How deep is science writing these days? Pretty darn deep.

Way back when Science 2.0 started there were not a lot of great science writers. There were well-known ones, but not great ones. Journalism was in flux and mainstream media didn't respect it much, and scientists respected science journalism even less than media corporations did. The best writers just didn't go into science journalism. One of the reasons that a pillar of the Science 2.0 mission was revamping science 'communication' was because the public had stopped respecting journalists and scientists felt like they got a lot of things wrong. If science journalism couldn't win Pulitzer Prizes, at least it could be accurate and that meant making scientists the journalists.
 Howard F. Schwartz, Colorado State University, Bugwood.org)A world food crisis brewing and we face a horrific future unless something can be done.

ZOOLOGISTS ANNOUNCED THE discovery of a tiny, super-cute new primate which can kill a human by licking its elbow. I am not making this up. 

The new species of loris found in the Philippines has a poison gland at its elbow, says the American Journal of Primatology. If the creature feels threatened, it attempts to grabs a slurp of poison before biting the attacker.

Generally speaking, when a politician goes on television and says he is creating a special task force to look at a product, you know what happened; someone wrote about it in the New York Times and someone did a poll and someone else told him it would look presidential to be bold.
Want to scare people about a pesticide? Compare it to DDT. 40+ years after it was banned in a bit of scientization of politics, people have still heard of it. DDT may be the only pesticide many people have ever heard of. Environmental groups love to invoke it for that reason.

But if you are a fan of science, when you see a DDT comparison, you know evidence has left the building. DDT, when misapplied, was bad, just like every other compound, including water, can be bad. There was nothing exceptional about it other than the fact that it could have saved millions of kids from malaria if activists were forced to do studies before issuing press releases. But once you get a Joni Mitchell song written about your product, someone in Congress is going to take action.

When you are young, you shape your possibilities. Research in psychology and neuroscience shows us that your personality and your intelligence develop during childhood and teenage years until becoming fully developed by age 25. Likewise, during your younger years, you write the story you tell about yourself – who are you, how do you understand your worth and your potential? Then you live this story through your adult life. In other words, the person you shape while growing up can be the person you’re stuck with. So allowing drugs or alcohol to influence this young person can affect not just who you are today, but who you can be and will become. Here are five reasons why substance abuse is especially dangerous for young people.

Did you know that when you drink water, you are not really being vegetarian?

I didn't either. It turns out that when you drink water, it could have microbes and other small stuff - well, I knew that part. What I did not know is that viruses and bacteria and such were considered animals to vegetarians. So even if you purify water by boiling it and killing the germs, you are still drinking dead animals.

What to do for truly ethical water drinkers? Now you have the solution, the Prestige Lifestraw.
It's no secret that politicians have always favored corporations that are involved in their pet causes - and it's no secret that wind turbines are killing endangered birds and forcing a giant migration of more.

What is less well known is that if you are a wind energy corporation, not only have you been stuffed with government subsidies for the last five years, you are not going to be prosecuted no how many eagles you kill. Unless you are also a fossil fuel company, like Duke Energy, they got prosecuted. Otherwise, you pay a token fine and that is that.
After great pains to simulate the foreground dust the Cosmic Microwave Background, gravitational wave result of BICEP2's B-Mode observations is still in question.  The simple fact is we do not really know what the foreground dust contamination really is right now.   The PLANCK collaboration will release that data, and sometime this year, their own map of CMB B Modes.   PLANCK's release of a real foreground dust map, not one based on a presentation slide, which is what the BICEP2 team first used, will settle this once and for all.    All of that said, the work of the BICEP2 team is good and worthy science, weather they are shown to be right, wrong, or only partially right  (i.e. if there is an effect but not as big as they claim).   
Have you ever wondered how hand warmers and cold packs worked? The kind that can be stored at room temperature and then used when needed depend on exothermic and endothermic chemical reactions. An exothermic chemical reaction gives off heat into its surroundings. Conversely, an endothermic reaction absorbs heat from the surrounding environment.


Source