Science in the Triangle

Jesse digging with his grandfather, Barry

Seven-year-old Jesse might have been enjoying his summer off from school, but on July 13, he uncovered a big lesson on science and paleontology.

Jesse was pawing through the dirt of the fossil dig site at the Museum of Life and Science in Durham when all the sudden he hit something big: a symphesial cow shark tooth.

This type of fossil is considered to be extremely rare, said museum marketing director Taneka Bennett.

How rare exactly?

“The cow shark tooth is believed to be between 10 and 15 million years old,” said Bennett. “Finding one in such pristine conditions is particularly unlikely, let alone at all.”

Best of all, everything visitors find in the dig site is theirs to keep. Jesse’s mother Amanda Duncan made sure her son took his newfound treasure home to Havelock, N.C. When they got there, Duncan said she researched the fossil on internet paleontology forums.

A symphesial cow shark tooth (above) in such good condition is extremely rare

“I posted an image along with a description where the fossil was found and responses poured in,” she said. “One collector described the piece as the ‘Holy Grail’ of sharks teeth. “

Jesse was offered $400 by one collector for said Grail, but his mother said it is too important to Jesse’s growing up to be sold. Currently, it’s on display at the museum. When it finally comes home to Havelock, it will reside in Jesse’s safe deposit box.

Bennett said even though summer is the busy season for the dig site, she has noticed a boon in visitors coming to ask about their fossil finds in hopes that they are also as valuable.

Dirt in the dig site is imported from the Aurora phosphate mine in Beaufort County, N.C. It is filled with fossils estimated to be between five and 25 million years old.

At one point in prehistoric development, part of North Carolina was believed to be covered by water. Thus, the cow shark fossil might have come from that portion of the Atlantic Ocean.

A keepsake for his childhood

Sobering news for underage drinkers: adolescent binge drinking can lead to irreparable brain damage as an adult.

That’s what a new study from the Bowles Center for Alcohol Studies at UNC-Chapel Hill’s School of Medicine found.

It also found striking figures as to just how many adolescents are binging when they drink. Forty-four percent of college students reported heavy alcohol intake in the last two weeks, 28 percent of twelfth grade seniors, 22 percent of tenth graders, and, finally, 12 percent of eighth graders.

Adolescence, between ages 12 and 20, is a period of critical growth for the human brain. The adolescent brain is much more sensitive to changes induced by alcohol than a fully matured one. With so many teens drinking, the country’s youth are at risk for under-developing their adult brains, said Dr. Fulton Crews, the director of the Bowles Center and the lead pharmacologist on the study.

“We found that alcohol exposure changes genes in the brain,” Crews said. “And actually shrinks part of the forebrain, resulting in a loss of acetylcholine molecules.”

Acetylcholine is a key neurotransmitter involved in both the central and peripheral nervous systems. He said alcohol can also heighten impulsivity in adolescents—not just in the moment of intoxication, but down the road.

“As you mature, you become less impulsive,” Crews said. “And if you’re drinking young, it seems to disrupt that maturation. If you started drinking as an adolescent, you’re more likely to get in a fight.”

However, Crews makes a distinction between impulsivity and aggression. Aggressive people, he said, are angry and violent, whereas impulsive people have a hard time controlling their immediate urges.

The next logical step, Crews said, is to examine whether adolescent binge drinking increases chances of depression, anxiety or personality disorders.

“I think it does, but right now we really don’t have the data to back it up,” he said. “What we do have makes us lean that way.”

The study can be found in the April 2011 edition of Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research.

Dr. Martin Styner is the co-director of UNC’s Neuro Image Research and Analysis Laboratories (NIRAL). Styner helped Crews develop computer tools and MRI programs to measure which parts of the brain are affected by alcohol. The statistics on adolescent drinkers did not surprise him.

“Adolescents would be more likely to drink because of the current social acceptance of it,” he said.

Currently, though, there have been no actual long-term tests on humans. All MRI data instead came from rats, Styner said. He claims the research with regards to adolescent binge-drinking is just beginning for him and his team. Next, they will investigate the connectivity between different parts of the brain and how drinking can spawn a chain collapse in neural networking.

Crews said he hopes this information will help prevent teens and adolescents from drinking so much. He also said it might motivate parents to see underage drinking as something more than what he called “transient intoxication”.

