Re: [Marxism] Big Science

[Les Schaffer <schaffer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

there have been several reviews of this book in the science journals
over the last few months. some related snippets follow:

les schaffer



Nature 438, 158-159 (10 November 2005) | doi:10.1038/438158b
A poisoned reputation

John Cornwell1
BOOK REVIEWED - Between Genius and Genocide: The Tragedy of Fritz Haber,
Father of Chemical Warfare

by Daniel Charles


Fritz Haber will be forever linked with the Haber–Bosch recipe, which
produces plentiful and cheap supplies of ammonia. Yet he was one of the
greatest chemists of the twentieth century and was the founding father
of the industrial–military complex. [snip]

The process for which Haber is best known is the synthesis of ammonia
from two plentiful gases in nature: hydrogen and nitrogen. He
collaborated with Carl Bosch to discover, after some 4,000 trials, an
ideal catalyst composed of iron and oxides of aluminium, calcium and
potassium. The process is virtually unchanged to this day. The discovery
culminated in the production of prodigious quantities of artificial
nitrogen fertilizer, which allowed the global population to rise to 6
billion from below its estimated upper limit of 3.6 billion. As a
result, Haber richly merits consideration as one of the greatest figures
of the past millennium.

[snip]

Nor does Charles neglect the turmoil of Haber's private life, including
his marriages. The tale of the suicide of Haber's first wife, Clara — an
event that has prompted various contradictory accounts — is a model of
scrupulous biography. Clara, one of the first women to get a PhD in
Germany, had married Haber in the hope of sharing in his life in
science. But it seems she was increasingly isolated by his preoccupation
with work, and during the First World War deplored his use of poison
gas. After returning from Ypres, Haber threw a party and Clara found him
in an "embarrassing situation" with the woman who was to become his
second wife. After he had fallen asleep, she took his service revolver
and killed herself.

But Charles's principal focus is Haber as a faustian embodiment of
science and technology in the twentieth century. For Charles, Haber's
fatal flaw is his willingness "to serve any master who could further his
passion for knowledge and progress. He was not an evil man." Charles
draws the chilling conclusion that the moral choices that Haber
confronted during his life "were not so different from those that we
face today".

Charles might have gone further to reflect that underlying Haber's flaws
is the proposition, widely accepted and promoted by those involved in
the public understanding of science today, that science is morally
neutral. The Janus-faced nature of the Haber–Bosch recipe seems to
support the contention. In Germany, moreover, scientists traditionally
worked under the auspices of a civil service that was both apolitical
and value free. Yet it was precisely this neutrality that provided an
alibi for the German scientific community when Jewish researchers were
expelled after the Nazis came to power. Haber was forced out of the
Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, which he helped to found in Berlin, despite
Max Planck's attempt to argue his case with Hitler. "A Jew is a Jew,"
Hitler shouted.

[snip]

1. John Cornwell is director of the Science and Human Dimension Project,
Jesus College, Cambridge, UK, and is the author of Hitler's Scientists.

===========================================================
Nature 431, 909-911 (21 October 2004) | doi: 10.1038/431909a
The roots of nitrogen fixation

Vaclav Smil[1]


BOOK REVIEWED - The World's Greatest Fix: A History of Nitrogen in
Agriculture
by G. J. Leigh

Oxford University Press: 2004. 254 pp. £20, $29.95

The discovery by Fritz Haber of a method for fixing ammonia from its
elements led to the development of the modern nitrogen-fertilizer
industry. The growing applications of nitrogen compounds in agriculture
have had enormous demographic, economic and environmental consequences.
Most histories of nitrogen fixation focus on this part of the story, but
in The World's Greatest Fix, G. J. Leigh provides a more evenly
distributed account. Nearly two-thirds of Leigh's text is devoted to
general considerations of nitrogen's chemistry and agronomy, and of
technical developments before Haber's discovery.

The book begins with a brief introduction to nitrogen fixation and its
importance for agriculture, before tracing the development of agronomic
practices in pre-Colombian America (by the Aztecs and Mayas), dynastic
China and the Roman Empire, with particular attention to classic
agricultural accounts (and the value of manure) by Cato the Censor,
Columella, Pliny the Elder and Varro. Next, the story advances to the
modern era, focusing on English farming from Roman times to the
beginning of scientific agriculture in the seventeenth century, before
moving on to the trade in guano (bird droppings are a rich source of
nitrogen) and Chilean nitrates (originally Bolivian and Peruvian) —
England was the leading importer of these sources of nitrogen. Leigh
then takes us into the laboratory, dealing with the alchemy of nitre and
the early chemistry of nitrogen (from Paracelsus to Lavoisier and
Chaptal), the birth of agricultural chemistry (thanks to Davy, von
Liebig and Boussingault) and the discovery (by Hellriegel and Wilfarth)
that microorganisms and some plants can fix their own nitrogen.

