Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn billions. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn billions. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Hai, 6 tháng 5, 2013

Bugged by the billions: East Coast about to see power of big numbers in coming cicada invasion

  • cicadas color.jpg

    Periodical cicadas, like these, remain underground for years before emerging into the sunlight, where they spend weeks callingfor mates, mating and laying eggs for the next generation.National Pest Management Association/Tom Myers

  • cicada.jpg

    A cicada, big, noisy bugs that climb out of the earth about every decade and a half.Kathy F. Atkinson/University of Delaware

  • 85bd67ae38ba180f310f6a706700ae3a.jpg

    A box of preserved cicadas, including emerging insects and molted exoskeletons, in storage at the Smithsonian Institution's Museum Support Center in Camp Springs, Md. on Tuesday, April 23, 2013. A brood of cicadas are expected to emerge this spring in the Washington area. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)The Associated Press

  • fd058e6438b9180f310f6a706700c667.jpg

    Gary Hevel, a research collaborator with the Dept. of Entomology at the National Museum of Natural History, holds up a preserved cicadas, a brood of which are expected to emerge this spring in the Washington area, at the Smithsonian Institution's Museum Support Center in Camp Springs, Md. on Tuesday, April 23, 2013. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)The Associated Press

  • 9a790b8a38ba180f310f6a7067004373.jpg

    Gary Hevel, a research collaborator with the Dept. of Entomology at the National Museum of Natural History, opens a case of preserved cicadas, a brood of which are expected to emerge this spring in the Washington area, from storage at the Smithsonian Institution's Museum Support Center in Camp Springs, Md. on Tuesday, April 23, 2013. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)The Associated Press

Any day now, billions of cicadas with bulging red eyes will crawl out of the earth after 17 years underground and overrun the East Coast. They will arrive in such numbers that people from North Carolina to Connecticut will be outnumbered roughly 600-to-1. Maybe more.

But ominous as that sounds - along with scientists' horror-movie name for the infestation, Brood II - they're harmless. These insects won't hurt you or other animals. At worst, they might damage a few saplings or young shrubs. Mostly they will blanket certain pockets of the region, though lots of people won't ever see them.

"It's not like these hordes of cicadas suck blood or zombify people," says May Berenbaum, a University of Illinois entomologist.

They're looking for just one thing: sex. And they've been waiting quite a long time.

'There will be some places where it's wall-to-wall cicadas.'

- University of Maryland entomologist Mike Raupp

Since 1996, this group of 1-inch bugs, in wingless nymph form, has been a few feet underground, sucking on tree roots and biding their time. They will emerge only when the ground temperature reaches precisely 64 degrees. After a few weeks up in the trees, they will die and their offspring will go underground, not to return until 2030.

"It's just an amazing accomplishment," Berenbaum says. "How can anyone not be impressed?"

And they will make a big racket, too. The noise all the male cicadas make when they sing for sex can drown out your own thoughts, and maybe even rival a rock concert. In 2004, Gene Kritsky, an entomologist at the College of Mount St. Joseph in Cincinnati, measured cicadas at 94 decibels, saying it was so loud "you don't hear planes flying overhead."

There are ordinary cicadas that come out every year around the world, but these are different. They're called magicicadas - as in magic - and are red-eyed. And these magicicadas are seen only in the eastern half of the United States, nowhere else in the world.

There are 15 U.S. broods that emerge every 13 or 17 years, so that nearly every year, some place is overrun. Last year it was a small area, mostly around the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia, West Virginia and Tennessee. Next year, two places get hit: Iowa into Illinois and Missouri; and Louisiana and Mississippi. And it's possible to live in these locations and actually never see them.

This year's invasion, Brood II, is one of the bigger ones. Several experts say that they really don't have a handle on how many cicadas are lurking underground but that 30 billion seems like a good estimate. At the Smithsonian Institution, researcher Gary Hevel thinks it may be more like 1 trillion.

Even if it's merely 30 billion, if they were lined up head to tail, they'd reach the moon and back.

"There will be some places where it's wall-to-wall cicadas," says University of Maryland entomologist Mike Raupp.

