Science Friday - Local Science Issues, Dolphin Calls, Kepler Death. Nov 2, 2018, Part 1

Episode Date: November 2, 2018

With the midterm elections less than a week away, science is on voters’ minds even when it’s not on the ballot. From coastal floods in Florida, to the growing pains of renewable energy in Hawaii, to curbing the opioid addiction crisis in Kentucky, different stories hit closer to home depending on what state you’re in. We'll share stories of salmon conservation policy, meat substitute labeling, renewable energy expansion, and more from their respective states. And they take listener input: What’s the most important science story YOU see in your state? The oceans can be a noisy place filled with boats and an increasing number of wind farms. The animals who call the sea home have had to adapt to the increased sounds. Researchers found that bottlenose dolphins in the Atlantic ocean off the coast of Maryland were simplifying the calls that they use to identify one another. Their results were published in the journal Biology Letters. Marine biologist Helen Bailey, who was an author on that study, talks about the benefits and costs that these adaptations have on the health of these dolphins. This week, NASA announced we will soon be saying goodbye to another old friend. For nine years, NASA’s Kepler space telescope has been orbiting deep space, giving us an unprecedented look at the objects within it. But after confirming the existence of over 2,600 exoplanets, and extending its mission for another five and half years, Kepler has run out of fuel. NASA says that the agency will soon be sending it’s final command to the telescope, shutting it down permanently.   Subscribe to this podcast. Plus, to stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters.

Hey there, podcast listeners. Ira here. You've probably heard me say this before, but it is so important, I need to say it again. If every one of our two million listeners gave Science Friday just $1 each year, we would never have to ask for money to support our programs. Can you imagine that? One buck a year. Well, you can't blame a geek for dreaming. So if you have a dollar to spare, or maybe 20, please consider support. our show. Your donations will pay for the basics, keeping the lights on in the studio, keeping me flush with pens I use to write dad jokes on all my scripts, even this one. So please go to sciencefriday.com slash give to make your donation. Every bit helps make a difference. ScienceFriday.com slash give. And thanks. This is Science Friday. I'm Ira Plato. A bit later in the hour we're talking about the most

important science issues in each state, from wildfires to flooding, maybe renewable energy, even dry cleaning chemicals, yes. And we want to know what's the biggest science issue in your state, maybe your local community, maybe your Tam. We'll be taking calls on our number is 844-724-8255. 844-724-8255. You can also tweet us at SciFri. But first, prepare to say goodbye to an old friend for nine years.

NASA's Kepler Space Telescope has been orbiting deep space, giving us an unprecedented look at the objects within it. But this week, NASA announced that Kepler has finally run out of fuel. At the end of its life, that means the agency will soon be sending its final command to the telescope, shutting it down permanently. Here to tell us about that story as well as maybe better and more hopeful stories. Amy Norjum, he was editor for the I-Triple-E Spectrum. Hi, Hi, Kepler has nothing to be ashamed of. No, Kepler has succeeded its mission. It has actually surpassed NASA's original expectations. Kepler was NASA's first original exoplanet hunting mission. So exoplanets are those planets that exist outside of our own solar system.

When the Kepler mission was first conceived, we didn't even know of a single one. And now Kepler has helped us build up a catalog of potentially as many as 4,000. It's confirmed the existence of 2,600. And even after it shuts down, its data will be used to confirm what's expected to be many more. Because there's all that stuff we haven't analyzed yet. Absolutely. Yes. Yeah, it's continued to send down data even while it's on its kind of last legs of its mission. And scientists will continue to analyze that information.

And then just in April, NASA launched its next version of Kepler. It's known by its acronym test, and it'll continue on with Kepler's mission to hunt new exoplanets. Is it going to be going out there exploring deep space, with it? Yeah, it has a little different orbit. Kepler was actually orbiting around the sun kind of trailing the Earth. and this new mission will actually orbit around the Earth in a very elegant orbit, and it'll be able to look at whole portions of the sky, whereas Kepler was sort of focused on a more narrow sliver.

So the hope is that it continues to build up that catalog and helps us explore new worlds. Yeah, it was a very exciting mission. We wish all those mission specialists. Good work. Yes, absolutely. Let's move on. There was a surprising study out this week about farmers' markets. Tell us about that.

