Just finished reading "The Emperor of All Maladies - A Biography of Cancer" by oncologist Siddhartha Mukherjee. The book got excellent reviews, was one of NY Times 10 Best Books of 2010 and scored Dr. Mukherjee a Pulitzer for General Nonfiction. It was heavy, and not just because it's 570 pages of hardcover goodness. Covered in painful detail is the history of cancer - from the first description of the disease by Imhotep in 2500BC to the sequencing of hundreds of cancer genomes, but mostly the countless, gruesome, revolutionary, often barbaric and mostly failed attempts to cure it. In fact I would go so far as to say that this book may be the authoritative text on the history of cancer treatment research. While homage is paid to prevention, causality and, to an even smaller extent, patient care, you will not find anything in this book to alleviate your anxieties or help you avoid joining the ranks of cancer patients (except maybe STOP SMOKING, you fool!). But it does open with this encouraging statistic - "In the United States, one in three women and one in two men will develop cancer during their lifetimes." Fan-fucking-tastick!
Throughout history there have basically been three approaches to cancer treatment - surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. Surgery was first on the field, taking place long before there was anesthetic or antiseptic. In most cases, surgery did you in. I barely made it through the surgical chapters, especially Halsted's radical mastectomies. It must be a testament to the human drive to survive that anyone would consider undergoing such procedures. Radiation on the other hand seems the least intrusive of the three (and also the least discussed) - discovered as a treatment by 21 year old medical student Emil Grubbe who had worked in a Chicago factory that produced vacuum X-ray tubes (he even treated patients in the factory). Chemotherapy, however, takes up the majority of the book. The idea of a poison being used to kill rapidly dividing cells (and it was a looong time still till the biology of cancer was the least bit understood), came to Sidney Farber, a pathologist at the Children's Hospital in Boston, who began to experiment, for a lack of a better word, on children with leukemia, a disease that at the time could be fatal in as little as three days from onset of symptoms.
While interesting, "The Emperor of All Maladies" was a tough read. After I started having nightmares in which I was being diagnosed with cancer, I ended up having to restrict my reading to a few chapters a day. While I learned a lot, my major complaint about this book is it's long-windedness and an overabundance of information and detail. My other complaint, which I feel almost bad stating as it's not the author's fault, is that it's not entirely what I was hoping to read. While a history of research is certainly fascinating, especially after one is done reading about the horrors of cancer treatment, I would have liked to read about how NOT TO GET IT. But I suppose such questions are not yet answered. In fact, I think you will find that most questions are not yet answered about cancer, and we are hardly any better off now than we were a hundred years ago, which is a major downer.
I'm Russian, and so have a deep appreciation for all things canned, pickled and otherwise preserved. Every year we make tons of preserves for the winter ahead. The following is my grandfather's (and his mother's before that) recipe for making sauerkraut. I note wherever applicable all possible modifications. Hope you give it a shot and enjoy it!
Here is what you'll need to get started:
- Knife and cutting board - Large mixing bowl - A container to ferment cabbage in, such as a large pot or a bucket (we use a 5 gallon bucket from local cafeteria that they buy boiled eggs in). If you want to use a glass jar, make sure it is one that you can fit your entire hand into and also the weight mentioned below. Wide mouthed containers are best. - Some sort of lid for above container (our bucket comes with a lid, very convenient! but so does a pot) - a plate a little smaller in diameter than your container - something really heavy to 'press' the cabbage. Grandpa uses a rock, we use the weights from Husband's dumbbells inside multiple plastic bags - Jars for storage
For each head of cabbage you'll need:
~2 carrots (optional but I really prefer carrots in my sauerkraut) ~1 tablespoon pickling salt (any salt without iodine will do) caraway seeds (optional, I don't use them but some people like the flavor) I would suggest picking cabbages that are as 'white' as possible, avoid greener looking ones. We've used purple cabbage in the past, and personally I didn't like it as much, but it does have a nice color!
I would do at least three heads of cabbage to start with. If you like how your kraut turned out, you can always make more.
