Montana’s Buffalo Conundrum

This post originally ran April 3, 2014. I’ve added a brief update at the end.

Yellowstone National Park spans three states and nearly 3,500 square miles, making it one of the largest parks in the US. So when I read that Montana officials are searching for a home for 135 Yellowstone bison living on Ted Turner’s sprawling private ranch, I was bewildered. Why not just put them back in the park? Anyone who has visited Yellowstone knows that it’s prime habitat. You can’t drive a mile without seeing their shaggy hulking forms. Or better yet, let the bison roam free. After all, isn’t that the definition of a wild animal?

Continue reading

It All Depends Where You Look

This post was first published on January 9, 2019

Last month, while on assignment in Cozumel for a story on sponges, I went diving on a beautiful reef. It was stunning – a world of color, dreamlike shapes, and life everywhere I looked. Normally, I would have just swam about, marveled at the pretty nature, and come back to my hotel with a fat grin on my face.

But I just couldn’t stop fretting over all the sponges. You see, my story was on a theory among sponge experts that sponges are secretly, quietly taking over the world. It is … wait for it … The Rise of the Planet of the Sponge. Scary, right? Except just on coral reefs, not the world. And only in the Caribbean Sea. So, I guess it’s The Rise of the Caribbean Reef of the Sponge. Wow, that really doesn’t work as well.

Anyway, the theory goes that huge coral and urchin die-offs have led to a lot of spare real estate and algae on Caribbean reefs. The sponges have stepped in, sucked up the excess sugar pumped out by the algae and filled the now-empty reefs.

And diving in Cozumel, I noticed for the first time just how much of the color on a reef is actually sponge. We all know the big barrel sponges – those giant cannon-looking things hanging off the reef – but I’d never really noticed the encrusting sponges before. These are the colorful flat sponges that sort of drizzle around the reef like splotches on a Jackson Pollack.

It turns out that very little of the life I was looking at on the coral reef was actually coral. When I asked the folks on my boat – some of whom had been diving Cozumel for decades – none of them noticed the dominance of sponge over the coral. Likewise, the dive guides hadn’t noticed it either. How could they not see it? It was so obvious!

Continue reading

I Reserve the Right to Be a Miserable Old F*$%

I’ve begun to wonder if, on one’s 50th birthday, a switch flips that loosens all that was tight and squeezes everything else in a vice grip. It seems that in the middle years basic gestures can cause lasting injuries. Bruises appear out of nowhere. My same-age friends and I compare aches and pains, and we all agree that our physical lives have lurched onto a new bone-jarring path.

A while back I started jotting down notes about my daily twinges, recalling the ridiculous ways I’ve caused myself enough pain to yell “ow!” or some other heavier complaint. Here are 19 of them. True stories, all. Continue reading

It’s Ok to Opt Out of Mammograms

breastcancer

It’s October, which means that my local hardware store is offering a discount to shoppers who wear pink, Allegiant Airlines is selling pink drinks and police officers across the country are donning pink badges, all the name of “breast cancer awareness.” Also known as “pinkwashing,” these pink ribbon awareness campaigns allow people to feel like they’re doing something, without having to think too deeply about the sober facts about breast cancer. Breast cancer screening has failed to reduce the incidence of metastatic disease, and it’s unnecessarily turned healthy women into cancer patients (more on that below).

If you find a lump or something weird in your breast, absolutely get it checked out. In those instances, a mammogram is a necessary diagnostic tool. But screening mammograms — those done when you have no symptoms — have never been shown to decrease overall mortality and may cause tangible harms. For these reasons, I’ve chosen to opt out of mammography, and I based my decision on statistics and science.

For answers to some common questions about the limits of breast cancer screening, see this post I wrote in 2013. I’ve written about the shortcomings of screening for close to 20 years now, and I’m tired of writing the same stories. But since I first wrote the post below in October of 2015, I’ve watched a lot of friends get called back for more tests after a screening mammogram found something that ended up not to be cancer, and those experiences were surprisingly stressful and life-disrupting.

**

Before I begin, a disclaimer: I’m sick of writing about mammography. It feels like groundhog day — I’ve been writing the same damn story, over and over and over again, for nearly 15 years. This is at least the fifth time I’ve written a LWON post about mammograms. (See also: Breast cancer’s false narrative, The real scandal: science denialism at Susan G. Komen for the Cure®, FAQs about breast cancer screening, and Breast cancer’s latest saga: misfearing and misplaced goalposts.)

So why I am I writing about mammograms again? Because even though I just published a story at FiveThirtyEight explaining why science won’t resolve the mammogram debate and a feature at Mother Jones asking how many women have mammograms hurt? (the answer is millions) the harms of mammography continue to be ignored or mischaracterized in the media. Every time this happens, I get letters from people asking me to please clarify this point again. Just this past week, a New York Times editorial penned by two breast radiologists and a breast surgeon declared, “Let’s stop overemphasizing the ‘harms’ related to mammogram callbacks and biopsies,” while an op-ed in the Washington Post titled, “Don’t worry your pretty little head about breast cancer” claimed that, “the idea that anxiety is a major harm doesn’t have much scientific support.” (In fact, at least one study has found long-term consequences from a false alarm.)