Yes, Penn State researchers visited farmers markets around the state and basically watched whether vendors were following common food safety practices. They wanted to know if the food that people were purchasing there was safe. And some of these practices include, you know, wearing a hair covering when you're handling food, wearing disposable gloves or washing your hands in between handling food and money, and placing vegetables on surfaces that can easily be cleaned. And they found that for the most part, vendors at farmers markets think that they're doing a good job at these. things, but they're actually not. So the most common violation that they witnessed was vendors handling money and then switching over to produce without changing their gloves or washing their hands. And this is something that can transfer diseases, and then fewer than 24 percent of vendors used a hair covering. They thought they were doing it, but they were. Yeah, they also surveyed vendors,

a different group of vendors, and said, you know, what are your food safety practices? What do you do when you go to the market? And a lot of them said that they did these things, but their observation. proved different. So they were moving all that back, what, e-coli, that kind of bacteria? Yeah, they sampled a number of the different items at these markets to see if there was an impact. And so they found e-coli on 40% of the beef samples that they collected, 28% of kale present at these markets, and 17% of spinach. And so, you know, one takeaway for consumers is it's definitely important to wash your vegetables

no matter where you buy them. But they're also hoping that this research will inspire new food safety trainings, particular to farmers markets, because a lot of these vendors will go through trainings, but they're kind of the general training meant for restaurants, and they're not particular to the circumstances of a market where you don't have access all the time to running water and electricity, and you're working out of a tent. Do we know how it compares to your supermarket?

Well, they did study a comparison of chicken, so chicken sold at markets and chicken sold in the grocery store, and they found more contaminants on the chickens sold at markets. And they think that this may be the result of a federal law that allows you, if you produce fewer than 20,000 birds a year, to be exempt from certain regulations like having an antimicrobial program in place. And so they think chicken might be especially susceptible to that. They're not sure if it's the same for veggies.

Gotcha. Next up for people who like to take charge of their health, two consumer health stories we should be following. Tell us about the first one. Sure. The first is that 23 and me this week received the OK from the FDA. to produce a new report about how consumers' genetics might influence the way that they metabolize certain medications. So this is the first direct-to-consumer report of its kind, and it'll measure

three dozen variants across eight genes that have been shown to affect how your body metabolizes medicines. So the report will tell you if you're a fast or slow metabolizer of about 50 prescription and over-the-counter medications. And in some cases, when evidence is available, the report can tell you whether you're likely to experience reduced efficacy or side effects of these medicines. But it won't tell you what your ultimate health outcome will be. Yeah, and it won't tell you what to do. So that's the limit here. I mean, the idea, and this is definitely part of this trend in medicine,

toward what's known as personalized medicine. So our bodies all process things differently. That's, you know, food as well as medicine. And if physicians could know exactly how you or I process these things, they might be able to tailor medications or treatments more particularly toward us, But this report is really a starting point. It's not something that consumers would be able to take and apply. It's still important for people who have this report done to talk to their doctors.

And the FDA and 23 and me both emphasize that in their announcements. Let's talk about your second consumer health story is about? Well, this is a report that came out of this week's meeting of the American Academy of Ophthalmology. They had their big annual meeting in Chicago this week. And one of the presenters there took a look at a different consumer tool. It's WebMD. This is a website that a lot of people use. to look up their own symptoms and kind of self-diagnose their conditions.

And WebMD has a feature on their site called Symptom Tracker or Symptom Checker, and it lets you type in your symptoms and basically returns you a list of possible diagnoses that are associated with the symptoms. And these eye doctors who did this study were like wondering how accurate those diagnoses were and then also how accurate the next steps that the program suggests are. And they found that this tool is not very accurate. So they ran 42 different scenarios through the tool and found that the tool only included the correct diagnosis in its list less than half the time. And it only put it at the very top about a quarter of the time.

So if you were a consumer and you're using this tool to kind of self-diagnose or make decisions about what you should do next, you would be wrong, the vast majority of the time. Go see a doctor. Another takeaway. You go see a real doctor. Yeah, it's important to do your own research and try to be in full. but that is definitely still important. We're not quite there yet. No.

AI medicine. Correct. Amy Nordrum, news editor for the ICCLEE Spectrum. Always good to have you. Thanks, Ira. Now it's time to play Good Thing, Bad Thing. Because every story has a flip side. You know the ocean can be a noisy place.

And when you consider all those motorboat engines adding to all the sounds of life below the surface. So how do ocean animals adapt to this increase in volume? Researchers found that bottle-nosed dolphins off the coasts, of Maryland are actually changing how they speak to each other, their calls, making their whistles simpler to be heard better through this background noise. Their findings were published in the journal Biology Letters, and here with the good and bad about that is Helen Bailey, an author on that study and also Research Associate Professor

at Tessa Peake Biological Lab in Solomon's Maryland. Welcome to Science Friday. Hi, it's great to be here. So the bottlenose dolphins are simplifying their calls? They are. So just like us, if we go to a noisy bar, if you're trying to talk to someone, you have to usually get closer and someone ask you something like, oh, where are your keys? And you say, yes, they're in my pocket. And you're like, what, what? And you just start yelling, yes. You just simplify what you say so that they can hear you better. And that's what these dolphins are dealing with. They're like in a noisy bar under the ocean. I'll bet you. And we have a clip of dolphin whistles that you collected. Basically, it's a double clip. First we're going to hear at the beginning, just the dolphin calls,

and then you'll hear a change when the dolphins calling with boats in the background, give you an idea of what it sounds like. Wow. It's noisy. Wow. I can see why the calls have to be simpler. If they are simpler, does that mean there's less information in those whistles? Are they communicating less efficiently?

