Author: EPA.gov

During a recent visit to Harvard, I sat down with Francesca Dominici, a biostatistician and former director of the Johns Hopkins Particulate Matter Research Center.

Dominici confessed that she has spent much of her time at Harvard thus far figuring out how to transfer, store and manage all of the data that has accumulated over years of research.

How hard could it be to move data, I wondered?

Her projects at Hopkins included a national study showing hospital admissions and mortality associated with exposure to air pollution particles.

“We’re using all data on particulate matter and particulate matter composition for every single monitoring station in the United States from the first date it has been available up until 2007.”

This includes years’ worth of ambient air data from every zip code in the country.

To get information on human health effects, Dominici uses Medicare data, including “every hospitalization for every person older than 65,” amounting to over 48 million subjects.

In all, the data (which continue to grow) add up to seven terabytes, Dominici said.

How much is a terabyte? It would take 1,000, 1-gigabyte flash drives to hold a terabyte. Now, imagine 7,000 of those flash drives—and you can wrap your mind around how much data Dominici has on her hands.

As a way to cope with the mass of information, Dominici explained that it helps to pick and choose what data to work with at any give time. She compared the process to using a storage closet—where you can put away winter clothes during the summer months and take them out again when it gets cold.

“The good news… is that you don’t need to manage it dynamically, all at once,” she said.

Despite the challenges of handling and analyzing such a vast amount of information, Dominici thinks the efforts will be fruitful.

“I have high confidence in the national study because I can see real improvements in getting sharper results as more data becomes available,” she said.

One study using the data, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), showed that causes of death and hospitalization related to air pollution differed in different parts of the country. “Cardiovascular risks tended to be higher in counties located in the Eastern region of the United States,” the study reported.

As analysis continues, other questions about air pollution risks will be answered. For now though, Dominici is neck deep in data, and it seems she likes it that way.

“As a statistician, I really like to do this because I can have an impact,” she said.

“Going from seven terabytes of data to estimates that have an impact on policy… it’s very, very satisfying.”

About the Author: A student contractor with EPA’s Office of Research and Development, Becky Fried is a regular “Science Wednesday” contributor.

A couple of years ago I gave my Dad grow lights for Father’s Day. He had mentioned to me that he wanted a garden, but living in a gated community there was not the appropriate amount of space on his property to do so. He started to create an indoor garden comprised of herbs and vegetables. It has been two years now and the small garden that started in the corner of his kitchen has now overtaken the entire kitchen and living room. I love to go over to my Dad’s to eat his homemade cooking made from vegetables and fruits straight from his indoor garden.

As more people are becoming concerned about the use of pesticides on the fruits and vegetables we buy at the grocery store, organic produce has been increasing in selection. However, organic produce is usually more expensive and the energy it takes to ship the produce increases carbon emissions. In-home gardening can be a way to divert away from pesticides while being fiscally and environmentally responsible. Although the grow lights, seeds, dirt, and pots will be relatively pricey at first, the results of your garden will pay off in just a matter of a few years.

Starting an indoor garden can prove to be an excellent solution to those living in the city who do not have the adequate amount of space outside to make a garden. However, if you do have a large yard and enough space for a garden outside, having an indoor garden can be beneficial to those who would like to enjoy fresh, organic fruits, vegetables and herbs year-round. No matter the size of your house you can still enjoy the pleasures of a garden as plants can be placed almost anywhere in a house while adding to the aesthetically pleasing aspect of the newly acquired greenery.

If considering starting your own indoor garden it is important to remember that it takes time to maintain a garden. You must remember to re-pot, water, and rotate your plants appropriately. Is it really taking time out of your day though? If you don’t have an indoor garden you must still go to the store, and pick out the produce that you want. It sounds a lot easier to simply just water the plants and then pick them when they are ready to eat.

What do you grow in your indoor garden?

About the author: Nikki Reising is an intern at the Office of Children’s Health Protection. She is a sophomore studying non-profit management at Indiana University.