Strength in numbers is the key to cicada survival: There are so many of them that the birds can't possibly eat them all, and those that are left over are free to multiply, Raupp says.

But why only every 13 or 17 years? Some scientists think they come out in these odd cycles so that predators can't match the timing and be waiting for them in huge numbers. Another theory is that the unusual cycles ensure that different broods don't compete with each other much.

And there's the mystery of just how these bugs know it's been 17 years and time to come out, not 15 or 16 years.

"These guys have evolved several mathematically clever tricks," Raupp says. "These guys are geniuses with little tiny brains."

Past cicada invasions have seen as many as 1.5 million bugs per acre. Of course, most places along the East Coast won't be so swamped, and some places, especially in cities, may see zero, says Chris Simon of the University of Connecticut. For example, Staten Island gets this brood of cicadas, but the rest of New York City and Long Island don't, she says. The cicadas also live beneath the metro areas of Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington.

Scientists and ordinary people with a bug fetish travel to see them. Thomas Jefferson once wrote about an invasion of this very brood at Monticello, his home in Virginia.

While they stay underground, the bugs aren't asleep. They go through different growth stages and molt four times before ever getting to the surface. They are some of the world's longest-lived insects. They drink up a low-protein tree fluid called xylum, which isn't essential to the tree. Then they go aboveground, where they molt, leaving behind a crusty brown shell, and grow a half-inch bigger.

The timing of when they first come out depends purely on ground temperature. That means early May for southern areas and late May or even June for northern areas.

The males come out first - think of it as getting to the singles bar early, Raupp says. They come out first as nymphs, which are essentially wingless and silent juveniles, climb on to tree branches and molt one last time, becoming adult winged cicadas. They perch on tree branches and sing, individually or in a chorus. Then when a female comes close, the males change their song, they do a dance and mate, he explained.

The males keep mating ("That's what puts the `cad' in `cicada,'" Raupp jokes) and eventually the female lays 600 or so eggs on the tip of a branch. The offspring then dive-bomb out of the trees, bounce off the ground and eventually burrow into the earth, he says.

"It's a treacherous, precarious life," Raupp says. "But somehow they make it work."


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 4 tháng 4, 2013

Republicans estimate immigration bill could cost taxpayers billions, Rubio challenges claim

Senate Republicans estimated Thursday that the annual cost to taxpayers of legalizing illegal immigrants could be in the billions, if they use their status to apply for federal benefits from Medicaid and ObamaCare. 

Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee -- responding to a draft immigration bill that includes a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants -- estimated that the cost could total up to $40 billion in 2022, "just for Medicaid and ObamaCare." 

"The net costs would be enormous and only increase once citizenship is granted," the office of Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, top Republican on the committee, said in a statement Thursday. 

Payments from Medicaid and subsidies from the federal health care law represent just a fraction of federal government benefits that a green-card holder or U.S. citizen can apply for. 

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a key member of the "Gang of Eight" which is drafting a proposal, has stressed that he would ensure there are limits on benefits being applied to these individuals. He told Fox News in January that the first phase for them would be to get a nonimmigrant visa -- not a green card -- "and you don't qualify for any federal benefits under that. You don't get federal benefits." 

Their eligibility, though, would change once they get a green card. 

Sessions' office voiced concern Thursday that a century-old law meant to prevent immigrants from taking root in the U.S. only to live on the government dole would not be applied here. 

That law is supposed to turn away those immigrants who are likely to become a "public charge." But the statement Thursday claimed nothing in the current plan would apply to those already in the country before they are granted legal status. 

Further, numbers recently provided by the Department of Homeland Security indicated the "public charge" standard is not aggressively enforced. The department found just one case for most of fiscal 2012 where the claim was leveled at an immigrant. "However, the charge was later withdrawn," DHS reported. 

The department blamed "data entry quality" for not having complete information on how many immigrants became public charges. 

Despite widespread reports and speculation about the immigration bill being drafted, a bill has not yet been introduced. Senators are working out the details in hopes of bringing it before Congress in the coming weeks. 


