The Planetary News Radio – Episode 15: Scientific Suppression Case Study: TOXMAP

Welcome to the Planetary News Radio, Episode number 15 with your host Bryan White and I’m here today outside in Corvallis and it is raining out. It’s very dark, and in order to avoid the rain, I’m actually under a bridge. So there’s some background noise from cars. That’s just the setting that I’m in. I had a [complaint, well I don’t want to call it a complaint], but a criticism recently that I’ll respond to about the show. What was mentioned is that the show is recorded outside. And yes, the show’s recorded outside in different settings. Sometimes it’s hiking, which might be a quiet setting, and sometimes it’s in the city, and I think that’s that’s part of the show, because it’s dynamic. And so I want to be true to the art of presenting science, and the setting is part of that. So occasionally there are times when there will be background noise. I won’t say too much more about that. And my goal is not to respond to all criticism, but just to give listeners, you know, some insight into why I’m doing [the show this way]. Yes, I could record in a quiet studio, but then it wouldn’t be the “planetary news”, it would be the “indoor quiet studio news”. 

Continuing on, the topic for today is about suppression in science, scientific suppression. And this has always been a problem. Historically, the United States has a major history of scientific suppression, going back into the sixties and the seventies with pollution and climate science. And now we’re finding out things like ExxonMobil knew for 40 years what oil use could do to the environment, and covered that up, similar to the way that tobacco companies initially tried to hide what could happen from tobacco use and nicotine use. And so we see, that same thing persisted in America and now we’re at this strange dichotomy where the science is overwhelming [in favor of anthropogenic climate change]. ExxonMobil can’t deny that they know that climate change is real. In other words, they can’t conduct and do all the science that they do in their industry, because oil extraction is an extremely scientific industry that makes use of geology and hydrogeology. And so they can’t claim to be scientifically extracting oil from the Earth and know all this geoscience, and also then deny that climate change is happening and that it’s caused by carbon emissions from humans.

So now we’re at this rare transition period where you might see British Petroleum (BP) or ExxonMobil actually accepting that climate change is real and doing things to mitigate carbon emissions [because the scientific evidence is overwhelming]. But how did we get to this point? How did we get to the point where, our greatest minds as scientists were able to create all these oil extraction technologies, while on the political side, the implications of [burning fossil fuels] were hidden? And that’s why understanding scientific suppression is important. Recently, the Trump administration [has been] overtly doing this for the first time [in a way that can be recorded]. So it’s always been a kind of a hidden thing that we knew was going on in America, but we couldn’t really put our finger on it. But now with the Trump administration silencing civilian science, social media accounts, and basically putting a gag order on [scientists] in 2017 when his administration started taking over the EPA, Department of the Interior, and all the [federal] government organizations related to science and national parks, we saw this huge, almost national gag order put out. 

In response to that, Columbia University began what they call a “Silencing Science Tracker” and the website for this is, [which is a part of] the Columbia Law School Center for Climate Change Law and the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund ( And so, the silencing science tracker is tracking overt (provable/documentable) instances where science has been suppressed in or by the United States government. And to this day, which is January 4th 2020, there have been 385 instances of over scientific silencing tracked and logged in the Columbia Science silence in silence structure.

A couple of examples here that they have the most recent one is, something called the TOXMAP database. TOXMAP ( was a database run by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) that integrated 12 scientific data sets into one data set in order to view the tracking of known hazardous materials on U.S. soil. The function of the TOXMAP was to list [the location of sites contaminated by] chemical contaminants on the National Priorities list. And so the National Priorities list ( is a list of sites that have been investigated by the EPA and declared either potential sources of hazardous chemicals or places where there already are hazardous chemicals released in the environment, and which could have been [reported] as an environmental violation. Or it could have been something historically, maybe a site from the 80’s before there were environmental regulations. But now the contaminant exists, and it’s still there in the environment. And there’s 1335 of these sites that are tracked. 

The goal of this [integrated] tracking system was to obviously track the mitigation of these sites and to see how contamination is being removed and cleaned or expanded. Are there new sites popping up? Was there a new spill somewhere? And now that place is logged as a site. And so, having all this integrated data on an area [on one map], it could help scientists make decisions because pollution is a complex event. It’s not always as simple [as an oil spill over here] or we spilled Mercury here. What [is the plan to] clean it up? What [are the immediate environmental effects?]. We don’t know what the downstream ([longterm]) effects could be. One pollutant might not be as harmful in one area as another area. Spilling mercury in the ground in the middle of the Arizona desert might not be as bad as spilling mercury into a river in the middle of the Mississippi. So having integrated data sets [like TOXMAP] is really important for environmental scientists to make decisions. So I see this as a really powerful tool that I never even knew about now is gone. And so I wish I’d known about it before, because then I could have seen what was available. Environmental science and pollution tracking isn’t my specialty, so it’s something that I missed. But I regret having missed it. 