They certainly do talk to each other a lot. They're very social animals. They're producing these whistles all the time to talk to each other. So they're really important. And yet, as you can hear, with all that background noise, it's very difficult to communicate. We're concerned, you know, perhaps that could have implications for the group and particularly for things like mother-care, calf pairs who are trying to stay in contact. You know, if I were in the middle of all that noise and we all have our own street noise here as humans,

it could be very stressful. Do we know if the dolphins are getting stressed by this noise? noise? They could well be. There was another study a few years ago after the 9-11 events showing that right whales were less stressed after the events because there was lower boat traffic, it was quieter, and the animals were less stressed. So it's very likely that the dolphins experience that too, just like we don't like living

in a noisy neighborhood. It may be stressful for them as well. And do they change their behavior then because of all those noise? Well, we heard these hydrophones that we have are these underwater listening devices. So we knew that the dolphins were calling even when there was loud background noise, and it was only when we looked in more detail that we saw these changes in the calls. And so what we want to do next is look at specific types of whistles, those that we call signature whistles, which are like their names.

They call out to each other. They say who each other is, and also their feeding behavior. to see if any of that is changing when we have this background noise. So is that what you're going to be looking at next? It certainly is, yes, because at the moment we can tell the good news is the dolphins do seem to be adapting. The fact that they can compensate for this background noise is good. But the trouble is when you have a lot of noise 24-7,

is that going to start to be detrimental to their health and their ability to feed? So that's what we want to look at next. That is the good news and the bad news. Thank you, Dr. Bailey. Thank you very much. Good luck with your research. Helen Bailey, Research Associate Professor Chesapeake, Biological Laboratory. That's in Salomon's Maryland.

We're going to take a break. And after the break, we want to know what's the biggest science issue in your state. Coming up this election week, you've been voting already. I mean, what issues are on the ballot? What issues are affecting not just your state or your county, but local communities. People are going to be voting for their local officials. Plus some contenders from, well, we'll talk. about them, from net neutrality in Nebraska to opioid abuse in Kentucky, who's just announced

today, opioid deaths are at an all-time high. So we'll be back after this break. Stay with us. Our number is 844-8255. We'll be right back. This is Science Friday. I am Ira Flato. No matter what state you are voting in, chances are science, health, energy, or the environment is on the ballot, whether that's in Alaska, where protections for salmon spawning streams is up for a vote, or Illinois, where congressional candidates are fighting over who is more invested in protecting the Great Lakes. Even if there's no option to blacken a bubble on a ballot, science policy will be decided this election cycle, decisions that will put into the hands of whomever wins a 2018 local, gubernatorial, or congressional seat.

So what are the science issues in your state or community that you want your politicians to pay attention to. Let me start. Let me start the conversation with this one about chicken farms. I am Justin from Talaquil, Oklahoma, and my biggest issue I've seen in this area is the massive increase of chicken houses, relating our water table. It has also diminished our water table. It's caused a lot of air pollution, and I would say that's probably the greatest issue we're facing here in rural, northeast of Oklahoma. Well, chickens may not be an issue in your state, So what is? Helping me steer this ship today is Sophie Bushwick, senior editor at Popular Science. Welcome to the co-pilot seat, Sophie. Thanks for having me.

And we want to hear from you what the biggest science issue in your state. Our number 8447-8255. You can also tweet us at Cy Fry. Sophie, Pop-Sai did some special reporting on science in the states, correct? That's right. We looked at all 50 states as well as Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., and tried to figure out what is the key science policy facing this state? So we could kind of bring science to the forefront of voters' minds because politicians don't always address science issues when they're on the campaign trail. Yeah, they have to be asked, don't they? Yes, they do. Climate change, for example, is a big issue.

It can affect, it has the ability to affect every single state, and yet you often find politicians sidestepping the issue, not wanting to comment on it. And in surveying all these states, were there any single things that stuck out, any surprise? It's a pop-side people. One of the things that really I found surprising was in Hawaii. So Hawaii is in the middle of the ocean, which makes it a great place for wind energy. And they've actually set a really ambitious goal of being entirely on renewable energy by 2045, which is great. But on the downside, it turns out that these wind turbines are not so good for the Hawaiian hoary bat. This happens to be the only native land mammal in Hawaii.

