Monthly Archives: March 2020

Social Distancing and Internet Access

The titanic impact of COVID-19 is driving us to an increasingly digital existence. People that can, work from home. Many if not most universities have shifted to online classes. In some locales, K-12 students need access to the internet.

Electronic data shared between physicians, clinics, and hospitals is greatly aiding the sharing of information about the impact of our pandemic and how we can manage it. Broadband access is now not just a luxury but a necessity of life in the age of a pandemic where social distancing is of utmost importance. A real problem exists with rural areas however because it just isn’t there in many places.

Throughout the previous century and into the 21st, there has been a gradual population shift from rural to urban locales. Early on this was dominated in a shift from subsistence farming to a reliance on cash crops. Later, it was driven by the mechanization of farming technology.

Rural electrification bolstered the success of rural life. President Roosevelt signed an executive order in 1935 which was followed later with legislation creating the Rural Electrification Administration. Were it not for this act, life in rural areas would have disappeared even faster. Electrification brought some parity to rural life compared to life in the cities.

As we now rapidly transition to the age of the internet, there is a new form of disparity between the cities and rural areas. Access to broadband internet is becoming essential to both learning and earning in contemporary society. Increasing numbers of jobs depend absolutely on broadband internet. With quality internet access, many jobs could come back to rural areas. Rural life is inherently attractive to many but there has to be an income source

The value of broadband internet has been recognized now and even the smallest schools have access. But what about when the children go home? Not so much. The best method for broadband is fiber optic cables but the cost for rolling out the cable is unattractive to commercial entities. Broadband can be delivered via a cell phone signal to many rural areas, but again low population densities mean low income for private investment.

The Ozarks present a particular difficulty because of the topology, deeply cut serpentine valleys mean even more towers are necessary for complete coverage. It is time to consider a significant effort to support bringing broadband internet to rural areas, just like rural electrification. In fact, the electric coops could act to broker the delivery. The poles to string cables are already there. It would require an expansion of the skill set for the coops to manage internet connections, but that in itself would bring jobs back.

It’s time to bridge the digital divide and bring our rural areas into the twenty-first century. Children at home need access to high-speed internet. Modern home security systems require connectivity, even many personal health notification devices for the elderly require access.

We will get through this pandemic but we need to redouble our efforts to keep all of our society connected via broadband access. Everyone, both urban and rural needs to included in our civilization.

Dr. Bob Allen is Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Arkansas Tech University.

Dealing with an Epidemic

Unless you live under a rock, you are at least aware that we have a viral infection rearing its head in the United States. Whether you call it an epidemic or a pandemic is immaterial. It began most likely in a market in Wuhan, China where any number of wild animal meats were on sale. Bats have been suggested but it isn’t yet clear.

The infection due to this virus is called COVID-19, as it is a member of a group of viruses known as corona viruses and it appeared in 2019. The virus itself has been given the name SARS-CoV-2 – short for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome second corona virus.

The first response by the government has been to close our borders to countries where an infection is already established. This response was too little too late. It appears the virus has been circulating in the United States for weeks now. There are reported cases in 15 states and 6 known fatalities. As a respiratory virus, its symptoms are similar to the annual flu but more lethal. It also seems to be more transmissible.

Meanwhile, on the economic front, the Federal Reserve has taken a step to stimulate business by lowering the rate it charges to loan money. The idea is to stimulate economic activity and get folks out to spend money. Weird huh? On the one hand, we are told to stay home to avoid the possibility of person to person transmission and at the same time get out in the public and spend to get the stock market value back up.

The Whitehouse proposed a couple of billion dollars to fight the epidemic and the Democrats have proposed much more. Even if approved it is not clear how this money will be allocated. Obviously a vaccine must be at or near the top of the list. Testing equipment and medical supplies from face masks to respirators are needed. Most important is to disrupt person to person contact. Officials have recommended the usual hand washing and if you exhibit symptoms, stay home – don’t go to work or school.

But here our for-profit healthcare system begins to fail us. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, a former drug company executive and pharmaceutical lobbyist, said that although he would want to make it affordable, he won’t promise that it will be. You hear all the time that related vaccines are “free” but the fine print says “with most insurance.” When the working poor get sick, they don’t stay home. If their children get sick, they go to school. There are a lot of folks whose jobs have no sick leave option – you don’t go to work you don’t get paid.

We need a healthcare system that recognizes it only works if it works for all. Free vaccinations. Full stop, payments to those who shouldn’t be going to work and payments for care of their sick children. And importantly a system that guarantees that they will still have a job if they stay home for an illness.

Dr. Bob Allen, Ph.D., is Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Arkansas Tech University.

Climate Modeling

Among the many challenges to the dire predictions of global warming and climate change is the questioning of the accuracy of computer models that predict how bad it will get and when will it get there. The short answer is the models are good, not just good but very good. If we look back fifty years when computers were in their infancy and the models very crude we see a considerable congruency between what was predicted and what is happening.

Predictions about global warming are not new by any measure. As early as the beginning of the 19th century, over 200 years ago, scientists recognized that the atmosphere may be capable of trapping heat. Probably most important in the history of global warming and climate change is the work of Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish chemist. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for 1903 for his work in understanding certain features of chemical reactions.

Less well known at the time was his work examining the impact of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere on the climate. In 1895, Arrhenius presented a paper to the Stockholm Physical Society titled, “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground.” He mathematically modeled the impact of varying amounts Carbon Dioxide and water vapor in the atmosphere using only pencil, paper and a slide rule.

Climate modeling with computers in the 1970s vastly increased the predictive power but the computer models are only good as the assumptions going into the models. The modeling done and predictions made look good “in the rear view mirror.” There were over a dozen different models and some overestimated warming and some underestimated warming but over all they were surprisingly accurate.

The models erred due to unforeseen changes in the variables . As time goes on however, the unforeseen decreases with better understanding. One example is the NASA model by James Hansen that overestimated the heating. It was due to an unanticipated reduction of Chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere. This decrease came about due to an international effort to deal with the unrelated environmental issue of the Ozone hole.

The computer models calculate the heat input from the sun and output via radiation. Among the variables that impact these calculations are the amount of water in the atmosphere and whether it is in the form of vapor which warms the air, or clouds which reflect the sunlight, creating a cooling effect. The albedo of the planet, that is the reflectivity, is important and varies between land and and sea, and winter and summer due to snow and ice. The temperature of the oceans impacts how much of the greenhouse gases will be absorbed from the atmosphere because the solubility of gases in water is temperature dependent.

Climate modeling gets better by the day. There is no conceivable reason for the world’s scientists to act in concert to defraud the public. That is just silly. It does make sense however for those who profit from pollution to deny the pollution, or try to divert attention from the major culprit – burning fossil fuels.

Dr. Bob Allen, Ph.D., is Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Arkansas Tech University.