Preparing the cabbage:
- Peel the first few leaves of the cabbage and wash it. - Cut the cabbage. This can be done almost any way. Some people like really thin short strips of cabbage, others like larger chunks, or longer strips of cabbage. The flavor is not affected, but larger pieces will be more crunchy. Do not include the core in your cut cabbage mix (however, my grandpa likes to stick a core or two into the final pot with the cabbage and let it sit there and ferment). Cut all three cabbages and place them in your mixing bowl. (If you are doing a bigger batch like 6-12 cabbages, I would still only do about 3 cabbages at a time, it makes the mixing more manageable).
- Grate the carrots on a large grater. If doing 3 cabbages, you'll need about 6 carrots. Carrots add a touch of color and also a touch of sweetness to your kraut. If you don't like carrots in your kraut however, it is not necessary. Place grated carrots in mixing bowl with the cabbage.
- Add the salt. (Make sure it does not contain iodine!!!) This is possibly the trickiest part. The salt will draw out the juices from the veggies but it will also prevent the sauerkraut from spoiling while it's fermenting. In essence it will create an environment conducive to fermentation of your kraut by non-harmful bacteria. On the other hand, you don't want to over salt your cabbage as it will make kraut that's too salty. I've found that the ratio of 1 tablespoon of salt to 1 head cabbage is about right. HOWEVER, not all cabbage heads are created equal! If yours are rather small, then a tablespoon of salt will be too much! What I would recommend, is that you mix in about 2.5 tablespoons of salt first for your 3 cabbages and then if it's not too salty, add the remaining 0.5 tablespoons.
- Add caraway if using. I don't use caraway so I am not sure what a good amount would be. Try sprinkling it on till you like the looks of it, probably about 1 tablespoon per cabbage.
- Mix the cabbage and carrots with your hands, scrunching it a bit as you go. If you don't scrunch the cabbage, it will be a bit firmer and cruncher later, but the scrunching gets the juices flowing. If you scrunch too much and turn the cabbage to mush, the kraut will be non-crunchy/soft/limp. It will still taste good but be sort of flaccid. So I just scrunch a bit as I go. I do not see too many juices at this stage yet so don't scrunch till it's actually 'bleeding'.
- Taste the mixture, the saltiness should be pleasant but obvious. Add more salt if you feel it's necessary, add more cabbage if it's too salty. My ratio of 1 cabbage to 1 tablespoon should guarantee a good taste.
- Transfer the mixture into your fermentation container. If doing more than a 3 cabbage batch, repeat above steps for the rest of the cabbages and give everything a good mix once all the batches are in the fermentation container.
Note: some people add whey to the mixture. Whey contains live lactobacilli and shortens the time it takes to start fermenting. I do not use whey, but if I understand correctly, the appropriate amount is 4 tablespoons per cabbage.
Preparing for fermentation:
- By now you have placed the mixed salted cabbage into your fermentation container. The container should have a lid but it does not need to be air tight. Fermentation will produce gases that will need to escape. The fermentation itself is anaerobic (without oxygen) but the juices will keep the reaction submerged and away from air so don't worry about the air entering the pot.
- Press the mix down with your fists. You should notices some juices starting to form. Take your plate and place it upside down over the cabbage and push down. The plate should be smaller than the container's diameter, with about an inch around the edges. It will keep the cabbage down but allow juices and gases to escape from around it's edges. If doing this in a jar, you may use a small piece of tile or wood for the same purpose.
video of Husband scrunching and mixing, doesn't always play for some reason...
- Place a weight on top of the plate. We usually place our weights in a small mixing bowl and then on top of the plate, but we use a large bucket and have the space to do this. The lid of your container should be able to close so don't stack things too high. The weight needs to be heavy enough to keep the cabbage well compressed and the juices above the plate.
Fermentation:
- Leave your container/kraut at room temperature to ferment. Cool fall temperatures are particularly conducive to fermentation. Hot summer days may raise the temperature too high and let your cabbage spoil. Cold temperatures will slow down the fermentation process. A temperatures in the high 60s low 70s is perfect.