It's endangered. and it is kind of defenseless against these wind turbines. It just flies right into them. And so the state is mulling, forcing the wind energy producers to put some protections in place for this little bat. Lots of tweets and phone calls coming in. Let me go to the first tweet. This one is from Lindsay, and she says,

water, water, drinking water, stormwater, waste water, groundwater, rising sea level, coastal stem flooding, rivers flooding. etc., etc. Plus all the things we like that live in the water, fish, lobster, seaweed, everything, water. Water is a major issue. It came up again and again and again in states all across the continent. So, for example, here in New York, there's an issue with the infrastructure that's used to deliver drinking water. So some estimates have said it will require $40 billion, with a B, dollars to take care of improving the treatment. centers and the pipes that carry this water, the state legislature has only earmarked 2.5 billion. Let's go to the phones. You can call in. We'd like to hear from your 844-8255. Let's go to Terry and

Sebastian, California. Hi, Terry. Hello. My major concern is the movement of the Mahadi Desert north of San Francisco. We're drying. We're flaming. We're frying. We're frying. We're frying. We're frying. We're frying. We're We now have Southern California Spanii Annabsters living north of San Francisco, never before in the history of California, ever, even in the fossil records. That's my concern. We are turning into a desert. Wow. Yeah. Yeah.

Thanks for the call. I mean, warming temperatures and climate change is exacerbating drought and also wildfires in a lot of states. Yeah, so, for example, in New Mexico, they're having a lot of issues with drought, and drought really goes hand-in-hand with wildfires. When it's dry, things are much more prone to burning. Yeah, when I was in Utah earlier this summer, that was the biggest wildfire. You know, they're sort of cycling around the Southwest. Who's got the bigger one this week?

Because they're everywhere. It's a contest. Nobody really wants to win. Let's go to Guy in Portland, Oregon. Hi, Guy. Hi, how are you? Hi there. Go ahead.

I haven't spoken to you in a long time. Anyway, it just came out that off the Oregon coast, they've just declared that there's a hypoxia season now. So, you know, the ocean warming is getting to the point where everything on the bottom of the ocean is dying because there's no oxygen. And it's really hitting our crab fishermen badly. Okay. Thanks for the call. I mean, when we talk about water issues, we've been talking about freshwater and drinking water. but this is definitely an issue in oceans as well. So, yeah, salt water issues, when you've got a lot of runoff,

those nutrients can encourage algae blooms, which will pull the oxygen under the water, which is no good for the other creatures that live in the water. So that's definitely an issue. Yeah, especially in Florida, algae blooms is ballooned up as big as an issue this year, right? Yes, definitely. Florida has had a real problem with that this year. And we also have some really unusual stories.

I mean, little ones you wouldn't, something about dry cleaning fluid in some of the days, right? Yes, this one was fascinating. So Kansas had an area where hundreds of residents for apparently the past six years have been bathing in and drinking water contaminated with a dry cleaning chemical called PCE. So it turns out that back in 1995, the state passed a law that was lobbied for by the dry cleaning industry that encouraged regulator. to overlook this chemical's presence. And it turns out it has contaminated the water in this area above the level that the EPA deems safe. And in Mississippi, you talk about bridges being a problem. I was surprised more than 500 bridges in Mississippi have had to be shut down because they're no longer dangerous.

And this isn't just an issue for people who need to be able to get to work. This is an issue for people who need to be able to go to the doctor's office. I mean, transportation across the state relies on people being able to drive over safe and reliable bridges. And it's a big problem. Whatever happened to those infrastructure plans to rebuild America on all those highways and bridges? I mean, you would hope that there would be federal support as well as state support for this because I think infrastructure, it definitely is a problem that crosses state lines all over the place. Absolutely. Let's go to Alpina, Michigan.

Hi, Matt. Welcome to Science Friday. Hi. Hi. Hi. So my name is Matt. I'm from Michigan. And what I wanted to talk about was an invasive species that you've probably all heard of called the Asian carp coming into the Great Lakes. As you know, the Great Lakes are the single biggest allotment of fresh water in the world in one spot. Yeah, there's that one crazy lake in Russia that's bigger and superior. We're not going to talk about that one. It's a big deal. It could be the single greatest threat to the natural fisheries in the Great Lakes, the Great Lakes have ever seen. Have you seen them?

Have you seen them yourself? Go on. I'm sorry? Have you seen them yourself, Matt? Have I seen them myself in the Great Lakes? Personally, no, I have not. They haven't made it quite this far north yet. There's been reports.

Again, I use, okay, I'll use reports in quotation mark. there's been quote-unquote reports, right? I haven't personally seen them, this is hearsay, of course, around Chicago and stuff like that. They're coming in the ports down that way, coming in from the rivers and the ports and everything. Yeah, we've seen people from Illinois talking about this. Yes.

I've also heard people advocating that one way to deal with invasive species is that we should try to encourage people to eat them. Hmm. Yeah. We had a call from Nevada. I want to go to this call from Nevada with concern about nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. This is Venus from Reno, Nevada. My concern relative to science, Nevada, is the Yucca Mountain Waste repositories, which is built on the fault lines.

