text:
The Secret Beyond Matter
The Miracle of Termites
The Termite Army
Every country of the world fears the possible outbreak of war and civil chaos. Nations continually produce new strategies and armaments to counter this threat and defend themselves, and departments of defense put aside significant amounts in their budgets for developing new weaponry.
There are similar defense efforts in the world of nature. All creatures that live in colonies have well-equipped armies, in which every soldier has a different function, and their defense strategies are highly intelligent. With the armies of social insects, their most notable characteristic is that every individual strives to do its duty to the point of putting its own life at risk.
Termites' armies are composed of groups of many soldiers. Soldiers look much like worker termites; they are blind and wingless, with soft bodies a few centimeters in length. But despite their small physical size, they have some amazing techniques at their disposal.
Soldier Termites
Their only duty is to protect their colony. But to protect the nest, this tiny defense army exposes itself to all manner of dangers, to the point of sacrificing their own lives. And they do no't care how large the enemy is. For example, when the nest is invaded by its biggest enemies, ants and anteaters, a "suicide squad" goes into action to remove the threat. Many termites will die in the course of the defense, and we will examine this self-sacrificial behavior among termites in a later chapter.
The bodies of soldier termites vary according to their species, but each has a physical design totally appropriate to their duties. For example, African termites have razor-sharp jaws; South American termites have a squarish head and a lower jaw longer than their whole body,which they use to kill their enemies. Some termites in Malaysia explode themselves like suicide bombers, drowning the aggressor in a dark yellow fluid. Worker termites of some species in Africa and South America protect the colonies in a different way. These workers squirt a fluid from their intestines at an enemy; as a result, their inner organs explode, and they die. 11
Soldiers of nearly all termite species have large, muscular jaws which they use to tear an enemy to pieces. The sizes of soldier termites' jaws are roughly the same, but the shape of their heads varies according to species. These differences are sometimes quite striking. Certain soldiers have long heads, while those of other species are powerful and hard. The reason for this difference is the various fighting techniques among termites. For example, termites with long heads use them to squirt sticky fluid at an aggressor. 12 Termites with large heads use them as barriers to plug up holes in the nest and prevent enemies from entering. Their heads, resembling capsules, are much larger than the rest of their body. Though they may look awkward, they have a surprising ability to defend their nest.
Termites' Battle Strategy
To ensure the colony's survival, security is of the utmost importance. Besides using their sharp jaws to wound an enemy, termites normally use chemical weapons in their various strategies to paralyze an enemy, explode themselves on top of an enemy, and secreting a poison that affects an attacker's physical structure.
Thanks to all these special features, termites have managed to survive for millions of years. But today's chemical weapons experts have been able to produce these only after constant effort. Serious efforts are required to produce even the most basic chemical substance. In the light of this, we must answer the question of how the bodies of termites produce these chemical weapons. According to the theory of evolution, these chemical substances came into being spontaneously—that is, by chance. But even a little consideration will reveal how illogical this claim is.
The theory of evolution claims that termites did not originally have a chemical-production system in their bodies, but slowly developed it later as a result of random events. But as the examples in the following pages will show in detail, every aspect of these claims logically contradicts the others.
Indeed, for a termite's chemical weapon system to function at all, both the chemical itself and the organ that produces it must have come into being at the same time. In addition, it's vital that this organ has safeguards to keep the poison from spreading to other parts of the termite's body. And because the way poison is used varies according to the species, there must sometimes be a channel or conduit immune to the poison leading to the termite's head from the organ where it is produced. Besides this, there must be some muscular system or mechanism that lets the termite eject the poison at an enemy.
Evolutionists claim that organs and systems like these have come into being by chance. Random events allegedly produced whatever chemical formula was required and created a system to produce that chemical substance in the body of the first termite; later, other chance events occurred, producing substances that in turn produced chemical substances, one by one. The organs and other systems in the termite's body developed immunity from the poison. In this way, one chance event followed after another for millions or even hundreds of millions of years, until termites finally emerged as we know them today.
Elaborating this fairytale scenario makes it clear just how illogical these evolutionist claims are. Chance events cannot create even the single cell of a living being, let alone a fully-formed creature. Chance would first have to create the cells of the creature, combine them and form them into organs. It would have to give each organ its special qualities and, in order that the species could continue to exist, would have to encode the information enabling these functions into the genes of the cells of each creature. Of course, this would be impossible.
Contrary to the evolutionists' claim, termites did not arrive at their present form through a specific process over time. For example, if just one element of their chemical-weapons system did not function correctly, the entire system would not work properly, and the termite would be killed. So only one explanation remains: The termites' chemical weapons system must have been created in its entirety, all at once. That is, they have possessed this system ever since they came into being.
But termites can do more than just produce chemical substances and use them as weapons; they also have unique feeding habits with an appropriate digestive system and the ability to establish chemical communication. In other words, their fine-tuned, highly sophisticated systems must have been created all at once. It is God, the Creator of every living thing in nature, Who has given termites their special characteristics. His power is infinite and He knows how to create every species.
Say: "Who is the Lord of the heavens and the Earth?" Say: "God." Say: "So why have you taken protectors apart from Him who possess no power to help or harm themselves?" Say: "Are the blind and seeing equal? Or are darkness and light the same? Or have they assigned partners to God who create as He creates, so that all creating seems the same to them?" Say: "God is the Creator of everything. He is the One, the All-Conquering." (Surat ar-Ra'd:16)
Smearing Poison on Their Bodies
One stratagem that termites use in battle is to smear their bodies with poison. Some species synthesize a very strong poison that they store in their bodies without suffering any harm. The poisons produced by termites differ according to species, and the way each species uses it is also different.
For example, soldiers of the subfamily of Rhino-termitidae kill an aggressor by smearing its body with poison. This species has a shorter lower jaw and long upper jaw, with ends like a brush. This special mouth structure is quite effective in allowing the termite to smear the body of any aggressor. And since a soldier termite can store up to 35% of its body weight in poison, the amount it secretes can kill thousands of ants.13
Prorhinotermes also smears poison as a defensive strategy. This species of termite lives in Florida, and the jaws of the workers contain a poisonous substance called nitroalkene. Another species, the Schedorhinotermes, lives in Africa and produces a compound called vinyl ketone—a substance that when breathed or swallowed, causes death. When it comes into contact with the skin or the eyes, it causes severe irritation.14 Termites produce this most effective poison, causing a collapse of the central nervous system, and store it in their bodies without suffering any harm.
Termites in Guyana synthesize a very fast-acting substance called B-ketoaldehydes. The Armitermes produce a poison called molecular string and use substances called esters and lactones as chemical weapons. As you can see, the structures of each of these poisons has a different chemical formula.
However, one common feature of these poisons is that all are electrophylic—that is, they combine with the electron-rich biological molecules on the bodies of aggressors to cause fatal physical deterioration. For millions of years, termites have been producing these poisonous substances, many of which are unnamed and whose purposes are as yet not understood.
Termites are not more than a few centimeters in length. They are blind, live most of their life underground and have only a rudimentary brain. But they secrete from their bodies a substance designed to stop the functioning of the physical system of an aggressor. Is it possible to maintain that a termite created such a system by its own will? Imagine someone telling you a story like this:
"Long ago termites did not have these systems, but one day a termite decided to develop a method of defense against its enemies. The most logical thing to do was to find a method to destroy the enemy's internal systems. Sometimes the enemies were bigger and stronger than the termite itself. Then it decided to produce poison in its own body, assuming that it would be much easier to subdue an enemy this way without expending much effort. It developed various formulas for the poison. To do this it collected the requisite substances in a special secretion gland in its body and began to produce the poison. But before this, it did not forget to develop a layer to the secretion gland to prevent itself from being harmed by the poison. It also gave itself immunity from the poison when it was expelled from its body..."
This scenario is so silly that even a child would not believe it. Termites cannot make decisions or perform chemical operations. But evolutionists' claims are no different. They maintain that termites did not originally have these poison-producing systems, but produced it in their own bodies one day in response to a need. As a matter of fact, evolutionists claim that coincidences produced these systems. But neither a process of blind chance nor a tiny insect we call a termite can conceive, plan and put any system into effect. God is the Creator of heaven and Earth and everything in between; it is He Who endowed termites with their defense system.
Another Amazing Method of Defense
Macrotermites live in Africa where they build their nests in the shape of mounds. In this species, the soldiers defending the colony are females, infertile, and smaller than other termites in the nest. The somewhat larger protectors of the queen, king and larvae are responsible for preventing intruders from entering the inner chambers where these reside. These protectors were created for battle, with heads designed like shields and sword-sharp lower jaws. In large soldiers, 10% of their body weight is composed of internal secretions. These secretions are made up of long chains of carbon compounds such as alkanes and alkenes, and stored in large sacs in the front part of their bodies. Enemies attack these termites at their peril, because the cost of attacking the colony is more than just a few wounds from the soldiers' sword-like lower jaws. The soldiers do not stop at that, but smear the open wounds with an oily chemical compound resembling paraffin composed of alkanes and alkenes.15 Even though the termites' enemies often do not receive life-threatening wounds, scientists have noticed that they die shortly afterwards.