- The cabbage will now begin to ferment. The salt will keep bad bacteria from growing/spoiling your cabbage in the first few days. Then the lactobacilli bacteria will have produced enough lactic acid to keep the cabbage from spoiling for the rest of the year. These bacteria are probiotic, very good for your digestive system, and the product is delicious to boot!
- Fermentation will produce gases and your kraut will start to bubble and foam. Once, or better yet twice a day, open up your container's lid and push down on the weight to release the gases. Husband takes out the weight and the plate, pokes the mix with a long knife, then places the plate down, pushes on it really firmly to let the gases out, then replaces the weight. You may also poke around the edges of the plate and not pick it up. You may see a white/milky tint to the juice. This is the lactobacilli and totally normal and good.
- The cabbage is to be kept in this way, poked several times a day, until all the bubbling has stopped. This may take anywhere from three days to a week. You will notice a smell of kraut, which sometimes smells perhaps a bit like fart. The cabbage should NOT smell putrid though. Granted we all have different definitions of putrid, but it will not smell sour, it will smell rotten if something goes wrong. Really, unmistakeably rotten. I've never had kraut NOT work out but I've smelled the kraut-gone-bad of others and it is definitely nasty. You'll know.
- At the end of this fermentation period (3-7 days) the kraut is done. At this point we transfer the kraut into glass jars, pressing it down (but there is no need to beat it up or compress it unreasonably), add some of the juice on top and close the lid. The process is NOT sterile and should not be. The lactic acid will keep the kraut from spoiling. After this we store our kraut in the fridge. If you have a cellar, it's even better. You want a dark cool place for ultimate kraut storage. You may eat the kraut right away, but it will only get better/more sour with time.
With the 2011 budget finally (hopefully) behind us - and surprisingly without a government shutdown - it's time now to argue about the 2012 budget. Arguably, the budget is the very reason Republicans and the Tea Party took control of the House in 2011, as people became more and more concerned over government spending. I'll admit that my understanding of economics and the budget is dodgy at best, so this here is my attempt to understand what has been happening and what the best way forward is.
One thing that we hear a lot about is that there is a great budget deficit. This graph illustrates the federal budget deficit by year as a percentage of GDP.
Also, very handily this website by Stephen Bloch breaks the budget down by year AND by the party that controls the House and Senate at the time. Both charts seem to suggest that the current increase in budget deficit was down from $1.89 trillion in 2009 to $1.65 trillion in 2010. Good but still pretty huge.
So what caused the current budget deficit? It appears that the breakdown of the deficit causes looks like this:
When Bill Clinton left office, there was a surplus. Almost immediately it was reduced by $291 billion due to the stock market crash of 2000, the 2001 recession and the safety net spending and reduced tax revenue during the 2002-03 jobless recovery period.
Then came the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Theoretically, tax cuts in a booming economy would stimulate said economy, which in turn would increase tax revenue, thus paying for themselves. And certainly the CBO in 2001 was projecting a surplus for 2008 equal to 4.5% of domestic product (instead we got a deficit of 3.2% of GDP). Then came the spending increases, especially during 2001-03, which were mostly military and homeland security spending, particularly the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Together, the Bush years added $673 billion to the budget deficit.
When Obama and the Democratic controlled Congress came into power in 2008, instead of repealing Bush's tax cuts and ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they extended them. That's an additional -$283 billion. So much for their radically liberal ways...
Finally came the economic crisis/recession that started in 2007. The decline in revenue and the increase in safety net spending (that's Medicaid, unemployment benefits and food stamps), so called automatic stabilizers (transfer payments, consumption expenditures) were a big part of this particular deficit.
It was news to me, by the way, that the bailout is now considered to be paid back and actually turning a profit for the tax payers. Too bad none of those bankers, CEOs and rating agencies were made to pay for causing this huge crisis, but that's a rant for another day....
