petals, spiderwebs, etc. Concentric circles are everywhere in nature. Light can create concentric circles due to diffraction called an airy disk. Gravitational waves originating from, for example, two black holes colliding create 3D gravitational concentric circles/spheres traveling at the speed of light through space.

Concentric circles are very common in nature. You can see them in Kevin’s picture above. You can see them below my son as he falls into the Swedish lake, and you can see them in the pictures of light below. Whenever waves originate at a point and spread outward you get concentric circles.

There are many kinds of waves, water waves, sound waves, surface waves, seismic waves (earthquakes), mechanical waves, light are waves, electromagnetic waves, matter is both particles and waves, gravitational waves, and they can all make concentric circles. If the waves are moving outward with the same velocity in all directions, you will get equidistant concentric circles.

To see the Super Facts click here

Whether the food you eat is sustainable and environmentally friendly or not depends on a lot of factors including agricultural methods, whether greenhouse farming or monocropping was used, and whether the crop is natural to its environment. In addition, inefficient local transportation can result in higher emissions than faraway transport by ships and trains. If a crop is grown locally in greenhouses, the extra energy that is needed, and the resulting extra carbon emissions are often much larger than the emissions from the transport.

I consider this a super fact because it is often assumed that buying locally is the best choice for the environment. After all, transporting something across the world causes a lot of emissions, right? It turns out not to be that simple.

Articles on Transportation of Food in my French Book

The first time this issue was brought to my attention was in my French class. I am learning French, just as a hobby. There was an article in our French book on the transportation of food around the world “Notre planète ne tourne pas rond!”.

We read that cashews were grown in the Ivory Coast in Africa and then sent for peeling and cleaning in Brazil and then sent to France to be sold. The cashews travelled 10,000 kilometers or 6.250 miles. We read about cod that was caught in Norway then sent to China to be cut into filets and then sent to France to be sold. That cod travelled 15,000 kilometers. We all thought it was crazy, and very bad for the environment, so much unnecessary emissions from transportation. But we all learned a few new French words.

Then at our next class, we turned the page “Consommer local, vraiment bon pour la planète?” / “Consuming locally, really good for the planet?”. Wait what? The next article confused us since it stated that in many cases eating locally was bad for the environment, not good for the environment. Transporting the food around the globe might be good for the environment.

Incidentally, at the time I was reading “Not the End of the World, How we can be the first generation to build a sustainable planet” by Hannah Richie, the research director for “Our World in Data”. “Our World in Data” is a highly regarded free and open-source website that collects and analysis vetted statistics on a large range of topics. In that book she stated that the data showed that tomatoes imported to Sweden from Spain caused less carbon emission than tomatoes grown locally in Sweden.

The Problem with Locally Grown Tomatoes

This article from University of Southern Denmark claim that importing tomatoes from warm countries are better for the environment than buying locally. The reason being that when tomatoes are grown in an open field, the production emits an average of 80 kg CO2 per ton, but if the tomatoes are grown in a greenhouse, they emit up to 700 kg CO2 per ton. In northern countries it is common to grow tomatoes in greenhouses, especially when they are out of season. The long transport of the tomatoes causes much less emissions than that.

This scientific article analyses the issue a bit deeper and concludes that “that the distance travelled by the tomatoes is not the most important environmental burden”. Whether the tomatoes were grown in greenhouses or not matters a lot, but there are many other factors. In short, it is complicated.

This study of local vs. imported tomato production in Canada concludes that locally grown tomatoes grown in greenhouses on average cause 1,070 grams of carbon emissions per kilo of tomatoes grown and tomatoes grown open field in Mexico cause 775 grams of carbon emissions per kilo of tomatoes, despite the 3,800-kilometer journey from Mexico to Ontario, Canada. The reason for the higher emissions for locally grown tomatoes is again that greenhouses use a lot of energy.

Naturally, this would change if you grew the tomatoes in season without using greenhouses. The article also notes that carbon emissions are not the only issue for sustainability. Water usage is another important factor.

The Problem with Locally Grown Vegetables and Fruits

Tomatoes are just one example. The same hold true for cucumbers, lettuce and salad greens, potatoes, bell peppers, hot peppers, green beans and other bean varieties, berries, pineapples, bananas, mangoes, other tropical fruits. In addition, some of these crops can deplete the soil and require large amounts of water, which can be bad if they are being cultivated in areas where water resources are already scarce such as growing avocados in California. In general, growing vegetables and fruits in their natural environment tends to be the most sustainable.