Researchers examining this interesting phenomenon have recognized an amazing fact: the intruders do not die because of the size of the wound they receive, but through loss of blood. The substance the termites secrete disables the intruders' blood-clotting ability.
For example, ants have a fluid in their bodies called hemolymph that functions like blood. When wounded, their bodies produce a chemical substance that causes the hemolymph to solidify and the wound to heal. The termites' poisonous secretion renders this chemical substance ineffective.16
It is certain evidence of creation that an insect between 1 and 2 cm (0.3 to 0.7 in) long knows the bodily secretions of another creature, is aware of a formula that will destroy the composition of those secretions and produces in its own body a substance with this formula. Without appropriate training, not even human beings can learn the essential elements of which the bodies of other creatures are composed and how to destroy those elements. First, they must be familiar with those creatures' anatomical structure. But even this is not enough; they must gain even more knowledge in order to put into practice what they have already learned.
Of course, chemical materials must be produced with the help of technological instruments, under strict conditions, in special places and with expert assistance. However, termites produce these chemical substances in their bodies without any help at all.
There are many more aspects to these operations, but the facts are clear. A creature like a termite cannot discover chemical formulas or create such a system on its own; it is God Who has created termites. It is He Who inspires in them what they are to do and how they should do it. Like every other creature, termites act according to God's inspiration. He reveals this truth in the following verse:
. . . There is no creature He does not hold by the forelock . . . . (Surah Hud: 56)
Termites That Spew Out Glue
Of the 2,000 species of termites, 500 live in tropical zones and among these, some have soldiers that spew out a sticky, gluey substance. There are two noticeable aspects here: First, some soldier termites produce chemical compounds in their bodies which turn into glue that when spat out, is strong enough to corrode metal and will penetrate mortar or low-grade concrete. But the termite produces and stores this very dangerous glue in its body without harm.
A second interesting point is how the termites squirt the glue from special passages on their foreheads called nasal channels. They spray the glue on their enemies, which causes the aggressor to lose consciousness briefly. Before the spray wears off, the termite takes advantage of this time to launch a second attack against the intruder, during which it either paralyzes or kills the enemy. 17
In order for this substance to be effective, it is important to hit the enemy. But like other termites, soldier termites are blind. So how can they hit their targets?
The termite's system is totally fail-safe. The delivery channel and secretion glands of worker termites, together with their antennae, are very similar to heavy radar-guided weapons that can track a target, zero in on it and strike. Termites' antennae function just like these devices. The termite soldiers know how to use them very well and never miss their targets.
Examining these chemical weapons' molecular structure, we notice something else: In these remarkable chemical substances are carbon compounds. How have termites been able to discover the formula of these compounds? Who does the formula belong to? We suggest all these questions in order to make you wonder and think.
In order to produce such sophisticated weapons, several biochemists must work in the most modern laboratories. Some of them develop new formulas; others test these formulas in various experiments. As opposed to the endless work and expense that human beings go through, when the need arises to produce new chemical substances, termites can easily synthesize in their bodies these extremely complex compounds. In addition, they use these compounds expertly as weapons against their enemies. This is a cause for consideration. Any intelligent and aware person will understand that such complex creatures could not have come to be by chance.
How many Signs there are in the heavens and Earth! Yet they pass them by, turning away from them. Most of them do not believe in God without associating others with Him. (Surah Yusuf: 105-106)
Termite Suicide Squads
The soldiers of many termite species are willing to risk their lives to prevent harm coming to their colony. One of these is a very interesting species that lives in the Malaysian rain forests. These termites are bombs in motion anatomically and behaviorally. In their bodies they have a sac containing chemicals that render their enemies helpless. If one of these termites is seized by an invading ant or other creature, the muscles in its thorax contract strongly, tearing the secretion gland and drowning the aggressor in a dark yellow fluid.18
Another example of interesting battle tactics are some worker termites that live in South America. When these termites squirt intruders with a substance in their intestines, their internal organs are torn apart and they die.19
If nature is the arena of a life-and-death struggle, as evolutionists claim, in which every creature struggles to survive, why would an insect sacrifice itself?
Self-Sacrificing Termites Disprove the Theory of Evolution
This kind of self-sacrifice found in termites clearly refutes Charles Darwin's claim that only the "stronger will survive." The idea that weaker individuals are eliminated is one of evolution's basic assumptions. The basis of this mechanism is that physically strong creatures survive to perpetuate subsequent, stronger generations while the others die off. In nature, according to this claim, creatures engage in a mortal struggle with one another, and the weaker are starved out or killed off by the stronger. The natural-selection mechanism posits that creatures are concerned only with their own personal food, shelter and security.
Even without considering other creatures, the self-sacrifice seen in termites is enough to refute this claim. If this evolutionists' claim were true, there would be no cooperation or self-sacrifice among creatures; only conflict. But termites show that on the contrary, they are willing to risk their lives for other individuals in the colony.
Many creatures in nature put their individual lives in danger as they sacrifice themselves for other members of their group; sometimes they even display concern for creatures not of their own species.
John Maynard Smith, a noted evolutionist, sums up the disagreement among evolutionists about self-sacrificial behavior among species:
Here one of the key questions has to do with altruism: How is it that natural selection can favor patterns of behavior that apparently do not favor the survival of the individual? 20
In his book Evrim Kurami ve Bagnazlik (The Theory of Evolution and Bigotry) Dr. Cemal Yildirim, a noted Turkish proponent of evolution, writes that animal behavior cannot be explained by natural selection. He gives the example of a mother animal's love for her babies:
Can a mother's love be explained by the blind process of natural selection, which has no spiritual aspects? For such questions, it's hardly possible for Darwinist biologists to give satisfactory answers. 21
There is only one explanation for how creatures without a reasoning mind can feel compassion and mercy and display self-sacrificial behavior and a species-protective instinct. It is God Who gives creatures these characteristics. In the Qur'an, He gives examples from the animal world and reveals that they act under His inspiration. Birds, butterflies, ants, tigers, elephants, whales, giraffes—in short, all living things in nature—act under His inspiration. Everything in the universe, both animate and inanimate, exists by His word. Everything we see around us shows us God's infinite power and knowledge and proves that He has no partners in creating.
This is a plain fact that everyone with intelligence can understand. God reveals this truth in the following verse:
. . . The Lord of the East and the West and everything between them if you used your intellect. (Surat ash-Shu'ara':28)
11 Bilim ve Teknik, Gorsel Bilim ve Teknik Ansiklopedisi (Visual Science and Technology Encyclopedia), Gorsel Yayınlar, Vol.1, Istanbul, 1986, p. 289.
12 C.B.P.C. Publishing Ltd., Hayvanlar Ansiklopedisi - Bocekler (Animal Encyclopedia - Insects), p. 186.
13 Bilim ve Teknik, Gorsel Bilim ve Teknik Ansiklopedisi (Visual Science and Technology Encyclopedia), Gorsel Yayınlar, Vol.1, Istanbul, 1986, pp. 290-291.
14 "Material Safety Data Sheet;" http://www.mathesongas.com/msds/MethylVinylKetone.htm.
15 Bilim ve Teknik, Gorsel Bilim ve Teknik Ansiklopedisi (Visual Science and Technology Encyclopedia), Gorsel Yayınlar, Vol.1, Istanbul, 1986, p. 289.
17 John Scatt Saunders, Chemical Wars, Baltimore: Science Books Limited, October 1988, pp. 271-276.
18 Bilim ve Teknik, Gorsel Bilim ve Teknik Ansiklopedisi, Gorsel Yayınlar, Vol.1, Istanbul, 1986, p. 289.
20 John Maynard Smith, The Evolution of Behavior, Scientific American, December 1978, Vol. 239, no. 3, p. 176.
21 Cemal Yildirim, Evrim Kurami ve Bagnazlik (The Theory of Evolution and Bigotry) (Ankara: Bilgi Publishing House, January 1998), p. 185.


text:
Laminate flooring is a synthetic alternative to wood flooring. Laminate flooring was not sold in the United States until about 1996, but it has been sold in European countries for about 20 years.
Laminate flooring is made up of several layers:
The surface is a hard as nails film, normally made of aluminum oxide. Right underneath the surface film is a photographic image or decor paper (usually of wood), to give the flooring the look of a natural wood floor. The core of laminate flooring is made of various materials, most often high density fiberboard, or wood particle board. The final layer of laminate flooring is the backing, made of various materials. Backings made of laminate material are superior as far as water or moisture damage is concerned.
Laminate flooring may be installed over any kind of sub floor, as it is not directly attached to the sub floor, but is a "floating" floor. Many laminate flooring manufacturers use a "click system" on the tongue and groove joints, so you can just fit the joints together and you are ready to go. Other manufacturers require you to glue the pieces of flooring together, but in either case, you do not need to nail the floor to the sub floor.
If you are laying the laminate flooring directly over a concrete sub floor, you'll need to lay down a damp proof membrane, a.k.a. DPM, before laying the flooring. This is to keep moisture from seeping up through the floor into the laminate flooring.