Now that I’m reading about it, so what are these NPL sites [that were in TOXMAP], The National Priorities list? So these are sites that have been reported to the EPA where a pollution contamination event has occurred, and then the EPA has conducted an investigation and given them a hazard ranking score. And so this is a hazard ranking called the Hazard Ranking System a system that ranks the relative risk of site’s adverse effects on human health. So it’s basically a relative risk in the spectrum of all of the sites where contamination has occurred. [The score answers the question,] “How bad is this one?” 

What are some of the factors that went into scoring these sites? This is from Number one, the likelihood that a site has released or has the potential to release hazardous substances into the environment. Number two, the characteristics of the waste with toxicity and quantity. Number three, [the presence of] people or sensitive environmental targets affected by the release. So is this something that happened in the middle of a community, or happened in the middle of nowhere? [Did the spill occur in an environmentally sensitive area, e.g. nature preserve?] That’s all going to go into the hazard ranking score. Further into that part of the score, what are the pathways of the contamination? From Number one, a groundwater migration, which would be drinking water or surface water migration. [This could be direct release] into human drinking water, food chain, or other sensitive environments like lakes, streams and rivers or the ocean. Is that soil exposure or sub-service intrusion? So again, that could affect resident or nearby populations, sensitive environments, or regularly occupied structures. Let’s say something in liquid form leaks into soil [and then] just sits there but doesn’t spread into the drinking water supplies ([e.g., a soil trap]). Well, now, if you have construction [in that area], and say your construction workers go out to dig a hole and they dig through that contamination, now you’ve exposed construction workers to this pollution – [and this could happen years after the initial contamination event]. 

[Another pathway is] air migration. [Was the pollutant] a gas? And again, that’s going to be dependent on proximity to human or other environments. The scoring system has a nice mathematical property, so if [the site] scores really high on one of one of these [areas (e.g., human proximity)], and really low on everything else, it could still be a high risk site. So let’s say you have a low low amount of mercury that was spilled directly into a stream that people fish from, so that could be an extremely sensitive event. And you need to immediately close down the stream because people are immediately going to be exposed to mercury. So this is [why shutting down TOXMAP] is an example of scientific suppression. But it’s tricky because what the Trump Administration has done is they disabled the TOXMAP database, which is the linking together of 12 data sources. But those other 12 data sources still exist independently. So, really, what they’ve done is they’ve slowed down the scientific community ability to track, rank, and understand pollution sites in America. 

So I have a statement here from a Newsweek article from the Environmental Data & Governance Initiative (EDGI). “The dismantling of such a usable public platform connecting health and environmental data certainly accords with the EPA’s own declared strategies, of seeking to exclude so many environmental health studies from policy-making and to neglect or defund on-going environmental health investigations.” 

And so that is what the EPA under the Donald Trump administration is seeking. They have openly declared that they will purposely exclude scientific studies in policy making decisions. [We can see] the end result of that in the TOXMAP, and that’s just one example I [looked at]. If I go through this, I might find other examples [worth talking about], but I just wanted to get this out really quick since it happened recently. I hope everybody had a good holiday season and, on communications and things like that website, there’s a website up for this. It’s That’s the Institute for Integrative Research in Earth and Space Science, which is going to be the overarching, structure for which the Planetary News is operating within, which is the media arm of the research organization, and so we’ll have more on that. That’s Bryan White with the Planetary News Radio signing off.

The Planetary News Radio – Episode 12: Mars Astrobiology, Gut Microbiome’s Influence on Athleticism, and Soft Robots

Welcome to the Planetary News Radio Episode 12 with your host Bryan White. Today I’m going to do two segments. The first is going to be a quick Science in the News, which is just me looking at recent headlines. I haven’t really looked into the articles or read them yet unless it’s something controversial. Then the 2nd [segment] is going to be a new segment, which is just an in depth review of a few articles. And these will be articles that I have ranked, according to an algorithm that I’m working on to rank science quality in the news. And so we’ll talk more about that later as well. So first up, let’s look at science in the news. 

Here’s a headline NASA’s curiosity. Mars Rover detects unusually high levels of methane and why would that be interesting? Well, methane is an organic gas and so any time you see or find methane, you might think that there are either animals or bacteria giving off methane. One of the most fundamental chemical pathways for chemosynthesis involves using methane as an energy source. So at the bottom of the ocean, if there are methane seeps, which are pockets of methane gas that was either frozen or solid and is now being released as a gas bacteria, then a few specialized types of animals can live along those seeps and process methane. Methane [is not just a] food source, it’s also a byproduct for animals releasing gas after processing food. So any time you find methane, we think that’s something closer to organic processes [might be occurring]. And so it’s It’s a point in the direction of finding life on Mars, whether that’s animal-like or bacteria-like we don’t know, most likely that we would suggest that it’s bacterial-like.