“I read stories where parents say, ‘the problem with underage drinking is the traffic accidents’,” Crews said. “‘And kids do it because it’s forbidden fruit, so I’m going to let them drink in my house’. But it’s also hurting their brain, and they need to hear that.”

Carrboro Police Sgt. Chris Atack said the hardest part of enforcing underage drinking laws is a general lack of adolescent supervision by parents.

“I do it myself with my 4-year-old,” Atack said. “You think they’re older or more mature than they really are.”

From a law enforcement standpoint, he said, it’s very difficult to control what goes on inside a private residence because officials are rarely alerted until it becomes a problem. Atack said he, too, was not stunned by the study’s statistics on how many adolescents binge drink.

“It is what it is,” he said. “In a lot of ways it’s unfortunate, but it’s not surprising.”

Crews said he absolutely supports the drinking age being 21, for medical reasons. Right now, the law is in place only because of the amount of how many people are killed by drunk driving, he said. It has nothing to do with biology or neurological effects, he said, and that’s something he wants to see change.

“I have kids of my own,” Crews said. “I’ve been lucky that they don’t have drinking problems. I’m not sure I can say I controlled all aspects of their development.”

Originally published: 3/31/11

Only eight percent of children with asthma are using their metered dose inhalers properly, finds a new UNC study.

That figure alone is enough to make parents short of breath. However, the study also found that kids aren’t using their inhalers properly because their primary care physicians aren’t showing them how.

The findings appear in the March edition of the online journal Pediatrics.

Dr. Karin Yeatts, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, was involved in the study. She cautioned asthma users to make sure they know how their medicine works.

“If you’re not taking it properly, then a lot less of that medication is reaching your lungs and reducing the inflammation,” she said. Yeatts said physicians and pediatricians need to spend more time demonstrating inhaler techniques with younger patients.

“Often the parent gets shown, but we found that the more competent the child is, the more likely he or she is to inhale the medicine correctly,” she said. “Sometimes the parents aren’t around when they need to take it and the people at school might not know.”

There is a proper technique to taking asthma medication, said study co-author Dr. Stephanie Davis of the UNC Division of Pediatric Pulmonology. Davis’s instructions were:

1. Shake the medicine canister.

2. Exhale completely.

3. Connect spacer and place in mouth.

4. Seal lips around spacer.

5. Take a big breath and hold for 10 seconds.

6. Exhale, wait, and repeat.

Davis said how many puffs you take depends on how severe your reaction is at the time. Most asthmatic children take the medicine twice a day. If you’re about to go running, Davis said you’d take it right before warming up.

The spacer, she said, is what makes all the difference. Spacers are small plastic tubes that connect to the inhaler to better corral the spray down into the lungs. The most common problem without a spacer is hitting the back of the mouth and not getting the actual dose of medicine to the airways. Even though Davis said spacers aren’t always necessary, she gives them to every child in her pulmonary clinic, whether six or eighteen.

“I ALWAYS recommend a spacer,” she said. “In fact, I have asthma and I always use an inhaler with a spacer, as well.”

Davis and Yeatts agree that the overriding reason primary care pediatricians aren’t showing kids how the inhalers work is because they are too busy.

“That’s sort of the reality of clinical practices these days,” Yeatts said. “Pediatricians have so many things to do every day that it’s not that high up there for them. But still, why don’t they?”

Dr. Janelle Shumate just finished her residency at UNC Hospitals. Now she’s a full-time pediatrician at Village Pediatrics in Chapel Hill. Shumate said she and her colleagues always sit down with asthma patients and show them how to take their medicine.

“It only takes five to 10 minutes,” she said. “And usually closer to five.”

Shumate said Village Pediatrics has sample spacers and inhalers that kids can test out or watch a demonstration on.

Jonathan Fowler works alongside Shumate as the clinic’s practice manager. He said not showing patients how the treatment devices work is not only poor care service but a violation of the American Medical Association’s protocol guidebook. Village’s policy is always to show kids how, he said, and they’re able to because they see less patients.

“We’re spending more time with the kids than other pediatric offices,” Fowler said. “A lot are trying to see 6 or 7 an hour. It’s not like they wouldn’t do it if they had the time. But they don’t have the time.”