Nevada is a third most active state for seismic activity. The potential for radioactive waste reef in the water table is not a risk to be taken lightly. This area of the country is already water sensitive. Contantation, even in the far future, would have lasting effects on our planet. Yeah, we've had, that's just been an issue for a decade. For 30 years. I remember way back. Yeah.

Yeah, back under President Obama, it was kind of tabled and it's been dormant for a while, but it's becoming an issue again because people are sort of saying we should be expanding nuclear energy to phase out reliance on fossil fuels. But if you've got nuclear energy, you need a place to put that waste. And so this debate, I mean, I don't know, it could maybe rage on for another couple decades. Let's zoom in closer to one of the few states with reporters from our, state of science series. And let's go north, Sophie. Two?

Shall we go to Alaska? Let's go to the far north. North through Alaska. Our reporting looked at the risks to Caribou, calving grounds, and federal lands that might be open to fossil fuel extraction. I was reporting in popular science, right? Yes, the land where the caribou live and rely on, even if only part of it is developed, people worry that even a small area would be enough to disrupt their migration patterns. But there's another issue on the ballot that has been hotly contested, and Elizabeth Harbaal from Alaska's Energy Desk at Alaska Public Media is here with more. Hi, Elizabeth.

Hi, thank you for having me. Tell us about this. So this ballot initiative, which has kicked up a heck of a fight here in Alaska, in a broad sense what it would do is it would beef up the permitting system for developments that overlap with salmon habitat. So we're talking a lot tougher vetting process for mines, for dams, for oil developments in salmon habitat. And I should say salmon habitat in Alaska is quite extensive. And Alaskans would also get more notice and opportunity for public comment for projects in salmon habitat. So more of a chance to object to projects like this. And why do people say salmon need more protections?

So it's really hard to understate the importance of salmon in Alaska, not only economically but symbolically. Alaskan salmon account for like 40% of the wild salmon caught in the world. It's home to the world's largest wild salmon fishery and most valuable wild salmon fishery. That's the Bristol Bay salmon fishery. But also, it's hugely culture. Salmon is hugely culturally important for Alaska Native people. They catch them and rely on them for their. diets across the state. And so salmon is something in Alaska that really transcends political

boundaries. And you really, we won't hear anybody in Alaska saying we shouldn't protect salmon. That is consistent for everybody here. But there is some opposition. What are they saying? There's more than some opposition. There's huge opposition to this. So the oil industry, the mining industry, unions, Alaska Native corporations, they've raised over $12 million. for a campaign against this initiative. That's more than any of the governor's candidates combined. And their argument, they believe this goes too far that this is not the right balance

between development and salmon protections. They think it opens the door to litigation. And one thing they really don't like about this is this measure would limit something called off-site mitigation. That is, you know, right now, if a development kind of overlaps with salmon habitat, they can go and fix another, you know, clean up some salmon habitat somewhere else in a different water body. This would limit that. And that's one of the key things about this initiative that they

really don't like. And so the resistance has been quite intense. And something else I should say is, you know, the oil industry is hugely economically important to Alaska. Oil taxes and royalties fund a significant part of the state government here when oil prices crashed a few years back. it was really a gut punch to Alaska's economy. And so, you know, that's why when they say that when the oil industry is like fighting this initiative, it is giving a lot of Alaskans pause. I'm Ira Flater. This is Science Friday from WNIC Studios. You're with Sophie Bushwick. Hi. I had another question, sort of speaking of the oil industry.

So if there is oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we mentioned that this would be. put caribou cabin grounds under threat. So I'm wondering, is this something that's on Alaskan voters' minds at all? So it's interesting. Alaska politics, the way they work, there isn't a candidate on the Alaska ballot right now that is against oil development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Both candidates for Congress, both candidates for governor are supportive of it. That's kind of how Alaska politics goes, because I just explained, you know,

such a huge part of the economy here. you know, that said, interestingly enough, voters in the lower 48 might have more of an impact on this because if Democrats takes the House, a congressman from Arizona rule Grohava, he would become the chair of the House Resources Committee. And he has said he would really push back on development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So while it's not something Alaskan voters will really have a big impact on in this election, voters in the rest of it, America really could. Yeah, it depends on those committees. Thank you very much, Elizabeth, for taking time to be with us today.

Yeah, thank you for having me. Elizabeth Harbaal, reporter for Alaska's Energy Desk at Alaska Public Media in Anchorage. We have a couple of minutes before we have to go to the break. 844-724-8-255. Let's go to a media at Pennsylvania. Hi, Jim. Yes, hello. Hi there.

Go ahead. I thought my line went dead there. I was trying to figure out what went on. My question is a simple question. Anytime they have a city that exists anywhere in the country, they have to have wastewater treatment programs set up to handle the population. Why do we not have that anywhere for poultry farms, beef development farms, anything that excretes waste should be forced to go through a waste treatment program? they should not even allow them to be built unless they have those accesses there and, you know, they are taking care of. People are getting sick.