Leigh then describes the evolution of the first commercial methods
invented to fix nitrogen. The Norwegian arc process, which combines N2
and O2 in an electric arc furnace and uses the resulting nitric oxide to
produce HNO3, was made possible by inexpensive hydroelectricity. The
synthesis of cyanamide, by reacting CaC2 with N2, also fixed nitrogen
but was energy-intensive. Next come Haber's experiments, beginning in
1903, and the quest, led by Carl Bosch, to commercialize them, beginning
at the BASF plant in Ludwigshafen, Germany, in 1909.

[snip]

In closing, Leigh reviews the scale and effects of nitrogen-fertilizer
use, focusing on aquatic eutrophication — in which excessive nitrogen
promotes algal growth and the subsequent depletion of oxygen — and
nitrates and human health. The health effects of nitrates are frequently
exaggerated, but eutrophication, which Leigh treats rather lightly,
still does not get enough attention, given its severity and increasing
occurrence. There is also now considerable eutrophication of terrestrial
ecosystems.

[snip]

Those who would like to know more about the key protagonist of the
nitrogen story, yet are unable to read German, can finally get an
(abridged) English translation of Dietrich Stoltzenberg's massive 1994
biography Fritz Haber: Chemist, Nobel Laureate, German, Jew (Chemical
Heritage Foundation, 2004).

====================================================
Millennium Essay
Nature 400, 415 (29 July 1999); doi:10.1038/22672

Detonator of the population explosion

VACLAV SMIL

Vaclav Smil is in the Department of Geography, University of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Canada.

Without ammonia, there would be no inorganic fertilizers, and nearly
half the world would go hungry. Of all the century's technological
marvels, the Haber-Bosch process has made the most difference to our
survival.


What is the most important invention of the twentieth century?
Aeroplanes, nuclear energy, space flight, television and computers will
be the most common answers. Yet none of these can match the synthesis of
ammonia from its elements. The world might be better off without
Microsoft and CNN, and neither nuclear reactors nor space shuttles are
critical to human well-being. But the world's population could not have
grown from 1.6 billion in 1900 to today's six billion without the
Haber-Bosch process.

Every one of us has to eat ten essential amino acids to synthesize the
body proteins needed for tissue growth and maintenance. Agricultural
crops and animals fed on crops supply almost nine-tenths of these amino
acids in food proteins (aquatic species and animals grazing on grassland
provide the rest). The yield of intensive agriculture is almost always
limited by the availability of the nitrogen needed to produce these
proteins.

Nitrogen comes from biofixation (by Rhizobium bacteria symbiotic with
legumes and by cyanobacteria), from atmospheric deposition, and from the
recycling of crop residues and animal manures. But these sources only
add up to about half the global need: the other half must come from
inorganic nitrogen fertilizers, whose synthesis was made possible by
Fritz Haber's invention and Carl Bosch's ingenuity.

[snip]

But BASF's leaders were reluctant to proceed with the development of a
synthesis running at pressures above 10 MPa (100 atm). August Bernthsen,
head of BASF's laboratories, was horrified: "One hundred atmospheres!
Just yesterday we had an autoclave under a mere seven atmospheres flying
into the air!" But Bosch, who ran the company's nitrogen-fixation
research, was confident: "I believe it can go. I know exactly the
capability of the steel industry. It should be risked." And he did it:
he solved some unprecedented engineering problems, and commercial
production of ammonia began on 9 September 1913, just four years and two
months after Haber's laboratory demonstration.

Today's ammonia synthesis has been improved in many details and is much
more energy-efficient, but Haber and Bosch would recognize all the main
features of their invention. Global output of ammonia is now about 130
million tonnes a year; four-fifths of this goes into fertilizers, of
which urea is the most important. Rich countries could fertilize much
less by cutting their excessive food production and by eating fewer
animals — but even the most assiduous recycling of organic wastes and
the widest planting of legumes could not supply enough nitrogen for
land-scarce, poor and populous nations.

