I’ve had quite a few fresh salads made nearly entirely with garden vegetables – lettuce, endive, peas, turnip, radish, and carrots.  This is better than “organic” – it’s less than an hour old and 100% pesticide free.  I was also able to provide a homegrown veggie tray for my party last week – and my guests loved it (especially the peas).

Anyway, here’s a photo of the garden taken today, and a closeup of my turnips (guess what’s for dinner tomorrow).  I need to plant my tomato seeds, and start thinking about spring veggies.

With a few years of maturity, I now recognize this behavior is the human nature component of any industry or discipline.  It’s definitely true in music and film, in politics, fashion, and I am sure it exists in engineering an other sciences.  Industries have certain standards that have evolved over time, often to directions prescribed by the most narcissistic personalities.  That’s just the way it is.  In other words, we do things within an industry just because, and not really for any objective reason.  Often, there is no reason one has to do or think about things in a certain way other than to gain peer acceptance.  For geologists, this means giving 15-minute Power Point speeches that involve reading “inside lingo” from text slides.  It also means a certain manner of dress, that I once humorously made fun of using a ternary diagram.

About the same time as this conference, I was reading “The Exploration of the Colorado River of the West and its Tributaries” by John Wesley Powell.  When Powell led his expedition through the Grand Canyon, geology was truly a science for the adventurer, and those “industry standards” did not yet exist.  Back then, the job required open-mindedness, creativity, multiple talents, and exploring different ways of do things.  I was particularly excited by the illustrations included with those old reports.  One could not simply carry a small camera into the field, things were drawn, and needed to be drawn accurately. Here are a few examples from Powell’s book.

I’m not sure who the illustrators of these images were, but the book was published four years after the second expedition.  They certainly weren’t drawn by Powell, and the signatures on the drawings don’t mach the names of the expedition members.  Perhaps these are illustrations drawn from notes and sketches taken by Powell himself.  Nonetheless, the detail in these sketches is remarkable and accurate, and that before easy photography, one needed to be extra particular and accurate with his or her notes and sketches in order to convey information to others.  Thus, to be a good geologist in 1875 also required a fair bit of artistic talent.

A few weeks after that conference I was filling out some kind of progress report form or grant application.  It asked why I was studying Geology.  I paused a few moments, and was tempted to write, “I study geology so that I can become a better landscape painter.”  I guess I saw myself as daVinci studying anatomy in order to paint better.  I did know a sculptor classmate who took geology classes to learn more about the materials she worked with, so I guess the idea is not that absurd.  In the end I decided the grant money or my continued education was more important than individual expression, so I caved and gave an answer that conformed to the industry standard.

But I do continue painting, and my geologic studies have helped me view and paint landscapes in a different way.  Here’s a recent one of the Colorado River, from Lee’s Ferry.

My peas are starting to climb the fence.  White blooms should be coming soon, and sweet peas just a few days later.  I can’t wait.

Here is an overall view.  The lettuce is growing fast (and delicious) – and I may be eating some carrots soon.

My brother was an astronomy major in college.  If I remember next time I talk to him, I will inquire on how many times someone asked about their astrological sign after learning of his course of study.  I am sure there were a few.  I wonder if he tried of explaining the difference.  For those who don’t know,

Astrology is not science.  It is religion.

That statement comes from an atheist’s point of view that all that is not science is therefore religion, and is certainly debatable.  But, if you believe in horoscopes, you are not atheist.  Atheists believe that all explanations require quantifiable data.  Astrology lacks such data.  That’s just the way it is.  Astronomers understand the distribution of planets and stars in our universe is entirely due to non-mystical laws deciphered by people like Keppler, Einstein and Newton.  It’s all explainable by mathematical equations, all testable, and all predictable with data and numbers to back it up.  Astrologers believe the distribution of planets and starts in our universe has some meaning other than physics, implying a deeper meaning to the universe dictated by some sort of higher power or phenomenon unexplained by scientific laws as we know them.  To them, constellations such as Leo don’t result from an interpretation of a natural distribution of stars, but are arranged that way for some kind of meaning or purpose. 

