The last eight years, also, have passed quickly.  I started that period by moving myself and my household from one region of our great state to another, in a sort of homecoming.  I had taken a new job in a new industry, an experience I would later write about in retrospect.

And now, again, it is time for a change.  I’ve parted ways with my beloved job in the natral products industry, and I am now off to a new beginning in an industry that is, in a way, also a homecoming.  I will again  be working in the agricultural sector, this time in an industry which is facing its own share of ups and downs right now, and I’m sure I’ll be sharing more details as time goes on.

Wish me luck!

New Adventures is a post from: shannonehlers.com

I didn’t know what I was going to do, especially since I don’t really get into the whole Christmas card thing, but one day at work it just came to me.  Well, actually it came to me as a forwarded message from one of my online friends.  Some would call it spam, perhaps, but from the first lines, it struck a chord so close to my own heart, I knew it was no such thing.  So, friends, family, and other legendary folks, this is for you.

Beware, this is a bit long and it will take a few minutes to really read and comprehend, but it is well worth it.  Merry Christmas!

‘Let me explain the problem science has with religion.’  The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

‘You’re a Christian, aren’t you, son?’

‘Yes sir,’ the student says.

‘So you believe in God?’

‘Absolutely.

‘Is God good?’

‘Sure! God’s good.’

‘Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?’

‘Yes’

‘Are you good or evil?’

‘The Bible says I’m evil.’

The professor grins knowingly. ‘Aha! The Bible!’ He considers for a moment. ‘Here’s one for you. Let’s say there’s a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?’

‘Yes sir, I would.’

‘So you’re good…!’

‘I wouldn’t say that.’

‘But why not say that? You’d help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn’t.’

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. ‘He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good?  Hmmm? Can you answer that one?’

The student remains silent.

‘No, you can’t, can you?’ the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

‘Let’s start again, young fella. Is God good?’

‘Er..yes,’ the student says.

‘Is Satan good?’

The student doesn’t hesitate on this one. ‘No.’

‘Then where does Satan come from?’

The student falters. ‘From God’

‘That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?’

‘Yes, sir.’

‘Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? And God did make everything correct??

‘Yes’

‘So who created evil?’ The professor continued, ‘If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.’

Again, the student has no answer. ‘Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?’

The student squirms on his feet. ‘Yes.’

‘So who created them?’

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. ‘Who created them?’ There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom.  The class is mesmerized. ‘Tell me,’ he continues onto another student.

‘Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?

The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. ‘Yes, professor, I do.’

The old man stops pacing. ‘Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?’

‘No sir. I’ve never seen Him.’

‘Then tell us if you’ve ever heard your Jesus?’

‘No, sir, I have not.’

‘Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelled your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?’

‘No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.’

‘Yet you still believe in him?’

‘Yes’

‘According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?’

‘Nothing,’ the student replies. ‘I only have my faith.’

‘Yes, faith,’  the professor repeats. ‘And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.’

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. ‘Professor, is there such thing as heat?’

‘ Yes.’

‘And is there such a thing as cold?’

‘Yes, son, there’s cold too.’

‘No sir, there isn’t.’

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested.

The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.
‘You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such
thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.’

‘Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of
heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy.
Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.’

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

‘What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?’

‘Yes,’  the professor replies without hesitation. ‘What is night if it isn’t darkness?’

‘You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word.’
‘In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?’

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. ‘So what point are you making, young man?

‘Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.’

The professor’s face cannot hide his surprise this time. ‘Flawed? Can you explain how?’

‘You are working on the premise of duality,’ the student explains.. ‘You argue that there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can’t even explain a thought.’
‘It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a
substantive thing.  Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.

‘Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?’

‘If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.’

‘Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?’

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

‘Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?’

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

‘To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.’

The student looks around the room. ‘Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor’s brain?’ The class breaks out into laughter.

‘Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain, felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelled the professor’s brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have
no brain, with all due respect, sir.’

‘So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?’

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. ‘I guess you’ll have to take them on faith.’

‘Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,’ the student continues. ‘Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?’

Now uncertain, the professor responds, ‘Of course, there is.  We see it everyday It is in the daily example of man’s inhumanity to man.  It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world.  These manifestations are nothing else but evil.’