[snip]


================================================
Nature 425, 894-895 (30 October 2003) | doi: 10.1038/425894a
Fertilized to death

Nicola Nosengo

Dotted throughout forests around the world, yellowed leaves and thinning
crowns suggest that some trees are dying an early death. But the culprit
may come as something of a surprise. It isn't just pollution spewed from
car fumes, or damage from insects proliferating thanks to global
warming. Our forests are facing a quieter villain. They're being plagued
by the very stuff that has provided people with food for the past
hundred years — fertilizer.

The use of fertilizer changed dramatically in the twentieth century. In
the late 1890s, people struggled to get enough fertilizer for their
fields — the main sources were bird guano from the Pacific islands and
saltpetre from the deserts of Chile. But as the world's population grew,
it became clear that we would need a cheaper, easier way to get a usable
form of nitrogen. That problem was solved in 1909 by Fritz Haber and
Carl Bosch, who devised the first industrial process to turn nitrogen
gas (N2) in the air into ammonia (NH3). The result was a ready supply of
cheap fertilizer, which has powered global food production ever since.

But that success story is now becoming an environmental scourge. Unused
fertilizer is washing off fields into rivers, poisoning coastal waters
and causing acid rain. Scientists are worried that this flood of food
could be causing the slow — and possibly irreversible — death of our
forests.

Nitrogen is a relatively unreactive gas. But it can spawn a range of
reactive molecules thanks to the work of certain bacteria, the burning
of fossil fuel or the manufacture of fertilizer. Collectively known as
reactive nitrogen, this family of molecules includes ammonia, nitrate
ions (NO3-) and nitrogen oxide gases (NOx), and its production has more
than doubled over the past century.

Until the early 1900s, most reactive nitrogen was produced by bacteria
and amounted to about 100 million tonnes per year. But human activity
alone now generates more than 160 million tonnes per year (ref. 2) — 25
million tonnes through burning fossil fuels, mostly in cars, and more
than 100 million tonnes from the industrial production of fertilizer. If
the current rate of increase continues, global production of reactive
nitrogen is predicted to reach between 250 million and 900 million
tonnes per year by 2100.

The trouble is that a lot of this nitrogen doesn't end up where it is
meant to be — in our food. James Galloway, an environmental scientist at
the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, estimates that almost
half of the nitrogen spread onto fields is not taken up by crops but
instead washes away.

Most of it leaks through the soil into groundwater as nitrate, which
then washes into ponds or coastal waters. There the excess nutrient
fuels the rampant growth of algae, which in turn uses much of the oxygen
in the water, suffocating fish and other marine life. The agricultural
runoff down the Mississippi river is so packed with nitrogen and other
nutrients that there is now a giant patch of algae covering 20,000
square kilometres in the Gulf of Mexico. Throughout the United States,
one-third of the coastal rivers and bays show similar effects on a
smaller scale2.

Less commonly, excess nitrate can end up in drinking water, where it can
cause 'blue baby' syndrome, or methaemoglobinaemia. In this rare but
sometimes fatal condition, red blood cells are no longer able to perform
their vital role of carrying oxygen around the body, which subsequently
turns an infant's lips an oxygen-deprived blue.

Such effects on coastal and human health have grabbed the headlines and
public attention, but scientists are now concerned about more subtle
events. A significant amount of reactive nitrogen ends up in the air as
ammonia and NOx where it increases the amount of low-level ozone, which
in turn contributes to smog and global warming. In the atmosphere, some
NOx dissolves in water vapour to produce nitric acid, which falls back
to the ground as acid rain. The ammonia, although it is alkaline, can
also make soils more acidic — as microbes digest the ammonia they
produce nitrate and acidic hydrogen ions.

Much of this reactive nitrogen is falling on our forests, where the
results can already been seen3. Trees are dying and the relative
abundance of different plant species in some woods has started to
change4. "The effect on forests is slower and less visible than on
coastal environments," says Galloway. But that could mean that once
effects become obvious, it may be too late for the trees to recover.

In the late 1980s, John Aber of the University of New Hampshire in
Durham described how a forest might react to a nitrogen overdose5. He
suggested that a forest doused with nitrogen initially thrives, but at
some point, input of nitrogen exceeds demand. As plants are no longer
able to absorb it, the nitrogen builds up in the soil, mostly as
nitrates. These negatively charged ions attract positively charged ions
such as calcium and magnesium, and carry them into the water table. This
deprives the trees of fundamental nutrients just as their demand for
them is growing. Weakened, the trees become increasingly vulnerable to
frost, drought and parasites. At the same time, rising soil acidity
causes a loss in biodiversity in the undergrowth.