I have read some quasi-scientific explanations for Astrology, due to things like gravitational forces upon our bodies or radiation emitted from celestial objects.  Sure, those explanations are possible, but they are quasi-science because they haven’t been tested, lack hard data,  and are conclusion-driven.   I classify them as somewhat scientific because they offer some kind of plausible explanation based upon known physical phenomena instead of a “magic wand” explanation that escapes all rationality. 

So what am I?

Astrologers say I am a Scorpio.  That means the sun was traversing the constellation Scorpio on the day I was born.  With Scorpio comes certain personality traits supposedly assigned to me because of the solar position on my birthday.  But, the sun wasn’t in Scorpio on the day I was born.  The Earth’s axis wobbles, and the orbit changes.  As a result, stars are not in the same position they were thousands of years ago.  That means, the sun was actually in Libra on the day I was born:

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/13/horoscope-hang-up-earth-rotation-changes-zodiac-signs/

As I read further, other astrologers say the signs are tied to the seasons and not to the position of the sun.  So, I guess I still am a Scorpio according to them.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/14/astrologers-get-their-say-in-the-horoscope-hubbub/

I understand I am linking a Time magazine source, but I am not sure where one goes to find the truly most accurate horoscope information.  Because I think of it as all fun and games, I think Time will suffice as a source for now.  Considering the change in the timing and positioning of the constellations, the explanation that some believe horoscopes are tied to seasons, and the fact that so many people take astrology very seriously, I decided to consider whether there is some scientific merit to all this.

I’ve had people tell me before that I am “such a typical Scorpio”.  Yet, I have known people born just a few days before or after me who have completely different personalities.  Does my birthday have any effect on my adult personality?  I understand personality is part nature and part nurture.  In other words, my personality is partly my genetic code, and partly based upon the way I was raised and the things I have experienced.  If I was to believe that the alignment of stars somehow altered my genetic makeup, I’d have to throw out everything I know about DNA, chromosomes, mitosis, and sexual reproduction.  I suppose some astronomical force could be responsible for what genes I inherited from my mother and which I inherited from my father, but that again flies in the face of reproductive science and would still mean that my personality is controlled mostly by my parents’ genetic building blocks.  In other words, if both of my parents were Leo, how could their genes possibly combine to create a baby with Scorpio genes?  For these reasons, I really can’t consider that my astrological sign could have any plausible relation to my genetic makeup.

But what about nurture?  If I accept that my personality is in part due to my life experiences. then it’s plausible that personality could be affected by seasons.  Because I was born in the fall, my earliest experiences were all indoors.  As an adult, I recognize that being shut-in definitely affects my mood.  Because food is seasonal, that would affect what my mother ate and therefore affect what I ate.   It’s much harder to get fresh fruit and vegetables in the winter than in the summer.  Perhaps nutrition availability during my formative first few months affected my personality.  Many humans also have stress and depression cycles that match the seasons.  I’m one of those people.  If my parents and those who cared for me as a child also went through those cycles and those up and down cycles coincided with an impressionable period of my early childhood, that could affect my psychological development.  Of course, all this is dependent upon time and location, as someone born in the southern hemisphere on the same date would experience different seasons than me, and someone born in Hamburg in 1943 would have experienced a different childhood atmosphere than one born in Hamburg in 1993.

And one more thing…

If you have ever visited a psychologist, or are at least familiar with the work they do, you know how they link adult problems to childhood conflicts.  If you compare my opening statement with the date of this posting, you would figure out that my birthday is on Halloween.  Over my life I have had numerous people say “what a cool birthday” or “you must be a scary guy!”  In response, I explain that hasn’t been a “cool” birthday because over the course of my life my friends and family celebrate Halloween first, and my birthday second.  It’s like having a Christmas birthday.  I’ve never had a birthday party, only Halloween parties that include my birthday as a secondary celebration.  While it doesn’t really matter to me that much as an adult, the fact that I include such a statement in my reply indicates that being born on a Halloween has affected my personality enough to express frustrations to others. 

Finally,

After thinking about it, ones birthday probably does influence his/her adult personality.  But any scientific explanation of this idea falls closer to Freud than it dies to Galileo.