Here’s an interesting one. “Could a microbiome boost athletic performance” and another headline on that same topic, “Performance enhancing bacteria found in the microbiome of elite athletes”. So this is really important because find out more and more how important the human microbiome is. So the microbiome, it’s similar to the concept of a genome, so a genome is the listing or the container of all of our genetic information. The microbiome is the container of all of our microbial life, and so humans have all sorts of bacteria living all inside of our body, and some of that could be in the gut. And so the gut microbiome can have various effects. We’re finding out that gut microbiome can even be related to psychology. So perhaps some types of depression and anxiety are influenced by gut microbiome. And so now perhaps athleticism can be influenced by microbiome. And it looks here if I look into this article from NPR, says the elite runners gut microbiome makes mice more athletic. So maybe they transferred some specialized bacteria from a runner into a mouse, and it changed the metabolism of the mouse so that made them more athletic.

That’s really interesting, so this is gonna be really important. It’s important because the gut microbiome could be modified almost immediately in a person if we knew how to do it. So if if a disease or a disorder or or some trait is linked to the genome, it’s really difficult to modify that in a living organism, because you’d have to modify the genome of all of the cells in that adult organism. So, for example, if someone has multiple sclerosis or muscular dystrophy, if you wanted to cure muscular dystrophy, you’d have to affect all of the muscle cells that have that are producing the broken protein. So you have to develop a treatment that if you inject this treatment into someone, it travels through the cells and maybe through a virus, modifies the genome and replaces a specific spot on the genome to eradicate that broken protein, for example, in muscular dystrophy. Now, if you have a disorder that’s based on the gut microbiome all you have to do is change the content of microbes in that person’s stomach or gut. And so we think, and by we I mean the scientific community, this could be a really treatable source. So if we can learn more about how to modify the gut microbiome it might be way less invasive, way less risky than types of genetic modifications. So you see some of the early testing for muscular dystrophy via gene therapy has a lot of risks involved with it because any time you go in, you modify the genome. You have the risk of causing cancer in those cells because any time you have a virus or something that makes an insertion into DNA, it could make a mistake, and then you can have a cancer state occur so gene therapy could make things worse. 

Microbiome therapy could also make things worse. Recently, a couple of people died during a clinical trial of a fecal transplant so related to this gut Microbiome think that you could potentially alter the microbiome by transferring fecal matter from a sick person into a healthy person. But if you make a mistake and transfer bacteria antibiotic resistance bacteria through a fecal transplant, then you could inadvertently do more damage to the person receiving the transplant. And so that recently happened. So there’s risks with altering the microbiome as well. But again, it’s less risky than gene therapy. Gene therapy is a high probability of causing cancer, whereas altering the microbiome maybe might just involve taking some probiotics and changing your gut contents slowly over time in a safe way. Now we won’t be able to treat the same diseases, we don’t think that we’ll be able to treat muscular dystrophy by altering the gut microbiome, but for the set of disorders or traits like athleticism or maybe some metabolic traits for the set of traits that are linked to gut microbiome, they should be much more treatable than attempting to do a genetic therapy. And so the more we learn about the gut microbiome, it’s really exciting. 

Here’s a good astrobiology one, another Mars astrobiology topic. When did life have a chance on Mars after a giant meteorite stopped hitting it 4.5 billion years ago? That’s interesting, because and we think, and in this case by we I mean NASA, has published some documents [on astrobiology]. We think that life could have evolved from nothing from chemical synthesis to the first cellular life could have evolved on Earth in as little as 200,000 years. So if Mars had the potential to begin evolving the life 4.5 billion years ago, that would have been much earlier than Earth because Earth didn’t have the potential to start forming life until about over 3 billion years ago. So Mars could have had its entire life phase happened way earlier than Earth. And so it could have had bacteria like organisms growing and living there and then gone extinct because of a major climate change that occurred on Mars. The loss of the magnetosphere, which protects it from solar radiation. So Mars, or really the surface of Mars, at least today, is very inhabitable to even microbial life. But maybe 4.5 billion years ago is much for habitable, and it didn’t have the problem with Earth. Earth was highly geologically active. Nothing could have survived on the surface, whether or not it was getting pummeled with meteorites. The Earth’s surface was highly volcanic, so it wasn’t stable enough for bacteria to grow and form. Maybe, only in either the oceans or in pools of mud and clay and things like that. Maybe Mars had a more stable surface 4.5 billion years ago. So it’s life was ancient but certainly could have existed. So that’s two points for Mars astrobiology. 