The Problem with Locally Grown Apples

The problem with apples tends to be the opposite, geography wise. In warmer areas, they might require significant water resources or chemical inputs to thrive. Apples from cooler climates need less water and fewer chemicals, reducing their ecological impact.

Local versus Imported It’s Complicated

I should point out that growing locally sometimes being worse for the environment than importing does not mean that importing produce is better for the environment. It just means that it is complicated and that you need to make that determination on a case-by-case basis. The environment is also not the only concern. Another consideration is the protection of local farmers and the local economy.

My opinion is, instead of worrying a lot about local versus imported produce, it is better to focus on things that we know cause a lot of emissions. A dirty grid, coal power stations, a non-hybrid SUV with an internal combustion engine, unnecessary business trips, eating a lot of red meat, basically start with the low hanging fruit.

To see the other Super Facts click here

EV Cars emitting less carbon pollution is a Super Fact

At least here in Texas it is quite common to hear people say that EV cars do not reduce emissions. After all EV cars use electricity from the dirty grid. It is also frequently implied that environmentalists and people who care about fossil fuel emissions do not understand that the electricity for EV cars typically comes from the dirty grid. However, the environmentalists I know do know that. In fact, they typically know more and have sometimes done the math. This is why I consider it a super fact. We know that it is true that EV Cars emit less carbon pollution. This is a fact that matters, it is not trivia, and yet this fact is frequently disputed, argued over, or surprising to people.

EV Cars are more efficient than Internal Combustion Engines

For starters, EV cars are much more efficient than Internal Combustion Engine cars, or ICE, and even a coal-fired power plant is less wasteful than a car engine. The net result is that the emissions caused by EVs via the electrical grid are significantly less per mile. The miles per gallon equivalent (MPGe) for electric vehicles (EVs) varies by state/grid and depends on the model of the car but in general it is much better than for an ICE . Replacing gasoline-powered cars with EVs saves energy, regardless of the energy source used to recharge the EVs. For an ICE 16-25% of the original energy goes to the wheels whereas for an EV 87-91% of the original energy goes to the wheels.

The Manufacture and Disposal of EV Cars

It takes more energy to manufacture an EV battery for an EV car than it does to produce a combustion engine. So, the production of an electric vehicle does emit more carbon than a petrol car. However, the lower emissions resulting from driving an EV means that an electric car quickly pays back that debt, so to speak. It is typically paid back within two years, according to Hannah Richie, the research director at Our World in Data. The statistics show that switching from an average ICE to an equally sized EV will save 1.2 tons of carbon emissions per person and year. That is a lot considering that the average carbon footprint per year is 4 tons worldwide and 14.4 tons per year for an American.

So, are electric vehicles definitely better for the climate than gas-powered cars? This article from MIT answers the question in the affirmative. The graph below includes construction of facilities, manufacturing of vehicle and battery, production of fuel, vehicle operation as well as disposal. It  is taken from this government website and this article also answers the question above in the affirmative. This is an article from the Department of Energy is stating the same thing.

Hannah Richie at Our World in Data also states that other environmental damages related to EVs such as mining for minerals are less than the damage from mining and extraction for fossil fuel cars, and she claims that the price of lithium-ion batteries has fallen by 98% over the last three decades. It should be noted that EVs are becoming increasingly common. According to Our World in Data in 2022, 88% of all cars sold in Norway were EVs and 54% of all cars in Sweden were EVs.

Other EV Myths

There are other EV myths that you may want to have debunked, such as Electric vehicle batteries are unreliable and need to be replaced every few years. In 2011 battery failures were common, 7.5%, but in 2023 battery failures were 0.1%. See this article for details and other myth debunking. A related post is my post on electrification.

I should add that there are some drawbacks with EVs such as the easy with which you can charge them, depending on your location. This post is not a promotion of EVs, and I do not drive an EV for various reasons. This post, like most posts in this blog, is about correcting misinformation and getting the facts correct.

To see the other Super Facts click here

It is a common belief that humans originated in Africa. That is true but human ancestry is complicated, and in the past, there were many human species and subspecies. Starting with Homo Erectus, it is estimated that they lived between 1.6 million years ago until about 100,000 years ago.