Laminate flooring has quite a few benefits: affordability, low maintenance, ease of installation, attractive looks, and more. It also has a few drawbacks, though: it's not as durable as real wood, doesn't absorb sound well, doesn't feel as warm to your cold feet on winter mornings, and may warp if it is exposed to moisture.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Members of an Al-Qaeda-linked Islamist group in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo executed a 15-year-old boy in front of his parents on Sunday as punishment for what the group regarded as a heretical comment, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.
Mohammad Qataa was shot in the face and neck a day after being seized, said the pro-opposition monitoring group, which is based in Britain and uses a network of observers across Syria.
"The Observatory cannot ignore these crimes, which only serve the enemies of the revolution and the enemies of humanity," said the group's leader Rami Abdulrahman.
A photo released by the Observatory showed Qataa's face with his mouth and jaw bloodied and destroyed, as well as a bullet wound in his neck.
The Observatory, which based its report on witness accounts of the killing, said Qataa, who was a street vendor selling coffee in the working-class Shaar neighborhood, had been arguing with someone when he was overheard saying: "Even if the Prophet Mohammad comes down [from heaven], I will not become a believer."
The gunmen, who belong to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, a militant group that started off known as the Jabhat al-Nusra Front, took Qatta on Saturday and brought him back alive in the early hours of Sunday to his wooden stand, with whiplash marks visible on his body.
"People gathered around him and a member of the fighting brigade said: 'Generous citizens of Aleppo, disbelieving in God is polytheism and cursing the prophet is a polytheism. Whoever curses even once will be punished like this."
"He then fired two bullets from an automatic rifle in view of the crowd and in front of the boy's mother and father, and got into a car and left," the report said.
Abdulrahman said the boy's mother had pleaded with the killers, whose Arabic suggested they might not be Syrian, not to shoot her son. Qataa's parents said the youth had taken part in pro-democracy demonstrations in Aleppo.
Since last year, large parts of the city have fallen under the control of Islamist brigades, including the al-Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra Front, as well as other rebel units.


text:
Medicaid Block Grant Would Produce Disparate and Inequitable Results Across States
Some policymakers, including House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, are considering converting Medicaid to a block grant to produce large federal budget savings. For example, a block-grant proposal that Ryan co-authored last fall would reduce federal Medicaid spending by $180 billion over the next ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). [1] All states would face substantial reductions in federal funding under such a block grant,[2] but some states would likely be hit particularly hard — including states whose current Medicaid expenditure levels are relatively low and states whose expenditures would rise relatively quickly in future years due to demographic, economic, or other factors:
- States whose current Medicaid expenditure levels are relatively low would receive less initial funding than other states. Under block-grant proposals, the formula for setting each state's initial federal funding level typically relies to a large extent on a state's current level of expenditures. It thus would effectively lock in existing variations across state Medicaid programs. States that had relatively narrow Medicaid eligibility and benefits, relatively low provider reimbursement rates, or lower overall health care costs when the block grant was instituted would receive fewer funds than other states. Such states would likely have to finance any subsequent improvements to their Medicaid programs entirely with their own funds, since no additional federal funds beyond the block grant amount would be available.
- States whose Medicaid costs rise relatively quickly under a block grant would be especially likely to have inadequate federal funding. Under a block grant, federal funding would be adjusted annually under some formula that is intended to produce federal savings over time, typically by increasing funding at a considerably slower rate than the expected increases in health care costs. As a result, states would receive less federal funding than under the current financing system. This reduction would grow each year, increasing the risk that federal funding would become increasingly inadequate over time and lead to increasingly severe cutbacks.
In any period, some states experience higher-than-average Medicaid cost growth due to factors largely beyond their control — such as a recession that disproportionately affects the state or a greater-than-average increase in the number of low-income elderly residents. Those states would be much more likely to have severely inadequate federal funding than other states because their block grant allocations would not rise to a greater degree to help them respond to these larger cost increases.
Some states that fear being disadvantaged by the formulas for determining the initial annual block grant amounts and the subsequent annual increases in block grant levels might attempt to seek modifications to the block grant design to mitigate these adverse effects. Any changes that helped some states, however, would inevitably harm others, and those states would resist such changes. This illustrates the zero-sum nature of a Medicaid block grant: capping overall federal funding at a level designed to fall further and further below the total amount of federal funding that states would receive under current law would force states to compete for shares of an increasingly inadequate pool of federal resources.
Initial Block Grant Amounts Would Disadvantage Lower-Spending States and Place Them at Greater Risk
Under current law, the federal government pays a fixed share of a state's Medicaid costs. Under a block grant, it would pay only a fixed dollar amount of those costs, with the state responsible for all costs exceeding the block-grant amount. Block-grant proposals vary on how this fixed amount would be determined, but typically it would be based in large part on the state's current level of spending (for example, its expenditure level in some prior base year or its current share of total federal Medicaid expenditures). Such an approach would place states with relatively low current levels of expenditure at a significant disadvantage.
Medicaid expenditure levels vary significantly across states, even after taking into account differences in population size. For example, in fiscal year 2008, the five highest-spending states (New York, Delaware, Rhode Island, Maine, and Massachusetts) spent an average of $1,883 per capita, while the five lowest-spending states (Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Virginia, and Georgia) spent $630, or about one-third as much. [3] These large differences reflect a number of factors, many of which are beyond states' direct control. Such factors include:
State Differences in Medicaid Eligibility and Enrollment
States differ significantly in both the share of their overall population that is enrolled in Medicaid and the demographic composition of their Medicaid enrollees. One reason is that Medicaid eligibility criteria vary widely across the states. At one end of the spectrum, for example, Minnesota provides full Medicaid coverage to working parents with incomes up to 215 percent of the poverty line; at the other end, Alabama covers working parents only up to 24 percent of the poverty line, or an annual income of $4,450 for a family of three. [4]
Similarly, federal law requires states to cover poor elderly people with incomes up to only about 76 percent of the poverty line. About half of the states cover seniors with incomes modestly above this low level; the other half do not. States also vary in the degree to which they have extended coverage to seniors and people with disabilities who need long-term-care services and supports. [5]
Still another factor affecting a state's Medicaid enrollment is the relative availability of employer-sponsored insurance among low-income families. Small employers are less likely to offer health insurance than larger employers, so in states with a greater proportion of smaller firms, employers are less likely to offer coverage. In 2009, the share of firms offering coverage ranged from 40 percent in Montana to 74 percent in the District of Columbia and 85 percent in Hawaii (which requires most employers to offer coverage). [6]
A state's poverty rate also affects the demand for Medicaid coverage: a smaller percentage of people in poverty means that fewer people are likely to be eligible for Medicaid. In 2009, the poverty rate ranged from 8 percent in New Hampshire to 23 percent in Mississippi. [7] Wage rates, unemployment rates, and overall state economic conditions also affect the number of people eligible for Medicaid.
Finally, some states do a better job than others of enrolling eligible individuals and families in Medicaid. For example, in 2008, the participation rate among eligible children ranged from 55 percent in Nevada to 95 percent in Massachusetts. [8]
Differences in Average Costs per Medicaid Beneficiary
Some states spend considerably less on Medicaid on a per-beneficiary basis than other states (see Figure 1 on page 3). In fiscal year 2007, the five lowest-spending states (California, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi) expended $3,828 per beneficiary, on average, according to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured; the five highest-spending states (Rhode Island, New York, the District of Columbia, Alaska, and New Jersey) spent $8,161.[9] (It is important to note that a state's per-beneficiary costs, relative to other states, can change significantly over time, as explained below.) Factors driving these state-by-state differences include:
- State differences in overall health care costs and utilization. Certain states tend to have lower (or higher) health care costs than others, with these variations being reflected in substantial cost differentials both in public programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in private insurance. The differentials may reflect differences in health care treatment and utilization practices, in the amounts that health care providers charge, and in the degree of competition among providers and insurers.
For example, the average premium in 2009 in the five states with the highest premiums for employer-sponsored insurance (Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Vermont, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia) was $14,496, while the average premium in the five states with the lowest premiums (Arkansas, Montana, Oklahoma, North Dakota and South Dakota) stood at $11,387. [10]
In a similar vein, research from the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care has found that in 2007, average Medicare expenditures per beneficiary ranged from $6,314 in the five lowest-cost states (Hawaii, North Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana) to $9,878 in the five highest-cost states (New Jersey, Texas, New York, Florida, and Louisiana).[11]
- Provider reimbursement rates. States have flexibility in how they set reimbursement rates for health care providers and managed care plans serving Medicaid beneficiaries; these payment rates vary considerably. In 2008, for example, Alaska's physician payment rates were twice the national average, while rates in New Jersey and Rhode Island were less than 60 percent of the national average. [12] In some states, overly low provider rates can create access problems for beneficiaries by leading to a shortage of participating providers, particularly specialist physicians.
- Benefits. Per-beneficiary cost differences among states also reflect differences in the degree to which states cover "optional" benefits and services. These include case management, physical and other therapy services, durable medical equipment, vision and dental services, the extent of home and community-based services, respiratory care, hospice care, and prescription drugs. [13] Nationally, about 30 percent of Medicaid spending is for such benefits and services.[14]
- Beneficiary mix. Some states have a mix of beneficiaries that is less (or more) costly than other states, the product not only of states' varying eligibility rules (as noted above) but also of their varying demographic characteristics.