Poisoned land

Confirming Aber's hypothesis and predicting the likely course of future
events is a tricky proposition. To that end, researchers at the IVL
Swedish Environmental Research Institute in Gothenburg have been
studying nitrogen saturation in the Gårdsjön forest in southeastern
Sweden since 1991. Part of the forest is covered with a transparent
roof, watered with clean water and acts as a control site. In another
section, researchers have been adding 40 kg of nitrogen per hectare per
year to a site that used to get less than 10 kg per hectare from
atmospheric depositions — an unpolluted forest should get less than 5 kg
per hectare per year. The massive overdose speeds up the process of
nitrogen poisoning, giving scientists an idea of what might occur in the
future. "Not very much happened for the first five years," says Filip
Moldan of the Swedish Environmental Research Institute, who coordinates
the project. "But since then we are seeing changes wherever we look."

The over-fertilized trees are now growing faster than normal, and the
levels of various nutrients in the foliage have changed — as predicted
by Aber, the leaves contain more nitrogen, and less calcium and
magnesium than in normal trees. And about 10% of the added nitrogen is
now leaking out of the forest as nitrate in groundwater, says Moldan. He
hopes to keep the experiment running for another decade to see how the
saturation process will proceed. "At some point the soil will probably
become unable to retain any of the nitrogen added, and the forest will
start to decline," he predicts. "But we don't know how long this will take."

Nor is it clear how different types of forests will respond. Although
there isn't much information to go on, studies suggest that humid
tropical forests will reach nitrogen saturation more quickly than those
in temperate climes6. Some tree species, such as sugar maple and red
spruce, seem to be particularly sensitive to additional nitrogen and
could disappear completely from some sites.

So how can we save our forests? Many European countries have tried to
counteract the build-up of reactive nitrogen by liming — adding calcium
or magnesium carbonates to the soil. That reduces the soil's acidity and
adds back nutrients. But the process is too expensive to use on a large
scale. And over-liming would kill soil microbes, again altering the
ecosystem. "Liming only cures the symptoms, not the disease," says Aber.

A few tentative steps were taken to address the problem some 30 years
ago. In the 1970s, both sulphur and nitrogen were flagged up as the
source of acid rain. Initiatives — such as a variety of national laws
including the 1970 Clean Air Act in the United States — tried to limit
both sulphur oxides and NOx. But the NOx provisions only controlled the
amount produced by individual cars, largely ignoring agricultural
contributions. Only the sulphur controls were truly successful. "Sulphur
deposition to soil in Europe and North America has decreased up to 70%,
but nitrogen deposition is constant or slightly increasing," says Aber.

Cutting back

More recently, 28 European countries signed the 1999 Gothenburg
protocol, one of the goals of which is to reduce emissions of NOx by 41%
and ammonia by 17% by 2010, compared with emissions in 1990. As of 2002
they seemed to be on track: emissions of NOx and ammonia were down 23%
and 6%, respectively. But that is mainly thanks to controls on
fossil-fuel burning in Germany, Britain and the Netherlands, which won't
be able to reduce emissions much further, says Moldan. Meanwhile
emissions from some countries in Europe, as well as China and Russia,
are rapidly increasing.

Scientists are sceptical about how effective the protocol will prove to
be, particularly as it fails to address how agriculture can reduce
nitrogen emissions in the face of a growing population and its need for
food. "Countries such as China have no intention of reducing their use
of nitrogen," says Moldan. "In fact they are firmly committed to
increasing it."

Concerned scientists will meet next October in Nanjing, China, at the
3rd International Nitrogen Conference. Their aim is to propose a
'Nanjing protocol' to address the issue of nitrogen at a global level.
According to Galloway, one of the meeting's promoters, the protocol
should include not only limitations on NOx and ammonia emissions, but
should focus on an integrated approach to managing reactive nitrogen.

The point, he says, is to make nitrogen use in farming more efficient.
Nitrogen can be recycled from crop waste, manure and slaughtered
animals, either by turning it back into gaseous N2 or into animal feed7.
Farmers could also use less fertilizer, if there were ways to cut usage
without reducing crop yields. All of these ideas are technically
feasible, says Galloway, but are so expensive that no one currently
bothers. That needs to change. "We cannot replace reactive nitrogen as
we did with chlorofluorocarbons in refrigerators," says Galloway. "We
need it and we will need it more in the future, there is no way around
that."



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism