Chemistry

Personal care products carry no hazardous symbols as they are explicitly excluded from the regulation for labeling of chemicals

Piled Higher & Deeper by Jorge Cham www.phdcomics.com title: "Happy for them?" - originally published 5/22/2013 For the latest news in PHD Comics, CLICK HERE!

Senate: Bipartisan proposal would update Toxic Substances Control Act, empower EPA

A list of small, useful things (links):John has a great explainer on how to drill a well the right way.Lisa Balbes talks about how most people don't know what to expect in their first job.Andre the Chemist thinks you should move for your first job.Ken Hanson posts on proposals in his great series on how to get a faculty position. This Dow Lab Safety Academy is interesting; I think it deserves a closer, more critical look than it's gotten so far. Andrew Bisette's 9th #chemclub roundup.I really need to buy this book on Oppenheimer that Ash reviewed. Paul talks about lab manuals.Brandon talks lab SOPs. Vinylogous Aldol writes on academic chemistry salaries. Seems to me there's a step change between full professor salaries and assistant/associate salaries. Chad Jones on diet soda and aspartame. (All I have to say on that issue: from. my. cold. dead. hands.) Readers, did I miss anything?

A list of small, useful things (links):John has a great explainer on how to drill a well the right way.Lisa Balbes talks about how most people don't know what to expect in their first job.Andre the Chemist thinks you should move for your first job.Ken Hanson posts on proposals in his great series on how to get a faculty position. This Dow Lab Safety Academy is interesting; I think it deserves a closer, more critical look than it's gotten so far. Andrew Bisette's 9th #chemclub roundup.I really need to buy this book on Oppenheimer that Ash reviewed. Paul talks about lab manuals.Brandon talks lab SOPs. Vinylogous Aldol writes on academic chemistry salaries. Seems to me there's a step change between full professor salaries and assistant/associate salaries. Chad Jones on diet soda and aspartame. (All I have to say on that issue: from. my. cold. dead. hands.) Readers, did I miss anything?

My sincere apologies with the relatively quiet posting recently. I do indeed have a Process Wednesday post in the works, but I found this to be such an interesting framing of the issue by Alyssa Rosenberg, commenting on Sheryl Sandberg's Lean In and her approach to looking at childcare costs that I had to post it:Similarly, Sandberg suggests a different way to look at the cost of child care. Rather than considering nannying or preschool costs as a dilemma, something that wipes out a woman’s earnings, or that’s discretionary spending to allow a woman to continue doing something that she likes, Sandberg once again reframes the question, acknowledging that “Child care is a huge expense, and it’s frustrating to work hard just to break even. But professional women need to measure the cost of child care against their future salary rather than their current salary…Wisely, Anna and other women have started to think of paying for child care as a way of investing in their families’ future.” Sandberg makes a very interesting point and one that I hadn't considered. When I calculate child care for our family budget, I usually do the math against our income (numerator = child care, denominator = wages). I had not taken into account that, over time, the wages term goes up...[One should point out that for those, like Ms. Sandberg, who have/desire offices in the C-suite, the beginning years of one's career probably play much more of a role in future income than those of us to aspire to more mundane titles like "group leader" or "senior principal fellow."]

My sincere apologies with the relatively quiet posting recently. I do indeed have a Process Wednesday post in the works, but I found this to be such an interesting framing of the issue by Alyssa Rosenberg, commenting on Sheryl Sandberg's Lean In and her approach to looking at childcare costs that I had to post it:Similarly, Sandberg suggests a different way to look at the cost of child care. Rather than considering nannying or preschool costs as a dilemma, something that wipes out a woman’s earnings, or that’s discretionary spending to allow a woman to continue doing something that she likes, Sandberg once again reframes the question, acknowledging that “Child care is a huge expense, and it’s frustrating to work hard just to break even. But professional women need to measure the cost of child care against their future salary rather than their current salary…Wisely, Anna and other women have started to think of paying for child care as a way of investing in their families’ future.” Sandberg makes a very interesting point and one that I hadn't considered. When I calculate child care for our family budget, I usually do the math against our income (numerator = child care, denominator = wages). I had not taken into account that, over time, the wages term goes up...[One should point out that for those, like Ms. Sandberg, who have/desire offices in the C-suite, the beginning years of one's career probably play much more of a role in future income than those of us to aspire to more mundane titles like "group leader" or "senior principal fellow."]

