#ContactForm1{ display: none ! important; }

Pages

Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts

Monday, May 16, 2011

a chip in the bucket

looks like any other day at the beach here in Florida...
except it's eight-thirty on a monday morning....
and more people keep showing up...
they find places standing...
sitting...
in the surf.
all eyes are fixed on the northern horizon for this tiny blip of light..
it hides briefly behind clouds....
but steadily, and unbelievably, ascends into the heavens.
higher...
and higher it climbs.
we follow the cloud of smoke...
and then the shuttle is gone...
only then did we hear the rumble of the jets. it took nearly five minutes for the sound to travel nearly forty miles down the beach. racing down the surf, the sonic boom rolled over all of us, reminding us of the power behind this historic flight.
I always thought seeing a shuttle launch would be cool. I had no idea how truly awe-inspiring it would be. I marvel at the minds that were able to engineer something so remarkable as propelling a relatively small object carrying human life into the great void of space and to bring those lives safely home, time and time again.
farewell, Endeavor. enjoy your last trip. and thank you for your service.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

because I love you

Over the past month, the topic of mammography has been frequenting the headlines and political agendas of the media at large. This is coming at the same time as Health Reform is coming under heated debate. I am not here to give my opinion on the bill up for vote, rather, I would like to share a few thoughts on breast cancer prevention.

This has never been an easy topic for me, but grew increasingly more burdensome nearly eight years ago when my own mother was diagnosed. Since then I have been overly sensitive to the topic. A recent study resulted in new guidelines for mammography in the United States. The base age was pushed back to the age of 50 from 40 where annual screenings would be replaced with biannual ones.

My initial reaction to this news was nothing short of outrage. The radio report I heard explained that the reasoning behind this was that annual screenings were too much of an inconvenience for the patient. Discomfort, undue worry, things like that. Knowing my mother's experience, several explicatives came to mind about these cop-out reasons. Women, in my mind, need to be screened. Period. Screw the discomfort and "undue" worry. My mum would not be here without them.

Thanks to my good friend The Nurse, I have been given additional information, including the report in full, which I am in the process of reading. Because of this research, I now know the following. These guidelines are for the average case, meaning that the rate of screening for most women will really not change. Women with higher risks, such as myself, will still have access to annual screenings beginning at an earlier age. Mammograms are not being eradicated, but in a sense, being made available to more women by changing the standards.

Here's what I see to be the problem. Not enough women get checked. Lack of insurance, fear of the boob-vice, far reaching communities; any number of these things prevent a vast percentage of American women from getting screenings.

Here is my plea. Sisters, girls, cousins, aunts,daughters, grandmothers, mothers, friends, women-get checked. Find out what your risk level is. Speak to your physician about the matter. Know what options are available to you. There are too many options out there to not take advantage of them. While the nature of health care is changing, access to mammograms is still available. There are ways to beat this vicious disease, as these reports are proving. Use them. And if you can't get to a doctor for some reason, use the old-fashioned method and feel your boobies.

With all my heart,

the boob-loving engquist

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

everything works towards balance

That's about the only thing I remember from any of my middle school science classes, but it has stuck with me. Everything in nature and science works towards balance. Most often I think of the weather in terms of this. If one part of the world is flooding, it must needs be that drought occurs elsewhere.

Today, however, I got to thinking about creatures and this methodology. I heard a report that the Large Blue Butterfly, once extinct in the UK, has been reintroduced via a strand still thriving in Scandinavia to the island kingdom. Now, please don't take me to be a hater of animals, but, if everything works towards balance, is there really a need to reintroduce a species?

Apparently the LBB was dependent upon a certain variety of ant that was no longer available in the UK, and thus the LBB also died out there. Things change. Ecosystems are constantly in flux. Creatures learn to adapt to their environment, and those who don't, move on or die out. It sounds harsh, but it is a reality. The LBB died out in the UK. It couldn't make it. The species still lived in the north, so was not in danger of wholly disappearing off the face of the planet.

But so what if it were? All things come to an end at one point or another. If everything works towards balance, why single out certain species for preservation? Such notions confuse me...