1)  Almost everything tastes better from a home garden than it does from a market, even a high-end one.  Store-bought tomatoes don’t compare – not even close.  Supermarket tomatoes and garden tomatoes are almost different vegetables.  Even the “on the vine organic” tomatoes from the market can’t compare.  Fresh lettuce is so much crisper that all store-bought lettuce is wilty by comparison.  Supermarket carrots lack flavor.

I can't find chiles this good in my local market.

2)  You will learn something.  All vegetable gardeners know failure.  From failure comes knowledge and appreciation.  We learn what it takes to make a plant grow, what kills it, and develop an appreciation for those who farm for a living.  We learn how much water a plant needs, and how to be more efficient with our watering.  We learn about soil, nutrients, insects, and the items used to control all three.  This knowledge often creeps into our social and political views.  It also makes us skeptical of claims – from all sides.

The first year I grew cucumbers, I had more than I could eat. Since then, I have had low yields due to soil parasites.

3)  It’s the only way you truly have control over what you eat.  In a general sense, if I was to rank order vegetables from least nutritious or healthy to most nutritious and healthy, it would be like this (my personal opinion here):

Canned-non-organic <<< canned-organic <<fresh-non-organic<fresh-organic<<<<home-garden

I tried to show how much better I think the next category is by the number of < I used.  As you can see, I don’t think very highly of canned food.  It has its place, but for most vegetables the canned variety seems to lack flavor, so I assume it also lacks nutrients.  I also feel the container itself is wasteful.  The canned-non-organic could slide further or closer to the canned organic based upon what other ingredients are added. Many canned items contain a list of ingredients that you don’t need or aren’t good for you to compensate for the lack of flavor that results from the canning process.

In all cases I feel fresh vegetables are better, mainly because one has much more control over their selection and preparation, and the nutrients have had less time to break down.  I feel that organic fresh produce is better, sometimes it is much better, in other times it probably makes little difference (at least from a personal health/nutrition standpoint).  But organic is almost always better quality.  This probably has less to do with the organic growing methods and more to do with the care expressed by the grower, the shipper, and the retailer.  If organic products are premium, people want them to look or taste premium.  From an environmental stewardship angle, though, I feel organic produce is a huge improvement over more conventional methods, and I am encouraged to see the organic/natural trend growing (pun intended).

But, store-bought organic produce still falls short of your home garden because you still have no control over what is in it or was placed on it.  Organic produce is regulated, but that means an agency is responsible for regulation and enforcement, and there is always potential that some people are willing to cheat and bribe in order to maximize their return.  Unless you know the grower personally, you simply have to trust the regulatory agency, as you do for any food or drug product.  All my garden vegetables show some degree of insect damage.  I don’t see that in the organic produce at the market.  While trying to learn of natural ways to reduce insect damage, I learned that organic or natural does not always mean pesticide free:

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

or, an NPR source:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/06/18/137249264/organic-pesticides-not-an-oxymoron

I guess Rotenone is considered natural enough to use for organic farming.  Shockingly, that is also the substance our Game and Fish Department puts in streams to kill non-native fishes!  Just because it is natural does not mean it is good for you.

If you truly care about what you are ingesting – the only way to know for sure is to grow your own.

peas

4)  For physical and mental health.  Gardening is an outdoor activity that gets one off the sofa and moving a few muscles.  It requires gardeners to think about what they are doing, and to think about things other than what they are doing.  And that’s much different than sitting and listening to the words and opinions of someone else, whether those be your boss, your spouse, the television, or a customer.  Perhaps it is the pride of delivering a bag of fresh vegetables to your office break room, or to your friends and family at the next get-together.  Creating and accomplishing something is the best way to fight depression and doldrums. My neighbor says gardening keeps her sane.  And I suspect gardening kept the Alzheimer’s at bay in my grandmother for a few more years.

Gardening makes me happy. Look, it's almost November, and I can garden barefoot and in shorts!

5)  Some things are hard to find at the store.  How often do you find okra, fresh beets, or kohlrabi at the store?  What about pickling cucumbers at a price cheaper than a jar of pickles?

Sometimes, you have to look hard to find endive at your market.

So find a corner of your yard, or place a few large pots on your apartment balcony or patio, and get growing!

