Above and Beyond Expectations

Before recently I had never considered the complexities involved with the disposal of hazardous chemicals. Sure, I learned a little bit about the dangers of toxic waste being dumped into landfills in high school environmental science, but I definitely had not considered the fact that certain things contain these chemicals. I pictured hazardous waste disposal as barrels of chemical being dumped into the landfill, not fridges being dropped in there and leaking their coolant over time. However, it seems apparent to me now that the issue of getting rid of harmful chemicals is a multifaceted problem. For one thing, how do you determine what can and cannot be put into a landfill? If something contains dangerous substances, can you put it into a landfill intact and hope that it doesn’t ever rupture and allow its contents to infiltrate the groundwater? Certain chemicals can be deadly at or below concentrations of just a few parts per billion. It’s actually pretty scary to me to think about what type of substances could be present in my drinking water, or in the water that I use to shower, by carelessly disposed of waste.

It was reassuring to stumble across the article that motivated me to write this blog. The article talked about the dangers involved in disposing of old refrigerators that still contain their original coolant. Certain recycling companies have recently taken initiative to use robotic systems to “squeeze out” the excess coolant so that it can be disposed of separately and less environmentally harmfully. They have developed a technique in which they compress the insulation of the fridges into pellets which can be burned and used as fuel. These pellets do not release noxious gases or environmentally degrading chemicals. It makes me wonder how many fridges with these toxic substances have been disposed of in landfills already, and how much waste has made its way into the groundwater. I also wonder to what extent this technique of coolant wringing out will become popular, if any. I personally hope that it becomes more accepted, because I strongly dislike the thought of drinking water laced with trace amounts of fridge coolant.

Google's Instant Search

I was searching the internet working on a physics assignment earlier this week and it struck me that Google’s search finisher (the thing that pops up with suggestions in a list underneath the search bar as you type) probably saves a whole lot of time, in addition to providing mediocre entertainment in some cases. I quickly abandoned my rapidly-approaching-its-deadline physics homework to do some tangential research, in which I found out that the magnificent search completer referenced above is called “Google instant”. According to Google, the instant search feature saves users an average of 2 to 5 seconds per query. Prior to Google instant, the average search took 9 seconds, and some searches took upwards of 30 seconds. Further statistics reveal that Google users are saved around 3.5 billion seconds per day, or 11 hours per second. I find this absolutely incredible. This number of seconds (equivalent to nearly 111 years if my math is correct) is enormous. It really speaks volumes about the sheer number of people using Google and the internet on a daily basis.

I think it is very interesting that Google went through the process of creating a new technology to save people less than 5 seconds on a search. It makes it apparent that search technology has reached a point where efficiency is nearing the best conceivable level. Not only did they have to develop 15 new technologies to get this instant search thing working, they also had to ensure that the feature, when being used on slow connections, would not end up being detrimental. I didn’t even know that the feature was toggle-able but apparently you can go into preferences within Google and turn it off manually. However, I don’t see any reason to do so, seeing as I have become accustomed to having Google read my mind and fill in the rest of my search bar with something close enough to what I am looking for to save me a valuable 3 seconds. In fact, I can hardly remember using Google at all before the addition of their instant searching technology. It just goes to show you that, as is the case here, with Facebook, and countless other new technologies, we as human beings have a hard time remembering things as they were before we had access to such luxury as social networking and accelerated searching.

Facebook: An Involuntary Waste of Time?

Entertainment is a huge part of the life of every modern American citizen. Even those who are not themselves partaking in forms of recreation are being affected by its prevalence on a daily basis. It is estimated that 700 billion minutes are spent by Facebook users every month^[1]. I find it interesting to think about this from a different angle. What if, instead of surfing Facebook and doing arguably nothing productive, the people instead spent their time reading, or otherwise attempting to learn? What if they spent their time exercising? If the amount of effort spent on social networking were expended on more “positive” and “useful” activities, I think that great benefits would come more soon than we may think.

On the other hand, social networking is a setting in which advertisements run rampant. If significantly less people were to partake in social networking on a day to day basis, these advertisements would be much, much less effective and economical. Companies would have to once again pay for more expensive means of advertisement, such as running more ads in newspaper and magazine, and airing more commercials, rather than just letting their Facebook page circulate around through circles of users. Facebook is interesting in that it is an enormous billboard on which companies are free to advertise (although I’m sure there are situations in which partnerships exist, generating some of the massive revenue that Facebook rakes in). I can’t think of any other means by which marketing is “free”, to this great an extent.