To this the student replied, ‘Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to
describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.’

The professor sat down.

The student was Albert Einstein.   Albert Einstein did write a book titled God vs. Science in 1921…

Christmas, God, Spam and Relativity is a post from: shannonehlers.com

While cleaning my den recently I came across this old wood plane, purchased for a pittance on a tool auction years ago, and now used in my den as a decoration.  Looking at it, I wondered how many previous owners had also handled this tool?  How had they used it?  Had it also been a decoration for them, or was it a tool used every day?  Had it been used in a cabinetmaker’s shop?  In a coffin maker’s shop?  Had it been a trusted tool handed down from father to an apprenticing son?  Had it been replaced by a shiny new power tool?  If so, did technology trump artistic and aesthetic form?

This last question stuck in my head.  It seems that everything is now faster, more instant, electronic.  Everything now has powder coating, plastic handles, and power cords.  We don’t stop, though, at electric power alone.  Some tools now even come with lasers to aid in sighting the cut line.

Living in an analog world is now frowned upon.  We see it in so many ways.

For instance, my family is preparing several of my grandmother’s possessions for sale at auction, as she downsizes from a five bedroom home to a small apartment.  One of the numerous intriguing items I’ve come across is an old Victrola record player, which must be cranked before the music is played from the thick, waxy records.  As I look at it and the records, I wonder if any of these songs are available in my favorite online music store?  Will the next generation of music lovers ever know these songs or the somewhat tinny sound of the giant conical speaker when they plug in their “ear buds”?  With my mp3 player and the hundreds of songs it holds and plays at my demand, I wonder how high would a stack of old 45s be if I had all of those songs in that format?

Looking through a different lens, I’m a chemist by trade and training.  For over seven years I’ve had the privilege of working for a small company dedicated to preserving Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), an holistic system of medicine at risk of becoming a lost art, were it not for a few dedicated souls working diligently to preserve it, not the least of which is my boss.  We utilize high technology in our laboratory to determine the quality of our raw materials and finished products, and we also utilize arguably low-tech manufacturing practices, in order to replicate the traditional processing techniques used for generations in the Chinese medicine system.  All of this stands in stark contrast to our modern western system of medicine, where we typically seek instant relief of our symptoms but sometimes forget to treat the cause.  It all forms an interesting mix of centuries-old  tradition and appropriate technology, and the whole thing is run by a guy I like and respect.

Of course, nowhere is the change from manual to power, analog to digital, more evident than in the field of photography.  There are entire companies built on the digital photography industry, and entire companies shifting from film to digital.  Likewise, entire industries are now needing to retool if they are to survive this transition.  Kodachrome film, for instance, is being phased out, prompting many who celebrate film photography to remove their hat and pay their respects to a film widely recognized for its superiority, but soon to be a nostalgic touch point from a bygone era as we move to digital image acquisition, processing and display.  Even the image at the top of this post, my old wood plane, has never seen print, going directly from an electronic image sensor to solid state memory to a server and now to your monitor.

And speaking of that wood plane in the image, has it been replaced with a shiny new power tool?  How has woodworking changed?  In many ways it has changed greatly, and in other ways, not at all.  In the era of CNC lathes and power drills, there are still folks like Robby Pedersen, who runs a working museum that builds furniture using techniques from the 1800s.  My mother, a tour guide, told me about him after one of her contacts in the tourism industry presented her with some literature.  And then there is Roy Underhill, who just published a new book on woodworking, starting from the beginning, in the forest felling  a tree.  For more on planes, especially hand planes, made the old fashioned way, check out Philly Planes, a british maker of planes that seem more like art pieces than tools.

All of these examples demonstrate someone exerting a resistive force, standing up for something of value against a rising tide of change.  In most of these cases, we see a blending of new and old techniques, while many around us would urge abandoning the latter.  Do you know of something worth preserving, something worth standing up for against a rising tide of change?  Click the comments link, under the post title, to the right, and tell it!

In With the Old, In With the New is a post from: shannonehlers.com

On a wonderfully warm spring day in March, many thoughts pass through my mind.  I can remember the smell of the laboratory on my first day of work.  My butterflies and sweaty palms almost return, as I recall that original excited anticipation of my first real job after graduating from college.  Images of the people I met during that first day, people who would become lifelong friends, still roll across my mind like a “this is your life” movie projected onto a screen.