I’ve also described a soil parasite that wreaked havoc on my crop yields the past few years:

ROOT KNOT

This winter, I am attempting to control the root knot nematodes with a layer of steer manure.  The seeds are sprouting, and here is an early photo:

I think it will be fun to post garden photos every week, just to show how things are progressing.

Introduction

Water is more than H2O.  You’ve heard that from bottled water companies, water filter salesmen, and probably countless cautionary chain emails.  All natural water contains dissolved solids, has varying pH (acidity), and various amounts of other suspended materials and dissolved elements.  Water from different sources exhibit different chemical signatures because of the differing amounts of dissolved materials.  That means streams or springs may  have different acidity and different concentrations of dissolved solids such as calcium or iron.  I wondered if measuring and comparing the water chemistry of nearby streams may reveal noticeable and interesting differences.

Methods

I purchased a simple jar of pool water testing strips at Home Depot.  These are made for swimming pools and spas, but test strips geared toward the science industry are available from other sources.  I chose the pool test strips because they are relatively inexpensive and readily available.  But, because they are designed for pool water analysis, the only indicators useful for natural water are pH, alkalinity, and total hardness.  Other test strips have indicators for iron, nitrates, and many other dissolved solids common in natural water.  But for the sake of seeing basic differences between water sources, the pool test strips were sufficient.

I followed the instructions on the container of test strips.  This involved dunking the test strip in water and immediately removing, waiting a specified period of time, and comparing the indicator colors with the chart on the side of the container.  In some locations, I tested the water twice for quality control purposes.  In all cases of duplicate tests, the results were identical and I only recorded the results once.  I recorded the test results in a notebook, along with the time, date, and location, and any observations that may influence the results, such as weather or streamflow rate.  I chose sampling locations at places where I expected different results, or where results would be more significant, such as in a stream near a tributary confluence.   I tested water from three streams and one lake within a relatively small geographical area, near Payson, Arizona

Results

A table of results is listed below.  If the indicator color appeared between the colors on the indicator chart, I recorded both the value above and below the indicator color.  If the value was greater than the highest number on the chart, I recorded that the value was greater than the highest number. (Click on the table to make it large enough to read   Some day, I will find a theme with narrower margins.)

Conclusions

A few interesting things stand out:

1)  Unexpectedly, the water in Woods Canyon lake tested positive for chlorine. I tested the lake water several times from several locations along the shore and each time received a positive chlorine result.  I’m not sure what this means.  Perhaps the indicator is sensitive to another analyte and no chlorine was actually present.  Or, perhaps there is chlorine in the lake water as a result of pollution.  Winter road salt from a nearby highway could be a potential source.  I need to test other lakes within the region but further from the highway to see if there are differences.

Woods Canyon Lake.

2) Two nearby streams had different chemistry, Tonto Creek and the East Verde River.  Tonto Creek had a much lower pH, alkalinity, and total hardness.  Because both streams are fed primarily from groundwater discharge from springs and have similar vegetation and climate, this water chemistry difference could mean the two streams are fed by two different groundwater aquifers, or chemically different layers within the same aquifer

3) Two tests of the same stream showed the same results before and after a rainstorm that increased both discharge and turbidity.  This surprised me.  Before the rainstorm, streamflow was almost entirely groundwater discharge from springs.  The rainstorm added a runoff component to the flow, but the pH and the concentration of dissolved solids remained nearly constant, at least within the testing limits of the indicator strips.  A more sensitive measurement method would probably reveal different results.

Ellison Creek before a rainstorm.Ellison Creek the day after a rainstorm.

4) The East Verde River and its tributary, Ellison Creek, had nearly identical chemical signatures, at least  within the precision of the indicator strips.  As both streams are fed by springs, it likely means the springs that feed each stream come from the same aquifer and aquifer layer.

The East Verde river.

5)  The hydraulically disconnected pothole near Ellison Creek had very different chemistry than the creek.  This means the pothole was filled with rainwater and not water from the creek.

This is an easy experiment that would make a suitable science project for middle or high school students, or as a class project.  Testing more water bodies or over the course of a longer time span would certainly yield more interesting conclusions regarding water sources and the origins of chemical water signatures.

Acknowledgement

A special thanks to Payton Taylor for help with this project.