What both of these opinion pieces miss and what too many women still don’t know is that while 61 percent of women who have annual mammograms will have a callback for something ultimately declared “not cancer,” this isn’t the most damaging problem. Such false alarms are more devastating than they might seem (I can’t think of another recommended medical test with such a high false positive rate), but most women would probably gladly accept this risk in exchange for a reasonable chance to prevent a cancer death.

Here’s the bigger problem: screening mammography has failed to reduce the incidence of metastatic disease and it’s created an epidemic of a precancer called DCIS. The premise of screening is that it can find cancers destined to metastasize when they’re at an early stage so that they can be treated before they turn deadly. If this were the case, then finding and treating cancers at an early stage should reduce the rate at which cancers present at a later, metastatic stage. Unfortunately, that’s not what’s happened.

Continue reading

Quantifiable Poetry: P. James E. Peebles

The following are excerpts from a profile of Jim Peebles, who just yesterday won a Nobel Prize. Peebles is a quintessential theorist — “I spent a few days standing near telescopes getting cold,” he said, “and in the end, my attention wandered” whose opinion of his own theories is finely balanced.

The profile is old, from 1992, and from a magazine now dead, The Sciences. At the time I wrote it, the microwaves left over from the Big Bang had just been reliably measured for the first time, even though they’d been detected 27 years before by observers who didn’t know what they’d detected until Peebles told them. The observers went on to win the Nobel Prize; Peebles wasn’t mentioned. Should he have been? I asked, and he thought not: “Anyway,” he said, “I’m too young to be famous.” Apparently he’s old enough now.

In the informal basement cafeteria of the otherwise fancy faculty club at Princeton University, the physicist and cosmologist Philip James Edwin Peebles and three younger colleagues are having lunch over the latest hot news in cosmology. The lunch is fortuitous: one by one, the cosmologists have showed up a little after one o’clock and gravitated to the same table. Ruth Daly, David Spergel and Neil Turok are theorists, like Peebles, and among them the four have three theories about what went on in the early universe. The hot news comes from COBE, the Cosmic Background Explorer, a space probe that, for nearly three years, has been mapping a remnant of the birth of the universe, the big bang. . . . COBE has given theorists some badly needed constraints on how the early universe evolved. And so they debate: Whose theory of the early universe is still tenable?

Spergel and Turok are coming close to losing, but they are being gentlemen about it. Peebles is trying to convince the others that he is not losing. Daly, whose main interest is distant radio galaxies, remains uncommitted. As they talk, the four cosmologists become so intense, so serious that the outsider, who can barely follow what they say, can nonetheless see what they see: in the air just above the sandwiches, chips, fruit and juice, entire universes appear, evolve and disappear.

But, eventually, creating and modifying universes in thin air gets too hard even for the very smart, and Peebles resorts to the napkin under his plate, requests a pen and condenses the latest universe to graphs on the napkin. In the end, having pushed chairs back and put trays away, Daly, Spergel and Turok look thoughtful, and Peebles looks just a bit smug. The game has been fair throughout: although he is by far the most famous and senior of the four, he has taken up only a quarter of the conversation, and his convictions have been judged, as they should be, on merit alone. He is fierce and tenacious about his position, but he is unfailingly courteous about those of the others. He phrases his comments gently, as questions: “Doesn’t COBE specify that?” he asks. “And those fluctuations are on what scale?”

Continue reading

Interview with the Author

QUESTIONER: I see you wrote a new book that just came out. It’s called Virga and Bone: Essays from Dry Places. Does anybody ever make fun of you for that title? 

AUTHOR: I don’t understand the question. 

Q: I mean, Viagra and Boner, you haven’t thought of that? What does virga mean? 

A: It’s when rain falls but doesn’t touch ground, a meteorological term. It returns to vapor, usually as a result of heat rising off the desert surface that dries rain out of the air.

Q: Because this is a desert book, and deserts are dry. Why virga? 

A: Virga is one of the elements of a desert. You’ll see it forming on the horizon like spider strands. It makes the clouds look as if they’re walking without touching ground, tentacled like jelly fish. The idea behind the book is that I’m writing about encounters with desert elements, desert gods. Virga is one.

Q: You intentionally flew through a sheet of virga in one of the chapters in a small plane. Would you call that a stupid thing to do?

A: The storm had lost steam, last of its precipitation dropping over Monument Valley. We sailed through it. Other pilots have said big virga you don’t want to get near, but this was perfectly safe. It was like flying through silk.

Q: You could fit this book in your pocket, an afternoon read. Why write such a short book? Do you think you’re running out of things to say? 

Continue reading

Helping Out Instead of Building Alligator Moats Might Help You Become A Better Person

Eastern Facade of Spøttrup Castle, Denmark.

How can I help? I say this to my daughter all the time. I usually mean it as a redirection for some kind of tantrum, or a snafu in the routine of an average nameless morning. It’s better than saying no or telling her what to do, or worse yet, doing it for her. Each of those incurs the wrath of my spirited, mighty warrior. 

It’s actually a good way to start any morning, I’ve realized. How can I help? It’s a good way to frame your life.

Continue reading