US researchers have developed a chalk-based coating that can reduce the temperature under fabric by roughly 5°C.
The researchers say their environmentally benign substance could be used to coat any type of fabric and turn it into a radiative cooling textile.
“We see a true cooling effect,” says Evan Patamia, a graduate student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
“What is underneath the sample feels colder than standing in the shade.”
Patamia presented the team’s invention at the American Chemical Society’s 2024 Fall Meeting earlier this week.
Substances that can both reflect sunlight, and allow body heat to escape, are well-known to chemists. But they generally require costly or environmentally dangerous materials to make.
“Can we develop a textile coating that does the same thing using natural or environmentally benign materials?” summarises chemist Trisha Andrew, also at Amherst, of the work done by her and her colleagues.
Inspired by crushed limestone, which is used to cool buildings, the researchers tried solutions of calcium carbonate – the main component in limestone and chalk – as well as barium sulphate.
They used squares of fabric treated with a process called chemical vapour deposition, which added a layer of a carbon-based polymer onto the textiles.
When dipped in the solutions, the fabrics built up a chalky matte layer of crystals which could reflect UV and infrared light.
They tested the treated fabrics outside on a warm afternoon, and air underneath them was about 5°C cooler than the ambient temperature, and roughly 9°C cooler than air under untreated fabrics.
The coating is also resistant to laundry detergents.
“What makes our technique unique is that we can do this on nearly any commercially available fabric and turn it into something that can keep people cool,” says Patamia.
“Without any power input, we’re able to reduce how hot a person feels, which could be a valuable resource where people are struggling to stay cool in extremely hot environments.”
Andrew is now part of a startup aiming to test the process on larger bolts of fabric, to see if it can be scaled to industry.
Last year, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the state’s fast-food minimum wage increase into law, which meant that employees at fast-food restaurants in the state went from making $15.50 per hour to $20 per hour. While the decision was lauded by many labor activists as part of broader efforts to improve working conditions and address wage disparities, some economists and fast-food industry members expressed concern over how the law would impact restaurants’ operating costs, which could result in reduced hours for workers or even job cuts.
However, according to new state and federal employment data, California’s fast-food industry has added jobs every month this year — including 11,000 new jobs since the wage increase officially went into effect in April. For instance, in May of 2023, there were 742,600 fast-food workers in the state; a year later, there were 743,300 workers.
According to a release from Newsom’s office last week, since raising worker wages, every month this year has seen consistent fast food job gains, and nearly each month has seen more jobs than the same month last year.
“What’s good for workers is good for business, and as California’s fast food industry continues booming every single month our workers are finally getting the pay they deserve,” Newsom said in a written statement. “Despite those who pedaled [sic] lies about how this would doom the industry, California’s economy and workers are again proving them wrong.”
by Skylar Tallal Fri, August 23rd 2024 at 10:30 PM
DES MOINES, Iowa — Summit Carbon Solutions is facing a set back in its proposed CO2 pipeline project, as the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled in favor of landowners who sued to keep Summit from surveying their land.
It’s a reversal of a lower court decision, with the state’s high court now claiming it’s premature to categorize Summit as a ‘common carrier’ for public utility. It’s something Summit needs to be able to prove before it can use eminent domain.
“One of our main arguments is that Summit’s not a common carrier,” Jess Mazour the conservation program coordinator with the Sierra Club Iowa Chapter said. “So it really does change the game here in Iowa as well.”
Summit can’t start building its pipelines in Iowa until it gets approval in North and South Dakota.
The Sierra Club Iowa Chapter calls the decision a victory for landowners. Even though the Iowa Utilities Commission isn’t taking up the club’s reconsideration request, the club is moving forward with its plan to take the fight to court.
“We now have precedent on our side and we’re going to have a strong base for when we file our appeal in district court,” Mazour said.
A similar court case is already on the books in Iowa, with Iowa’s highest court set to hear oral arguments October 8 at the state capitol.
“A landowner in Hardin County, Kent, he was sued for denying Summit access to his land and we are fighting that and also challenging Iowa’s survey law,” Mazour said.
Eminent Domain has been a major issue in Iowa over the last few years. Some Iowa lawmakers joined the pipeline opposition but haven’t been successful in their efforts to change state laws.
The topic is also coming up on the campaign trail, specifically in Iowa’s congressional races.
