Why Scientists should NOT avoid Journalists

This is the sequel to my previous post (Why Scientists should avoid Journalists) and I recommend you read that first. If you already did, you may think I got brain washed over night. But no! There are always two sides (at least) of a story.

So, dear science colleagues, why should we not avoid journalists? The answer is hidden in the previous post. We scientists often have problems communicating. Our job is the perfect environment to happily dabble around in our muddy samples, develop hypotheses, measure, quantify, and scribble down our thoughts, without ever thinking about the outside world. Of course, it’s not really favourable behaviour, but you can get away with it, more often than not.

But the point is: For whom are you doing that research? For you own pleasure? Well, that’s OK as long as you have someone in your lab who can communicate these exciting results. Otherwise, that knowledge is lost. Communication in science is essential, but often neglected. People write awful publications, I did that too. That is something most of us have to learn. You can write good papers? But who else than the people in your own field of research know what you are doing? You think that’s not important? Then I have two questions for you:

1.)    Where do you get your funding from? (Answer: It’s usually tax-payer money)

2.)    Why do you do research? (Answer: Because you are curious and because you think its important stuff)

So why, do you think, it is not important to communicate you results to a broader audience? I can’t think of a single branch of research that would be totally unimportant to the broader public, such stuff would hardly get funded (I’m sticking my foot in my mouth right now). To say it as it is: You get paid by the public to do research that is important to the public. Now tell me again why you think it’s not important to communicate your results?

Scientist talking to random person

I know, I know, it’s hard to explain our stuff to non-scientists. But hey! What do we have science journalists for? Yes! I mean it! But you have to leave you comfort zone and do SOME communication. You don’t trust journalists? You think they will screw up your story? Well, it’s in your hands. As you are the source, you have some control. You determine which information journalists get. I know, some don’t even read the abstract of your paper before they report on it, leave alone interview you. That happens. I’m not saying you have to hug every journalist that comes around the corner. If you throw yourself in the arms of someone from the tabloids, don’t complain afterwards that they got it all wrong. Try to work together with journalists; they can help you raise your impact tremendously. That also helps with funding your next science project.

Why scientists should avoid journalists

The Royal Institution inspired a discussion on science and journalism. Why? Because scientists think journalists don't cover science correctly and journalists think scientists can't express themselves interesting enough for the public. I can only give you the scientists point view, my own, so here's the first big limitation.

Scientists write, too. They report on their work in scientific journals. Some write better than others. Most of us want to make it into "Science" or "Nature" or "Cell", at least "PNAS", then the sun will always shine and we will forever be blissfully happy. But most of us don't ever get there. Not even into the acknowledgements (no one reads them, anyways). Most of our manuscripts get published in journals with a much lower impact factor. We environmental microbiologists quite happily publish in "Environmental Microbiology" (go figure), or the ISME Journal (from the international society for microbial ecology, go figure, again), for example.

Usually, we can wrap up our stories into publication with some 10 to 20 pages, containing several tables, figures, and some 50 to 100 references (or more). When we microbial ecologists write manuscripts for microbial ecology journals, we can speak "microbial ecology", we don't have to think to hard to make ourselves understood. The editor is most likely expert in our field of research; all will be good as long as we have an interesting story.

But what happens, if we have a really exciting story to tell? When we think, we could make it into "Science" or "Nature"? The chances that the editor is a microbial ecologist are close to zero. First problem: We speak different languages. The editor may be speaking particle physics, for example. Second problem: The audience is very diverse; most people there don't speak our language, either. Third problem: We are not allowed to babble. Two page articles. That's what Nature and Science publish. Except you have the solution to save the planet, you may get more space then, but let’s assume you don't have that just yet.

Here, many scientists start to be in real pain. Because every single data point is just so very important! And this is why publishing in these journals is so tough. Most of us don't know how to extract the very best from their story and to write is so, that scientists from other fields of research understand it. Most will miss a great chance - the letter to the editor, a single page document - where they could present their case even more captivating.

You can see where I’m getting at? No? Well, let’s assume the painful data-reduction and writing-so-that-others-understand-us process succeeded and we finally got out Nature publication. Now comes a journalist, who has no idea in how much pain we were to get that thing published in Nature (NATURE, for crying out loud!), and that journalist is shrinking our story to something totally unscientific that the public may or may not understand. How depressing is that? We put so much effort in writing that damn manuscript. We re-wrote it. About fifty times! Our kids haven’t seen us for weeks; our private life is practically non-existent. And that journalist thinks she knows what she is writing about? Nope, she doesn’t! (Or he)

Installation art in my office

Luckily, most manuscripts submitted to Nature or Science never get published. No chance for journalists to write misleading but catchy head lines (see above).

