When the Guadalupe River swallowed Camp Mystic whole, it wasn’t just water that filled the cabins. It was silence. A Christian summer camp for girls, nestled in Texas Hill Country, where faith was supposed to be a shield—and where 27 young lives were lost while sleeping. The sirens never came. Because Kerr County didn’t have them.
This wasn’t an act of God. It was an act of neglect.
This camp, this tragedy, didn’t happen in a marginalized zip code. The girls were mostly white. Likely the daughters of conservative parents who voted for the very administration that defunded meteorologists, weakened FEMA, and redirected public safety funds toward border detention projects with crocodilian nicknames.
It’s cruel irony. But it’s also consequence.
When a government dismisses science, cuts funding to NOAA, lays off weather experts, and calls climate change a hoax, nature doesn’t discriminate. It strikes, and when our infrastructure is hollowed out, even the privileged suffer. The floodwaters in Kerr County didn’t pause to ask political affiliation. But the policies that failed to prevent this disaster were built by one.
Meanwhile, in Chicago, flash floods inundated Black and Latino neighborhoods with decades-old drainage systems. In New Mexico, monsoons cascaded over wildfire burn scars, catching children in rivers that weren’t supposed to rise. The message? Climate doesn’t care who you vote for. But our response does.
Republican lawmakers continue to fight climate legislation while oil lobbyists write their fundraising checks. Denial isn’t just ideological—it’s lethal. Especially for the young, the poor, and yes, even for those who believe they’re protected by faith or legacy.
We’re all up the creek. But only some of us were handed a paddle.
This song is 20 minutes and 31 seconds long. It’s mostly an instrumental, so you can listen to it and enjoy it while reading this blog. Actually, it should only take a few minutes to read this blog, but you’ll probably want to listen to the entire song, anyway. It’s a masterpiece.
In 1982, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was adopted. It established a legal framework for the use of the world’s oceans, including the regulation of deep-sea mining in international waters.
The United States has still not ratified UNCLOS.
UNCLOS has faced opposition from certain U.S. senators over the years, preventing its ratification. A notable instance occurred in 2012, when a group of 34 Republican senators, led by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), publicly opposed the treaty. This group included senators like Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Rob Portman (R-OH), among others. Their opposition was enough to block the two-thirds majority required for ratification in the Senate.
What was the result? U.S. companies didn’t want to invest billions in deep-sea mining in international waters, without having the legal protection of the U.S. Government as a signatory of the U.N. resolution.
Guess who did sign the U.N resolution and invest heavily in deep-sea mining technology? China.
Well, over the years, oceanographers discovered an interesting area on the ocean floor where polymetallic nodules were “growing.” These small potato-shaped mineral deposits have been formed over millions of years as minerals like manganese, nickel, cobalt, and rare earth elements precipitated from seawater and formed around small rocks or shell fragments, kinda like the way pearls form around bits of sand inside an oyster’s shell. The greatest accumulation of these nodules is found in an area called the Clarion-Clipperton Zone in the Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and Mexico.
So, U.S. companies are not mining these deep-sea nodules but China is, and a funny thing happened on the way to the future. We’ve known the value of manganese, nickel, and cobalt for centuries. The value of rare earth materials , however, was not so well known. Recently, in a speech about a potential deal with Ukraine, President Trump even referred to them incorrectly as “raw earth materials.” No big surprise. He’s not exactly a scientist.
I’m not a scientist either so I had to look them up. Here’s what I found.
Rare earth elements (REEs) consist of 17 elements on the periodic table, including the 15 lanthanides plus scandium and yttrium. Here are their atomic numbers:
These elements are prized for their unique properties and are critical to many technologies, like magnets, batteries, and LEDs.
You don’t need to memorize the names of these elements, but let’s have another look at that last sentence. These elements are prized for their unique properties and are critical to many technologies, like magnets, batteries, and LEDs.