Have you heard about President Obama’s Open Government Directive (PDF) (81K, about PDF)? Under this plan, we’re looking for your help making EPA more transparent and finding ways for us to work with you better. The ultimate goal? Getting the best ideas for how we can meet our mission of protecting health and the environment.

I’m personally excited about this new effort because it ties in so well with many other projects that use new tools to connect with you and get you involved.  One of the first was this blog, launched in April 2008.  Since then, we’ve started Facebook fan pages and Twitter accounts, put together online discussion forums, done some live video webcasts, and launched Pick 5 for the Environment.

To get started, check out our new open government Web site, which links to many innovative projects and our social media sites.

It also shows our progress on several milestones.  The next one is to write our open government plan.  It’s due April 7, so until March 19 we’re using a special idea collection system to get your thoughts about:

• what should be in the plan
• how we should prioritize what we publish
• how to improve the quality of our information
• new ways of doing business and new tools we should be using

You can also vote and comment on other people’s ideas.

I look forward to hearing from you!

About the author: Jeffrey Levy is EPA’s Director of Web Communications.

Inspirada por el blog de mi amigo y colega, “Bajo nieve en una casa verde”, decidí enfocar este blog en el evento que ha dominado las noticias alrededor del área metropolitana de Washington esta semana, las masivas tormentas de nieve. Debido a las inclemencias del tiempo, el área ha estado virtualmente paralizada por días. Muchos sistemas escolares, negocios, y agencias gubernamentales permanecen cerrados.

Mientras permanecimos en casa por la nieve, me di cuenta cuánto dependemos de la electricidad para la diversión en el hogar. Muchos tomamos por sentado el hecho de que no podemos utilizar los televisores, las computadoras, el Internet, los juegos electrónicos, las baterías recargables, la tecnología inalámbrica sin electricidad. Como familia, redescubrimos varias formas de diversión tradicional como los juegos de mesa para pasar el tiempo. Mi pequeña decidió leer varios libros por su propia iniciativa. Una buena lección de la tormenta de nieve del 2010.

Entretanto, les quisiera dar algunos consejos para futuras tormentas de nieve y hielo. Traten de adquirir los suministros necesarios con antelación para no tener que exponerse innecesariamente a las inclemencias del tiempo. Utilicen generadores y otros enseres a base de combustión de manera adecuada. Permanezcan seguros.

I was a child when introduced to the phrase, “separating the sheep from the goats.” Although the saying has biblical roots, I typically heard it in reference to distinguishing between good and bad, or between high and low value. Recently, I’ve been thinking about it with respect to nanotechnology.

Earlier this year I participated in a public event, and we were asked: “Are nanomaterials safe?” This reasonable question comes up often, sometimes in the negative form, “Are nanomaterials dangerous?” I have begun prefacing my response by asking that we reframe the question.

This is where sheep and goats come in.

Nanoparticles taken as a large group actually seem to be a mixed collection of at least these two ruminants. We could also add cattle, bison, and the odd yak. Many particles are likely to be sheep—beneficial, benign, and obedient to our calls to form an orderly herd. Others are cattle, mostly docile except for the occasional bull who rages when provoked. The bison are the naturally produced nanoparticles, untamed but in harmony with nature. The yaks are particles like dendrimers: hairy and a bit exotic, but valuable to those who know how to use them.

Then there are the goats: particles whose particular characteristics may spell trouble for people or wildlife if not kept under control. Goats can be tamed and very useful. (I’m a big fan of goat cheese.) Yet goats, being goats, are prone to mischief. When I was a kid, I had a Nubian goat as a pet and he was a prankster, sneaking up behind me and gently butting my backside.

The reframed question, then, is not whether nanomaterials in general are safe or dangerous but rather, how we identify the goats and either keep their bad behavior in check or ban them from the barnyard altogether.