In particular, states with larger shares of seniors and people with disabilities tend to have higher average per-beneficiary costs: such individuals constitute just one-quarter of Medicaid beneficiaries nationally but account for two-thirds of all Medicaid expenditures both because of their greater health care needs and because Medicaid is the primary funder of long-term care services, particularly nursing home care. In 2007, average Medicaid spending per beneficiary was $12,499 for seniors and $14,481 for persons with disabilities, compared to just $2,135 for children and $2,541 for non-disabled, non-elderly adults.[15]
In 2007, the share of the Medicaid caseload consisting of seniors ranged from an average of 15 percent in the five highest states (Maine, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Florida, and Alabama) to 7 percent in the five lowest states (Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska, and Wyoming). [16]
Similarly, people with disabilities accounted for an average of 26 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries in the five highest states (Massachusetts, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Alabama) but just 11 percent in the five lowest states (California, Arizona, New Mexico, Hawaii, and Delaware). [17]
In part because of differences in the beneficiary mix, the share of total state Medicaid expenditures going to long-term-care services and supports, rather than acute care, varies enormously — from 64 percent in North Dakota to 24 percent in Michigan. [18]
- Adoption of cost-containment strategies. Some states have been more aggressive in implementing effective cost-containment strategies that lower costs per beneficiary. Such strategies include: (1) use of managed care; (2) instituting efficiencies in prescription drug coverage by negotiating greater discounts with drug manufacturers, setting more cost-effective pharmacy reimbursement rates, and managing the care of people with chronic illnesses who require extensive use of prescription medications; and (3) experimenting with delivery system reforms like medical homes and pay-for-performance for a state's fee-for-service providers and managed care plans.
Lower-Spending States Would Get Smaller Block Grants
Under a block grant, states that have not expanded their Medicaid programs to include certain optional categories of adults, seniors, and people with disabilities would receive smaller allotments because their current spending level will not reflect the costs of serving those individuals. Similarly, states that now cover a narrower range of optional services would receive a smaller block grant than other states. In addition, states with lower provider reimbursement rates than other states would effectively have those lower rates built into their block grant allocations. Such states would be essentially foreclosed from improving provider participation and beneficiary access to needed care.
For higher-cost states, their relatively higher spending would be locked into the block grant allotments, which may advantage them over the short term relative to other states. They would be as likely as lower-cost states, however, to experience Medicaid expenditure growth in coming years that significantly exceeds the rate at which their block grant allocation would increase.
Block Grant Would Produce Disparate, Harmful Effects for States Over Time
As noted, converting Medicaid into a block grant is intended to produce federal budgetary savings over time by giving states less federal funding each year than the current financing system would, with the disparity growing over time. Block grant proposals typically accomplish this by increasing aggregate federal payments each year at a rate well below the baseline growth rate for federal Medicaid funding, which reflects growth in health care costs throughout the U.S. health care system, the aging of the population, and expected enrollment growth as the size of the U.S. population increases. Over time, such a block-grant structure would sharply reduce federal funding relative to the current financing structure, irrespective of the specific formula used to allocate individual states' shares of the national block grant amount.
The effects of these growing reductions in coming years would not, however, be evenly distributed across the states. That is because Medicaid growth rates will vary significantly across states (as well as within a state) over time.
- From 2001 to 2004, the five states with the highest Medicaid expenditure growth (Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Alaska, and Maine) experienced average annual increases of 18 percent, compared to 3 percent among the five states with the slowest growth (Oregon, Kansas, Wisconsin, New Jersey, and Michigan). Oregon, the state with the slowest growth over this period, had one of the highest growth rates in the previous decade.
- Between 2004 and 2007, the five states with the highest spending growth (Arizona, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, and Delaware) had average annual increases of 9 percent. In contrast, the average annual growth rate was negative 2 percent among the five states with the lowest growth rates (Georgia, Mississippi, Maine, New Hampshire, and Tennessee). [19] Georgia, the state with the slowest growth over this period, had one of the highest growth rates in the previous three-year period (see Figure 2).
Numerous factors contribute to changes in a state's level of Medicaid expenditures over time and ultimately would determine how a particular state would fare under a block grant relative both to other states and to the current Medicaid financing structure. Key factors include the state-specific effects of recessions (which would affect growth in states' Medicaid enrollment), differences across states in overall health care cost and utilization growth, the aging of the state's population, and other factors that affect the rate of growth in per-beneficiary costs.
Enrollment Growth Rates
The growth rate in a state's Medicaid enrollment depends on a number of factors, including its eligibility rules and enrollment and renewal procedures, its population growth and other demographic factors, changes in economic conditions, and policy changes. For example, when people lose their jobs and access to employer-sponsored insurance during a recession, many become eligible for and enroll in Medicaid. According to modeling by the Urban Institute, a one percentage-point increase in the national unemployment rate results in a 1 million person increase in Medicaid enrollment among children and non-elderly adults.[20]
Enrollment growth rates among individual states varied considerably during the recent downturn, ranging from an average of 33 percent between 2007 and 2009 in the five states with the fastest growth (Wisconsin, Maryland, Nevada, Colorado, and Florida) to just 3 percent in the five states with the slowest growth (Tennessee, Rhode Island, Maine, Arkansas, and South Carolina). [21]
States may also see enrollment increases due to natural disasters or other local events. New York experienced an increase in Medicaid enrollment of about 360,000 between 2000 and 2001; the overwhelming contributor appears to have been enrollment after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York City. [22] Similarly, Louisiana and neighboring states experienced Medicaid enrollment increases related to Hurricane Katrina.
Per-Beneficiary Cost Growth
Growth in per-beneficiary Medicaid costs also varies significantly by state. Between 2001 and 2008, per beneficiary costs rose 7 percent per year, on average, in the five states with the highest cost growth (Delaware, New Mexico, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Missouri), while falling 0.2 percent per year in the five states with the slowest growth (Wisconsin, North Dakota, Michigan, Illinois, and New York). [23]
Block Grant Would Disproportionately Shift the Costs of Health Reform's Medicaid Expansion to Certain States
Under the Affordable Care Act, state Medicaid programs will be required to cover all non-elderly individuals up to 133 percent of the poverty line ($24,700 for a family of three) starting in 2014. The federal government will pick up the vast majority of states' costs in covering newly-eligible categories of beneficiaries — 96 percent of those costs through 2019, according to CBO estimates, and no less than 90 percent thereafter. As a result of this expansion, CBO expects that by 2019, some 16 million more people will be enrolled in Medicaid than would have been the case under prior law, but the costs borne by the states themselves will be only 1.25 percent higher than in the absence of health reform. The Medicaid expansion is one of the main reasons why CBO expects the Affordable Care Act to reduce the number of uninsured people by an estimated 32 million by 2019.
Since overall federal Medicaid funding would be substantially lower under a block grant than under the current funding structure, the federal government would pay for substantially less of the cost of the Medicaid expansion. Moreover, because block-grant proposals typically give states much greater flexibility regarding Medicaid eligibility, it is difficult to see how the federal government could still require states to institute the Medicaid expansion in the health reform law.
If a block grant were instituted and the Medicaid expansion were still required, states almost certainly would have to bear a greater share of the cost and some states would face particularly large increases. A number of states currently cover parents only up to very low income limits and do not cover non-disabled adults without children at all. Such states would have to expand their programs to a much greater degree than other states to comply with the Affordable Care Act's requirement to extend Medicaid coverage to non-elderly people with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty line. It is likely that under a block grant structure that maintained the ACA's Medicaid expansion, the increase in costs that states would have to bear would be significantly greater in these states than in states that have already expanded Medicaid eligibility for parents and/or childless adults.
Such variation can reflect a number of factors, with differences in the rate of growth in the overall cost of health care services and in health care utilization across states being a critical factor. Policy changes affecting benefit packages and provider reimbursement rates also play a role. Another factor, which will assume increasing importance in the future, is changes in the demographic mix of Medicaid beneficiaries. As noted, seniors and people with disabilities incur significantly greater costs because of their greater needs for medical and long-term care service and supports.
The Census Bureau forecasts that between 2000 and 2030, the senior population will increase by an average of 223 percent in the five states with the largest such increases (Nevada, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, and New Mexico), while declining by 17 percent in the District of Columbia. [24]
While projected changes in the incidence of disability across states are not readily available, there is wide variation among disability rates as a proportion of a state's population. In the five states with the highest proportion of residents who are on SSI and thus categorically eligible for Medicaid (West Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi, the District of Columbia, and Louisiana), an average of 4 percent of residents receive SSI benefits. By comparison, an average of only 1 percent of state residents receives SSI in the five states with the lowest SSI enrollment as a proportion of the population (Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, New Hampshire, and North Dakota). [25]
Similarly, while projected changes in the incidence of chronic diseases across states are not readily available, there is wide variation among states in the prevalence of people with diabetes, cancer, and Alzheimer's disease.