Science in BBC's Sherlock & CSI Las Vegas

As usual, the following is only my opinion. Maybe you feel like throwing rotten tomatoes at me after reading this post? Good! Write a comment. I like critique!
This post is about science in TV series. I know a lot about making science, and virtually nothing about making TV series. So please don't hate me for messing around with your favorite TV shows, as I don't know better ;-)

About a million years ago, I watched the X-Files and loved it. But that was also the first time I thought 'Man! They should get a scientist to show them how to do that stuff properly!' But I'm not writing about X-Files today, I'm writing about BBC's Sherlock and CSI Las Vegas. Let's start with the latter. You have to forgive me, I only made it to the end of season 6, I just couldn't take it any more.

CSI Las Vegas: To me, this is a prime example of how science shouldn't be used in films. The show's focus is so much on these technicalities. It looks cool if you watch one episode, maybe even two, but after a whole season you may ask 'Why do almost all suspects leave semen on a crime scene?' All I can remember from CSI is the machines, the pipettes, the things-that-go-beep and for the heck of it I couldn't tell you about motives, about the characters, about the story behind it. Sorry, that's all I can say about CSI after watching A LOT of episodes. If it wouldn't have been for educational purposes, I would have stopped after season 1. The latest.

BBC's Sherlock. What brilliant entertainment! These dialogues! And Sherlock's monologues! Very funny laughing-my-head-off scenes in almost every episode. Someone please let me into Steven Moffat's brain?

The two main characters are excellently casted, each episode has such a quick pace that one could get worried about people with a pacemaker (But maybe they have a little knobby to turn heart rate higher if needed?). Great attention has been payed to Conan Doyle's work and the way it has been adapted to modern times is ingenious.

There are two things I like most about Moffat's/Gattis' Sherlock series:

1.) The new Watson is more observant than Conan Doyle's (who is as blind as a mole if you ask me). Reading the Conan Doyle's short stories gave me the impression that Sherlock only seems brilliant because Watson is so stupid.

2.) Sherlock got a much more interesting character. The 'old' Sherlock is a gentleman who lives in a unobservant world, with very defined roles for men (educated, earns money, has resposibility) and women (at home, cooks, gives birth, raises children). No wonder he's not married. He sees more than anyone else, and thats what sets him apart from the rest of humanity.
The new Sherlock is razor sharp (as the old Sherlock), but rather ignorant of people's feelings and needs (except when a crime needs to be solved). I say ignorant, as I think that he observes, but puts it aside as insignificant information. He is "The Freak" who calls himself a highly functioning sociopath (whatever that is). Much like the 'old Sherlock' he filters unwanted information out (solar system crap) and I can very much sympathize with that. Both Sherlocks are like colleagues to me, nerdy scientists that live in a world full of non-scientists (how can normal people survive like that?). You see, I love that series.

But, I must complain a little bit, and I hope Sherlock fans can forgive me. Sherlock Holmes is the World's best (and only) consulting detective. His unmatched intelligence and analytical skills are formidably shown in the series. But the science in BBC's Sherlock is rather dull (forgive me for beeing so blunt). Sherlock identifies chemical compounds (that look very much like swimming bacteria) using a high-school microscope. The lab equippment is OK, he works in a lab that could even be functional, some colourful liquids have been added, but nothing looks very interesting (to me at least).
But there are endless possibilities to make science in films look believable, beautiful, smart, and captivating. And it doesn't have to look like CSI! How much cooler could Sherlock be if he would work with lab equippment as he works with everything else: Super accurate and with lightning speed. Or if he actually had the equippment to identify chemical compounds with. The 'old Sherlock' did a lot of these funny experiments that went "caboom" and there would be a lot of modern-times-equivalents for the old-times caboom.
Anyways, I shouldn't babble too much. Just tell BBC and Hartswood films to think about getting a science advisor for season 3. If not, I will still watch it and still very much enjoy it, just like nine million other people.