To do that, we need to learn what makes a particular nanoparticle troublesome—a goat. Do particles that look like fibers become a problem if they are long, and therefore perhaps more difficult to remove from the lung if inhaled? Are very small particles more likely than larger ones to go places we don’t want them to go (such as into cells) or will they clump together and not get very far?

These are the kinds of questions EPA’s Nanotechnology Research Program is working to address.

Not all of us grew up on farms, but we all know the importance of separating the sheep from the goats.

About the author: Jeff Morris is National Program Director for Nanotechnology in EPA’s Office of Research and Development.

Hi everyone. If you’re looking for the question of the week, it’ll be back next Monday. Our offices are closed Monday and Tuesday because of record-breaking snow, so our team wasn’t able to post it. And we’re expecting another several inches Tuesday night into Wednesday.

I’m sitting here in my dining room trying to get at least a little work done, though.  Looking around my house, I remember all the green building decisions we made when we renovated last year.  Right from the beginning, we did our best to reduce, reuse, and recycle (thanks for your good comments on that post!). Some of these choices might save us money over time, but our main motivation was that green building and home location is just the way it should be done:

• zero-VOC paint and low-VOC caulks and adhesives
• a high-efficiency Energy Star furnace (and air conditioning, for when summer returns), plus an Energy Star dishwasher to replace the original that died a month after moving in.  We kept the other appliances, and will replace them with Energy Star units as they stop working.
• Energy Star double-paned windows and doors
• light-colored roof shingles to reflect the hot summer sun
• compact fluorescent light bulbs (other than on my youngest child’s night table because she keeps breaking them)
• bamboo floors where the old floors couldn’t be saved, and refinished hardwood and parquet that could (like the appliances, why throw out stuff that works?)
• kitchen countertops made of recycled glass and bamboo
• Watersense water-efficient sinks, toilets, and showerheads
• blown foam insulation that’s keeping us nice and toasty.

We also put the old kitchen cabinets in our laundry room and basement, and donated a lot of extra materials and fixtures to a local organization that sells them again.

The house’s location is also pretty green, since I can easily walk or bike to the subway.  Our kids ride the bus and walk to school, and we’re a 10-minute walk to the library and a small commercial district with several restaurants, a drug store, and our favorite: a local ice cream shop.

Of course, sometimes it’s hard to find a home near public transit, and not every building option is available or affordable.  For example, while wood and other materials were greener, they were too expensive compared with vinyl windows.  But we did as much as we could.

We’re happy with our choices, but we enjoy discussing them, too.  What’s your favorite green feature of your home?

About the author: Jeffrey Levy is EPA’s Director of Web Communications.

For the last three weeks, I’ve been having a greenversation with my colleagues in the blogosphere on the disposal of cadmium/lead-laced toy jewelry. I was glad to see the exchange that has developed over time. The comments have compelled me to write a third blog on this issue. I’m very happy to report that since we started this conversation on the toxic toy jewelry and metal trinkets, CPSC has actually recalled some items due to their cadmium and lead content. Those are great news! Just helping to get the word out to parents so they will keep these toxic items away from their children.

However, this greenversation points to the need to further address the proper disposal of other household items that may have hazardous content—batteries, electronics, even cell phones, to name a few. The title of my blogs, “When in doubt, throw it out,” was not meant as a blanket statement for all solid waste management. There are guidelines for the proper disposal and recycling of items with hazardous waste. So, I recommend that you visit the following Web pages to obtain additional information on the important issues you mentioned so we can all work to protect the environment where we live, work, learn and play.

Here are some useful Websites for the disposal and recycling of the following products:
batteries; mercury-containing light bulb recycling; electronics; cell phones; used oil; and general household hazardous waste.

Thank you for your input. Keep it coming.

About the author: Lina Younes has been working for EPA since 2002 and chairs EPA’s Multilingual Communications Task Force. Prior to joining EPA, she was the Washington bureau chief for two Puerto Rican newspapers and she has worked for several government agencies.