I discuss the myths about why our fingers go “pruney” in the bath or swimming pool in my book Deceived Wisdom, the truth seems to lie in the work of Mark Changizi. In this cartoon, we see the explanation and get to hear his theory in his own words. Deceived wisdom about pruney fingers is a post from the science blog of David Bradley, author of Deceived Wisdom Subscribe to our Email Newsletter

I'm going to have to start posting more frequently. My last post was about solar firms going bankrupt in China and now my cleantech news is about how solar is set to rebound. Seems like something should have happened in between that post and this one. Actually, a few biobased chemical deals were announced. Thanks BASF and Evonik! Making a better solar cell. Credit: University of Stuttgart Institute of Photovoltaics Anyway – back to solar. Earlier this week, Lux Research (a rather skeptical gang generally) put out a summary of a new research report titled “Solar's Great Recovery: Photovoltaics Reach $155 Billion Market in 2018.” Actually, solar had a great 2012 – at last in the U.S. – but that was mainly due to installations of several large utility projects. The business of producing those solar modules had hit some major potholes. Around five years ago, solar demand was hindered by high prices – held up by shortages of key polysilicon raw material, but balanced by huge subsidies in Europe, especially in Spain and Germany. Then – in the nature of boom and bust cycles – the high prices prompted huge polysilicon capacity increases. Then prices fell, Europe cut subsides, the recession hit… and all that new capacity made solar prices tank and inventories piled up. Whew – what a tale. In a fun new twist, according to Lux analyst Ed Cahill, the solar crisis will become a boon as record low prices boost demand. (And after that what will happen? Stay tuned). The rise will take place as those cheaper installations (especially utility and commercial rooftop) become routine and spread into new markets. U.S., China, Japan, and India are expected to speed up installations. That will help to power (no pun intended) a compound annual growth rate in the industry of 10.5% over the next three years. A few other things might help – according to this New York Times article, the U.S. and Europe are both working to smooth over trade disputes with China. Regional pricing schemes may take the place of tariffs. China had been accused of exporting solar modules at prices less than the cost of production (a practice called “dumping”). China, in turn, accused polysilicon makers in the U.S. and Europe of doing the same thing. All of this fun news is not likely to help revive solar module manufacturing in the U.S. or in Germany. But new technology might. My colleague Alex Scott flagged a news item from the University of Stuttgart's Institute for Photovoltaics. Researchers there have tested a crystalline silicon solar cell with a 22% sunlight conversion efficiency. It is difficult to say how much a module made of these cells would convert, but a traditional module is normally around 15%. The secret to the team's work is a design that puts the metal contacts on the back layer of the cell, using a laser. While hanging out on the back of the cell, the material will not block light hitting the front of the cell. Ta-da! More electrons. Related Posts:They're the Tops: Leading Solar Module ProducersGermany Unwinds Solar Gravy TrainNo Magic In China's Solar IndustrySolar Boom in Japan, with Battery to MatchEpic Fail: Solyndra files for bankruptcy

A conversation the other day about 2-D NMR brought this thought to mind. What do you think are the most underused analytical methods in organic chemistry? Maybe I should qualify that, to the most underused (but potentially useful) ones. I know, for example, that hardly anyone takes IR spectra any more. I've taken maybe one or two in the last ten years, and that was to confirm the presence of things like alkynes or azides, which show up immediately and oddly in the infrared. Otherwise, IR has just been overtaken by other methods for many of its application in organic chemistry, and it's no surprise that it's fallen off so much since its glory days. But I think that carbon-13 NMR is probably underused, as are a lot of 2D NMR techniques. Any other nominations?