It is phenomena such as these that make social networking sites interesting to me. While I enjoy the ease of communication I am given by Facebook, it really doesn’t give me much that I couldn’t get elsewhere. If I were to disable my Facebook account, I would just be forced to use email and text messages more. I don’t think that it would be too painful, but then again, I haven’t ever deleted or disabled my Facebook, so maybe that fact in itself says something about the grip that it has on its users. It’s almost as if people enjoy being shown advertisement after advertisement, yet are unaware of what is going on. I am interested to see where social networking goes in the future. I imagine that within the decade, Facebook will either cost money to use, or will cease to exist. The company is becoming such a dominant force in the realm of social networking that it seems inevitable that it will begin charging for its services.

And if intelligently priced, I doubt it will lose that many users at all.

Temperature Control

It is definitely easy to take important technologies for granted. I find that the technology I least appreciate is that which I am not in direct control of. I have my cell phone and my laptop with me all the time so it is hard to forget that they are important to me (and that they cost quite a lot, and that I am unwilling to leave them unsupervised for even a trip down the hall and back). However, only when I venture out into the oppressive heat of midday Raleigh do I fully appreciate the value of the air conditioning, refrigeration, and running water that I routinely use to keep cool.

It’s amazing to me, having thought about it more today than I ever had before, that we have the technology to cool down millions of people simultaneously. The numbers behind this feat are probably extraordinary. I would be interested in seeing just how much electricity is used by, say, everyone in the Triangle on air conditioning. I would also like to know how much is used on refrigeration and cooling of food and water, and other essentials. I think that by comparing these numbers with other common uses we would find that an enormous part of our energy expenditure goes to keeping us cool (or in the colder parts of the year, warm).

This is intriguing to me further in that it makes me wonder if this is an opportunity to save energy. Why can’t we approach the energy problem by breaking it into parts, and approaching those individually? It certainly wouldn’t hurt to make homes and other buildings more resistant to outside temperature changes, and therefore less in need of temperature control. It wouldn’t hurt to make refrigerators, freezers, and heating and air conditioning units more efficient in their use of energy. In my opinion, if people were willing to tolerate one degree higher temperatures in the summer and one degree lower temperatures in the winter, lots and lots of energy expenditure could be completely avoided. One degree of difference wouldn’t be that significant to the people having to feel it, but compounded over millions of households and businesses, I don’t think the savings would be anything to sneeze at.

Fast Food: Is Haste Waste?

A few weeks ago while vacationing at the beach I was watching television and came across an hour long show about the recent explosion of development in and general history of fast food technology. Needless to say, I was intrigued. On one level, it struck me as very impressive that fast food chains have reached the point where they can get you your meal, in many cases, within a single minute of ordering. I felt some sense of pride, being that many of these companies are American-based. However, it also seemed odd to me that so much money is going into research and development of new technologies aimed to shave seconds off of the fast food’s production time, while a vast number of the people in the world are undernourished, much less able to go to a fast food restaurant.

I realized that I know very little about what research is in progress and what technology exists in the context of feeding those who cannot acquire food themselves. I have made the assumption that at least some attention is being given to this issue, but to what degree I am quite unsure.

In 2010, surveys revealed that nearly a billion people in the world were hungry ^[1].  That being said, billions of dollars were, and continue to be, poured into research and development of faster and more efficient fast food technology. This issue raises some questions with ranges of arguable answers. First, should money be spent on the impoverished people of the world which are unable to eat, if they have no money of their own with which to provide an economic incentive for companies to do so? Staunch capitalists would tend to argue against provision of money for the benefit of these people, but those with a more humanitarian outlook on the matter would undoubtedly want to take some sort of action towards helping this large fraction of the world’s population. This brings us to our second important question: what exactly should be done about this problem? At least to me, there is no clear solution to a problem in which much money needs to be spent but there is little to no chance of recovery of capital. This seems like it should be a hotly debated issue but I believe it is eclipsed by more “urgent” issues. As widespread hunger has been present for a very long time, people may actually consider it normal and may therefore be less inclined to seek out a solution.

I would love to be corrected if my assumption (that the research regarding the feeding of the hungry is being done on a much smaller scale than that of making a cheeseburger three percent juicier or cooking fries 2.8 seconds faster per batch). I have not been able to find much evidence to suggest my assumption is wrong, but I would be happy if it existed somewhere. I don’t feel quite right about this neglect of those in need in favor of servicing those who are too impatient to wait thirty more seconds for their meal.