Durante las pasadas tres semanas, he sostenido una conversación ambiental con mis colegas en la blogosfera sobre la disposición de la joyería infantil de juguete y baratijas de metal contaminadas con cadmio y plomo. Me alegró el intercambio que se desarrolló con el pasar del tiempo. Los comentarios me han motivado a escribir un tercer blog sobre el tema. Además, me complace poder informar que desde que comenzamos esta conversación sobre la joyería infantil y baratijas tóxicas, la Comisión para la Seguridad de los Productos de Consumo de EE.UU. ha anunciado la retirada del mercado de varios artículos por estar contaminados por cadmio y plomo. ¡Esas son fantásticas nuevas! Por la presente estamos tratando de comunicar esta información a los padres para que alejen estos artículos tóxicos de sus niños.

Sin embargo, durante esta charla ambiental se hizo claro la necesidad de abordar la disposición adecuada de otros artículos caseros que podrían tener contenido peligroso como baterías, equipo electrónicos y hasta los teléfonos celulares, entre otros. El título de mis blogs “Si tiene dudas, échelo a la basura” no representaba una declaración generalizada para atender la necesidad del manejo de desechos sólidos. Existen normas para la disposición adecuada y el reciclaje de artículos con desechos peligrosos. Por eso recomiendo que visiten las siguientes páginas Web para obtener información adicional sobre estos importantes asuntos que ustedes han mencionado para que todos podamos trabajar juntos para proteger el medio ambiente donde vivimos, trabajamos, aprendemos y jugamos.

He aquí algunos sitios Web útiles sobre la disposición y reciclaje de los siguientes productos: baterías; reciclaje de bombillas con mercurio; efectos electrónicos; teléfonos celulares; aceite usado de motor; y desechos caseros peligrosos. Gracias por su insumo. Sigan enviando sus comentarios.

Sobre la autor: Lina M. F. Younes ha trabajado en la EPA desde el 2002 y está a cargo del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Comunicaciones Multilingües. Como periodista, dirigió la oficina en Washington de dos periódicos puertorriqueños y ha laborado en varias agencias gubernamentales.

In last week’s blog “When In Doubt, Throw It Out!,”

I discussed the use of toxic metals in some toy jewelry and metal trinkets produced overseas. As the title suggested, I recommended if you were concerned over the potential toxicity and risks of these toys, the best thing to do was to dispose of these products. However, I didn’t address another legitimate concern: is it safe for the environment to simply throw these articles in the trash? Well, the answer is yes. I will explain why.

First of all, I would like to thank two individuals, Mauricio D’Achiardi and Joan, for their comments last week. They actually posed the question regarding the proper disposal of these toy trinkets. Since I didn’t have an answer, I consulted with our experts in the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. The guidance is: “Consumers can check with their local recycling facility to see if they collect these kinds of contaminated jewelry and trinkets. To find a local recycling facility, they can go to www.earth911.com . If their local recycling facility doesn’t take these articles, consumers can go ahead and throw them in the trash. Our modern landfills are made to be able to hold such contamination without leaking it into the environment.” So, we can dispose of these safely.

For more information on the disposal of waste, please visit our Website. For information on product recalls and keeping people safe in and around the home, visit the US Consumer Product Safety Commission’s Neighborhood Safety Network. And please keep those comments coming. We all can learn from this Greenversation.

About the author: Lina Younes has been working for EPA since 2002 and chairs EPA’s Multilingual Communications Task Force. Prior to joining EPA, she was the Washington bureau chief for two Puerto Rican newspapers and she has worked for several government agencies.

En el blog de la semana pasada “Si tiene dudas, échelo a la basura”, mencioné el uso de metales tóxicos en algunos juguetes y baratijas de metal producidos en el exterior. Como sugiere el título, recomendé que si usted está preocupado sobre la posible toxicidad y los riesgos de estos juguetes, lo mejor es disponer de estos productos. Sin embargo, no abordé otra preocupación legítima: ¿es seguro para el medio ambiente echar estos artículos a la basura? Bueno, la respuesta es sí. Explicaré el por qué.