So, while China has been harvesting these precious “potatoes” off the ocean floor, the U.S. has been waiting since 1982 for the Senate to ratify UNCLOS. The result is that China is now the world’s largest producer of rare earth elements, and the U.S. relies heavily on imports, particularly from China, for processed rare earth materials. China is kicking our ass in the area of refining rare earth elements.
Let’s revisit that sentence one more time. These elements are prized for their unique properties and are critical to many technologies, like magnets, batteries, and LEDs.
Ukraine has rich rare earth deposits, which is why – Surprise Surprise – Donald Trump wants to quickly end the war in Ukraine so that the U.S. can start mining their rare earth elements.
So, Ukraine, Donald Trump desperately wants your rare earth elements and he will stop at nothing to get them. He’ll even cooperate with Russia. So, like the band Rare Earth said in 1970, “Get ready, because here I come.”
bing ai: Hey there! I’m your AI companion, brought to you by Microsoft. I can answer questions, brainstorm ideas, offer support, and much more. Think of me as your helpful friend who’s always up for a chat.
What’s on your mind today? 😊
I was watching a show with lists of interesting facts. After giving each fact, the host would describe how they knew this was indeed a fact. He quoted studies held by various institutions and groups. It made me wonder if some of these studies are just goofy and a waste of time and money. Then, I remembered reading a newspaper article years ago about a medical group doing cancer research. The article scolded the study for spending time and money on a study that only found out one odd thing. The study showed that men with hairy ears were more likely to develop cancer than men without hairy ears. I thought, it’s not right to scold them for only finding out one thing. I’m sure they were looking for a lot of things. Unfortunately, that’s all they found. It happens. Then, I thought, maybe that isn’t so insignificant a finding. Maybe, men with hairy ears should be sure to be tested regularly for cancer, so that they can catch it early, and treat it successfully. First of all, what do you think about all that. Second, give me a list of some studies which seem goofy, and what did they find out, if anything.
I think you bring up a really interesting point! It’s easy to dismiss findings like the one about hairy ears and cancer as insignificant, but sometimes these “odd” results can lead to new insights or raise awareness about potential health risks. It’s also important to remember that scientific research often involves exploring many different avenues, and even unexpected findings can contribute to the overall body of knowledge.
As for goofy studies, here are a few that might give you a chuckle:
Electric Fans in Extreme Heat: A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that using electric fans can actually make people feel cooler in extreme heat and humidity. It seems like common sense, but it’s still a study!
Taste-Testing Rocks: University of Leicester geologist Jan Zalasiewicz licked rocks to study their mineral content. He found that adding moisture can help spot mineral particles better.
Dead Spiders as Robots: Researchers turned dead spiders into robotic grippers by applying hydraulic pressure to their legs. The spider-bot could grasp oddly shaped objects and lift up to 130% of its own mass.
Nose Hairs in Cadavers: The Ig Nobel awards celebrated a study that measured nose hairs in cadavers. It’s definitely an unusual topic, but it highlights the quirky side of science.
Anchovy Sex and Ocean Water Mixing: Another Ig Nobel winner assessed the impact of anchovy mating behavior on ocean water mixing. It’s a strange but fascinating area of research!
These studies might seem goofy, but they all contribute to our understanding of the world in their own unique ways. Do any of these stand out to you as particularly interesting or funny?
The dead spiders as robot grippers story, reminds me that some scientist found out that if he touched dead frogs with electrodes he could make their legs twitch. So, the two studies sound similar, with spiders having more legs to twitch and therefore better suited for gripping. What do you think? And who was the frog scientist?
That’s a great observation! The similarity between the two studies is quite fascinating. The scientist you’re referring to is Luigi Galvani, an Italian physician and physicist. In the late 1700s, Galvani discovered that the legs of dead frogs would twitch when touched with metal electrodes. This phenomenon, which he called “animal electricity,” laid the groundwork for the field of electrophysiology.
It’s interesting to think about how these early experiments with frogs and spiders have led to modern scientific advancements. Do you find it surprising how such quirky studies can have lasting impacts?
earlthepearl137 