Homo Erectus was the ancestor of Homo Heidelbergensis (between 700,000 and 200,000 years ago) as well as Homo Floresiensis (hobbit people – between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago). Homo Heidelbergensis in turn was the ancestor of (at least) three homo species, Homo Sapiens (between 300,000 until now), Homo Neanderthalensis (between 400,000 to 40,000 years ago),  and Homo Denisova 300,000 to 25,000 years ago.

However, note that Homo Neanderthalensis is not an ancestor of Homo Sapiens. Homo Heidelbergensis was an ancestor to both. Homo Neanderthalensis originated in Europe and Asia and stayed there, whilst Homo Sapiens originated in Africa and ventured elsewhere (see picture below).

Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens (or Homo Sapiens Sapiens) interbred, and so did Homo Denisova and Homo Sapiens, and Homo Neanderthalensis interbred with Homo Denisova. What a mess! I can add that Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens were different species, so it may seem strange that they could interbreed.

However, species is a complex concept and at certain points in history you could consider Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens to be different subspecies rather than different species. That is why you sometimes hear the terms Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Now when you know how complicated it is, I suggest you take a look at the map below.

I can add that genetic testing can reveal how much Neanderthal DNA you have. I took a test with 23AndMe to find out about my ancestry (it was 98% Scandinavian and Finnish) and to find out about my risk for genetic illnesses. 23AndMe also told me that I was in the 99 percentiles with respect to carrying Neanderthal genes, meaning that I had unusually many Neanderthal genes (but not 99%). However, no one has called me a Neanderthal to my face yet.

The Extent of the Neanderthal Habitat

The map below indicates where skeleton remains of Neanderthals had been found as of 2017.

Other Neanderthal Facts

There are a lot of other interesting and surprising facts about Neanderthals, such as:

• They lived in caves, but they also built shelters.
• They had complex tools and skills, cooked and processed food and created art and jewelry, cooked glue, and had musical instruments (for example a bone flute).
• Neanderthals not only used fire, they were able to control and maintain fire, and they used it to cook food, make tools, and for warmth and shelter.
• Neanderthals were stockier and more muscular than modern humans, with broader rib cages and shorter limbs. This helped them conserve heat and survive in the cold environments in Europe and Asia during the ice ages.
• They might have spoken language.
• There’s evidence that they were seafaring as far back as 200,000 to 150,000 years ago.
• Their brains were larger than ours. The braincases of Neanderthal men and women averaged about 1,600 cm3 and 1,300 cm3, respectively, which is considerably larger than the modern human average (1,260 cm3 and 1,130 cm3, respectively).
• They had medical knowledge. They had knowledge of medicinal plants and well-healed fractures on many bones indicate the setting of splints. They also knew how to treat wounds.
• They hunted big game.
• They interbred with modern humans.

The Cause of the Ice Ages

Regarding the Ice Ages, which were a great challenge to Neanderthals, they are caused by earth’s orbital cycles. However, keep in mind that does not mean that orbital cycles are causing the current rapid global warming. NASA keeps track of the orbital cycles, and they should slowly be causing a cool down right now, not a  rapid warming. In addition, if the warming was caused by orbital cycles (or the sun), the upper troposphere would be warming as well as the lower troposphere.

However, what we are seeing is a warming of the lower troposphere and cooling of the upper troposphere consistent with greenhouse gas emissions causing the warming (the blanket effect). To read more about what is causing the current global warming, click here.

Above from PBS explanation and overview of earth’s three orbital cycles.

Endangered Species

When I was a teenager, I read a few of Jean M. Auels novels about pre-historic humans.  I loved them and I saw the movie. Now I am reading Jacqui Murray’s novels about pre-historic humans. Jacqui Murray’s books are even more fascinating and very realistic and well researched.

The latest Jacqui Murray book I’ve read is Endangered Species, the first book in her new series Savage Lands. This book is set to take place 75,000 years ago among Neanderthals and ancient Homo sapiens. I love all her books, but especially Endangered Species. I was also happy that she included canines as heroes in the book (Ump, White Streak, etc.) I am a dog lover after all. I can add that at the end of the book there are a lot of interesting Neanderthal Facts.

You can read my Amazon review for Endangered Species by clicking here and you can read my Virtual Book Blast post for Endangered Species (promoting this book) by clicking here. All the Virtual Book Blasts for Endangered Species feature interesting Neanderthal facts. To see a few more Virtual Book Blasts for this book click on the links in the list below.