- In the top five states in 2009 (West Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Louisiana), 12 percent of adults had been informed by their doctor that they had diabetes. The rate was 6 percent in the bottom five states (Colorado, Alaska, Utah, Vermont, and Minnesota). [26]
- Similarly, the incidence of cancer (adjusted for age) was 518 cases per 100,000 people in the top five states in 2006 (Maine, Delaware, Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey), compared to 407 cases per 100,000 people in the bottom five states (New Mexico, Utah, South Dakota, Colorado, and Hawaii).[27]
- Alzheimer's disease is nearly three times more prevalent in Washington, North Dakota, Tennessee, Louisiana, and South Carolina (38 deaths per 100,000 people) than in New York, Nevada, Hawaii, New Mexico, and Maryland (13.3 deaths per 100,000 people). [28]
Finally, certain states may experience the disproportionate impact of a new disease or condition. For example, in the 1980s and 1990s, California had a disproportionate share of people with HIV/AIDS; the number of new cases of HIV in California more than doubled over one 12-month span between 1992 and 1993.[29]
Block grants are ill-equipped to deal with such developments and to enable states to respond to them effectively.
Previous Block Grant Proposal Would Have Had Widely Disparate Impacts on States
The five states that would have faced the largest reductions in federal funding in 2002 would have lost an average of 36 percent of their funding. At the same time, two states would have gotten more funding under the block grant than they actually received. [30] (See Figure 3.)
Effects of Inadequate Federal Funding Especially Sharp in Poorer States
The financial risks that a block grant would pose would be especially great for poorer states, because the federal government now pays a larger share of their Medicaid costs. In a relatively affluent state that now has a 50 percent federal matching rate, the federal government pays $1 of every $2 in state Medicaid expenditures. Hence, under a block grant, such a state would lose $1 in federal Medicaid funding for each $2 that its Medicaid costs increased (beyond the amount the block grant covered). In contrast, in a poorer state that now has a federal Medicaid matching rate of 75 percent, the state would lose $1.50 in federal funds for every $2 that its Medicaid costs rose above the amount the block grant covered. States would have to make up for these losses of federal funds either by coming up with additional state funds or cutting their Medicaid programs.
Could the Block Grant Formula Be Fixed to Limit the Adverse Distributional Effects?
Because proposals to convert Medicaid into a block grant are intended to produce substantial federal budget savings, all states would face increasingly inadequate federal funding over time and likely have to institute painful cuts, but some states would fare considerably worse than others. [31] As noted, the most harshly affected states likely would include those that currently have relatively low Medicaid expenditures, those that will experience faster-than-average cost growth in coming years, and those that receive high federal Medicaid matching rates under the current financing structure.
In theory, efforts could be made to design the formula for allocating state block grant amounts to take into account some states' low current expenditure rates and to raise their block grant amounts to some degree. The annual adjustments to each state's block grant amount also could, in theory, try to take into account expected higher expenditure growth due to some state-specific factors. In practice, however, it is extremely difficult to design accurate and equitable ways to do this.
Moreover, other states almost certainly would vigorously oppose such changes. If overall federal Medicaid funding is subject to an annual cap, any increases in funding for some states will have to be offset by deeper cuts for other states.
The inevitable "formula fight" that would ensue is one of the reasons that previous block-proposals were not enacted. Another key reason is that no formula can do as well as the current financing system in adjusting automatically and promptly for the various factors that determine a state's Medicaid costs in a given year and for changes in those costs from year to year. By paying a fixed percentage of each state's costs, the federal government now responds automatically and immediately to these various factors.
Converting Medicaid to a block grant at funding levels that fall steadily farther below what the federal government would otherwise provide would leave states "holding the bag" — they would face federal funding that becomes increasingly inadequate over time. States would either have to contribute more in state funding by raising taxes or cutting other programs or exercise the broader programmatic flexibility that a block grant would give them to institute wide-ranging, and in many cases damaging, cuts that affect eligibility, benefits, and/or provider reimbursement rates. The end result almost certainly would be increases in the ranks of the uninsured and underinsured.
A block grant also would deepen state budget holes sharply during recessions, forcing even larger state budget cuts or tax increases in those periods and thereby further slowing state economies and making the loss of jobs still greater.
Some states would fare substantially worse than others. Those that now have relatively low medical expenditures and those that experience faster cost growth due to economic and demographic changes, overall health care cost increases, or other factors largely beyond their control would face particular adversity.
End Notes
[1] A proposal offered by Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Alice Rivlin to the President's fiscal commission. Congressional Budget Office, "Letter from Douglas W. Elmendorf to the Honorable Paul D. Ryan," November 17, 2010. See also Alice Rivlin and Paul Ryan, "A Long-Term Plan for Medicare and Medicaid," November 17, 2010 available at http://paulryan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/rivlinryan.pdf.
[2] See Edwin Park and Matt Broaddus, "Medicaid Block Grant Would Shift Financial Risks and Costs to States," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, February 23, 2011. See also Edwin Park, "Medicaid Block Grant or Funding Caps Would Shift Costs to States, Beneficiaries and Providers," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, January 6, 2011.
[3] CBPP calculations based on CMS and Census data.
[4] In addition, in Minnesota, parents with incomes between 215 percent and 275 percent of the poverty line are eligible for more limited Medicaid benefits. Martha Heberlein, Tricia Brooks, Jocelyn Guyer, Samantha Artiga and Jessica Stephens, "Holding Steady, Looking Ahead: Annual Findings Of A 50?State Survey Of Eligibility Rules, Enrollment And Renewal Procedures, And Cost Sharing Practices In Medicaid and CHIP, 2010?2011," Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, January 2011.
[5] Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, "Medicaid Financial Eligibility: Primary Pathways for the Elderly and People with Disabilities," February 2010. Nationally, just under one-third of Medicare beneficiaries are "optional," meaning that federal law does not require states to cover them. See Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, "Medicaid: An Overview of Spending on 'Mandatory' vs. 'Optional' Populations and Services," June 2005.
[6] Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of MEPS data. Table available at http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind=175&cat=3 .
[7] CBPP analysis of Census data.
[8] Genevieve Kenney, Victoria Lynch, Allison Cook, and Samantha Phong, "Who and Where Are the Children Yet to Enroll in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program?" Health Affairs, October 2010. Table available at http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=868&cat=4 .
[9] CBPP analysis of Urban Institute and Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured estimates based on CMS data. Table available at http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=183&cat=4 .
[10] Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of MEPS data. Table available at http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?typ=4&ind=271&cat=5&sub=67 .
[11] Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care (includes spending related to Medicare Part A and Part B but not Medicare Part D).
[12] Stephen Zuckerman, Aimee Williams, and Karen Stockley, "Medicaid Physician Fees Grew By More Than 15 Percent From 2003 to 2008, Narrowing Gap With Medicare Physician Payment Rates," Health Affairs, April 2009. Table available at http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind=195&cat=4 .
[13] Starting in 2006, low-income Medicare beneficiaries also on Medicaid became eligible for prescription drug coverage through the Medicare program rather than through Medicaid, which lowered states' prescription drug costs.
[14] Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, "Medicaid: An Overview of Spending on 'Mandatory' vs. 'Optional' Populations and Services," op. cit.
[18] The cost of long-term-care services and supports, however, tends to grow more slowly than the cost of acute care services. CBPP analysis of Urban Institute and Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured estimates based on CMS data. Table available at http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind=178&cat=4 .
[19] CBPP analysis of Urban Institute and Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured estimates based on CMS data. Table available at http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind=181&cat=4 .
[20] It also results in a little more than 1 million person increase in the number of uninsured. John Holahan and A. Bowen Garrett, "Rising Unemployment, Medicaid and the Uninsured," Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, January 2009.
[21] CBPP calculations based on Medicaid enrollment data from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.
[22] Kathryn Haslanger, "Radical Simplification: Disaster Relief Medicaid in New York City," Health Affairs, January 2003.
[23] CBPP analysis of CMS-64 data.
[24] U.S. Census Bureau, "Table 4: Interim Projections: Change in Total Population and Population 65 and Older, by State: 2000-2030," April 21, 2005.
[25] Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of SSA and Census data. Table available at http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=254&cat=4 .
[26] Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of CDC data. Table available at http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=70&cat=2 .
[27] Data is not available for Arizona and Wisconsin. Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of CDC data. Table available at http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=64&cat=2 .
[28] Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of CDC data. Table available at http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=63&cat=2 .
[29] Cindy Mann and Joan Alker, "Federal Medicaid Waiver Financing: Issues for California," Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, July 2004.
[30] Jeanne Lambrew, "Making Medicaid a Block Grant Program: An Analysis of the Implications of Past Proposals," The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 83 No. 1 (pp.1-23), January 2005.
[31] Edwin Park and Matt Broaddus, op. cit.


text:
Overview: A serial killer named Aric battles another serial killer named Dark to decide once and for all who has the gayest name.
Directed By: Kevin Kangas, 2002.
The Case For: If you're really ugly you could watch the actors in this movie and say "hey, at least it's not that bad."
The Case Against: If you are a normal-looking person who dislikes bad movies you will likely walk away from "Hunting Humans" with both a brain tumor and a sick stomach.
Sorry, Aric, that shower could spit acid and it wouldn't wash the stink of "Hunting Humans" off you.
Ever since I started reviewing movies for Something Awful SA Forums user "Tarid" has pestered me to review "Hunting Humans."