Taking the extra time pays off, too, he said. Insurance companies reimburse them for instruction time as a measure to lessen chances of hospitalizations down the road.

“Not only do we teach them, we bill for it,” Fowler said.

Still, Davis sees rising customer demands and health care rates as the barrier to entry for thorough asthma medication instruction.

“As we currently buckle down on costs, it’s going to be harder and harder to be able to do that,” she said. But because asthma is so prevalent in the pediatric population, she said it’s critical.

“I’m biased because I’m a specialist and I always have the means to do so. But many others don’t.”

Original publication: 2/24/11

When listing off renewable sources of energy, wind almost certainly comes to the forefront. Wind technology is associated with being clean, sustainable, and endless. What people often overlook, however, is its potential damages to the environment it seeks to protect.

Wind turbines have become a leading alternative source of energy to fossil fuels around the world, and now North Carolina is preparing to build structures along the coast and the eastern part of the state. Federal and state officials have formed a task force to begin mapping and planning, said Seth Effron, communications director for the North Carolina Energy Office.

Still, some citizens and scientists alike are concerned about the potential environmental hindrances wind turbines would create. They feel the harm to the land might outweigh the help.

A June 2009 study from UNC-Chapel Hill on the feasibility of the wind turbines for eastern North Carolina found several potential dangers with the project. Among them: the displacement of species, the destruction of habitats, and even the killing of birds in some cases.

Harm to Wildlife

Dr. Stephen Fegley, an associate professor at UNC’s Institute of Marine Sciences in Morehead City, co-led the study. He explained that turbines are installed with large, loud pile drivers that often scare off marine life temporarily.

“Based on the wind farms that have been created in Europe,” he said. “As soon as the piling began, the marine mammals swam away. As soon as the pile driving was over, they eventually came back.”

Fegley had not seen any negative effects on the animals under the water, although, in some instances, he had with those above.

“Even in the case of the existing wind farms, some are associated with a fairly large mortality of birds,” he said. It depends how the birds utilize a certain area, whether they feed on it or use it as a corridor for migration.

However, in some cases, he would observe the opposite. Fegley and his colleagues learned the turbine structures provided a basis for mussels and worms to grow on, like barnacles on an old ship. This in turn would bring more fish species into the area. In these cases, having the large wind structures proved very beneficial to the local ecosystems.

Power cables ruining land

The power lines connected to the turbine structures carry the potential to disrupt the surrounding marsh and topsoil. Initially, Fegley said, the land must be trenched, which would displace sea grass and could cause local terrain damage. It could also disrupt certain fisheries.

“There’s some evidence that the magnetic fields the cables create might disturb sharks and fish,” Fegley said.

It’s completely dependent on the area, though. In parts where cables would not cross any grass habitats, the equipment is not as hazardous.

There are plans to start designing floating turbines, which would operate much farther offshore, but costs are currently too high and no one has been able to test its effects on the ocean floor. Although Fegley said offshore turbines are generally considered safer than those onshore, he does not think having them float is a good idea.

“I legitimately think that would come to a point where it would completely change the landscape,” he said. “It could be quite objectionable.”

Aesthetic Objections

Another major complaint about the turbines is their obstruction of nature. Residents in counties considering wind projects have expressed a concern that the structures will interfere with their outdoor viewscape or with their recreational use of the water.

In 2009, the state Senate voted 42-1 to ban wind turbines from western North Carolina after an overflow of complaints about their running the scenery. National headlines and columns were written about how North Carolina voted down wind energy because it was “too ugly”. The bill was not taken up by the House.

But Julie Robinson, communications director of the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association (NCSEA), said she thinks something has changed since then.

“I really think over the last three years, there’s been so much discussion and education and definitely more advancements in the technology,” said Robinson.

“In both the mountains and the coast, once people who expressed an early opposition hear more about the technology and the potential benefits, they become more supportive.”

The key to this, said Robinson, is conducting more conversations with local communities and disseminating information on project proposals. Iberdrola, the Spanish company that just announced construction of a 300-megawatt wind plant outside Elizabeth City, has been meeting with different groups there to discuss its intentions for more than a year.

