Ed Marston Showed Up

The end of summer is always a little sad, but this year it felt especially so. During the last three days of August, three people I care about died unexpectedly. I want to tell you about one of them.

Ed Marston died of complications from West Nile virus on August 31. The last time I saw Ed was at a community arts event in my town a few weeks before his death. He looked healthy and fit and we talked at length. He told me he was he was back to hiking and feeling recovered from his heart attack earlier in the year. The surgeon who’d done his bypass surgery was a Vietnamese refugee with a remarkable life story, and Ed spoke fondly of her and her many accomplishments. I had no idea that I’d never see him again.

Marston moved to our little rural county in western Colorado in 1974 with his wife Betsy and their two children. A former physics professor born and raised in New York, Ed was transformed in his adopted home. He and Betsy founded two newspapers in the mid-70s and early 80s and in 1983 Ed became the publisher of High Country News, with Betsy at his side as editor. The duo built HCN into a must-read publication covering topics like endangered species, public land use, climate change, the environment and federal land agencies in the West.

During the 19 years that Ed served as publisher at HCN, he mentored and trained countless journalists. But that’s not how I knew Ed. I knew him as a pillar of our small and quirky community. He wasn’t the guy who bitched and moaned about the state of things. He was the one who rolled up his sleeves and got to work doing something about it. Continue reading

Time Will Tell

Sometimes I lose track of time when I’m in the water. There are days when it seems like I’ve been paddling through whitewater for hours, the wind makes my ears feel like icicles, and my arms are burning. When I get back to the car, only fifteen minutes have passed since I started surfing. Then there are days when the sky is blue, the waves are just right and there’s a friend to chat with between sets. On those days it seems like I’ve hardly been in the water at all. And on those days I have sometimes been late to pick up my kids.

A few weeks ago, I remembered I had an old-school solution: a watch. I’d gotten one a few years ago to address this same issue, but I’d hurt my back last spring. Unused, the watch had migrated to the back of a drawer. Last week, I dug it out and my husband kindly put in a new battery. The little black numbers reappeared. I fiddled with the buttons until the watch caught up with the time it was now. Continue reading

The Last Word

September 10-14, 2018

Sarah starts off the week with a Tinder stand-in: a 1972 guide to the outdoors at night.  The challenge is identifying just which kind of nocturnal creature you are encountering’ This may not be the same kind of creature you thought you had swiped right on. . . If he’s wearing a suitcoat with no tie, an open-collared button down and a dissatisfied expression, he may turn out to be a tech-industry refugee who talks for thirty minutes about intellectual property while you drink two beers in complete silence.

Craig explores a dry creekbed near where he lives, and contemplates how crayfish and other creatures survive drought. I’d been expecting to find a creek bottom strewn with baked, stinking exoskeletons, their claws pointing this way and that. Now I could see these were cunning little buggers. This wasn’t their first rodeo.

Ann has been talking again to Richard Garwin, who has talking to politicians about science ever since Eisenhower. The old guy gets out of the cab, slowly, creakily — he’s 86, after all — and walks past a group of anti-nuke demonstrators, stops and looks at them for a second, then walks on.  He’s seen them before.

Abstruse Goose, how did you know that science writers have invisible scientists that follow them around and make comments like Statler and Waldorf on the Muppet Show?

Rose has been thinking about the similarities between the internet and the lead pipes of ancient Rome. The pipes were connective, they boosted the standard of living—and they carried both status and sickness. I think about this analogy a lot now. Some days it feels way too alarmist to me. And other days, it feels just about right.

*

Image: Sarah Gilman

Redux: The Internet Is a Series of Lead Tubes

Lead_water_pipe,_Roman,_20-47_CE_Wellcome_L0058475

This post was originally published all the way back in 2015. I thought the internet was weirdly corrosive and anxiety inducing then, and the past three years certainly haven’t removed that feeling. I stand by this analogy today. 

Like many of you, I suspect, I have a love hate relationship with the internet. I love the access it gives me to all sorts of information, and how it connects me with people I would have never been able to hear from before. I hate how it also contains spaces for people to easily gather to abuse and harass people. I have made great, deep friends on the internet, and I have also wanted to burn the whole thing down.

A few months ago I talked to Finn Brunton, a digital historian at NYU, for an episode of my podcast Meanwhile in the Future. The episode was all about why we might, voluntarily and collectively, decide to abandon the internet. It’s a fun one, and you should listen if that kind of weird future speculation intrigues you. But Brunton also said something that didn’t make it into the podcast, but that I think about a lot now. It was an analogy for the internet, and how future us might think about our current internet world. Maybe, he said, the internet is like lead pipes in Rome.

Continue reading

Abstruse Goose: pop phys

“Pop phys,” I assume, means popular physics.  And as someone who encounters physics in her writing, I have to say, AG is onto a big, big problem here, the Explanations of Physicists.  My late husband was a physicist, and his explanations to me went on for what seemed like hours and always ended with, “Your problem is, you don’t know any physics.”  Which was true then and is true now.  I know one or two physics, three max.