Primero que todo, quisiera agradecer a dos individuos, Mauricio D’Achiardi y Joan, por sus comentarios la semana pasada. En efecto, ellos plantearon la pregunta referente a la disposición adecuada de estos artículos de juguete. Como yo no tenía la respuesta a la mano, consulté con nuestros expertos en la Oficina de Conservación de Recursos y Recuperación. He aquí los consejos que me dieron: “Los consumidores pueden consular con la instalación de reciclaje de su localidad para ver si reciben este tipo de joyería y baratijas contaminadas. Para encontrar una instalación de acopio y reciclaje, visite www.earth911.com . Si su instalación local de reciclaje no acepta estos artículos, los consumidores pueden simplemente echarlos a la basura. Nuestros vertederos municipales o rellenos sanitarios están capacitados para contener dicha contaminación sin que se filtre al medio ambiente”. Pues, ahí está. Puede disponer de estos productos con seguridad.

Para más información sobre la disposición de residuos, favor de visitar nuestra página Web. Para más información sobre productos retirados del mercado y la manera de mantener a la gente segura dentro y fuera del hogar, visite la página de la Red para la Seguridad de la Comunidad de la Comisión para la Seguridad de los Productos de Consumo de EE.UU. Y por favor, continúe enviándonos sus comentarios. Debemos continuar esta conversación ambiental, Greenversation. [blog.epa.gov ]

Sobre la autor: Lina M. F. Younes ha trabajado en la EPA desde el 2002 y está a cargo del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Comunicaciones Multilingües. Como periodista, dirigió la oficina en Washington de dos periódicos puertorriqueños y ha laborado en varias agencias gubernamentales.

Every day we make choices that affect the environment, both positively and negatively. Share your thoughts on what you think is the single most important choice you make to lessen your impact on the environment.

What’s the single most important choice you make to reduce your impact on the environment?

Each week we ask a question related to the environment. Please let us know your thoughts as comments. Feel free to respond to earlier comments or post new ideas. Previous questions.

Todos los días hacemos selecciones que afectan el medio ambiente tanto de manera positiva como negativa. Comparta sus ideas sobre lo que usted piensa es la selección más importante que ha hecho para tener un impacto menor en el medio ambiente.

¿Cuál es la selección más importante que ha elegido para reducir su impacto en el medio ambiente?

Cada semana hacemos una pregunta relacionada al medio ambiente. Por favor comparta con nosotros sus pensamientos y comentarios. Siéntase en libertad de responder a comentarios anteriores o plantear nuevas ideas. Preguntas previas.

With the latest news reports of toxic metals in toy jewelry and metal trinkets, you just wonder what is safe for children nowadays. A couple of years ago, there was great concern about lead used in children’s toys produced overseas. Now, the latest scare is due to another heavy metal—cadmium.

Why is lead in toy jewelry a concern? Exposure to lead in children remains a major environmental health problem in the United States. It’s particularly dangerous in children because it can cause serious damage to their developing brains and nervous system. It can also cause other behavior and learning problems. These hazards are also magnified in the case of children because of their behavior of taking their hands and other objects to their mouths. Children can easily put these lead based charms and trinkets into their mouths, hence the concern.

Now, we find that some manufacturers stopped using lead but turned to another heavy metal to produce these toy charms—cadmium. Exposure to this toxic metal in children and adults can have adverse effects on kidneys, lungs, and bones, even cancer.

The US Consumer Product Safety Commission denounced the use of these heavy metals in children’s products. Hopefully this will put an end to the use of toxic metals in new toys, but what do we do with some of the toy jewelry and metal trinkets our children received over the holidays? At first, I thought that only the cheapest toy jewelry were the ones at risk of having cadmium or lead. But later I found out that even some of the jewelry with brand names might have these toxic metals as well. We could have these items tested. Yet, with these red flags, the practice I usually follow is—when in doubt, throw it out!