The red tide exists because of wastewater treatment. So you think they should be an issue then on ballots everywhere? Oh, definitely, definitely. If they have to have wastewater treatment for people's excrement, why don't they have it for critters? Now, we saw that come into play a little bit, at least get some attention during the last hurricane that went through North Carolina. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah, one of the hazards of those storms is that they can breach containment walls and systems, and you can get even bigger contamination if you have farms where their waste ends up spread all over the place in the wake of a storm.

Yeah, we saw that with the ash from a coal mining, also not just the container. It's just the animal. Coal ash is another big contaminant in a couple. different states. So this is after coal is burnt, you need to get rid of the leftover ash, and that can leach into groundwater, and you don't want the arsenic and other other poisons in there getting into the water supply. No, you don't want that to happen. No, I hate it when that happens. Not to be a little, it's very, very dangerous. Absolutely right. We're going to take a break. We want you to stay right where you all are. Our number 844-724-8255. You can also tweet us at

Sy Frye, Sophie Bushwick and I, we'll be back after the break, and we're going to talk about some interesting stuff. How about this as an issue? Meat labeling in Missouri, renewable energy in New Hampshire, and our top science story, in your state, whatever it is,

you can make the call, but only if you make the call. So we'll be right back after this break. This is Science Friday. I'm Ira Plato. We're talking this hour about the science issues on the ballot, or at least on your mind, in a state-by-state tour of the U.S.

this midterm season. And sitting in with me is popular science editor. Sophie Bushwick, Popsai, recently ran a story identifying the top science policy issues in every state. And if you'd like to join in, our number is 844-8255. You can also tweet us at

Cy Fry. We have a whole bunch of tweets that came in. Let me go to a few of them before we go back to the phones. One from Connecticut, yeah. A tweet from Laina, who says, the arrival of two new tick species in as many years. The most recent arrival can reproduce asexually. Both bring fun new diseases to, yay us.

This is the home. Tick diseases. Oh, lime disease. In top of Lyme disease, there's a certain kind of tick whose bite can cause a meat allergy. So if you get bitten by this tick, you'll develop an allergy to red meat, which nobody really wants. All right. So let's go back to your survey. Sophie, where do we go next?

We're going to pay a little visit to Missouri, where the state recently, speaking of meat, they banned the use of the word meat on the packaging for anything that's not an animal product. And Chris Houston, a reporter at KBIA and Columbia, is here with more. Hi, Chris. Hey, how's it going? Pretty good. So what got Missouri so desperate to regulate fake meat products in the first place? Right.

Well, Missouri is an agricultural state. It's an $88 billion industry. and a lot of that industry is from pork and beef and poultry producers. The food industry is fairly powerful, and they like to lobby for their own regulation, so it helps them out. So on one side, you have the meat producers and farmers who want to protect their industry against this new burgeoning market for non-meat products. Those are the plant-based proteins, if you will, that are based from soy and other types of plants

that want to use the words that are associated typically with meat. like sausage or hot dog or ground beef. So this is kind of trying to get ahead of a curb with food labels to set that standard for the state before the federal legislators can come in and try to do it themselves. And are there a lot of fake meat companies in Missouri that might have problems with this? There are some, and that's kind of what's created this problem that's been exacerbated by this labeling law. One of the biggest companies that you'll hear of is Toferky, which is the company that makes the vegetarian turkeys that are popular with people who are interested in that type of food during the holidays.

So these companies are not happy that they're going to have to accommodate this new label because their industry is just developing. What if they spell meat differently or turkey different? You know, I'm serious about this because we have cream-filled things that are not real cream. and they spell it C-R-E-R-E, right? I mean, have they thought about that kind of getting around the law? Well, there are certain types of words that are being allowed. So if it says plant-based meat, then that won't be as challenged as much than certain words that are just trying to, I guess, what they assume is going to trick

the consumer into thinking they're actually buying a different product. So I haven't seen anything yet about tricking people with the spelling of the words, but I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see that. And there's a lawsuit already, right? There is a lawsuit, yeah. So Tofurkey and also the American Civil Liberties Union, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, and the Good Food Institute of sued the state of Missouri.

This was just a month or two ago, saying that this law violates the First Amendment and that it prohibits these alternative meat companies from using words that consumers actually understand. So at the core of this, you see the consumer used as the pond to try to move the pendulum toward whichever side they want, whichever side wants the words regulated their way. And do you think we'll see similar labeling rules coming up in other states down the road?