All right, let’s shift to the other segment, which are some articles that I have actually read. The 1st up is a Slate article on it’s called Himalayan Ice Melt has doubled since 2000’s a new study finds. So ice melting from the Himalayas, the rate that ice is melting has doubled [from what was] previously thought so. We knew that ice was melting, but that rate has been revised with new data. So why is that important? Because now you have a situation where you have an upstream mountain system that traditionally has served as a repository for water in the form of ice, and so that ice stays frozen and slowly melts throughout the year. That’s a steady stream of fresh water for all of the downstream communities that live in that area. So people are dependent on these this mountain system for having ice. So if we lose that ice, that’s really bad. And so revised projections now with with climate actions taken 1/3 of the ice on the Himalayas will have melted by the year 2100 with no measures taken, 2/3 will melt, so the amount of ice on the Himalayas will be reduced by 2/3 if no extreme climate actions are taken. So that’s that certainly will be significant as that begins to happen, and it will have a direct human impact. And that’s one of the things that I want to focus on with climate change is things that cause human impacts. 

So let’s see, what’s another one? The time article, “More and more countries agree on this climate change goal”. But will it work? So what is that climate change goal? So this goal it’s called net zero emissions. And that would mean that a country is emitting emissions and sequestering emissions at the same rate. So either you could to reach net zero emissions by emitting nothing, and then your net would be zero. Or you could, [for example emit 100 units of carbon, then you could also sequester 100 units of carbon by either building planting a forest or something like that. Some countries that are talking about implementing this policy by the year 2050. Mostly Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom are planning on implementing it, and this is going to require a dramatic shift in the energy production systems. But of course, if you look at somewhere like Germany, they’ve already made significant efforts in solar energy putting them in a better position to achieve the net zero goal. In the United States, [there is some effort at the] state level, you’ll see this, but at the federal level, you’ll see a rejection of this policy, and the same thing with China and India who are the top three producers along with the US. So unfortunately for the top producers of carbon emissions, we don’t see these shifts towards that net zero policy, although in the United States, thankfully, we have some state level policies that are going this direction, which is really good. The nice thing in the United States is you see the state level policy leading the way the federal level and you see, a lot of the European Union member nations also looking at moving this way, but China and India still have unknown decisions on this policy.

And this is a divergence from climate change to robotics real quick. So the title of this article is “Engineers built a robotic lionfish with an energetic bloodstream”, and I thought this was interesting because I’ve seen a lot of work that’s being done right now on soft robots. So these are robots that are really cool because a lot of this research being done with how animals move and function in terms of mechanics, it’s gonna help society in a lot of ways. So one of those ways is rescue robots. So if you want to send in a robot into a building that collapsed or some chemical hazard has spilled and it’s too dangerous for humans or a bomb threat or something like that, where the environment is unknown, so we don’t know what we’re sending the robot into. We need some type of functional form for a robot that’s adaptable to the environment, and a bipedal robot isn’t necessarily the best thing. Something that can crawl and sneak around through really tight spaces. Maybe something more like a snake or lizard or something like that is more useful. And if you want to have maybe something patrolling the ocean, maybe a marine observation robot, some type of scientific robot swimming around gathering data we could have a fish, a really highly energy efficient fish robot. That would be cool. And so that’s what this article was about. 

It was about a fish robot that they’ve developed a battery that is both hydraulic fluid and energetic fluid, so it’s almost like a blood system for a robot. So as the robot is moving its fins and compressing the fluid, it’s moving the fluid around. And the nice thing about that is, since the hydraulic fluid is the battery fluid, you don’t need to have a battery pack. And in the significant part about that is the weight. So you don’t need the weight of the battery pack. And maybe it makes recharging the robot easier or more difficult. I’m not sure if they have to change out the fluid, but it’s a step in the right direction. It means also that the construction, the shape of the robot, is no longer confined by the structure of the battery system, which is probably one of the biggest and heaviest components of any type of robotic system. So this is a really cool advancement. And so then I mentioned the rescue robots and chemical spills and things like that, the other application of soft robotics, of course, being human interface. So if humans were interfacing with the robot, we don’t necessarily want a really cold metallic structure. Maybe we want, you know, soft robotics, say, in a clinical setting where a robot is involved somehow in patient care. You want to have a soft human like touch. And so we need these soft robotics to mimic a human [form] and human nature. A human mechanical system that isn’t going to hurt a human either by pressure or the components causing damage to a human. So that was a cool side track from climate change, the usual climate science. But that’s all I had today. 

And so this is Bryan White with the Planetary News Radio signing out.

Join the discussion on Discord at:

Support on Patreon at: