<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Brilang.comScience | Brilang.com</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.brilang.com/tag/science/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.brilang.com</link>
	<description>Stuff I do, or stuff I find interesting</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:25:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Happy 30th anniversary Mt. St. Helens! http://bit.</title>
		<link>http://www.brilang.com/2010/05/happy-30th-anniversary-mt-st-helens-httpbit/131</link>
		<comments>http://www.brilang.com/2010/05/happy-30th-anniversary-mt-st-helens-httpbit/131#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2010 21:01:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Lang</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MtStHelens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brilang.tumblr.com/post/610983022</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Happy 30th anniversary Mt. St. Helens! http://bit.ly/akYANY science history MtStHelens]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.brilang.com/2010/05/happy-30th-anniversary-mt-st-helens-httpbit/131/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nano-Toxicity</title>
		<link>http://www.brilang.com/2005/10/nano-toxicity/66</link>
		<comments>http://www.brilang.com/2005/10/nano-toxicity/66#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2005 14:26:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Lang</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.brianlang.ca/2005/10/20/nano-toxicity/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I just read an interesting blog post regarding nanotoxicity (wikipedia definition). The gist of it was that we suspect that nanoparticles could be toxic, but that there&#8217;s not enough research yet to confirm or deny the suspicion. In this case, people are comparing the dangers of nanoparticles to the dangers of asbestos. When asbestos was first used, it was not suspected as being dangerous. Today an industry exists to rid older buildings of asbestos. With the talk of using carbon nanofibres to build super-strong buildings, bridges, and just about anything conceivable with these fibres, the perhaps some caution is advised. But let&#8217;s not move into the realm of fear-mongering.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.brilang.com/2005/10/nano-toxicity/66/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Grizzly bear cubs killed</title>
		<link>http://www.brilang.com/2005/09/bear-cubs-entry/48</link>
		<comments>http://www.brilang.com/2005/09/bear-cubs-entry/48#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2005 04:39:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Lang</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.brianlang.ca/?p=54</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s a shame Parks Canada did nothing to protect these bears. Given that their chances of survival in the wild were slim-to-none to begin with, why couldn&#8217;t they be moved to a sanctuary or zoo somewhere. I realize that they would not likely have been releasable into the wild following a stay in captivity, but at least their genetic legacy would&#8217;ve lived on. Perhaps even helped to perpetuate the species. As it stands, the number of grizzly bears in the Canadian Rockies is declining precipitiously. Something needs to be done, but I sure don&#8217;t know what. Canada.com/Calgary Herald article: Bear cubs killed in highway collision]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.brilang.com/2005/09/bear-cubs-entry/48/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Seabed Methane Hydrates</title>
		<link>http://www.brilang.com/2005/03/seabed-methane-hydrates/33</link>
		<comments>http://www.brilang.com/2005/03/seabed-methane-hydrates/33#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:58:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Lang</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.brianlang.ca/index.php/2005/03/24/seabed-methane-hydrates/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wired News: Playing With Frozen Fire Should we even mess with this stuff? It sounds dangerous. For example, about 55 million years ago the oceans burped &#8212; releasing enormous quantities of methane, according to Jim Kennett, a marine geologist at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and the ocean&#8217;s methane burp is thought to be the result of warmer ocean temperatures caused by abrupt global warming. &#8220;It&#8217;d be like the average temperature increasing seven degrees in your lifetime,&#8221; Kennett said. It isn&#8217;t known why the oceans warmed enough to release the methane from its frozen mud sarcophagus. Will our species growing demand for energy once again override common sense? I think if we&#8217;re going to mess with this stuff we need to build underwater extraction facilities. We will likely need plants 300 m or more underwater to process this stuff into Methane which can be piped back to shore for use. This will limit the exposure of the material to the atmosphere. We would also need to find some way to return the carbon dixoide created by burning the methane back to the ground so that it does not further contaminate our atmosphere. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.brilang.com/2005/03/seabed-methane-hydrates/33/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hydroelectric power&#8217;s dirty secret revealed</title>
		<link>http://www.brilang.com/2005/03/hydroelectric-powers-dirty-secret-revealed/24</link>
		<comments>http://www.brilang.com/2005/03/hydroelectric-powers-dirty-secret-revealed/24#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:51:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Lang</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.brianlang.ca/index.php/2005/03/07/hydroelectric-powers-dirty-secret-revealed/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[New Scientist Breaking News &#8211; Hydroelectric power&#8217;s dirty secret revealed So Hydro power is not as green as everyone thought. I&#8217;m not surprised. I think we need to move to a nuclear powered society. Yes nuclear waste disposal is a problem &#8211; but not insurmountable. Solar power takes up too much space and is not practical everywhere &#8211; not enough sunlight. Solar panels are still quite expensive. Hydro power is not available everywhere and is now not as environmentally friendly as it used to be. Hydro is not going to disappear anytime soon though and the lakes are water reservoirs as well as power reservoirs. Wind power &#8211; kills birds, and only works in windy regions. Coal power &#8211; need I really say more about this? OK &#8211; large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. Same goes for Natural Gas power. Modern Nuclear power plants can be built with a degree of safety that exceeds current levels. So why not do it? And Nuclear power is dirt cheap compared to some others.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.brilang.com/2005/03/hydroelectric-powers-dirty-secret-revealed/24/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Scientist &#8211; Novel calendar system creates regular dates</title>
		<link>http://www.brilang.com/2005/01/new-scientist-novel-calendar-system-creates-regular-dates/20</link>
		<comments>http://www.brilang.com/2005/01/new-scientist-novel-calendar-system-creates-regular-dates/20#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:28:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Lang</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.brianlang.ca/?p=20</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There&#8217;s a physicist in the states who wants to change our calendar so that every year is the same. For example, December 25 would always be on a Sunday. He is also proposing that we all adopt Grenwich Mean Time (GMT) which is ridiculous. While I think this is an admirable goal, I think his method of doing so needs some improvement. Here is my idea: Thirteen months instead of twelve. Twenty-eight days in every month (four weeks per month). One extra day every year that falls outside of any month (Two extra days every fourth year). These extra days should be international holidays. One Monday every month would be a holiday giving us a long weekend every month. There would be three time zones in the world, each would be 8 hours off from the adjacent time zone. All of North and South America would be in the same time zone. Europe and Africa would share a time zone, and Asia and Australia would share the other time zone. Of course business hours may not be 9-5 throughout any time zone, as that may not be convenient. Now I realize that many people would not like to have thirteen [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.brilang.com/2005/01/new-scientist-novel-calendar-system-creates-regular-dates/20/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