So now we have a huge budget deficit (though it does appear to be going down a bit), but most economists aren't too worried about this short term, recession driven deficit. They figure more spending now on these safety net programs and on job creating fronts will level this whole mess out on it's own as the economy improves. In fact, running a deficit right now is the most appropriate action, according to Keynesian school of thought. It's the long term, so called structural deficits that are a problem and a cause for concern. That's the deficits that are "projected to exist in coming years — even when the country is at peace, even when the economy is growing, even when unemployment falls. " Primary culprits are Medicare and Medicaid, but there is also Social Security and infrastructure spending (and of course the interest payments on the debt, which only increase with the debt). Here is a view on the breakdown of spending in 2011:
The Independent Medicare Advisory Board that was established by the health care reform act might help (source. For an opposing view check out the Christian Science Monitor). IMAC is a 15-person board of independent experts chosen by the president, confirmed by the Senate, and empowered to cut through congressional gridlock. IMAC will write reforms that bring Medicare into like with certain spending targets. Congress can't modify these proposals, it can't filibuster these proposals, and if it wants to reject them, it needs to find another way to save the same amount of money.
Mind you the CBO is now revising it's estimate as to whether or not the health care reform will cut the deficit over the next 10 years. In fact, the 2012 budget is getting pretty bad reviews from the CBO altogether (source).
The White House's goal is to reach a point where the budget is balanced except for interest payments on the $14 trillion national debt. Such "primary balance" occurs when the deficit is about 3 percent of the size of the economy, and economists say deficits of that magnitude are generally sustainable. But CBO predicts that the deficit never gets below 4 percent of gross domestic product. That means that by the time 2021 arrives, the portion of the debt held by investors and foreign countries will reach a dangerously high 87 percent. And, as a result, interest costs for the government would explode from $214 billion this year to almost $1 trillion by decade's end.
The big, all encompassing, $2 trillion dollar question is how do we fix the future budget deficit? The budget proposal by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan would cut almost $6 trillion over the next 10 years in spending. Oddly (or perhaps not so oddly, considering that he is a Republican), there aren't any major defense spending cuts in this budget, but it does plan to repeal the affordable health care act and create block grants for Medicaid. Medicare (which would be privatized) recipients would go from paying 27 cents for every dollar of their care to 61 cents by 2022. While the Ryan budget does cut federal spending dramatically, it basically shifts the costs to states and individuals, especially when it comes to things like federal, civilian and military retirement, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, parts of the earned-income and child-tax credits, and most veterans’ programs. So while the rich get a tax cut, those who can't afford health care and food have to pay more. But it does balance the budget...
I have not yet found a budget plan that I like. Certainly it seems to me that cuts in defense spending are in order, as are higher taxes (or at least closed loop holes for corporations). But I cannot escape the eventuality that Medicare/aid and Social Security will have problems in the future. (I wonder if universal healthcare would have helped at this point?). But for those of you opposed to tax hikes, let me leave you with this little nugget - Bank of America and GE, two American companies that received bail out money from us, and that had tax benefits of $1 billion and $5.4 billion respectively in 2010, paid zero dollars in federal tax. That's loop holes for you.
And then there is this quote that I thought was rather interesting:
As estimated by the New York Times, even if we were to eliminate welfare payments, Medicaid, Medicare, military spending, earmarks, social security payments, and all programs except for entitlements, and in addition stopped the stimulus injections, shut down the education department, got rid of a number of other things and doubled corporate taxes on top of all of this, the budget deficit would still be over 400 billion.
Michael Scheuer, a former CIA counterterrorism analyst, was on CNN the other day. His opinion is that we will be arming the Libyan rebels, something that Obama have been saying they won't do, and his concern is that the rebels are primarily Muslim insurgents. In other words, we'd be arming those with whom we have beef in the Middle East. I hope his assessment is incorrect, but I have to say that it makes the most sense.
Since I'm on a renewable energy kick lately, here is some good news from Solar Energy Industries Association and GTM Research. In the last year the US solar energy industry value grew by 67%, from $3.6 billion to $6.0 billion.