_______

https://abstrusegoose.com/601

Redux: Garwin: The Movie

I’ve been talking to Richard Garwin recently and thought I’d run this again. The original had an update, not included here, that read: This post originally said the document on the computer screen is classified, and though it once was, it certainly no longer is. No one who knows Garwin would think he’d allow the filming of a computer screen showing classified documents. Just to say it again: that document on the screen is declassified. In case you’re interested, it’s http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb332/doc09a.pdf, formerly classified TOP SECRET.

Garwin is 4.5 years older now, which puts him over 90.  I write “over 90” because math is not my best skill and because if Garwin reads this, I’ll get a brisk little email saying, “Thank you for writing this. I’m 91.15 years old.”  Regardless, he’s still packing up and heading to DC because the government still needs to hear from him.
IMG_2990 (1)
Garwin: the Movie opens with an old, steady, precise hand on a computer keyboard, scrolling through now-declassified* documents.  Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower make announcements, and newspapers flash headlines about our splendid new hydrogen bomb.  Then the blossom of a mushroom cloud unfolds; and John F. Kennedy talks about Russian missiles in Cuba; and the same old hand places a pill case near the keyboard, then dumps out his pills. Lyndon Johnson explains the complex problems of Vietnam and soldiers shoot their way through a jungle, and the old hand is tieing up a necktie.  Walter Cronkite reports Three-Mile Island, and the old hand pulls on a suit jacket and slings a heavy backpack over his shoulder.  The oil wells of Kuwait explode into a fiery smoking darkness, which becomes the smoking darkness of the Twin Towers, which slides into the tsunami slipping in slow motion over the drowning towns of Japan; and the old hand picks up an umbrella, and a heavily-burdened, slightly baggy old guy in a nice suit and tie stumps out onto the sidewalk, gets in a cab, and goes to DC.  The film title slowly spells out the name, Garwin.  The old guy gets out of the cab, slowly, creakily — he’s 86, after all — and walks past a group of anti-nuke demonstrators, stops and looks at them for a second, then walks on.  He’s seen them before.  He walks into the Executive Office Building.  You know, he says, the president and his national security advisor, aside from their positions, “are really just ordinary people.  And they need to make decisions and they don’t have time to learn.  So the only thing that really works is education.”

§

Richard L. Garwin, a physicist and inventor, has been educating politicians on the scientific realities, whether they want him to or not, in every administration since Eisenhower’s.  He educates them on the physics of nuclear weapons, missile defense, jungle warfare, burning oil wells, terrorist attacks, and of nuclear plant meltdowns. The people who made the movie about him, Richard Breyer and Anand Kamalakar, originally pitched a film on the history of science in America, using Garwin like Zelig or Forrest Gump, they said, because at important moments in history, he always showed up.  “But when we got to know him and hung out with him,” Kamalakar said, “it evolved into this other film about a person who built this horrible thing and worked his whole life to dance around it.”

AKG (1)The horrible thing is the hydrogen bomb.  Back in 1950, Edward Teller was having trouble getting the design right, asked Garwin to help, and in a month or so Garwin had the plans for the bomb test called Ivy Mike.  Garwin was 23.  Afterward, he went back to Chicago, where he was a young professor, and walked around in his bedroom, wondering what he should do next, what he should do with his life.  He apparently figured it out: he took a job at IBM, where he spent the next 41 years, on the condition that he be granted regular, frequent leave to give scientific advice to the government.  After all, Eisenhower had said that the only way to win World War III was to prevent it, with the help of some good scientific minds.

§

Sputnik goes up and the country panics:  the missile big enough to carry Sputnik could just as easily carry nuclear warheads.  The Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev pontificates, Americans build fallout shelters equipped with food and radiation monitors.  Garwin says that the Soviet Union could destroy the US several times over, the only defense would be deterrence.  Tests of nuclear weapons roar through the atmosphere. “Every time you pushed the button to detonate for a megaton fission yield,” Garwin says, “a thousand people are going to die [with cancer] as a result.”  His old colleague Edward Teller convinces Ronald Reagan to fund Star Wars; artists’ conceptions show little missiles zamming into bigger missiles and blowing them all up in orange comic book flashes.  The Star Wars systems never worked, missile defense still doesn’t work.  “I’m not in favor of deploying systems that don’t work,” says Garwin, “and predictably won’t work.”  The Russians build counter-measures to our defense systems that don’t work.  “Nuclear weapons are much more a problem for our security,” says Garwin, “than they are good for our security.”  The head of the Federation of American Scientists, whose mission is preventing nuclear dangers, can’t remember how long Garwin has been a member and notes that Garwin’s at the Pugwash conferences and on the Union of Concerned Scientists, with similar missions.  “He gets around,” says the head, “one wonders, how many Dick Garwins are there?”