PS (science nerds, get your rotten tomatoes ready now): Science in TV shows doesn't need to be correct (impact of first tomato), if you are showing fiction, but it should be entertaining! But that's exactly where a scientist can come in. Not to correct, but to stimulate your brain cells with crazy ideas!
OK, will go wash that stinky ketchup off my face now.

Climate change is one big fat lie! (me provoking, you see)

 Deutsche Fassung)

Yesterday I took part in the “Energy Day” workshop of the city of Grimma (Saxony, Germany). I was positively surprised by the great effort the city of Grimma put into developing a 150 page Climate Concept and the willingness of almost 20 representatives of the solar-, wind- and bio-power industry, farmers, city-planners, politicians, and scientists to achieve a change from conventional to renewable energies for the whole region. 
In Saxony, the traditional brown coal state of Germany, this is very big thing to do. Yet, everyone in the room wanted to take part, but I had the feeling that we were standing in our own way a little. I don’t want you to think that I have some great insights into politics, or diplomacy, or that I would know how people should behave in such a situation! On the contrary! And don’t believe for a second that this post is addressed to the people I met there. I’m addressing YOU! And your neighbour, your mayor, and greetings to all the people you do or don’t know, you can just give them that thing here to read as well.

Dear Politician. You are part of the governmental machinery. You govern us. You don’t need to be afraid of regulations, as this is your expertise. Yet, also you receive orders and have to obey laws. Sometimes, you might not really see the common sense in them. We neither. But when your regulations touch the topic of climate change and renewable energies, please stop for a moment and think. What is the ultimate goal of these regulations? Exactly! Ultimately, we have to lower our CO₂ emission to 2 tonnes per person annually. Don’t forget, we all want the same. At least all of us, who are aware of climate change. You are right, that's not so many people. Not to loose sight of the ultimate goal can sometimes be hard. I just wanted to tell you that it is not just the government’s job to safe the planet. It everyone’s job. Therefore, it would be nice, if you could keep two things in mind, when you implement or even make a new law: (1) The ultimate goal. (2) There are people that want the same, they are important! Join forces!

Dear Scientist. There is but one thing I want to tell you, but that is of utmost importance: SPEAK SO THAT PEOPLE WITHOUT A DEGREE UNDERSTAND YOU! That should be doable, don’t you think? If no one gets what you are talking about, how could anyone understand how ugly climate change is?

Dear Farmer. Life is hard on you. You work and work and work and one litre of milk costs not even one Euro. And now all these nerds come running, they want to protect the climate and they need land to put Giga watts worth of solar panels on your field and want to grow hectares and hectares of corn for fuel. That’s impossible, you say? Yes, you are right! We can’t just always want more and need more to fix our problems. But you are also a little bit wrong. You have more pull than you think. It’s not just the people that buy your products that decide about the future of agriculture. You have the greatest influence! I’m not demanding that you switch to organic farming now. (you can do that later) But one thing is very clear: We need to close cycles to survive. I mean that in an economical and philosophical way. Everything that you have to import from far away, everything that you discard, is absurd. Find another solution. Where do you want to buy your phosphorous fertilizer, when Earth’s phosphorous reserves are gone? You think, you don’t live that long to run into that problem? OK, if you are over 70, you may not. You have the power! Close the cycles! Re-cycle! That’s also cheaper.

Dear Industrialist or Economist. Nope, the answer to a weak economy or recession is NOT to produce more and to sell more. Stop telling people that only your product will make them happy and sexy.

Dear Others (I didn’t want to call you consumers): Get off the couch! Do something! Think! You are the grass roots! You are the origin of many revolutions! I don’t need to tell the former East Germans how to make things change! I know, life is hard for some, and fine as it is right now for others. So why should you change anything now? Why should you suddenly buy those ugly wrinkly dirty carrots from the organic store (they actually look normal, believe me, I was there, I bought them, I know what I’m talking about). 
You think climate change is something some nerds in lab coats came up with? And temperature fluctuations are a natural thing for our planet? You are right! Climate change happened before. There was one major climate change about 55 million years ago. Geologists proved that through studies on sedimentary rocks, but let’s not go into detail just now. 
Here is what happened: About 1500 Giga tonnes of CO₂ were emitted into the atmosphere through a natural catastrophe. Back then, the poles had no ice that could have melted. Yet, the sea level rose by several metres, everything that gets warmer gets bigger, you know. The British islands, for example, got quite tiny during this process. A lot of animals drowned or starved to death. The oceans got acidic, because all the CO₂ dissolved in the sea water, turning into carbonic acid (think of your sparkling water). Water animals and plants couldn’t tolerate that and died – mass extinction in all oceans. The new coast lines must have looked quite disgusting with all that meat rotting away. By the way, we (us humans) already released more than 500 Giga tonnes of CO₂ by now. We must find a way of NOT releasing another 750 Giga tonnes CO₂ in the next 50 years. If we don’t, we know what’s going to happen! You can’t discuss with the evidence! It is absolutely insignificant, whether the recent climate change is of natural origin or caused by us. We are putting more CO₂ into the atmosphere now. CO₂ causes climate change. Period.

