Cheese Ends, 2024-09-01

You can never have enough cheese.

 

(Picture from here.)

 

Matter has a problem.

 

We pretty much understand how nucleosynthesis up to iron happens in supernovae. Above iron there’s a phenomenon known as Coulomb repulsion, where the positive charges of positively charged nuclear protons resists inclusion of other positively charged protons. The number of protons—the atomic number—determines what element is represented by an atom. It’s the atomic number that determines where in the periodic table a given element is placed. Hydrogen’s atomic number is 1, a single proton. Helium’s is 2. Lithium’s is 3. Iron’s is 26.

 

After iron, the numbers go all the way up to Uranium (92) in nature. They may go a bit higher but those upper elements fission relatively quickly so we would never see them currently. 

 

The r-process (rapid neutron capture process) is the mechanism by which these heavier elements can be synthesized. In fact, these elements have been created in the lab and some in thermonuclear explosions. Neutron star collisions have been implicated as the source of the r-process in nature. However, there’s some doubt that such collisions are the sole source of heavier elements. Observation suggests the amount of heavier elements produced in these collisions is relatively poor. 

 

A new model suggests that a neutron star that has a red supergiant partner might have r-process capability. As the supergiant engulfs its partner, the neutron start reaches the core. This environment might be r-process friendly. Thus, the interesting matter—not that namby pamby light stuff—is created. 

 

This is an improved model in that neutron star/neutron star mergers are not common. It requires two giants both becoming neutron stars that then merge into black hole. However, supergiant binaries aren’t that uncommon and the idea that one becomes a neutron star that then is absorbed by the partner makes a lot of sense. Then, the neutron star jets start making heavy elements without a merger or collapse. 

 

That was the fun stuff. Now, I’m going to get a little political.

 

There’s a sort of “regulation is bad” mindset that is going around these days. 

 

I do not subscribe to this idea. I do believe that bad regulation is bad, just like I believe bad government is bad, bad medicine is bad, and bad marriages are bad. But if you have a bad regulation, government, medicine, or marriage that does not reflect on the institutional concept. It reflects badly on the implementation of an institution.

 

Recently, there was a massive recall of Boar’s Head products linked to a Listeria infection. Many people have gotten sick and several people have died. An investigation into the factory has produced some pretty horrifying results. Once the factory was examined, it was no surprise that’s where the infection originated. 

 

The problem here is that the FDA is underfunded and badly managed not because it is run by incompetents, but because it is bounced around as a function of politics. This is true of many of the agencies from the FAA to NASA. 

 

Boeing’s troubles with Starliner and  its aircraft are another example of regulation failure—not because the FAA didn’t do its job but because Boeing gamed the FAA system. I worked with both the FAA and NASA for some years. Their engineers and regulators were good to work with, knowledgeable, and knew their jobs. But we didn’t try to game the FAA process. Instead, we used FAA process as a tool to make our products better. Blaming the FAA is like blaming the cops when there’s a murder. Maybe the cops could have done more but they didn’t do the murder. Boeing is the expert here. If there is an engineering failure, it’s Boeing’s fault, not the FAA.

 

A good example of greed trumping good sense is the way Big Pharma works. Nowhere is this better shown than in a recent Eli Lilly decision. 

 

Eli Lilly has a popular weight-loss drug, Zepbound. It’s quite effective. They have been selling it in injectable pens for about a thousand dollars a month, if not covered by insurance. Recently, they announced they’d be selling in vials so that the patient can use their own syringes. Price? 5mg for $549. We can debate the price different of close to 50% for a delivery mechanism another time. We can even avoid debating the price of better than $6000/year for a weight loss drug.

 

However, in the past Lilly offered a “savings card” to buy a pen for $550 as a starter offer—I think of this as a sort of “the first one’s free” sort of thing. But that’s just me. 

 

At the same time, they announced the vial announcement, Lilly quietly raised that starter price to $650. In addition, another Lilly product, Mounjaro, is essentially the same drug packaged and prepared to treat type II diabetes. It also costs a thousand a month—here. In the UK it costs $485 and in Japan it costs $94. 

 

This is an example of failed regulation.

 

But it gets worse.

 

For the last forty years, courts have been instructed to defer to the expertise of regulatory bodies in lawsuits. I.e., let’s defer to the organizations that actually know something about the science behind decisions. 

 

This year SCOTUS rejected that, saying that the courts should have all power in this regard. 

 

So, we now have a regulatory process made already difficult by political interference to be bound up in courts run by judges that can barely use their phone, much less understand the intricacies of the scientific process. 

 

Boar’s Head is just the beginning.