>O2 VISIONS – Thinking Big: Journey to the Centre of the Earth

>

 
(Credit: Bulent Bas/CBSNews.com)
 by Charles Cooper  
File this one away under the rubric of “thinking big.”

A half century after scientists failed on their first attempt to penetrate the Earth’s mantle, geologists Damon Teagle of the National Oceanography Center in Southampton, England, and Benoit Ildefonse from Montpellier University in France say it’s time for a second try. And unlike their predecessors, they have the technology to turn that challenging endeavor into a reality.

 

The goal is to retrieve samples from the Earth’s mantle, a feat which, if successful, would supply a trove of new information about our planet’s origins and history. Scientists still don’t have a good idea how magma moves through the upper mantle and into the crust. Nor do they know much about the coupling of the crust and the underlying mantle–that is, what’s pushing or pulling what. Thus the intrigue of burrowing into a region still untouched by human exploration.
“If we could recover pristine samples of mantle rocks then we could make better estimates of the composition of our planet–and have a better understanding of how our planet has evolved and “differentiated” into the spheres (crust, mantle, core etc),” Teagle wrote in an e-mail interview with CBSNews.com.
“A pristine sample of say 500 meters of the upper mantle could liberate answers to these questions and much more,” according to Teagle. The search for a potential drill site in the Pacific will start this spring, with an eye on beginning the project later in the decade. The three most likely sites up for consideration include the coasts of Hawaii, Baja California, and Costa Rica. Once work gets under way, it will take between 18 months and 2 years to reach the Earth’s mantle.

The first time scientists attempted to penetrate the Pacific Ocean’s crust–in the spring of 1961–the novelist (and amateur oceanographer) John Steinbeck went along for the ride, chronicling the expedition for Life magazine. But the project had only limited success–it took some core samples from the top part of the ocean’s crust near Guadalupe Island in the eastern Pacific Ocean–and Congress canceled its funding five years later.
But Teagle noted that deep ocean drilling has come a very long way in the last 50 years, largely as a result of the experience of scientific ocean drilling “and because the offshore petroleum industry has moved into deeper water.” He pointed to advances, such as thrusters, transponders, and GPS technology, to hold the ship in place in very deep water and allow researchers to routinely re-enter holes to replace drill bits, which typically wear out after about 50 hours of use.
“We also have a much better understanding of what we are trying to do–we have good understanding of how the ocean crust is formed and the difference between the crust and the mantle. However, some details remain elusive,” he added.
That’s not to say all the technical hurdles have been cleared away. The project will depend on improved drill bits, tools, and instruments that can work at very high temperatures of around 300 degrees Celsius.
In publicizing their interest in the journal Nature, Teagle and Ildefonse wrote that while reaching the mantle posed the biggest challenge in the history of Earth science, it also offered an extraordinary reward–nothing less than “a legacy of fundamental scientific knowledge, and inspiration and training for the next generation of geoscientists, engineers, and technologists.”

This story first appeared on CBSNews.com.

Enhanced by Zemanta

>How Risky Are Whole-Body Airport Scanners?

>

Experts Analyze the Potential Cancer Risk From Low Levels of Radiation
By Matt McMillen
WebMD Health News

Full-body scanners have become the norm at airports around the country. Their use is aimed at keeping passengers safe. However, some experts worry that the most commonly used type of scanner heightens the risk of cancer because it emits low levels of ionized radiation. Two articles in the April issue of Radiology assess the risks.
The type of scanner in question scans travelers with what are called backscatter X-rays to detect objects hidden under clothing, such as nonmetallic explosives and weapons. Each time a passenger passes through one of these scanners, he or she is exposed to a tiny amount of radiation.
An individual’s risk of dying from cancer from such an exposure is estimated to be vanishingly small — about one in 10 million for a trip involving two screening scans, writes David J. Brenner, PhD, DSc, director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University Medical Center.
According to the FDA, which regulates X-ray devices, “There is no need to limit the number of individuals screened or, in most cases, the number of screenings an individual can have in a year.”
But Brenner believes the picture changes when you look at it from a larger, public health perspective, in which a billion travelers are scanned in the U.S. each year.
“In the present context, if a billion X-ray backscatter scans were performed each year,” writes Brenner, “one might anticipate 100 cancers each year resulting from this activity.”
Brenner also points to a heighteneflight, d risk of cancer among children, which he says is five to 10 times higher than the risk to middle-age adults. Flight personnel, who pass through scanners hundreds of times each year, could also be at greater risk than the average traveler.
“Super frequent fliers or airline personnel, who might go through the machine several hundred times each year, might wish to opt for pat-downs,” Brenner says in a news release. “The more scans you have, the more your risks may go up — but the individual risks are always going to be very, very small.”

Appropriate Use of Scanners

David A. Schauer, ScD, CHP, author of the second article, acknowledges the risks of using backscatter X-ray scanners and focuses his paper on ways to ensure that such scanners are used appropriately.
“People should only be exposed to ionizing radiation for security screening purposes when a threat exists that can be detected and for which appropriate actions can be taken,” writes Schauer, executive director of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. “Any decision that alters the radiation exposure situation should do more good than harm.”
Schauer advocates for strong government regulation of the use of backscatter X-ray scanners to be certain that passengers are not exposed unnecessarily or to unsafe levels of radiation.
“When a government concludes that security screening of people with backscatter X-rays is justified,” he writes, “then regulatory control should be implemented.”
Like Schauer, Brenner believes that backscatter X-ray scanners are, on the whole, safe.
“As someone who travels just occasionally, I would have no hesitation in going through the X-ray backscatter scanner,” Brenner says in a news release.
However, he argues against their use in favor of an alternative — and equally effective — type, known as a millimeter wave scanner, which does not involve ionizing radiation.
“Whatever the actual radiation risks associated with X-ray backscatter machines,” Brenner concludes, “a comparable technology that does not involve X-rays is a preferable alternative.”