View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 29 tháng 3, 2013

What to Cut: Striking subsidies could save billions

Joe Dutra has defied the trend of American confectioners and candy makers who've moved abroad to escape the U.S. government's regime of sugar subsidies. 

After moving his Kimmie Candy Company back to the United States from South Korea, he's now operating a $4 million-$5 million business in Reno, Nev. 

But, he said, "when coming back to the United States, I found out that I was paying up to 90 percent more for sugar in the last few years." 

Sugar is just one commodity whose price is hugely inflated in the United States because of what critics call an outdated system of subsidies and price supports. The subsidies take the form of direct payments to farmers that cost taxpayers billions -- as well as restrictions on imports and how much can be grown, and other regulations that raise prices. 

"It's ridiculous," said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a frequent critic of subsidies. "We're losing candy manufacturers in America because the price of sugar is four to six times higher here than it is anywhere else in the world." 

Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, called it "an old Soviet-style command and control process." 

He adds that many domestic manufacturers use different sweeteners in their products to remain competitive in light of sugar's artificially high price. "They contain high-fructose corn syrup or in some cases they contain organic sugar which will raise the price of the product because the sugar program is simply too costly," he said. 

Subsidies have their roots in the Great Depression, when drought devastated farming. But eight decades later, critics say they are grossly outdated. Government-imposed subsidies raise the price of many commodities. 

Dairy price supports cost taxpayers $1.1 billion a year. They include a quaint, but expensive, provision dating back to the 1930's called "milk marketing orders," which originally restricted how far milk could be transported from farm to market to prevent spoilage. Today, refrigerated trucking invalidates that concern. "There are fewer milk marketing orders, but they still exist," Schatz said. 

Another subsidy, on peanuts, costs taxpayers $55 million every year. Peanuts can be grown in a wide range of climates, but the government restricts their planting to a few, mostly southern, states. 

"There is no reason why peanuts can't be grown everywhere. It would certainly lower the price to consumers and taxpayers, and yet it's another example of a very small group of farmers having an oversized influence on Congress," Schatz said. 

Defenders of the subsidies make a strong case for their preservation. "Other governments are subsidizing their farmers at a much greater percentage than our government is, so we feel like, in order for our farmers to be able to compete worldwide, we need to have some government support," said Mary Kay Thatcher, of the American Farm Bureau Federation. 

Still, the cost-cutting pressures that pervade Washington nowadays may force changes to the system. 

"I think when we write that farm bill this year you will see some real changes in the way those subsidies are administered," Thatcher said. 

But if such changes occur, they'll have to surmount a formidable obstacle on Capitol Hill. Representatives from any farming region that benefits from one subsidy often vote with members from another region that profits from a different subsidy. Alone, the regional interests carry little power. Together, they wield the kind of influence that has distorted market prices for more than 80 years.


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 26 tháng 3, 2013

What to Cut: Excess federal property costing taxpayers billions

A prime example of how slowly the federal government moves is a piece of prime real estate in Washington's tony Georgetown neighborhood -- an old steam-generating plant with a spectacular view of the Potomac waterfront. 

The government-owned building was finally sold to a private developer for $19.5 million this month. But it sat there for 10 years -- off the  market and vacant -- while taxpayers footed the bill for its upkeep. 

A for-sale sign only went up the day before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform dragged General Services Administration officials into the musty structure for a hearing last summer. Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., berated a bewildered GSA official at that hearing, saying: "You can't get your job done! I don't care if it's a Republican or Democratic administration, the job is not getting done!" 

Congressional frustration may be warranted. The federal government owns or leases between 55,000 and 77,000 vacant properties. But it's impossible to tell exactly how many. No precise inventory has been kept. 

Selling them off, though, could save taxpayers between $3 billion and $8 billion a year, according to various analysts. That's nothing to scoff at as the government grapples with a mounting debt and sequester-tied spending cuts. 

"These properties could be used first to consolidate agencies that now are in leased buildings," D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton told Fox News. 

Tom Schatz, of Citizens Against Government Waste said: "This is a problem that has been identified for years, and every time someone in the White House says 'let's sell property,' the red tape is simply too much for this process." 