This growth made solar the fastest growing sector of the energy industry, and a pace-setter for the country's economy -- whose GDP grew less than 3%. The research points to four major catalysts for the industry's 2010 growth: renewal of the tax incentives offered in the 1603 Treasury program, completion of significant utility-scale projects, expansion into new markets, and reduction in cost.
While China is still the 'leading financier of clean energy' and the 'global manufacturing hub of the solar industry', I hope the US will give it a run for it's money, so to speak. I think we can really capitalize on the green energy market - manufacturing and innovation back in the US - what a lovely thought. And saving the planet in the process.
I'm having a hard time formulating an opinion on our involvement in Libya. On the one hand I understand that Qaddafi was killing his citizens and using mercenary forces to do it. But are we then also going to get involved in Yemen, Syria and Bahrain? And are we only getting involved here because Libya is rich in oil, and Darfur, for example, isn't? That is an inexcusable double standard. And what about the cost? Each one of the missiles fired costs $1-1.5 million dollars. Aren't we supposed to be broke over here? Aren't we cutting the funds to WIC (food for women, infants and children who can't afford it) and Head Start? It's bad enough we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan (why are we there? I don't even remember anymore....) Plus part of me feels that people need to fight there own battles (which is why Egypt was such a heart warming example). You never know if the rebel you are supporting now ends up being Osama bin Laden. Oh wait, didn't that happen once or twice already? Would appreciate your thoughts...
So I've decided I'm against nuclear energy. It is not necessary (see my renewable energy post) and when shit goes wrong, shit goes terribly wrong as we are witnessing now. It's disconcerting to be pregnant and to be told that the rain in my town is radioactive (and it will be raining for two weeks), and that the milk is now getting contaminated, not to mention the veggies.... Here is a petition to ask Obama to "discontinue taxpayer subsidies, including $36 billion in loan guarantees, for the nuclear industry." Feel free to sign if you are so inclined.
I think I found my utopia! In light of the recent tragic events in Japan and the still unresolved nuclear crisis, there has been a lot of talk about the safety of and the need for nuclear energy. Intuitively I have negative feelings about nuclear power - there is something about radioactivity that is terrifying, and while plants appear to be safe and useful, when things go wrong, they go really really wrong. Lunch with my two coworkers, one Japanese, the other British (and a nuclear power proponent) has been very interesting and informative over the past few weeks. The consensus seems to be that we NEED nuclear energy and that it's the cleanest, most sustainable option out there right now. So when I heard on the radio that a study determined that 100% of the world's energy can come from renewable sources by year 2030, I didn't really believe it. But having read the study, I now feel like I have a vision of what I would like the world to look like in the future, and a hope that is attainable after all.
The article, "A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables: Wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world's energy, eliminating all fossil fuels. Here's how" was published in October 2009 in the Scientific American. The authors are Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University and director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program, and Mark A. Delucchi, a research scientist at the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis. The plan uses only WWS energy (wind, water or solar) and would be divided thus:
Wind supplies 51 percent of the demand, provided by 3.8 million large wind turbines (each rated at five megawatts) worldwide. Although that quantity may sound enormous, it is interesting to note that the world manufactures 73 million cars and light trucks every year. Another 40 percent of the power comes from photovoltaics and concentrated solar plants, with about 30 percent of the photovoltaic output from rooftop panels on homes and commercial buildings. About 89,000 photovoltaic and concentrated solar power plants, averaging 300 megawatts apiece, would be needed. Our mix also includes 900 hydroelectric stations worldwide, 70 percent of which are already in place.
How much energy would we need and how much will be provided by WWS?
Today the maximum power consumed worldwide at any given moment is about 12.5 trillion watts (terawatts, or TW), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The agency projects that in 2030 the world will require 16.9 TW of power as global population and living standards rise, with about 2.8 TW in the U.S. The mix of sources is similar to today’s, heavily dependent on fossil fuels. If, however, the planet were powered entirely by WWS, with no fossil-fuel or biomass combustion, an intriguing savings would occur. Global power demand would be only 11.5 TW, and U.S. demand would be 1.8 TW. That decline occurs because, in most cases, electrification is a more efficient way to use energy. For example, only 17 to 20 percent of the energy in gasoline is used to move a vehicle (the rest is wasted as heat), whereas 75 to 86 percent of the electricity delivered to an electric vehicle goes into motion.