It is as if seven  years’ worth of life events were compressed into a single day, and it happened just yesterday.  The sounds of the automatic double doors that opened to the airlock separating the laboratory wing from the administrative offices, the lightly colored cinder block walls that created the corridors connecting the laboratories, the heavy oak lab doors.  The feel of the white linen lab coat and the sound of my feet on the tile floor as I walk through the halls for the last time.  The familiar ‘whoosh’ of the door opening to the walk-in cooler, and the pleasantly cool air inside, with metal shelving lined with petri dishes, small tubes, jars, bags and buckets, all teeming with life too small to be seen.  All of this experience, all of this experiencing, would come to an end today.

My friends and co-workers had thrown me a farewell party some time before.  I’d been asked to speak.  I wanted to be eloquent or funny or just memorable, but it was all I could do to choke back tears and spit out the simple sentence “Thanks, I never thought I’d be leaving.”

With those seven words still echoing in my head, in that always-stupid-sounding noise that is heard when you listen to yourself talking out loud, I handed my security coded key card over to the woman who had hired me and was my supervisor still.  For just a moment while we both had our hands on the card that had let me enter the lab for the last seven years, I didn’t want to let go.  Then I did let go.  I provided her with an official resignation letter, thanked her and said my goodbyes.  With that it was over.  I had reached the end of the day.

After a weekend to finish up moving my worldly possessions, I would begin my new job.  Still in a laboratory, but instead of a small city I’d be located in a decidedly small town.  No more microbiology, but natural products chemistry, science of a different kind.  No more weekly group meetings, no more lunch in the company cafeteria to network with new people, no more friendly competition between different laboratories.

It was a different kind of job. It was a different kind of company.  It was a different kind of laboratory. It was a different kind of town.

It was a different kind of  day.

A Different Kind of Day is a post from: shannonehlers.com

He is energetic and brilliant in his field of herbal medicine, well respected by his colleagues and something of a legend among his peers in the natural products industry. Success is frequently reserved for the bold, and Dr. Leung is one of the boldest people I know.

If you’d like to see more of why I get inspired by Dr. Leung, here’s a second YouTube video, this time of him discussing his life (warning: this one’s a little longer!).
Please accept my apologies. The clip of Dr. Leung visiting about his history has been taken down for further editing. When it reappears, I will again link to it here.

This Inspires Me (Part Two) is a post from: shannonehlers.com

I worked for a while in the research center of a large agricultural genetics company where we used to estimate that 80% of corn seed is grown for inclusion into livestock rations. Considering this, can we assume that the price increase in the broad category of food is completely due to increases in just this one input, largely used for meat production? I don’t think so. I think a main contributing factor is the cost of fuel, both as a cost of transport and as other additional costs in food production and delivery.

Enter the renewable fuels industry, tasked with creating an American-style innovative revolution both here and around the world in how we turn raw materials into usable energy. Think about this and what that statement really means: we want to totally change the model for energy production. Why?

Currently our energy production is almost wholly unsustainable. We import a finite natural resource, crude oil from a politically unstable part of the world at a fairly high transportation cost and a potentially catastrophic political cost. Crude oil usually requires much processing in large refineries located mainly around the gulf of Mexico. This creates byproducts that are useful, as well as several byproducts which are poisonous, and of course the main product which then must be transported via pipeline, rail car, and truck to various points throughout the country. We extract coal from deposits deep within the earth leaving unsightly and poisonous landscapes in our wake. Coal is similarly destructive in its production and use.

We are moving towards using a diverse set of renewable resources, some based on biological inputs, some based on geophysical inputs. Frequently these can be turned into fuel more efficiently with much less processing, can be produced locally with much less pollution than oil import/refining, frequently producing companion industries based on other useful co-products, and can be made again and again while leaving the sources intact.

So what’s the catch? In the case of corn, critics point out that it is an inefficient substrate for alcohol production. Depending on whose scientist you talk to, you can find people who say that you only get 1.1x efficiency (it takes 1 unit to produce 1.1 units) up to 1.3x efficiency. When we think about building plants to make fuel at a 10% to 30% advantage, it almost seems pointless doesn’t it?