Well you know what, Tarid? Fuck you. No, seriously. I don't know what I ever did to you, but I'm sure it wasn't bad enough to warrant a request like that. You have created a rivalry, Tarid, and I will see to it that your fate involves you being forced to watch this movie while someone shoves an industrial curling iron up your ass.
Here is the main problem with "Hunting Humans": In the movie's 90 minutes, precisely two things happen. And they're not even good things, or interesting things. "Hunting Humans" does to thrillers what Marge Schott did to the Cincinnati Reds, up to and including having a dog take a dump on an already-shaky tradition.
In fact, if this was an objective summary, I could use this here bulleted list to accurately describe the whole movie:
But this is not an objective summary. It is a Something Awful movie review. As such, I am given liberty to say things other reviewers may not be able to. For instance: This movie sucks. Hard. "Hunting Humans" is the kind of project that comes about when a bunch of people from the YMCA summer creative writing course decide to get together, overdose on Benadryl, and write a movie.
But maybe I shouldn't rip on the director for once. I mean, 100 years from now film students might look at "Hunting Humans" as the start of a filmmaking revolution, with Kangas at the helm. Sure, the concept is nothing that any 17-year-old Livejournal poet hasn't come up with, but it's all about the execution of the film.
For instance: Kangas has pioneered the act of smearing a layer of Vaseline over the camera lens before filming a movie. This creates a number of interesting effects, such as making some of the movie's action almost impossible to see. However, at times, an unreadable screen is a good thing, especially in the case of "Hunting Humans." This is because nearly everyone in the film is incredibly, stomach-churningly ugly.
Like I have said on multiple occasions, I am not a good-looking guy. I am aware of this and as such I do not turn my critical eye towards the looks of others. However, in the case of "Hunting Humans" I feel something needs to be said. This film contains more ugly people than the line to Wrestlemania. If everyone in the world resembled the actors in "Hunting Humans," modeling agencies would scout midnight hunting gear sales at Wal-Mart for new clients. It is almost as though Kangas only had enough money to hire one person for his film, so he simply employed a bunch who, when he added their chromosome counts, came up to one human being.
But words aren't enough to accurately describe how ugly these people are. This chart should help a little bit, much like seeing a still of a person being brutally murdered captures at least a small fraction of the implied horror:
Something Awful is in the process of changing hands to a new owner. In the meantime we're pausing all updates and halting production on our propaganda comic partnership with Northrop Grumman.
Dear god this was an embarrassment to not only this site, but to all mankind
Landmarks and statues around the world: old, boring and could use an update.
Join the SA Forum photoshop goons in their quest to make horror wholesome!
Yes, there are finally enough games for a new round of One Sentence Reviews
Something Awful reviews the absolute worst movies out there. We focus mostly on horror and science fiction, because all writers here on Something Awful are huge nerds.
Copyright ©2023 Jeffrey "of" YOSPOS & Something Awful


text:
Duke finishes cleaning large pockets of coal ash from river after spill at NC plant
Federal environmental officials say Duke Energy has completed removal of large pockets of coal ash from the Dan River following a massive spill at a North Carolina power plant.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's on-scene coordinator, Myles Bartos, said Thursday that Duke had dredged up about 2,500 tons of ash and contaminated sediment, as well as another 500 tons that had accumulated in settling tanks at downstream municipal water treatment plants in Virginia. Coal ash contains toxic heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury and selenium.
Duke estimates about 39,000 tons of coal ash spewed into the Dan after a drainage pipe collapsed Feb. 2, turning the river gray for more than 70 miles. Bartos says the clean-up is considered complete, though Duke has recovered only a fraction of the total spilled.


text:
A 'relatively progressive era' in which Electoral College reform is possible
The Electoral College is a blemish on American democracy. It violates some widely embraced political principles. It distorts our electoral and governing processes. It allows for the possibility of future crises of political illegitimacy and instability.
Perhaps the contributions of the Electoral College to our political problems are minor. If our political system is to more effectively deal with the economic, environmental, health care, and security issues that confront the nation, other political reforms — such as ending those campaign financing methods that empower special interests and curtailing ideological and partisan polarization — seem more urgent than changing the Constitutional processes by which we choose our president.
Still, America seems to be entering into a relatively progressive era in which Electoral College reform is possible. By increasing awareness of the problems with our current system and discussing possible reforms, the stage can be set for significant changes within the next decade.
Most countries (and American states) fairly regularly revise their constitutions, including the procedures for selecting chief executives. Since our national Constitution was written in 1787, we have occasionally amended its Electoral College provisions (e.g., the 12th amendment in 1804 that requires electors in the College to distinguish between the offices of the president and the vice president when casting ballots and the 22nd amendment in 1951 that limits presidents to two terms). We have also witnessed significant changes in how the Electoral College operates (such as having popular elections rather than state representatives select electors to the College and having the electors from states generally cast their ballots as a unified bloc).
Nevertheless, crucial features of the Electoral College continue to influence both the process and outcomes of presidential elections, and thus the overall operations and policies of our national government.
Because of Electoral College provisions, citizens do not vote directly for the presidential candidate of their choice but rather vote for slates of electors pledged to that candidate who prevails in statewide popular elections. There are 538 electors allocated among the states (one for each senator and representative to the House) and a nominee must get a majority of the votes among electors to win the presidency. There are numerous complexities and ramifications of these basic rules of the College, making the selection of the president quite different from how we select other government officials — usually through a popular plurality system in which the candidate getting the most votes wins.
People who are aware of the complexities and ramifications of the Electoral College often dismiss these as being relatively inconsequential or having positive ramifications. Traditionalists accept Alexander Hamilton's verdict that the College was that element of the Constitution that was established "without severe censure. . . . (and if) it be not perfect, it is at least excellent." But reverence for the wisdom of the founding fathers on this matter is not warranted.
The Electoral College was a gerryrigged compromise between those who did not trust average citizens with the authority to select the president and those who thought giving the task of presidential selection to Congress undermined the separation of powers.
That this system was ill-designed was apparent by 1800. Under the original system, electors were given two electoral votes, and the person getting the most votes became president and the person getting the second most votes became vice-president.
That system worked when George Washington was so esteemed that all electors cast one vote for him, but distributed their second votes among a variety of other leading statesmen of the period. But in 1800, after the birth of Congressional parties, electors cast an equal number of votes for the presidential and vice-presidential nominees of the Democratic-Republicans (Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr). Under one of the complexities of the Electoral College system, this tie had to be resolved in the House of Representatives, but partisan and personal bickering created stalemate that proved very difficult to resolve. The 12th amendment put a band-aid over this flaw in the system, but its greater difficulties have persisted.
The Electoral College system violates several democratic principles that are consensually embraced today.
First, it undermines popular sovereignty. Having "the will of the people" determine national leaders was not embraced by the founders. For the most part they were "aristocratic republicans," not democrats. The founders were progressive in wanting an accountable president rather than a hereditary monarch (as was the norm at the time), but they wanted a president who was accountable to only "leading citizens," a small elite group who comprised the Electoral College. Granting state legislatures the authority to select electors achieved this result.
During the 19th century, the state legislatures gave up their own power to name their electors and instead adopted provisions by which electors were determined by popular election. However, these changes did not achieve popular sovereignty because of the mismatches that sometimes occurred between national totals in popular votes and in the Electoral College. In 1824, the winner of the national popular vote, Andrew Jackson, was denied the presidency because of the Electoral College, just as Al Gore was denied the presidency despite his winning the popular vote in 2000. Similar mismatches between the results in the College and in popular votes occurred in 1876, 1888, and quite possibility in 1960. A result that is at odds with popular vote totals is democratically deficient.
Second, the Electoral College system violates political equality — the one man/one vote principle. By giving all state's two electoral votes because of equal state representation in the Senate, citizens of small states have votes that are significantly more influential than those of citizens from large states. For example, George Edwards, author of "Why the Electoral College is Bad for America," calculates that "as of 2003, an electoral vote in Wyoming corresponded to only 167,081 persons, while one in California corresponded to 645,172 persons."
But the real inequality in voting power of citizens in different states is far greater than such constitutional inequalities. Because of winner-take-all provisions in how state electors cast their votes, voters in safe states are, for all practical purposes, powerless. In a state that is safely Democratic in an election — as California was in 2008 — no voter has any chance to influence how electors will vote. Candidates thus ignore safe states and focus on competitive "swing states" — enhancing the power of voters and voting blocs in these states and disempowering voters in noncompetitive states.
Such inequality is related to a third democratic deficiency. It probably discourages voter turnout. While many citizens vote out of a sense of civic duty or because there are close state and local elections where their votes might make a difference, some citizens in noncompetitive states are surely discouraged from voting by the accurate perception that their vote does not matter.
Beyond violating the democratic principles of popular sovereignty, equality, and widespread participation, the Electoral College has ramifications that generate biases in our system. The most obvious bias is that key blocs of voters in competitive states are disproportionately courted and offered policy benefits and concessions, while other blocs of voters in noncompetitive states are ignored or taken for granted.
Because Cuban-Americans comprise a significant bloc of voters in Florida, which has been highly competitive in recent presidential elections, presidential candidates have generally crafted their policies toward Cuba to reflect the interests of Cuban-Americans. Although Mexican-Americans comprise an equally large bloc of voters in California, presidential candidates are less inclined to tailor their policies toward Mexico to reflect the interest of Mexican-Americans, because California has not been "in play" in recent presidential elections.