What about cars, planes, appliances?
In our plan, WWS will supply electric power for heating and transportation—industries that will have to revamp if the world has any hope of slowing climate change. We have assumed that most fossil-fuel heating (as well as ovens and stoves) can be replaced by electric systems and that most fossil-fuel transportation can be replaced by battery and fuel-cell vehicles. Hydrogen, produced by using WWS electricity to split water (electrolysis), would power fuel cells and be burned in airplanes and by industry.
Among the hurdles to overcome are: financial, material and political. Financially, this will cost about $100 trillion, world wide, not including transmission. The authors feel that this money will be recovered by the energy companies through the sale of the energy. As far as materials are concerned, there are some minerals involved in the current wind and solar technology that will need to be mined and efficiently recycled (such as neodymium for wind turbine gears, lithium for batteries and tellurium and indium for solar cells). One hope is that new designs and innovations will make these materials less necessary - neodymium free wind turbines are already being designed. Politically, there are many more factors at play. Oil companies will not sit quietly by as their empire is dismantled. A great amount of collaboration is needed between countries in transmission of the energy - Luxembourg, for example, will need to get it's hydroelectric power from Germany and what about poor countries, and those who do not get along with their neighbors (Middle East? Africa?) Also, I wonder, what will happen to the Middle East when no one cares about their oil anymore?
As far as I'm concerned, none of this will happen till we run out of oil (which may be as soon as 2035), but then I see no reason why at least the developed nations can't switch to 100% renewable energy. It would of course be best if we started the transition now, spread out the infrastructure costs over 40 or 50 years for example, but I don't think the oil companies will let our politicians do anything progressive.
A large-scale wind, water and solar energy system can reliably supply the world’s needs, significantly benefiting climate, air quality, water quality, ecology and energy security. As we have shown, the obstacles are primarily political, not technical. A combination of feed-in tariffs plus incentives for providers to reduce costs, elimination of fossil subsidies and an intelligently expanded grid could be enough to ensure rapid deployment. Of course, changes in the real-world power and transportation industries will have to overcome sunk investments in existing infrastructure. But with sensible policies, nations could set a goal of generating 25 percent of their new energy supply with WWS sources in 10 to 15 years and almost 100 percent of new supply in 20 to 30 years. With extremely aggressive policies, all existing fossil-fuel capacity could theoretically be retired and replaced in the same period, but with more modest and likely policies full replacement may take 40 to 50 years. Either way, clear leadership is needed, or else nations will keep trying technologies promoted by industries rather than vetted by scientists.
Somehow knowing that it's possible, makes me feel better about the world my daughter will be born into. So some happy news at last!
Just finished reading "The Emperor of All Maladies - A Biography of Cancer" by oncologist Siddhartha Mukherjee. The book got excellent reviews, was one of NY Times 10 Best Books of 2010 and scored Dr. Mukherjee a Pulitzer for General Nonfiction. It was heavy, and not just because it's 570 pages of hardcover goodness. Covered in painful detail is the history of cancer - from the first description of the disease by Imhotep in 2500BC to the sequencing of hundreds of cancer genomes, but mostly the countless, gruesome, revolutionary, often barbaric and mostly failed attempts to cure it. In fact I would go so far as to say that this book may be the authoritative text on the history of cancer treatment research. While homage is paid to prevention, causality and, to an even smaller extent, patient care, you will not find anything in this book to alleviate your anxieties or help you avoid joining the ranks of cancer patients (except maybe STOP SMOKING, you fool!). But it does open with this encouraging statistic - "In the United States, one in three women and one in two men will develop cancer during their lifetimes." Fan-fucking-tastick!