§

“In a documentary,” says Richard Breyer, “information comes second, the story comes first.  We had to put a narrative to Garwin, we had to find a log line, the A story.”  Going into the project, which was suggested and partly funded by an old Garwin family friend named Walter Montgomery, Breyer and Kamalakar had reservations about who Garwin was  — a cold war guy, they thought, an inside man.  But during the year and a half of filming, they got to know him; the word they like to use is “nuanced.”  “History can have so many different layers.” Breyer says. “We’re presenting an historical character and the audience makes the judgment.”  So their film, he says, asks questions that it doesn’t answer.  The questions are about where culpability and responsibility begin and where they end, and the film remains ambiguous. “Garwin was 23 when he designed the bomb,” said Kamalakar, “and there was a war going on and are you responsible for the part you play or not? He did many good things, how do  you balance it all?” The people who see the film also see the nuances and have to decide their own answers for themselves, and maybe any discussion then will also have nuances. In these days of us vs. them, religion vs. science, evil vs. good, people make fast and stupid judgments, don’t listen, and don’t change their minds.  “In the end,” says Breyer, “ambiguity can take us to the next step of discourse, not things in black and white.”

§

Garwin sits in an airport chair, working on a laptop.  He gets up and puts on his backpack which holds his laptop and 15 or 20 pounds of reading matter, unfinished work, and documentation for argument.  He walks to the gate, hands in his boarding pass.   Then seen from behind, over the airplane seat, is the back of an old guy’s head, a few white hairs sticking up.  “I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about my role in bringing hydrogen bombs to the world,” he says.  “But when I do, I think somebody else would have done it, probably a year later. It wouldn’t have made any difference.  Am I proud of it? Yes, but not because of the destruction but because it was honest, it was in the interests of the country as the leadership saw it at the time.”

He gets off the airplane in Erice, Sicily, the annual meeting place of scientists who, among other things, give a prize called Science for Peace.  He walks with another old, lively scientist, an Italian, through the ancient streets in the heat to a villa.  Garwin stops for a minute, rearranges the papers in his backpack and zips it up, then the two of them start up some steep stairs.  “Can’t you get rid of these big pack?” says the Italian.  “Such a big thing.  Always carrying papers and papers and papers.”  They trudge up the steps.  Garwin doesn’t answer and he’s still carrying the big thing.

___________

The movie’s website allows streaming.  You can also call your local film society/science organizations/movie theaters to request screenings, politely but insistently.

Disclosure:  I’m interviewed in the movie — God I look old — and provide some of the voiceovers. This is partly because I’d written a profile of Garwin.  I enjoyed and admired the movie nevertheless.

Stills from Garwin: the Movie with the kind permission of Richard Breyer and Anand Kamalakar.

Lost Creeks

 

You know it’s bad when you have to dig a hole and crawl in to survive. That’s what is going on in a creek bed at the bottom of the canyon below where I live. The creek stopped running a little more than a week ago. I walked down the other day and lifted one of the dried stones bumpy with once-living things. A crayfish was underneath, backed as far as it could into a burrow. One small dark club of an eye stared baldly into the sun. The creature hadn’t seen water in several days.

Naturita Creek being dry is something I haven’t seen in the four summers I’ve lived here. Other people who remember at least 30 years say water used to get cut off at a reservoir up top, but mandates for instream flow were established and it has flowed freely ever since. This year, the drought was too much.

At low water, with a running start, you can jump across Naturita Creek. At no water, it’s a chalky bed of stream cobbles.

The crustacean squirmed slightly, pushing itself tighter into its hole. The array of antennae sprouting from its head was neatly folded back into the burrow. I’d been expecting to find a creek bottom strewn with baked, stinking exoskeletons, their claws pointing this way and that. Now I could see these were cunning little buggers. This wasn’t their first rodeo. Continue reading

Redux: Why dating is a lot like this animal guidebook I bought at a thrift store

Last month, a pair of University of Michigan scientists published a study that shows that people who date online tend to pursue mates 25 percent more desirable than themselves. I find this difficult to believe. My experience with online dating suggests that the best strategy is to pursue the people who seem the most *interesting*. And by interesting, I mean that they crusade for social justice while naked on roller skates, or shoot rainbows out of their butts. This post, which originally appeared in 2016, explains. Enjoy!

Being single as a 35-year-old woman in the tech age is an interesting science experiment. There’s a lot that’s cool about it, like your time is all your own, you actually feel pretty good in your skin and you have some solid sense of what you want. You also get to tinker with tools of modern romance that your peers missed out on entirely, like Tinder.

If you don’t know what Tinder is, because you live under a rock (forgivable in these times, as it’s surely safer there), it’s a phone dating app that basically works like this: You set your age and gender preferences, set the mileage of your search radius, and then parse through hundreds of short profiles that the app pulls up for you, each with five or six pictures and a terse little bio, swiping left to reject and right to match.

My married friends and friends with children, who are legion in my social circles at this point, always seem to want to TRY my Tinder app. To them it’s both exotic and vaguely nostalgic, like a game on a Game Boy, if Nintendo had made a game where you were a rat trained to press a paddle over and over again expecting some reward, but then simply began pressing the paddle because there was ALWAYS MORE PRESSING TO DO. More…