Congressional Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R) Iowa said carbon capture pipelines make sense for Iowa.
“So the carbon capture pipeline is only meant to lower the carbon intensity score of ethanol which makes it competitive globally,” Rep. Miller-Meeks said.
She said while eminent domain is a state issue, she hopes there will only be a limited number of landowners who don’t sign on voluntarily.
“Farmers and property owners need to look at the why the rationale and then determine if it’s in their best interest,” Rep. Miller-Meeks said. “Companies that are acquiring easements are looking at how do you make the land whole. How do you ensure farmers that you can grow crops in the near future?”
Iowa’s News Now did reach out to Summit for comment didn’t hear back.
A hydrogel has learned to play the 1970s video game “Pong” and improved its ability to hit the ball by 10% with some practice.
Dr Hayashi, a biomedical engineer at the University of Reading in the UK, says: “Our research shows that even very simple materials can exhibit complex, adaptive behaviours typically associated with living systems or sophisticated AI.
“This opens up exciting possibilities for developing new types of ‘smart’ materials that can learn and adapt to their environment.”
The research is described in a paper published in Cell Reports Physical Science.
Video link, an example run of a hydrogel playing Pong.
Credit: Cell Reports Physical Science/Strong et al.
What is a hydrogel?
A hydrogel, like gelatine or agar, is made of a 3D network of polymers that become jelly-like when water is added.
The hydrogel in this study is an “ionic electro-active polymer”, where the media surrounding the polymer matrix contains charged particles, in this case hydrogen ions.
As a result, it can deform when an electric current is applied to it.
Stimulation by an electric field causes the hydrogen ions migrate and, as they move, drag water molecules with them, causing areas to swell.
“The rate at which the hydrogel de-swells takes much longer than the time it takes for it to swell in the first place, meaning that the ions’ next motion is influenced by its previous motion, which is sort of like memory occurring,” says first author and University of Reading robotics engineer, Dr Vincent Strong.
“The continued rearrangement of ions within the hydrogel is based on previous rearrangements within the hydrogel, continuing back to when it was first made and had a homogeneous distribution of ions.”
It’s this property the researchers exploited to teach the hydrogel to play Pong.
How does a hydrogel play Pong? (snip-More on the page)
NASA is about to launch a helium balloon carrying a telescope, to test its ability to see exoplanet atmospheres.
The Exoplanet Climate Infrared Telescope (EXCITE) is eventually destined to fly around the poles, collecting data above much of the Earth’s atmosphere, but its first test flight is due to happen from the USA in the next few months.
It will be launched for the first time from the Columbia Scientific Ballooning Facility in New Mexico.
EXCITE (EXoplanet Climate Infrared TElescope) hangs from a ceiling at the Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility’s location in Fort Sumner, New Mexico. The mission team practiced taking observations ahead of flight by looking out the hanger doors at night. Credit: NASA/Jeanette Kazmierczak
“EXCITE can give us a three-dimensional picture of a planet’s atmosphere and temperature by collecting data the whole time the world orbits its star,” says principal investigator Peter Nagler, from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. (snip-More on the page)
Sorry to interrupt your Sunday but I think it useful in these final weeks before the election to give you the truth on important matters of public policy.
Today, Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance told NBC News that the tariffs Trump imposed during his term in office had not raised prices for Americans but had brought a significant number of jobs back to the United States.
Wrong on both counts.
In a careful analysis, researchers found the cost of Trump’s tariffs were “almost entirely borne by U.S. firms and consumers.”
That’s not surprising; tariffs function like taxes by raising the costs of imported goods. Trump’s proposal to raise tariffs on all imports as a means of raising revenue to offset a tax cut is obviously absurd.
Vance is also wrong about employment. Research clearly shows that the Trump tariffs did not bring jobs back to the United States.
Tariffs may be necessary for national security to protect critical industries such as semiconductors. But no one should be fooled into thinking they’re costless for consumers, or good for workers. The 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff made the Great Depression far worse than it already was.
That Vance would make these claims — which have been so convincingly debunked — should cause all of us some concern. He seems as unreliable as the person who named him his running-mate.
August 26, otherwise known as Women’s Equality Day, marks the anniversary of the certification of the 19th Amendment, which granted some women the right to vote.
Yet today, women have fewer rights than they’d had in decades. To recognize this, we acknowledge Women’s Inequality Day.
