Day 3: Ubiquity

I think the best (and worst) part about conferences is the yin and yang I experience being completely inundated with new information and the vocabulary of very highly educated individuals while at the same time shoving it in the opposite direction so that I can breathe, calm my mind, and figure out how all of this data will fit into context of my world.  Some of the main thoughts that I was able to refine from a boatload of sessions:

• The International Phytotechnologies Society is young.  It's young, and but its membership reflects the opposite trend.  No one has realized the exposure and growth that they could experience if they were to 
• Re-do their website 
• Put it in a mobile-friendly format
• Join the world of social media
• Partner with bigger organizations that have influence and large audiences

I, coming at this from a newbie standpoint to the subject, can see huge potential for scientists working in this field to extend their branches to the rest of us, "normal people".  It has been eye-opening to see a tangible difference in the way that scientists communicate among each other versus the way I communicate with my friends and colleagues.  Having some background in botany and environmental science, I feel as though I can hold my own, but there is still a sort of disconnect between the way that I would phrase something and the way that they do.

Interesting fact:  Something crazy like over 70% of the attendees at this conference represent academia.  Very few people in the industry and policy field are present, and I think that will be something for the Society to work on together.  Diversity is always an issue, no matter what the subject.  And of course, like I've talked about in earlier posts, this idea of bringing all the stakeholders to the table holds true even when decisions aren't being made.  Just a conversation requires diversity of thought, and in this regard, I believe IPS has failed.  I don't, however, believe that it's too late for them to improve the demographics thus far.  Young as the group is, I think that bringing other disciplines in from the very beginning will not be a problem.

So from this, I pose this question:  What good is science if not understood in the language of the masses?

Over the past two days, I have been adding to this diagram in hopes that the question mark would suddenly fill itself.  No, that second bubble does not say Spinach...Spanish, rather.

Some of the conclusions that the I came to from listening to the scientists' presentations were as follows:

• Populars were successful in decreasing dioxane levels at a hazardous waste landfill site 
• When it comes to dealing with the runoff from feedlots, you cannot concentrate the outflow in one spot, or a single tube.  This creates an imbalance within a constructed wetland which will treat the water, so you could either use a gated irrigation pipe or a perforated riser pipe.  The former is a single pipe with little pipes coming off of it at regular intervals, whereas the latter is a large pipe with many holes in along its length to evenly allow the liquid through.
•  Buffer strips are a popular way to deal with runoff and incorporate phyto-plants, but not something I was familiar with before this conference.
• TCE stands for trichloroethylene, and is one of the most widely measured harmful chemicals among all of the scientists in attendance.  For what reason I don't know why, but google's definition includes "commonly used as an industrial solvent", so I'm thinking there's a relationship there.
• Alfalfa is effective in the uptake of PCB's--notably, this idea of spatial dynamics has returned again.  The closer to the plant, the lower the concentration of PCB's; the farther away, the stronger the concentration.  Thinking of this from a design standpoint, I can see how using this information would be useful in constructing some sort of functional urban landscape piece.
• Looking at the cost-benefit analysis of a traditional excavation and disposal versus a phytoremediation project, the latter is cheaper given the client is willing to spare some extra time.  
• A common method for conducting these experiments with concentration is to place the plants inside a sealed box, and then inject the chemicals and take measurements, or collect data from the water that has run off from the plants.  (This is how people do small-scale experiments for green roofs, for example!)
• Speaking of green roofs, the following are the typical layers involved in one, from top to bottom.  Who knew there were so many?
• Vegetation
• Media
• Drainage
• Membrane
• Insulation
• Concrete
• Classroom (or other indoor room)
• Related to this idea, why does design stop when it comes to the top of the house?  Why don't we think about something being visually pleasing from all angles?  I like this idea that a green roof makes the "last side" beautiful, and gives a sense of completeness to the structure.  At the Dialogue on Sustainability that I attended earlier this year, I remember them asking us at a group discussion what we thought it meant to be a "whole" person.  My definition seemed pretty lame in comparison to everyone else's, but I wonder if this idea of "wholeness" should also be applied to design.  Why exclude something just because you don't have easy access to it all the time?  Could roofs become the new patios?  The new "backyards"?  No one seems to have their own green space anymore (at least in the cities), so perhaps if the architecture were to support that idea, then the roof would become one of the most profitable pieces of a building that existed.
• There was mention of biofuel, and the balance we have to find between using our land for food production versus energy production.  It think this is an excellent point to think about our smaller landscapes as functional in more than one way.  Consider, for instance, a city street in which there are small plots of green spaces (in addition to living walls and trees that are acting as air phytoremediators) which have phyto-plants in them, but also grow in a way which requires cutting back or trimming.  There are enough of these plants growing on a large enough scale that the "refuse" produced by these landscapes are actually put to use as an energy source in biofuel.  I have no clue if anyone has hypothesized this concept, but to me, I see a circular system in the works...
• Just because you are from Australia doesn't mean you have an Australian accent.
• When we (I can't remember if the speaker was referring to the Australian "we" or the American "we") came out of a financial crisis, we started focusing on the urban infrastructure, and urban renewal.  But what about ecological infrastructure?  Why are these concepts not one in the same?
• Perhaps we should require soil studies as part of every academic discipline that deals with build environments:  Architecture, urban planning, exterior design, environmental studies/science, etc.  If soil is this critical to our continued existence, why aren't more people talking about it?  What makes it so hard to sell people the idea of protecting or investing in their soils?  Is it because only scientists are the ones that are talking about it?  If this is the case, then I understand, for reasons explained above.  But if not, then what exactly is the barrier?

A short break from the bullets, to bring your attention to the title of this post.  I was working on reading my history textbook in between sessions, and a word came up that I didn't know the definition of:  ubiquitous.  I am not sure how this word could have evaded me for so long, but the fact that it has is astounding.  For those of you still wondering what it means, I will spare you the trouble of taking the thirty seconds to Google it.  

Ubiquitous:  the state of being everywhere all the time.

I think that we could learn a lot from understanding this concept fully.  In the context of cities, in our professional and personal lives, and in the way that we visualize time.  This word hits home for me because it represents all of the scribbles I have on the top of my notebooks, the half-finished sewing projects I won't get to until the semester is over, the list of "books to read" that I've been making since my senior year in high school, and the style of life which I want to avoid.  If anything, I want to learn how to be present, live fully in the moment I am in, and realize that one quality accomplishment should mean more to me than seven which didn't quite get finished.  I wish that I could say that I have lots of specializations, but the truth of the matter is, I do not.  This fact scares me quite a bit, to be honest.  Moving forward with my environmental studies degree, I think that if I cannot do one thing well, I will be a failure.  But who knows?  Perhaps these are the usual worries of a student who is about to undertake one of the biggest investments of her life.  It's a pretty big decision to make, so shouldn't I at least have some trepidation?

Two last notes:

1. Scientists do not know how to make a good powerpoint.  It's not even the presentation that's the problem, it's the visuals.  I can understand that not having grown up using the software would inhibit one's abilities, but there is something to be said about clean fonts, neutral colors, and enlarged photos.  If I could suggest adding one session for next year, it would be "How to properly convey your scientific information to the public".

2. We typically rely on examining the relationship between plant health and human health, but why not instead look at the relationship between soil health and human health?

Thank you to all of my readers for making it this far!  That was quite an undertaking.  :)