About the author: Lina Younes has been working for EPA since 2002 and chairs EPA’s Multilingual Communications Task Force. Prior to joining EPA, she was the Washington bureau chief for two Puerto Rican newspapers and she has worked for several government agencies.

Con los últimos informes de metales tóxicos en la joyería infantil de juguete y esos amuletos de metal, uno se pregunta cuán seguros son estos artículos en la actualidad. Hace un par de años, había gran preocupación por el uso del plomo en los juguetes infantiles elaborados en el exterior. Ahora, las últimas noticias preocupantes giran en torno al uso de otro metal pesado, el cadmio.

¿Por qué es el plomo en la joyería infantil de juguete motivo de preocupación? La exposición al plomo
continúa siendo un problema de salud ambiental en Estados Unidos. Es particularmente peligroso en los niños porque puede ocasionar daños serios en sus cerebros y sistemas nerviosos. También puede ocasionar otros problemas de comportamiento y aprendizaje. Estos peligros también se magnifican en el caso de los niños debido a su comportamiento de llevarse las manos y objetos a la boca. Los niños pueden ingerir el plomo fácilmente al chupar esta joyería de juguete y amuletos, he aquí la causa de alarma.

Ahora, los últimos informes indican que algunos manufactureros han dejado de usar el plomo y han optado por otros metales pesados para la producción de estos amuletos de juguete. Este metal es el cadmio. La exposición a este metal tóxico en niños y adultos tiene efectos de salud adversos al hígado, los pulmones y huesos y también puede ocasionar cáncer.

La Comisión para la Seguridad de los Productos de Consumo de EE.UU. ha denunciado el uso de estos metales pesados en los juguetes y joyería infantil. Abrigamos las esperanzas de que eso pondrá fin al uso de metales tóxicos en nuevos juguetes, ¿qué hacemos con esos artículos de joyería infantil y amuletos de metal que nuestros niños recibieron durante las fiestas? Al principio yo pensaba que sólo la joyería infantil más barata tenía probabilidades de estar contaminada por cadmio. Luego aprendí que algunas prendas infantiles de marca podían tener metales tóxicos también. Bueno, podría inspeccionar los productos haciéndoles una prueba especial para determinar la presencia de metales pesados. Sin embargo, si tiene la preocupación, pero no quiere realizar la prueba, quizás la mejor práctica a observar es de simplemente echarlo a la basura para proteger a nuestros niños.

Sobre la autor: Lina M. F. Younes ha trabajado en la EPA desde el 2002 y está a cargo del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Comunicaciones Multilingües. Como periodista, dirigió la oficina en Washington de dos periódicos puertorriqueños y ha laborado en varias agencias gubernamentales.

Hey Pick 5’ers, it’s time again for you to share what you’ve done and how you did it. If you haven’t done it yet, Pick 5 for the Environment and then come back to comment. Today we cover action #10: Spread the word! Please share your stories as comments below.

Over the past several months I’ve done a series of Pick 5 blogs. I’ve shared with you my “Pick 5 experiences” and have encouraged you to commit to environmental action. It has been a great experience making changes in my life to benefit the environment. I’ve learned so much that I’ve wanted to share with you.

I’ve also spoken to kids of all ages about “Pick 5 for the Environment.” My neighbor’s five-year-old son asked me, “what do you mean, Pick 5 for the Environment?” I explained to him some simple steps he could take to help the environment. He was thrilled! He said, “you mean I should recycle instead of throwing everything in the kitchen trash can?” I explained to him why recycling’s important. After a couple of weeks went by, my neighbor said “I can’t believe how serious he is about this!” She said he went to school and told his teacher and friends that they are ruining the earth by throwing trash in the trash can, and that they need to recycle. Now his teacher has recycling bins in the class room. By spreading the word about the environment, you never know how far it will go. Tell a few friends to Pick 5; if they each tell their friends, in no time at all there’ll be thousands of Pick 5’ers. So spread the word!