The typical ethanol plant currently consists of three main parts: a milling operation to separate the starchy part of the corn kernel from the germ, a mashing and fermentation operation to convert the starch first to sugars then turn this into an alcohol / water mixture known as “liquor”, and a distillation and purification operation to separate the bulk alcohol from the liquor, with purification to remove the last bit of water from the alcohol.

As Jeff Bruck, an associate in the ethanol industry, points out in his comment on Part 1 of 2: Squanto Would Be Proud (LINK),
“Biofuels use corn and other grains which right now are logistically and economically the best source. This won’t always be true. Cellulostic technology is improving every day and will someday be the standard.” Bruck also made good points about the need for greater support of flex fuel technology (both cars and distribution points).

The good news is that there is a much larger advantage in cellulosic ethanol production (utilizing fibrous plant biomass as a carbohydrate source). However, this leads to another criticism (LINK) of biofuels, which is that we are essentially mining the nutrients out of our land by growing intensive monoculture to support an almost endless appetite for more corn. Although somewhat dated, Bloomberg News published a piece that examined many of these issues in more detail.

I don’t argue with the idea that we are diminishing our soil tilth, but I do think that corn for ethanol is a strictly “now” situation. Today we use corn as a feedstock because of its abundance and the easy conversion of the energy portion of the grain. We have perfected the milling and mashing process already, so this involves little to no learning curve, allowing us to instead focus our innovation on the remainder of the energy conversion and fuel delivery process.

Is this the end of the story? No, certainly not if you compare an ethanol plant to an oil refinery. Unlike oil refineries, which are concentrated around importation points (especially the Gulf Coast area), we are building these modern and technologically superior plants in this country at a rapid pace, among geographically diverse locations. This is creating a source of economic diversification for thousands of small communities. This diversification will hopefully outlast the ethanol boom. They are far too numerous and geographically separated to become easy infrastructure targets for terrorists. They can be considered a local source of energy, requiring fewer transportation miles for either the feedstocks or the finished product.

Additionally, today’s ethanol plants are potentially useful beyond just fuel production, so that when and if we find the “next big thing”and move away from ethanol, there will be entrepreneurs lined up to occupy and use these very functional facilities. Combining fermentation, distillation and purification under one roof presents numerous value added manufacturing opportunities, both within and beyond the agricultural realm. No white elephants here. Possibilities exist from food and beverage production to pharmaceutical preparative processes, low tech to high tech, these facilities will serve well and should be easily expandable to accommodate a wide variety of uses and any needed growth.

Compare these features to those of an oil refinery, often old and decrepit and rarely found far from the Gulf of Mexico, offering very little alternate use and situated in a concentrated area of production, which concentrates the ill effects.

Finally, are we demanding too much of a single source of alternative fuel? We want diverse choices for our energy, so let’s use a diverse array of fuel sources. Why try to get it all in ethanol? People want ethanol to be a green fuel, a renewable fuel, a domestic fuel, a cheap fuel, a fuel whose manufacture doesn’t affect market prices for any of the inputs, and the list of wants goes on. No energy source can do all of this, no energy source is the be-all, end-all. But we’ve treated Middle Eastern Oil as the one source for all these years, basing whole industries, even entire economies, on its use.

Creating diverse and reliable energy sources should be our priority. This is like product development on a world scale. To change our entire model of energy production, we will have to progress through several stages. On that path, we may need to accept ethanol production from corn as one stage due to the rapid availability of corn, our mastery of its production, and its status as the current “low hanging fruit”. It is almost certain, though, that development of the next stage will be quicker than the corn ethanol stage. Additionally, we need to consider corn ethanol only one part of a large set of energy production tools to free us from dependence on one or two main energy sources (currently oil and coal). We need to look to the future and say “What next?”. I’d suggest continuing with ethanol and biodiesel, and beyond that, pursuing solar energy, nuclear power, cellulose based fuels, waste derived fuels, wind generated electricity, biomass replacement for coal, and hydroelectric generation just to start.