I wouldn't be surprised. In 2016, Vermont had a GMO, so genetically modified label law that all the states inevitably had to fall in line with, because if you want to sell your product in that state, you have to abide by those laws. So for Missouri, if this law stands, then other states who want to market and sell their products in the state of Missouri will have to abide by this labeling law until a federal law can come around and set the standard for the entire country. We've seen some challenges also in California with using the word milk. So soy milk or almond milk. The dairy industry doesn't like that because they think that's fooling consumers as well. And there's been some challenges there. So until a federal law is set, states are probably going to have to fall in line

with what Missouri's done. Thank you so much for filling us in, Chris. No problem. is a senior reporter at K-B-E-I-A in Columbia, Missouri. Our number, if you like to call in, lots of phone calls, 844-724-8255. Let us go to Duluth, Minnesota. Hi, Chad. Hi, I'd like to bring up the topic of mining and the mining of copper-nickel and rare earth elements such as cobalt. Go ahead.

There are, the technique of mining that pulls these minerals out of the ground creates a highly toxic tailing that needs to be stored for perpetuity. And so there's a threat to the water resources in the region. So there's the science behind that, but I'd also like to get behind the science of what these elements feed as far as our needs for future technologies, electric cars, telephones, and those types of things. Yeah, you've got the boundary waters, all kinds of stuff coming into place. there. Exactly.

Are any of these things on the ballots that you know about, or should they be? I think that it's a hot topic, particularly in northeastern Minnesota, District 8, and that is up for election, and I think being that Northern Minnesota

is a background of resource-based jobs, particularly in the mining sector, there's there seems to be a head- head battle between those who seek to invite and protect the environment and those who want the jobs. It's a predicted economic impact to the region, which is now a poor region of a Super Bowl

every year for the next 20 years. But the environmentalists folks argue that it's just not worth the risk because this toxic tailing needs to be held in perpetuity. And so I think a lot of those voters are going to be turned out based on that issue. All right. Good topic. I mean, the conflict between preserving environmental regions and the economic incentive to mine them is definitely a theme we've seen elsewhere as well. So, for example, Delaware is really reliant on tourism. So they really don't want offshore drilling to happen because you don't, first of all,

it's unsightly if you don't want to go to the beach and see an oil, Derek. And then the other thing is that there's the worry that there would be spills and that could really damage the tourism industry. So it's not just about maintaining the environment for residents. It's also about helping encourage other people to visit and to spend their money in the state. It's not a state, but Puerto Rico is on your list, right? Puerto Rico is still dealing with the hurricane damage and they will be for the indefinite future. The governor has actually encouraged Puerto Ricans who are living in other states. states to vote for candidates who will support federal money going to Puerto Rico because there's

only so much that they can do on their own. That's really interesting. It's amazing how many issues are all over the country. Yes, that really crosses state lines in a very interesting way. So each state has its own specific combination of factors going on, but you see these themes coming up again and again. I have one more state that I want to zoom in to and go before we have to say goodbye. We have one more state. And that is New Hampshire, which has a lot of issues, but energy is one of the biggest. And here to explain is Annie Ropeak environmental reporter at New Hampshire Public Radio. Hi, welcome back. Hi there. So tell us about what's hot topic in your state. Yeah, energy is really the big one. This has been a huge issue, really an economic

Mike issue and our governor's race and our congressional campaigns this year. We have some of the highest energy rates in the country. Our bills are actually kind of more middling and that's a important distinction. But the wholesale prices that we pay for energy on the wholesale market are really high and obviously we use a lot of energy here. It's pretty cold and we're a not importer of things like natural gas. So this is a big issue and it's something that voters are really interested in, you know, both for economic reasons and for climate change reasons. So there's been a lot of talk about where our energy should come from, how we should support renewable energy development and disincentivize the use of fossil fuels, how involved the government should

be in that. And it's a pretty clear partisan issue and when we've heard a lot about this year. In New Hampshire, the governor recently vetoed a bill that would boost solar power. Why would he do that? Yeah, that's right. It was a bill that was supposed to expand the ability for mainly towns to do net metering where they can generate their own solar or hydropower. and sell it back to the grid. That was a really controversial veto. It's something he took a lot of, our governor took a lot of heat from, especially from Democrats.

He said that it would raise rates too much for consumers, although his math on that is sort of up for debate. It's honestly never really been settled just exactly how much that could raise rates or how that cost might be passed on to consumers or not. That had pretty broad support from obviously renewable energy developers, but also towns and individuals who want to be able to take advantage of installing and benefiting from more solar power and are sort of limited in how much they can do that right now. Is Governor Sununu running up for re-election?