You are the masses! You can move a big mountain if you want to! Fuck normality! Use your brain! Just a few examples to make your little grey cells buzz: Buy your stuff at the organic store. The organic producers are closing energy and matter cycles, the re-cycle, usually nothing gets wasted here. Re-cycle your waste. If you are building a house, use natural materials such as wood, straw, and clay. With that, you even store CO₂. Do you have any idea how much CO₂ is emitted during cement production? You can trust me, I did build with straw, wood, and clay, and I build cheaper than the ‘normal’ builders. But you will have to use your brain. Use a CO2 neutral search engine, like http://ecosia.org/. Avoid Styrofoam, it’s an environmental catastrophe. Grow your own veggies. If you don’t have a garden, use your balcony. Look at the label on the fruits you buy. Do you really need to get those pears that flew across the Atlantic? Remember: When you purchase something, you tell the producer and the merchant “There you have my money, I like what you are doing”. You think you can’t afford being environmentally friendly? Are you really sure? Actually, I just want to tell you one thing: THINK!

Dear organic store customers, climate protection freaks and eco crazy people. Thank you! Keep going, don’t give up! In the end, we will owe you big time. And don’t hate the “normals”, they’ll get it. One day. I’m sure.

Klimawandel ist doch alles Schwindel! Das sag ich nur um zu provozieren.

Gestern durfte ich als Bürgerin und Wissenschaftlerin am Energietag Grimma teilnehmen. Ich war positiv überrascht, ob der großen Bemühungen der Stadt Grimma, die ein 150 Seiten mächtiges Klimakonzept erstellt hat und der großen Bereitschaft der fast 20 Vertreter von Energiebranche, Landwirtschaft, Politik und Wissenschaft, den Ausstieg aus der Nutzung konventioneller Energien zu schaffen. In Sachsen, dem Braunkohlestaat, ist da ganz schön was zu wuppen. Trotzdem, alle wollten etwas für dieses Ziel tun, aber ich hatte das Gefühl, man steht sich selbst ein wenig im Weg. Nicht das du denkst, ich hätte Ahnung von Politik, Diplomatie oder wie sich die Leute optimal verhalten sollten. Im Gegenteil! Und glaub jetzt nicht, ich spreche nur die Leute an, die sich gestern dort zusammen gesetzt haben. Ich spreche ja dich an! Und deinen Nachbar, deinen Bürgermeister, und grüß auch alle Leute, die du nicht kennst, denen kannst du diesen Brief auch gleich in die Hand drücken.

Lieber Politiker. Du bist Teil unseres Regierungsapparates.  Du regierst uns also. Du musst keine Angst vor Regelungen haben, denn du kennst dich mit ihnen am besten aus. Auch du bekommst Vorgaben, die du einhalten musst. Manchmal mag dir der Sinn nicht ganz klar sein. Uns geht es nicht anders. Wenn es um Energiewandel und Klimaschutz geht, musst du dir überlegen, was denn das Ziel ist. Genau. Das Ziel ist, bis spätestens 2050 den pro Kopf Ausstoß von CO₂ auf 2 Tonnen pro Jahr zu senken. Wir alle wollen dasselbe! Jedenfalls alle, die sich als Klimaschützer sehen. Du hast Recht, das sind nicht so viele. Trotzdem. Das eigentliche Ziel nicht aus den Augen zu verlieren ist bestimmt manchmal schwer. Eigentlich möchte ich dir nur sagen, dass es nicht nur Aufgabe der Regierung ist die Welt zu retten, so eine große Verantwortung möchte ja keiner allein tragen müssen. Es ist unser aller Aufgabe. Darum wäre es schön, wenn du bei der Umsetzung deiner Vorgaben und auch bei der Erstellung neuer Gesetze, an zwei wichtige Dinge denkst: (1) Was ist das eigentliche Ziel? (2) Es gibt Leute, die wollen das gleiche. Die sind wichtig! Man kann sich zusammen tun!