Thanks to the many people who have patiently given me input for this post, I appreciate and respect each of you, and I owe you all a favor. It is a big topic, so there may be more…

Part 2 of 2: Squanto would be proud… is a post from: shannonehlers.com

This leads us into the topic of our post, corn for ethanol. In a politically charged year, and in a state where this subject is also politically charged, I put myself into the path of the train by saying anything at all about the subject. But I can’t resist.

I try to listen to Bob Brinker’s Moneytalk program every chance I get, and not because I need to learn market timing strategies or because I have a big old jar of money I need to invest, but because I typically find his guests informative.

Today, Bob’s main guest was John Zogby, the pollster. Before letting us hear the polling guru, though, Bob tackled this issue of corn for ethanol, making the statement that has oft been made in the news lately that the ethanol industry is responsible for dramatic increases in food costs. His proposition was that instead of using corn for ethanol we ought to be pushing for more and better nuclear power.

Bob is using a technique that frequently is used by politicians, and creating a question around an issue that is hard to challenge or disagree with. Obviously, we can understand the basic economics of using a commodity that is chiefly a livestock ration as a source of fuel alcohol. For livestock feeders, supply goes down and price goes up. Fine, no disagreement. The issue of nuclear power is a bit more touchy, but again, it is hard to argue with the idea of using a clean source of power for which the production technology has largely been mastered by U.S. and international industry.

The ideas that I can challenge, though, are the premises for the argument. Bob Brinker’s statements about ethanol and nuclear power stem from two main points. The first is the notion that we need to keep the cost of food down, at least as low as it has been and maybe lower. The second is a direct challenge to biofuel production as a viable alternative to foreign petroleum, by painting the whole industry with a single “ethanol” brush. I want to examine the food production part today, and take the energy issue into consideration in a future post.

Do you agree with the idea that our food costs are already too high? I don’t. I know that many people have much too much ‘stuff’ already, so much so that “decluttering” has become an industry unto itself. This points to the idea that our disposable income is such that more food costs can be absorbed by the average family, while perhaps displacing spending on some of this unneeded “stuff”. It is really a matter of examining what we define as “needs” and how they differ from “wants”.

If we value a high-quality, low-risk food supply, then we must be willing to pay a fair price for it. Someone has to produce that food, and to my way of thinking, we get only what we pay for. We ought to have the very best food production system in the world. Hands down, the best. And we shouldn’t sacrifice quality for price in this area.

The people who produce, prepare, and deliver food should be able to live comfortably on the income from their operations. This is equally as vital as the service a doctor provides. Additionally, growing corn is capital intensive, it requires investment in land, machinery, and seed – all before any return is realized by the farmer. It is hard work in often harsh conditions. And it is a huge risk (many things can ruin a crop, and the farmer won’t know until harvest time if he has a harvest or what his yield will be).

Food production is something we ought not try to cheapen just because some people don’t want to spend more money for the pizza or steak that they eat. It is something we certainly shouldn’t outsource to other countries. I take this position partly due to the recent history of quality control we have seen from certain foreign nations, and partly due to what I consider another real cause of food cost increases: transportation cost, especially related to the increase in fuel cost.

Despite a growing awareness that we ought to eat more local foods, both for economical and ecological reasons, we don’t actually do it: look at your potatoes, I bet that unless you live in Idaho, they aren’t very local; look at your apples, and then look toward Washington state; take a look at your oranges, and send thanks to California and Florida. I could go on, but you get the idea.
Our food production cost requires attention, and although corn is a legitimate input cost in many consumer goods, until we attempt to deal with 300% to 500% increases in basic fuel costs, it will not really matter. We still will need to process the food, to store and often refrigerate the food, and to get the food to the consumer (including the cost of trucking the food to stores and the cost of shoppers driving to the stores).

This is where we will pick up next time: fuel cost, energy, and transportation and how they all relate.

Give your thoughts, I’m anxious to hear!

Part 1 of 2: Squanto would be proud… is a post from: shannonehlers.com

I didn’t get my comments inserted when I first blogged this from Digg.  My observation was, and is, that this little universe was “created by physicists”.  Notable that it was created.

read more | digg story

‘Test tube universe’ hints at unifying theory is a post from: shannonehlers.com