Another probable bias of the Electoral College is that it favors major parties over third parties. Ross Perot received 19 percent of the popular vote in 1992, but no votes in the Electoral College, because its winner-take-all rules gave all the electoral votes to the Republican or Democratic candidates who edged him in various states. When he formed the Reform Party in 1995, he gained 8 percent of the popular vote but again no support in the Electoral College. Certainly many of his supporters in 1992 defected to major-party candidates because they learned a basic lesson in American politics from their earlier disappointments: the Electoral College contributes to other tendencies in our electoral system to disempower third parties.
Perhaps this ramification of the Electoral College was beneficial historically, contributing to a two-party system in which both the Democrats and Republicans were centrist organizations that represented most citizens reasonably well and were able to collaborate in governing. But as the parties — and to a lesser extent, the electorate — have become more polarized, the bias against third parties has left many moderates today without a party that represents their views. And when the electoral system is biased against third parties, the dominant major party can pursue a more ideologically-focused agenda at the expense of more moderate and consensual policies.
Beyond such immediate ramifications, the Electoral College could destabilize our political system if some worse-case scenarios were to occur.
First, an extremely close election could prompt "rogue voting" in the College. A rogue or faithless elector is one who reneges on his pledge to support the winner of the popular vote in his state. Historically, there have only been a dozen instances of rogue voting, but the norms of being faithful and the sanctions that exist in some states against rogue voting could be ineffective if the result of a very close election could be reversed by strong inducements offered to electors by the "losing" candidate. Any candidate who ascended to the presidency due to rogue voters would likely have little legitimacy, jeopardizing the stability of our political system.
Second, under the Electoral College system, if no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, a "House Contingency" selection process is required. In the House, each state would have one vote, to be cast for one of the leaders in the Electoral College. If one party were in the majority in 26 state delegations, a president could be produced through strict party voting, but such an outcome would be problematic in many ways. The popular vote would be discarded and partisanship would prevail. California would have the same one vote in the House as Wyoming, illustrating the vast inequalities in the power of citizens of different states in this process. Even worse, the delegations of some states would likely be evenly split and unable to decide how to cast their single vote. Such abstentions could preclude getting 26 states to support one of the candidates, creating a deadlock. A failure of the House to choose a president would create a Constitutional crisis that even the Supreme Court would lack the authority to resolve. Edwards has chronicled a significant number of elections in which the problems associated with a House Contingency were narrowly averted. Last fall, a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College and the need for a House Contingency election, with all its dangers, loomed as distinct possibilities.
The difficulties with the Electoral College system have spawned numerous proposals for reform. Most discussed today is an interstate compact among a number of states (like California) that individually seem disadvantaged by the current system, but that collectively control a majority of electors in the College. Signatories to the compact would agree to cast all of their electoral votes for the winner of the national popular-plurality election. Among the many problems with a de facto popular plurality system is that it would likely encourage a plethora of candidates to run, splinter the popular vote, and quite possibly bring to the presidency an extremist candidate favored by a significant minority of voters but despised by a large majority.
A better approach would be to avoid an end-run of the Constitution as proposed by supporters of the interstate compact. In an article that is forthcoming in "Electoral College Reform: Challenges and Possibilities," my colleague Bird Loomis wisely recommends an immediate and achievable Constitutional amendment to fix the problems of rogue voters and House Contingency elections. But if the current progressive climate makes such modest reforms possible, this approach would leave unresolved the violations of democratic principles and the biased ramifications of the College.
Ultimately, we need a Constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College and replace it with a national "instant runoff" system. In another article in "Electoral College Reform," I describe this system — which has voters rank-order the candidates they deem acceptable and then uses computer technology to produce a president who is most supported by a majority of Americas as revealed by these ranking. This system avoids the problems of the Electoral College and of the popular-plurality system, but most people are unfamiliar with it due to its relatively recent development.
Few political provisions are as important as those governing the selection of a country's president. Americans should junk the Electoral College and adopt the instant runoff alternative — but only when they more fully understand the problems with the current system and the many advantages of the instant runoff.
Paul Schumaker is professor of political science at the University of Kansas. In the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election he helped organize 37 political scientists to evaluate the Electoral College and its various alternatives. The results of that project were published in "Choosing A President: The Electoral College and Beyond," available from CQ Press.


text:
Exploring DNA Damage: What Effect Do Ultraviolet Rays Have on Yeast Colony Growth?
AbstractThough the Sun provides heat and light, which are essential for life on Earth, ultraviolet (UV) rays in sunlight can cause damage to DNA. In this science fair project, you will experiment with a strain of yeast that is super-sensitive to UV light. This project will demonstrate the lethal effects of UV light when DNA damage is not repaired.
David B. Whyte, PhD, Science Buddies
Measure the lethal DNA effects of sunlight on UV-sensitive yeast.
Baker's yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) is used extensively by bakers and brewers around the world. This little eukaryote is also used in many laboratories as a model organism. As a eukaryote, S. cerevisiae has a nucleus, mitochondria, and other internal structures not found in bacteria. Some of the factors that make them attractive as model organisms are their small size, short generation time, common availability and well-studied genetics. As a single-celled organism, S. cerevisiae can be easily cultured on agar plates. Under favorable growing conditions, the population size can double every two hours or so. Because they grow quickly, a single cell can grow into a visible colony in 24–48 hours. Yeast cultures can be grown at room temperature, although they will grow faster if they are in an incubator at 30 degrees Celsius.
In addition to the features mentioned above, another advantage of working with yeast is that methods have been developed that allow researchers to knock out genes of interest. In a knockout strain of yeast, a particular gene has been removed from the organism's genome. Knocking out a gene is a straightforward way to learn what role the gene product is playing in the life of the organism. For this biotechnology science fair project, you will be working with a strain of yeast that is genetically engineered to be DNA-repair-deficient. In other words, DNA damage caused by the Sun is lethal to the yeast cell in which it occurs if it is not repaired. Normal yeast (and human) cells have enzymes that quickly repair DNA damage. In the DNA-repair-deficient yeast, however, some of these DNA repair enzymes have been knocked out, making the yeast super sensitive to UV light. In conditions that are easily tolerated by normal (wild type) yeast, such as exposure to light from the Sun for several minutes, many repair-deficient yeast are killed. This biotechnology science fair project is based on a kit that contains everything you will need to grow yeast colonies on agar plates, as well as the special DNA-repair-deficient strain of yeast. Though the kit contains everything you need and has detailed instructions, as well as background information, this is an advanced biotechnology science fair project, which will require creative problem solving and independent research on your part, for successful completion.
Terms and Concepts
- Baker's yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae)
- Eukaryote
- Model organism
- Nucleus
- Mitochondria
- Agar plate
- Knockout gene
- Genetic engineering
- DNA-repair-deficient
- DNA damage
- Enzyme
- Wild type
- Serial dilution
- Culture medium
- Based on your research, where is UV light on the electromagnetic spectrum?
- What kind of DNA damage is caused by UV light?
- What are the main mechanisms used by wild-type yeast to repair DNA damaged by sunlight?
- What are some human health problems that are caused by over-exposure to UV light from the Sun (don't forget to include diseases of the eye).
- In what ways is yeast a good model organism for studying human DNA repair?
- What are serial dilutions?
- National Institutes of Health. (n.d.). What is DNA-repair?. Retrieved September 3, 2009.
- Fleck, O. and Nielsen, O. (2004). DNA Repair. Cell Science. Retrieved September 3, 2009.
- Pray, L. (2008). A Model Organism for Studying Somatic Mutations and Cancer. Retrieved September 3, 2009.
Materials and Equipment
UV-sensitive yeast culture and materials to grow yeast. The DNA Damage: Studying the Impact of UV Light Kit is available from Carolina Biological, item # 173609P. You might have to have the yeast delivered to a school if the company does not deliver to residential addresses. If you are planning to do several trials of the experiment, you will need to buy extra transfer pipets and culture tubes. The kit includes the following:
- Wild-type yeast culture (1)
- UV-sensitive yeast culture (mutant in several DNA repair pathways) (1)
- Sterile toothpicks (1 box)
- Petri dishes (20)
- Yeast medium. This will specifically be yeast-extract dextrose medium (YED). (350 mL)
- Sterile culture tubes (3)
- Transfer pipets, 1 mL (5)
- Sterile distilled water (20 mL)
- Glass beads (1 oz)
- Instructions
- Disposable gloves (1 box). These can be purchased at a local drug store or pharmacy, or through an online supplier like Carolina Biological. If you are allergic to latex, use vinyl or polyethylene gloves.
- Sterile culture tubes; available from Carolina Biological.
- Sterile transfer pipets, 1 mL; available from Amazon.