Graphic breakdown of the President's proposed 2012 fiscal budget. (via New York Times)

President Obama’s fiscal 2012 budget proposal aims to scale back spending in big-ticket areas like defense and homeland security. However, a lot of science and research-related sectors would see a boost in funding.

This stays in line with Obama’s January State of the Union promise for America’s “Sputnik moment” and his call for heightened investment in innovation. It also comes at a great time for North Carolina, which continues to place increasing focus on climate and alternative energy.

Still, not all research and development (R&D) programs would receive equal allotment. Some departments, like the Environmental Protection Agency, would see budget cuts if the president’s proposal passes through Congress.

Here’s a breakdown of how the budget proposal will affect two of the largest science and R&D-related fields: energy and the environment, both on a national and local level:

Energy

National: Clean energy and alternative fuel initiatives would reap a big boost from Obama’s budget pitch. The Department of Energy’s spending budget would climb a total of 12 percent. Discretionary spending would increase almost 40 percent from 2010 to $11.84 billion. That’s roughly $104.18 per household. Measures here would include investments in renewable sources of power like wind and solar—which would jump 70 percent from last year—and the push for all-electric vehicles.

Studies on hydrogen as a clean alternative to fossil fuels will incur significant cuts, losing $70 million. Federal energy assistance to low income homes would also be reduced.

Local: North Carolina will spend a total of $75.9 million on the state energy program, with $20.9 million for energy efficiency and conservation block grants. Within Orange County, grants include installing a new solar heat pump and a high-efficiency hand dryer at the Emergency Services building, improving lighting at Triangle Sportsplex, and adding a solar hot water heater at the Piedmont Food & Agriculture Center. Total project expenditures estimated at $451,350. A $1.4 million grant will go towards energy-efficient agricultural storage equipment.

So what is that money going towards, specifically?

“Right now, it’s solar and wind energy,” said Seth Effron, communications director for the North Carolina Energy Office. “You’re going to see very significant acceleration in the next year and a half.”

Effron said the federal government has just initiated a variety of steps to start leasing offshore sites for the development of wind energy. N.C. Gov. Bev Perdue has created a scientific panel on offshore energy for the eastern part of the state.

“People here are very interested in moving ahead,” said Effron. “Particularly with how it relates to an exploration of offshore petroleum.” He cited a June 2009 UNC study conducted by the General Assembly claiming North Carolina has the best offshore wind resources of any state on east coast.

Right now, almost all the State Energy Office’s budget comes from the Washington-led American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, but that expires in 2012.

Environment

National: As a whole, the president’s budget allocates $6.27 billion for Environmental and Other Defense Activities, down 4.6 percent from 2010. If the White House’s proposal passes, the EPA would lose 3.2 percent of its current research budget.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said the agency will receive $8.97 billion, pending Congress’s approval, in a press conference Monday. More than $1.4 billion will be lost after an all-time high of $10.3 billion in federal funding last year.

Jackson said losses will include cuts to the Great Lakes Restoration Program and so-called “superfunds” which give the agency oversight of environmental repair on federal facilities.

These cuts would be offset in part by additional funding to the Science To Achieve Results (STAR) academic grants program.

Local: In tandem with Obama, Gov. Perdue included substantial reductions to environmental programs in her 2011-2013 budget proposition released Thursday. Among them comes the elimination of 224.5 Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) jobs. Meanwhile, her plan appropriates roughly $180 million over two years to pursue DENR’s outlined 2009-2013 goals: sustaining clean air and water for future, growing a green economy, conserving natural worklands, and responding to climate change.

The EPA has a satellite facility in the Research Triangle Park, but it’s still a limb of the national headquarters, said senior press officer Cathy Milbourn. Milbourn said the budget committee is only now beginning to assess the president’s proposal and how it will affect the agency. She also added that it needs to pass through the House and Senate before anything is set in stone.

Susan Massengale, spokeswoman for NCDENR’s Division of Water Quality, said all environmental agencies have had funding constraints over the last year, and hers is no exception.

“We have very local budget issues with both the governor and the state legislature in town,” said Massengale. “In any case, we’ll use the money we have in the most efficient way and protect the state water quality to the best of our ability.”

Massengale’s division is working to establish a statewide water quality policy and to combat pollution with new wastewater infrastructure.