Lieber Wissenschaftler. Dir muss ich eigentlich nur eins sagen, das ist aber enorm wichtig: DRÜCK DICH VERSTÄNDLICH AUS! Das muss ja wohl möglich sein. Wenn dich keiner versteht, der nicht mindestens einen Doktortitel hat, wer soll dann kapieren, wie hässlich der Klimawandel wird?

Liebe Landwirte. Für euch ist es schwer, denn ihr arbeitet und arbeitet und arbeitet. Am Ende kostet der Liter Milch nicht mal einen Euro. Und jetzt kommen die ganzen Klimaschützer und wollen Land für Solarparks und Raps und Mais haben, um Strom, Gas und Kraftstoff zu machen. So kann es ja wohl nicht gehen, denkt ihr. Und ihr habt Recht. Wir können nicht immer nur mehr wollen und mehr brauchen. Aber ihr habt auch ein bisschen Unrecht. Ihr sitz an einem langen Hebel, seid euch dessen bewusst! Nicht nur der, der nachher eure Produkte kauft kann bestimmen was die Zukunft der Landwirtschaft ist. Ihr selbst könnt es auch! Ich verlange nicht von euch, gleich auf Bio umzustellen. Aber werdet euch im Klaren darüber, dass wir Kreisläufe schließen müssen, um zu überleben. Das meine ich sowohl im ökonomischen Sinne, als auch im philosophischen. Alles was ihr von weit her holen müsst und alles was ihr wegwerft, ist Unsinn und muss anders gelöst werden. Wo wollt ihr denn mineralischen Phosphordünger kaufen, wenn’s den nicht mehr gibt? Schaut mal unter http://ecosia.org/ wie lange die Phosphorreserven noch reichen. Ihr habt die Macht, schließt Kreisläufe! Das ist auch billiger.

Liebe Industrielle und Ökonomen. Nein, die Lösung für schwache Konjunktur und Rezession ist nicht, mehr zu produzieren und mehr zu verkaufen. Hört auf, den Leuten vorzugaukeln, man könne nur mit eurem Produkt endgültig glücklich und sexy werden.

Lieber Rest (ich wollte euch nicht „Verbraucher“ nennen). Runter vom Sofa! Macht was! Denkt nach! Ihr seid die Graswurzeln, die haben schon ganz anderer Revolutionen gemacht. Gerade den Leipzigern brauch ich’s nicht rein reiben wie Veränderung geht! Ich weiß, das Leben ist hart für manche oder schön so wie’s gerade ist für andere, warum sollte man jetzt was verändern? Warum sollen wir jetzt alle plötzlich die kleinen dreckigen hässlich verschrumpelten Möhren aus’m Bioladen kaufen (Übrigens, die sehen ganz normal aus. Ich war da und hab die gekauft, ich weiß das!). Ihr denkt der Klimawandel ist Quatsch? Gar nicht von uns Menschen gemacht, sondern Ursache sind normale Temperaturschwankungen die auf der Erde schon immer vorkamen? Ja, da habt ihr teilweise Recht. Klimawandel gab’s schon immer. Da war mal einer vor 55 Millionen Jahren, die Geologen konnten das beweisen an Sedimentablagerungen, aber ich geh da jetzt nicht ins Detail. Also, damals war das so: Etwa 1500 Gigatonnen CO₂ wurden in einer Naturkatastrophe in unsere Atmosphäre entlassen. Damals gab’s noch kein Eis auf den Polen, das schmelzen konnte. Trotzdem sind die Ozeane um mehrere Meter angestiegen, denn was wärmer wird, dehnt sich aus. Da sind eine Menge Tiere ertrunken oder verhungert. Dann wurden die Ozeane sauer, denn das viele CO₂ in der Atmosphäre löste sich im Wasser und wurde zu Kohlensäure (denkt an eure Selters). Das hielten die Wassertiere und –pflanzen nicht aus, es gab ein Massensterben in den Ozeanen. Die Küsten sahen danach sicher nicht mehr so toll aus mit dem ganzen vergammelnden Fleisch und Fisch. Übrigens sind wir jetzt bei über 500 Gigatonnen angekommen und müssen einen Weg finden, NICHT 750 Gigatonnen CO₂ in den nächsten 50 Jahren zu produzieren. Wenn wir uns nicht ändern, wird das aber so kommen, da braucht man gar nicht zu diskutieren! Es ist VÖLLIG WURSCHT, ob es natürliche Klimaveränderungen auf der Erde gibt! Wir bringen große Mengen CO₂ in unsere Atmosphäre. CO₂ mach Klimawandel. Punkt.