- Microwave oven
- Oven mitts
- Heat-resistant gloves
- Permanent marker
- Aluminum foil
- Stopwatch or timer
- Plastic bowl
- Plastic wrap
- Waste container
- Concentrated bleach (8.25% hypochlorite)
- Graph paper
- Lab notebook
Disclaimer: Science Buddies participates in affiliate programs with Home Science Tools, Amazon.com, Carolina Biological, and Jameco Electronics. Proceeds from the affiliate programs help support Science Buddies, a 501(c)(3) public charity, and keep our resources free for everyone. Our top priority is student learning. If you have any comments (positive or negative) related to purchases you've made for science projects from recommendations on our site, please let us know. Write to us at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Experimental Procedure
Important Notes Before You Begin:
- This procedure is based on the manual for the kit "DNA Damage: Studying the Impact of UV Light" from Carolina Biological. Read the manual before starting the procedure.
- For each phase of the procedure, the work area should be clean and free of drafts. Wipe down the surface with soapy water prior to working with yeast culture medium.
- You will need to perform this experiment when there is some sunlight—mid-morning, noon, or mid-afternoon.
- You will need to check with your science fair's Scientific Review Committee before starting this experiment, as the strain used is considered to contain recombinant DNA (rDNA). For more information, visit Projects Involving Potentially Hazardous Biological Agents and Scientific Review Committee.
Pouring the YED Plates
- Loosen the cap of the YED agar bottle.
Heat the bottle in a microwave until the contents are completely melted.
- Stop the microwave to swirl the bottle every minute or so to keep the contents from boiling over.
Pour the melted YED agar into 10 petri dishes.
- Cover them immediately after pouring so the dishes remain sterile.
- Protect your hands with heat-resistant gloves.
- Pour just enough agar to cover the bottom of each plate.
- Let the agar harden at room temperature overnight.
Streaking the Master Plate
- Be sure your work area is clean and free of drafts.
- Put on a pair of disposable gloves to keep the toothpicks sterile. Open one of the boxes of sterile toothpicks that came with the kit.
Touch the tip of a toothpick on an area where you can see yeast growing in the tube.
- The yeast is shipped in a tube containing agar and nutrients (called the slant).
- Glide the toothpick in a zigzag pattern across one of the YED plates that was poured previously. See the Science Buddies page, Inoculation: How to Put the Bacteria You Desire on a Petri Dish for more information.
- Use a fresh toothpick (without yeast) to make another zigzag pattern through the first zigzag pattern. The idea is to get separate yeast cells that will grow into well-separated colonies.
- Label the plate "Master Plate" with the permanent marker. Also put the date on the plate.
- Wrap the plate in aluminum foil to protect it from light.
- Allow the yeast to grow for two days at room temperature.
Labeling the Tubes and Making a Yeast Cell Suspension
Label five tubes, as follows:
- 1. 1
- 2. 1:10
- 3. 1:100
- 4. 1:1,000
- 5. 1:10,000
- After the two days have passed, put on a pair of disposable gloves and use a sterile toothpick to collect a mass of yeast from the master plate. The mass of yeast should be about 1 mm in diameter.
- Smear the yeast inside the tube labeled "1," toward the bottom on the side of the tube.
- Use a 5-mL bulb pipette to add 5 mL of sterile water to the tube with the yeast.
- Shake the tube until the yeast are suspended.
Making Serial Dilutions
You will now create a set of serial dilutions. Use a new, different pipette for each transfer below.
- Use the 3.5-mL sterile pipette to add 2.25 mL of sterile water into each of the tubes labeled 1:10, 1:100, 1:1,000 and 1:10,000.
- Use a clean 1-mL pipette to transfer 0.250 mL of yeast from the tube labeled 1 to tube labeled 1:10.
- Mix thoroughly.
- Use a clean 1-mL pipette to transfer 0.250 mL of yeast from the tube labeled 1:10 to tube labeled 1:100.
- Mix thoroughly.
- Use a clean 1-mL pipette to transfer 0.250 mL of yeast from the tube labeled 1:100 to tube labeled 1:1,000.
- Mix thoroughly.
- Use a clean 1-mL pipette to transfer 0.250 mL of yeast from the tube labeled 1:1,000 to tube labeled 1:10,000.
Spreading the Yeast onto Agar Plates
Label the bottoms of four agar plates, as follows. Labeling the bottom of the plates prevents them from getting mixed up if the lids are removed.
- 1. 1:1,000/control
- 2. 1:1,000/exposed
- 3. 1:10,000/control
- 4. 1:10,000/exposed
- With the lid sides down, open each plate, one at a time—just long enough to shake 4–5 glass spreading beads onto each lid.
- Close each plate immediately after the beads are in, and flip them back over.
- Use a 1-mL pipette to add 0.250 mL of yeast suspension to the appropriately labeled plate. In other words,-add yeast from the 1:1,000 to two plates and 1:10,000 to two plates.
- Spread the yeast cells by shaking the glass beads back and forth.
- Allow the plates to sit for 5–10 minutes to dry.
- To remove the beads, hold the plates vertically over a plastic bowl and open the plates just wide enough for the beads to drop out. Collect all the beads in the bowl until the end of your experiment.
Exposing the Yeast to UV Light
- Remove the lid from one of the plates and immediately cover it with plastic wrap, as the lid of the plates may absorb UV light.
- Repeat this for all of the plates.
- Expose the plates labeled "Exposed" to the sunlight.
- Wrap the plates labeled "Control" in aluminum foil to protect the yeast from light.
The time for which the yeast are exposed depends on the time of day and on the season. The plates should be positioned so that the sunlight hits the yeast from directly above. Use the guide below:
- Summer mid-morning: 3–4 minutes
- Summer noon: 2–3 minutes
- Summer mid afternoon: 3–4 minutes
- Spring and fall mid-morning: 5–6 minutes
- Spring and fall noon: 3–4 minutes
- Spring and fall mid-afternoon: 4–5 minutes
- Winter mid-morning: 40–50 minutes
- Winter noon: 15–20 minutes
- Winter mid-afternoon: 20–30 minutes
- After exposing the yeast, remove the plastic wrap and replace with the lids.
- Wrap the plates in aluminum foil to protect them from light and let them sit at room temperature for two days.
Repeating the Procedure
- Repeat the entire procedure at least two more times with fresh plastic ware to show that your results are reproducible.
- See the Safety paragraph for details on how to dispose of the yeast cultures, culture tubes and used glass beads. Instead of a 10% bleach solution, you can use concentrated household bleach.
Analyzing the Results
Unwrap the plates and count the number of colonies on each.
- Each colony is formed from a single yeast cell.
- Ideally, one of the control plates should have about 100 colonies, as this number is small enough that you can count individual colonies, but large enough that you can get an accurate percentage of killed cells.
- If the colonies are too close together to count, even at the 10,000-fold dilution, repeat the dilution series and add a 100,000-fold dilution.
- Graph the number of colonies for each plate. Put the number of colonies on the y-axis and the treatment and dilution on the x-axis.
Calculate the percentage of cells killed by UV light. See Equation 1, below. Compare colony counts from plates with the same dilution.
- Divide the number of colonies on the exposed plate by the number of colonies on the control plate.
- Subtract this number from 1.
- Multiply the resulting number by 100.
- This yields the percentage of yeast killed by the sunlight.
Equation 1:
100 × ( 1 - colonies on exposed plate/colonies on control plate) = % killed
- Graph the percentage of yeast killed by exposure to the sunlight.
Microorganisms such as yeast are all around us in our daily lives and the vast majority of them are not harmful. However, for maximum safety, all yeast cultures should always be treated as potential hazards. This means that proper handling, cleanup, and disposal are necessary. Below are a few important safety reminders. You can also see the Microorganisms Safety Guide for more details.
- Keep your nose and mouth away from tubes, pipettes, or other tools that come in contact with yeast cultures, in order to avoid ingesting or inhaling any yeast.
- Make sure to wash your hands thoroughly after handling yeast.
Proper Disposal of yeast Cultures
- Yeast cultures, plates, and disposables that are used to manipulate the yeast should be soaked in a 10% bleach solution (1 part bleach to 9 parts water) for 1–2 hours.
- Use caution when handling the bleach, as it can ruin your clothes if spilled, and any disinfectant can be harmful if splashed in your eyes.
- After bleach treatment is completed, these items can be placed in your normal household garbage.
Cleaning Your Work Area
- At the end of your experiment, use a disinfectant, such as 70% ethanol, a 10% bleach solution, or a commercial antibacterial kitchen/bath cleaning solution, to thoroughly clean any surfaces you have used.
- Be aware of the possible hazards of disinfectants and use them carefully.
Ask an Expert
- Use the procedure above to make plates with diluted yeast cultures and expose the yeast to sunlight at various times of day; for example, at 10:00 AM, noon, and 2:00 PM. Use the same duration of exposure.
- Expose the yeast for various durations at the same time of day, for example 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 8 minutes at noon.
- Compare wild-type and DNA-repair-deficient yeast strains for UV sensitivity. Obtain wild-type S. cerevisiae from a science supply company; for example, Carolina Biological, item # 898900. Culture this strain and plate out dilutions, as described in the procedure. Compare the sensitivity of the wild-type and DNA-repair-deficient strains to ultraviolet light from the sun.
If you like this project, you might enjoy exploring these related careers:
Related Links
- Science Fair Project Guide
- Other Ideas Like This
- Biotechnology Project Ideas
- My Favorites
- Microorganisms Safety Guide
- Projects Involving Potentially Hazardous Biological Agents
- Scientific Review Committee