In 1987, amid media coverage of the nation's persistent homeless problem, Congress passed a law that said unused government properties first had to be offered to other federal agencies, then to state agencies, and, as a last resort, for use as homeless shelters before they could be put on the market. 

"We spend about 8 billion dollars a year maintaining properties that we have no use for. Now that 8 billion dollars is just thrown down the drain because we can't get past the homeless lobby to get a common-sense way to take care of their problems and also us to unload properties," Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., told Fox News. 

Former Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., notes that Congress is full of people who've never held private-sector jobs."There is nothing wrong with that. But it means they have never really been in the position of running something, of making hard decisions, of having scarce resources and having to set priorities." 

Schatz echoes that sentiment -- noting the way the government handles the excess properties is counter to common sense. "Rather than having the government get the first choice, the first choice should be to sell and then go back down the line. There are plenty of places for homeless shelters," he said. 

Legislation to require the federal government to expedite the sale of underused properties died in the last Congress. It was resurrected this year in Republican Rep. Paul Ryan's proposed budget, which the Senate voted down this month. 

But Norton has hopes Congress will begin to remedy the problem this year."The Oversight and Government Reform committee has just passed again its bill which I think has a good chance of getting all the way to the Senate," she said. 

Still, if Congress does pass a bill to sell excess properties, inventorying all of them would be a daunting undertaking given that they're spread across all government agencies.


View the original article here

What to Cut: Excess federal property costing taxpayers billions

A prime example of how slowly the federal government moves is a piece of prime real estate in Washington's tony Georgetown neighborhood -- an old steam-generating plant with a spectacular view of the Potomac waterfront. 

The government-owned building was finally sold to a private developer for $19.5 million this month. But it sat there for 10 years -- off the  market and vacant -- while taxpayers footed the bill for its upkeep. 

A for-sale sign only went up the day before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform dragged General Services Administration officials into the musty structure for a hearing last summer. Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., berated a bewildered GSA official at that hearing, saying: "You can't get your job done! I don't care if it's a Republican or Democratic administration, the job is not getting done!" 

Congressional frustration may be warranted. The federal government owns or leases between 55,000 and 77,000 vacant properties. But it's impossible to tell exactly how many. No precise inventory has been kept. 

Selling them off, though, could save taxpayers between $3 billion and $8 billion a year, according to various analysts. That's nothing to scoff at as the government grapples with a mounting debt and sequester-tied spending cuts. 

"These properties could be used first to consolidate agencies that now are in leased buildings," D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton told Fox News. 

Tom Schatz, of Citizens Against Government Waste said: "This is a problem that has been identified for years, and every time someone in the White House says 'let's sell property,' the red tape is simply too much for this process." 

In 1987, amid media coverage of the nation's persistent homeless problem, Congress passed a law that said unused government properties first had to be offered to other federal agencies, then to state agencies, and, as a last resort, for use as homeless shelters before they could be put on the market. 

"We spend about 8 billion dollars a year maintaining properties that we have no use for. Now that 8 billion dollars is just thrown down the drain because we can't get past the homeless lobby to get a common-sense way to take care of their problems and also us to unload properties," Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., told Fox News. 

Former Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., notes that Congress is full of people who've never held private-sector jobs."There is nothing wrong with that. But it means they have never really been in the position of running something, of making hard decisions, of having scarce resources and having to set priorities." 

Schatz echoes that sentiment -- noting the way the government handles the excess properties is counter to common sense. "Rather than having the government get the first choice, the first choice should be to sell and then go back down the line. There are plenty of places for homeless shelters," he said. 

Legislation to require the federal government to expedite the sale of underused properties died in the last Congress. It was resurrected this year in Republican Rep. Paul Ryan's proposed budget, which the Senate voted down this month. 

But Norton has hopes Congress will begin to remedy the problem this year."The Oversight and Government Reform committee has just passed again its bill which I think has a good chance of getting all the way to the Senate," she said. 

Still, if Congress does pass a bill to sell excess properties, inventorying all of them would be a daunting undertaking given that they're spread across all government agencies.


View the original article here