Oh, yes, he is. It's his first re-election for a second two-year term. Governors in New Hampshire almost always win that first re-election, but he does have a Democratic challenger who's hit him really hard on renewable energy issues. She supports a lot more renewable energy development than he does, or at least subsidy for that development. He says, you know, let the free market play out as it will. and if renewable energy is the best solution, then it will come to pass,

although, you know, free market is kind of a relative term when it comes to energy because fossil fuels are heavily subsidized, too. So, you know, that kind of is easier said than done. Now, there's state lawmakers recently passed a measure requiring utilities to buy more from biomass plants, not exactly a measure that will address climate change, will it? No, I mean, that's a good point. That's a really device of an interesting issue. You know, environmentalists really don't like biomass plants.

power because they say burning trees for fuel, you know, does more harm than good. But a lot of forestry people in our state, which is really heavily forested, and we have a working timber industry, they say, you know, it incentivizes us to manage the forest well. So it actually means that we won't clear cut the forest and develop them for housing if we're able to sell some of that lower grade wood for biomass. So in the long run, it's better for climate change because it means you maintain the big forest stands. It's a really divisive topic. The science, again, is somewhat unsettled. It depends on how the biomass is being done. And theoretically, it can be good, but, you know, in practice,

it's often not so good emissions-wise. But our timber industry is politically pretty powerful in this state. And so they managed to get that bill through over the governor's objections. Again, he said it would raise rates for consumers and it will in the short term. But, you know, long-term, there's a lot of political debate about the future of biomass and timber in the state and in northern New England in general. I know biomass proponents do say that even though it still emits, it still has emissions, it has far fewer greenhouse gases than fossil fuels. So it's maybe a quarter of the equivalent carbon dioxide that you'd get from burning oil

and maybe a fifth that you'd get from burning coal. Yeah, it's far lower sort of the traditional greenhouse gas emissions, but it's more of the particulate matter. And interestingly, like, trees will sequester more of the bad stuff that's in the air, like heavy metals and things like that. So some opponents say that burning biomass is actually contributing to, you know, really serious air contamination, not just carbon dioxide emissions, but sort of harmful smog in some of these more concentrated areas where they're doing a lot of this burning.

Well, Annie, thank you for taking time to be with us today. Any Roe Peak is environmental reporter at New Hampshire Public Radio and we'll have a busy week next week, I'm sure. Thank you. I'm Ira Flato. This is Science Friday from WNYC Studios. I have this hour went by fast. It did. Let me just sum up. You mentioned politicians who don't want to talk about climate changes, real policy issues for the estate.

And people are just avoiding it, but maybe it's finally getting some legs. You would hope so. I think that with the extreme weather we've experienced with hurricanes and fires and droughts, I think that it's absolutely becoming necessary. So in places, for example, Florida, state legislature, legislators don't really like talking about climate action. And so local authorities are finding themselves having to do the heavy lifting there. And so they're just sort of ignoring the state regulations and being like, if we don't make our own regulations, we'll be in trouble.

And you can see how a lot of these state issues, environmental and whatever, are going to become national issues the longer we talk about them. Oh, absolutely. I mean, I think some of them are already national issues. So we mentioned infrastructure. I mean, we talked about wanting a federal infrastructure bill, and infrastructure is a big deal. So in Massachusetts, for example, the pipelines that carry natural gas are aging, and those are going to need infrastructure investment in order to keep working and to not, to not cause a lot of damage. And the other thing is air quality is transcend state lines literally. Connecticut actually has really bad problems with air pollution. And that's not their fault.

That's because they happen to be at the end of a jet stream that's just delivering pollution right to their doorstep. And that's an issue they can't fix on their own. My doctor mentioned that to me the other week. We were talking about air pollution living in Connecticut. Sophie, it's been great having you here. It's been great here. And if people want to see the whole study, they can see it online, your whole report. That's right, at popside.com.

And Sophie Bushwick is popular science senior editor. And thank you again for taking time to be with us and spending our time with us. It's been my pleasure. One last thing before we go, we were. sad to hear this week of the death of coral researcher, Dr. Ruth Gates, director of the University of Hawaii's Institute of Marine Biology, and a fierce advocate for protecting reefs as the oceans warm. And in 2017, she spoke with us about the future of coral reefs,

but even on the heels of the worst coral bleaching event in recorded history, she was optimistic about the capacity of humanity to slow the course of climate change and save the corals. We are projecting that the majority of the world's reefs will be dead by 2050 if we do not really start to address the drivers of climate change. And, you know, when I say that out loud, Ira, I have to say it's just heart-wrenching because these systems are so beautiful. And frankly, the solution is so simple. It's not that complex for us to lift this big collective effort that it will take to reduce fossil fuel burning. not that difficult. That's the wonderful thing about this problem of climate change. It is a

solvable issue that everybody can be a party to. And in some ways, it creates the greatest challenge of our time. And I think that humans are incredibly good at solving problems. And so we just need to activate and do it. Dr. Ruth Gates, a great advocate for the oceans passed away last week. And condolences to her loved ones, her colleagues and everybody who knew her. Charles Berkowitz as our director, our senior producer Christopher and Taliatta. Our producers are Alex Elim, Christy Taylor, Katie Heiler. We had technical and engineering held today from Sarah Fishman, Kevin Wolfe and Rich Kim. And, of course, we are active all week, all along social communities and all over the place.

You can send email directly to us if you'd like. SciFri at ScienceFri.com. Also, we are at Facebook, Twitter, Everyday Science Friday. I'm Ira Flato in New York.