Inequality impacts our health: although women pay $15 million more each year for health care than men, we spend more of our lives in poor health. Those who may experience pregnancy no longer have reproductive freedom; and when we do give birth, we (particularly women of color) face high rates of maternal mortality.
It impacts our work: we’re paid less than our male counterparts and are underrepresented in leadership roles. We also deal with workplace harassment, insufficient maternal leave, and disproportionate caretaking responsibilities that affect our ability to work.
It impacts our representation: women are severely underrepresented in politics, making up only 25% of the Senate, 29% of the House, and 31.9% of statewide elective executives.
How can we make policies that protect and serve women without more women in office? And in an age where our basic freedoms and bodily autonomy are under fire, how can we ensure our rights aren’t degraded further?
The 2024 federal election is a critical moment in the fight for our equality.
The people we elect in November will be in charge of our rights – including the right to reproductive freedom – for the next four years.
So when you cast your vote in 2024, will you vote for someone who defends those rights? Or someone who wants to take them away?
Our 2024 campaign centers around empowering women to make their voices heard at the ballot box by equipping them with essential voter information. We’re highlighting our free, bilingual one-stop-shop for nonpartisan election information, VOTE411.org.
This year’s Women’s Inequality “Day” campaign will take place from August 26-30, with unique calls to action engaging voters every day! Get involved by sharing content via our social toolkit.
“Bad Romance: Women’s Suffrage is a parody music video paying homage to Alice Paul and the generations of brave women who joined together in the fight to pass the 19th Amendment, giving women the right to vote in 1920.” Watch here.
=====
WOMEN’S PROGRESS THROUGH THE YEARS…
Prior to 1918 Doctor’s weren’t allowed to advise married patients about birth control. Prior to 1920 Women couldn’t vote in all elections until 19th Amendment was ratified. Prior to WWII Female teachers couldn’t be married. During 1950’s Domestic abuse was not considered a crime but a’family matter’. Prior to 1963 Equitable wages for the same work, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex of the workers were not promised until passage of Equal Pay Act. Prior to 1964 Discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex was not prohibited until passage ofthe Civil Rights Act. Prior to 1965 State laws could prohibit the prescription or use of contraceptives by married couples. In some states, the woman needed her husband’s permission to purchase contraceptives. Prior to 1969 Yale and Princeton didn’t accept female students. Prior to 1969 Women couldn’t work at jobs that had been for men only. Prior to 1971 Women with a law degree could be denied the right to plead a client’s case in court. Prior to 1971 Private employers could refuse to hire women with pre-school children. Prior to 1972 The Boston Marathon was an all-male event. There was no Women’s Division. Prior to 1972 The right to privacy didn’t encompass an unmarried person’s right to use contraceptives. Prior to 1972 Title IX of the Education Amendment didn’t exist. Schools that received Federal support didn’t need to provide the same programs to women as they did men.
Prior to 1973 Abortions weren’t legal in the entire U.S. until Roe v. Wade decision by Supreme Court declared the U.S. Constitution protected a woman’s right to terminate an early pregnancy. Prior to 1974 Housing discrimination on the basis of sex and credit discrimination against women existed. Prior to 1974 It was legal to force pregnant women to take maternity leave on the assumption they were incapable of working in their physical condition. Prior to 1974 Single, widowed, or divorced women had to bring a man along to open a bank account or to cosign any credit application. Married women couldn’t open a bank account without their husband’s permission. Prior to 1975 Women were excluded from serving on juries. Prior to 1976 West Point Academy didn’t admit female students. Prior to 1977 Harvard didn’t admit female students. Prior to 1978 There was no ban on discrimination against women on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical issues. Prior to 1984 Women were not allowed to join all-male organizations (Jaycees, Kiwanis, Rotary, Lions) Prior to 1994 There were no funded services for victims of rape or domestic violence. Prior to 2013 Women in the military were banned from combat positions. Prior to 2022 Since the 1973 Supreme Court decision (Roe v. Wade), a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy was protected by the U.S. Constitution. This decision was reverse by the current U.S. Supreme Court in 2022. Information provided by Soroptimist site. Learn more about Soroptimist’s by visiting their site here.
LEARN MORE ABOUT THE HISTORY OF WOMEN’S EQUALITY DAY
Scottie's Playtime 