• Virtual Book Blast for Endangered Species – Darlene Foster – Click here
• Virtual Book Blast for Endangered Species – Liz Gauffreau – Click here
• Virtual Book Blast for Endangered Species – Carol Cooks – Click here
• Virtual Book Blast for Endangered Species – John Howell – Click here
• Virtual Book Blast for Endangered Species – Booomcha, Kymber Hawke – Click here

To see the other Super Facts click here

The Special Theory of Relativity by David Bohm

David Bohm a close colleague of Albert Einstein was one of the most interesting theoretical physicists of the 20^th century. This book “The Special Theory of Relativity” is one of the most interesting and thorough introductory books on the Special Theory of Relativity that I have come across. It is a series of lectures on the topic. It features algebra, equations, and a little bit of differentials but not too much.

You may want to have some math, physics and some relativity under your belt before you tackle this book. In my estimate it is written for those who have taken high school AP physics and AP algebra, maybe calculus as well, or one or two college level physics classes and math classes (or more). It is probably too basic for professional physicists, but it is not written for laymen. I bought the paperback version.

• Hardback –  Routledge; 1st edition (October 10, 1996), ISBN-10 : 0415148081, ISBN-13 : 978-0415148085, 256 pages, item weight : 13.6 ounces, dimensions : ‎ 5.75 x 0.75 x 9 inches. It is out of stock, and it costs $75.60 – $144.00 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
• Paperback –  Publisher : Routledge; 1st edition (September 4, 2006), ASIN : 0415404258, ISBN-13 : 978-0415404259, 304 pages, item weight : 12 ounces, dimensions : 5.08 x 0.69 x 7.8 inches. It is out of stock, and it costs $12.36 – $17.21 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
• Kindle –  Published : Routledge; 1st edition (September 29, 2015), ASIN : B009W3W6MG, 306 pages, it costs $10.10 – $13.77 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.

Amazon’s Description of the Book

In these inspiring lectures David Bohm explores Albert Einstein’s celebrated Theory of Relativity that transformed forever the way we think about time and space. Yet for Bohm the implications of the theory were far more revolutionary both in scope and impact even than this. Stepping back from dense theoretical and scientific detail in this eye-opening work, Bohm describes how the notion of relativity strikes at the heart of our very conception of the universe, regardless of whether we are physicists or philosophers.

This is my five-star review for The Special Theory of Relativity

Note, I wrote this review in 2014, so it is relatively old, pun intended.

Lorentz Electrodynamics, Special Relativity, and our Perception of Reality

This book is a thorough and well written introduction to the “Special Theory of Relativity”. In addition to the basics of special relativity it covers the history of Special Relativity and it includes 60-pages of Lorentz Electrodynamics. The book also discusses Minkowski Diagrams, the Twin Paradox, relativistic Doppler effects, K-Calculus, and philosophy related to relativity. The book does not discuss General Relativity.

Bohm does not derive many formulas for electrodynamics, optics, quantum physics, thermodynamics, etc., and therefore this book does not resemble a textbook. Bohm’s focus is on a deeper understanding of the special theory of relativity itself, and on time and space.

He discusses perception of reality and includes discussions on child development, psychology and neurology related to perception, the meaning of the relational concepts in relativity, the structure of scientific revolutions (T.S. Kuhn), our perceptions of time and space, philosophy, and other related topics that cannot be classified as physics.

In K Calculus you draw the world lines of light pulses sent at constant intervals between different observers. Then you calculate what is essentially the Doppler factor K and uses it to explain what is going in relativity. In contrast the Lorentz transform is concerned with the space-time coordinates that you measure after taking into account that light have to travel a certain distance and that this takes time. Basically, the “actual time and space coordinates”.

K Calculus on the other hand is including both relativistic effects and the distance and time it takes for light to travel. K Calculus is thus not what you “measure” but what you “observe”. K Calculus makes it very easy to explain special relativity to an audience that is not strong in math and it also adds a new understanding to the special theory of relativity.

However, I see an inherent risk with K-Calculus in that it can end up fooling the student into believing that he understands relativity, for example, if a student incorrectly comes to believe that time dilation is some form of Doppler Effect.

Except for the fact that some of the mathematical derivations were unnecessarily complex I thought this book presented relativity lucidly, the philosophical discussions were insightful, and it added to my understanding of the topic. It should probably not be your first book on Special Relativity but it is a very good second book. I highly recommend it for those who want to think through the concepts of relativity a little deeper.

To see the Super Facts click here