[Author's note: Wind technology--and specifically its non-immediate drawbacks--will be discussed further in the next article.]

Originally published: 2/10/11

A record 111 million people tuned in for Super Bowl XLV Sunday night, analyzing everything from the agility of the running backs to the facial theatrics of the coaches.

What many likely did not consider is how dangerous the hits and tackles can be to players’ heads. In many cases, it can result in concussions and permanent brain damage.

This is not uncommon, either. In fact, the average UNC football player sustains 950 hits to the head per season, says Dr. Kevin Guskiewicz, chair of the school’s exercise and sports science department. He and fellow neuroscientists at the Matthew A. Gfeller Sport-Related Traumatic Brain Injury Research Center, located on UNC’s campus, are making it easier to monitor high impact head knocks on the field.

This could prove invaluable in learning how long-term exposure to hits can rupture the brain, said Guskiewicz.

What they’re doing, he said, is outfitting players’ helmets with small accelerometers: microsensors no bigger than a dime that measure the severity of the collision. There are six sensors scattered throughout each helmet. They provide instantaneous feedback to computers on the sidelines.

The accelerometers can gauge two forms of movement: linear acceleration and angula, or rotational, acceleration. Linear measures movement within one plane, or unidirectional motion. Rotational measures movement across several planes, generally in more of a diagonal.

“The lay way to describe it is the rate of change,” Guskiewicz said. “How quickly the head accelerates and decelerates upon impact.”

In effect, head collisions cause concussions, which harm brain cells and throw off the balance of ions important to brain function. It hurts, and it leaves its mark; memory can be lost, vision blurred, and blood flow reduced. In some cases, it could end up causing players’ brains to behave like those of Alzheimer’s patients.

Dr. Jason Mihalik, an assistant professor at the Gfeller Research Center, works closely with Guskiewicz on the project. He said there’s still much work to be done before any conclusions can be drawn. One thing that’s safe to say is that concussions come in all shapes, sizes, and severities.

“It’s not necessarily the bigger hits that cause the harshest or most permanent damage,” Mihalik said. “It might be other things like the number of hits. That’s what we’re still trying to figure out.”

However, some positions might be more liable to hard head injuries than others.

“What we do know,” said Guskiewicz. “Is there are more concussions on special teams plays than we see on regular plays. Also, there are more when they’re lowering their heads instead of hitting with the chest.”

The average acceleration of a head collision in football is about 23 gravitational force units (g). The mystery is where the threshold for injury lies. Some sustain concussions at 55g whereas some get up and walk away from blows at 100g.

Jason Freeman is the assistant equipment manager for the UNC football team. He said both offensive and defensive players wear helmets with the sensors. Quarterbacks, tight ends, linemen, safeties— any position can play with them, if they choose.

“It’s really just a comfort thing,” Freeman said. “Less whether they’re physically comfortably, but rather if they’re comfortable wearing them for the study. The players don’t actually feel the sensors at all.”

In total, Guskiewicz said, about 60 to 65 UNC players wear them each season. This is mainly because each unit can cost up to $1,000.

“Obviously we’d love to cover everybody,” he said. “But it’s just too expensive.”

When buying for the team in bulk, however, they’re able to get each unit for much less, somewhere between $350 and $450. A normal helmet costs $182. That money comes from various grant donors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Operating Committee for Standards in Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE).

Virginia Tech was the first school to utilize the sensor technology. The next was UNC, which has been using it since 2004. Other users include Dartmouth and Oklahoma.

Now it’s about to make its professional debut. This fall, the NFL will start outfitting players with collision sensors as part of the ongoing study. This is a big step forward to Guskiewicz, who’s the acting chair of the NFL subcommittee for safety equipment and rule changes.

“We’re looking at a number of issues with helmets,” he said. “We’ll start with trials of several players from different teams, looking at whether rules should be changed to minimize damage to head.”

At UNC, at least, it’s had a positive influence on players’ field strategies. Sometimes, Guskiewicz said, they will pull players aside and show them why lowering the neck or attacking with the crown of the head makes them more liable to long-term damage.

After they watch themselves on videotape, athletes tend to modify their behavior drastically. Also, when players complain of headaches and dizziness, it helps determine if it’s really concussive or simply dehydration.