Don’t hesitate to share your other Pick 5 tips on how you save water , commute without polluting, save electricity , reduce, reuse, recycle , test your home for radon , how do you check your local air quality, use chemicals safely , eCycle, and enjoy the outdoors safely!

Note: to ward off advertisers using our blog as a platform, we don’t allow specific product endorsements.  But feel free to suggest Web sites that review products, suggest types of products, and share your experiences using them!

About the author: Denise Owens has worked at EPA for over twenty years. She is currently working in the Office of Public Affairs in Washington, DC

As I was getting ready for work the other day, I heard a radio report that caught my attention: flying cars might become a reality in our lifetime. Yes, you read this correctly, the federal government is seriously considering several proposals to design a transportation vehicle capable of driving and flying. These flying vehicles have moved beyond the realm of science fiction. These unique vehicles could very well be produced during this new decade.

As I mentioned in one of my blog entries last summer, I’ve always been fascinated by the cartoon series, the Jetsons. When it first came out in the 1960s, the technological gadgets used in the Jetsons’ household seemed well ahead of their time. I had noted that of all the contraptions portrayed in the animated series, the only one that still was not widely used in the 21st century was the flying car. Obviously, technology could change everything in the near future.

While the federal government seems to be considering the military applications of this new transportation vehicle, I imagine that commercial applications will be considered as well. I guess it might be pricey in the beginning years, but it would be truly a step in the right direction to have a new vehicle that was completely green with zero emissions, great mileage, that could both fly and drive in the nation’s roadways. Now, I cringe at the thought of having to teach my youngest how to drive/fly this new vehicle. Yikes! She’s only eight now. Who knows what type of car she’ll be able to drive when she’s sixteen….that’s only eight years away.

About the author: Lina Younes has been working for EPA since 2002 and chairs EPA’s Multilingual Communications Task Force. Prior to joining EPA, she was the Washington bureau chief for two Puerto Rican newspapers and she has worked for several government agencies.

Mientras me preparaba para ir al trabajo los otros días, escuché un reportaje por radio que capturó mi atención: los aviones voladores podrían convertirse en una realidad durante nuestras vidas. Sí, ha leído correctamente, el gobierno federal está considerando seriamente varias propuestas para diseñar un vehículo de transporte capaz de guiar por tierra y de volar. Estos vehículos voladores se están moviendo del mundo de la ciencia ficción. Es muy probable que estos vehículos singulares serán elaborados durante esta nueva década.

Como mencioné en uno de mis blogs el verano pasado, me encantaba la serie animada de los Jetsons. Cuando la serie comenzó en los años 1960, los artefactos tecnológicos utilizados en el hogar de los Jetsons definitivamente tenían un aire futurístico. También destaqué que de todos estos enseres innovadores, el único que no era comúnmente usado en el siglo 21 era el vehículo volador. Obviamente, con los avances tecnológicos todo podría cambiar.

Mientras el gobierno federal está considerando aplicaciones militares para este nuevo vehículo de transporte, me imagino que se considerarán otras aplicaciones comerciales también. Aunque podría ser costoso al inicio, podría ser un paso en la dirección correcta para crear un nuevo vehículo completamente verde con cero emisiones, excelente rendimiento de millas por galón y con la habilidad de volar y transitar por nuestras carreteras nacionales. Eso sí, me aterra la idea de tener que enseñarle a mi hija menor cómo manejar/volar este nuevo vehículo. ¡Horror! Ella sólo tiene ocho añitos ahora. Quién sabe qué tipo de vehículo podrá conducir cuando tenga diez y seis años…sólo quedan ocho años más para descubrirlo.

Sobre la autor: Lina M. F. Younes ha trabajado en la EPA desde el 2002 y está a cargo del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Comunicaciones Multilingües. Como periodista, dirigió la oficina en Washington de dos periódicos puertorriqueños y ha laborado en varias agencias gubernamentales.