Ihr seid die Massen! Ihr könnt am meisten verändern! Scheißt auf normal! Benutzt euer Gehirn! Hier nur ein paar Beispiele im die grauen Zellen anzuregen: Geht in den Bioladen, bei der Produktion von Biolebensmitteln (Demeter, Bioland, etc.) wird darauf geachtet Kreisläufe zu schließen. Die schmeißen sehr wenig oder gar nix weg, die recyceln! Recycle selbst, trenn deinen Müll. Wenn du ein Haus baust oder renovierst, benutzte natürliche Baumaterialien, wie Holz, Stroh und Lehm. Da legst du CO₂ sogar fest! Hast du eine Ahnung wie viel CO₂ bei der Zementherstellung produziert wird? Du denkst es ist zu teuer, umweltfreundlich zu sein? Du kannst mir ruhig glauben, ich hab mit Lehm und Holz gebaut und ich hab billiger gebaut. Aber man muss nachdenken! Vermeide Styropor, es ist eine Umweltkatastrophe! Wenn du Platz hast, ein Balkon reicht ja schon, baue dein eigenes Gemüse an. Schau wo das Obst, das du kaufst, herkommt. Brauchst du wirklich Birnen aus Südamerika? Denk daran, wenn du etwas kaufst, sagst du „hier hast du mein Geld, ich finde gut was du machst“. Du denkst du kannst es dir nicht leisten, denn du kannst nur das billigste kaufen? Wirklich? Eigentlich will ich dir nur eins zum Schluss sagen: Denk nach!

Liebe Bioladen-Einkäufer, Klimaschützer und verrückte Öko’s. Danke, dass es euch gibt. Macht weiter so, gebt nicht auf. Am Ende werden wir euch alles verdanken. Seid nachsichtig mit den Normalos, die lernen es auch noch. Irgendwann. Ich bin mir sicher.

Kommentare zu diesem Eintrag:

Discovering life on planet... ....Earth!

The Deep Biosphere, Earth's Second World

„The Earth supports not one, but two large realms of life; surface life fed by photosynthesis, which is familiar to all of us, and deep life, fed by chemical energy that migrate upward from deep levels in the Earth” Thomas Gold, The deep hot biosphere. PNAS 1992


Part I:

Current estimates suggest that an enormous biomass resides deep within the Earth's crust, equal to the biomass on Earth's surface (Whitman et al, 1998, PNAS). In depths of probably up to 10 km (6.2 miles) or more, an unimaginable number of microscopic organisms - Bacteria and Archaea, lead a life on the slow lane. As carbon and energy sources are scarce, these microbes have to wait, maybe tens or even hundreds of years, until they can replicate once. 

Someone once said, that we know more about the dark side of the moon than about the deep sea. Yet, compared to the deep biosphere, we know the deep sea better than the back of our own hand.

As the deep subsurface of our planet is considered to be the birth-place of life on Earth, life on other planets will more likely be found in the deep, and not on the surface.

Part II (coming soon)

Research on an industrial Megasite

Leuna is a small town in Germany (see previous post). It has long been a centre for the petro-chemical industry. In World War II, a refinery was destroyed during a bomb raid and several ten-thousand tons of petroleum components have been released into the ground. During East German Regime, other chemicals leaked into the soil, namely large amounts of MTBE, an additive for car fuel.

Here, I'll just show a few snap shots of our field trips to sample the highly contaminated groundwater ecosystem in Leuna.

Leuna, one of the least romantic places I know

The UFZ's truck with our sampling equippment arrives

"The Little One" released, a remote controlled direct-push soil-coring machine that looks like it's been made to explore Mars.

More romantic views of the petrochemical industry here

"The Little One", noisily banging steel tubing deep into the hard ground

And pulling out a sediment core, protected in a plastuic liner

A fresh sediment core, pulled from 4m depth. The black stuff is oil.

A good demonstration of the differemce between the contaminated groundwater (left, black) we pumped from wells in Leuna, and the cleaned groundwater (right, clear).