Tag Archives: Stanford

Health in Asia, Talk on Hepatitis B and Liver Cancer

An Evening with Stanford’s Dr. Samuel So
Tuesday, July 24 from 5:30-7:30 PM in SF

Asia Society Northern California for a conversation on the latest on health with Dr. Samuel So who heads the Asian Liver Center at Stanford University and is an internationally recognized expert on hepatitis b, which affects 260 million people in the world (up to 100 million people in China alone) and is the major cause of liver cancer.

Stanford’s Asian Liver Center conducts translational research by which scientific research is translated into practical applications and policies to improve human health. The Asian Liver Center established a Center at Peking University in March 2012 to expand Stanford’s teaching and research opportunities in China.

Asia Society has many interesting and insightful talks, demonstrations, and discussions every month on a wide range of subjects: food, history, dance, health, trade and many more.
Northern California | Asia Society

Stanford Art Walk Tour

This is a great time of year to walk through the Stanford Campus and enjoy the artwork, architecture and scenery.

There is so much artwork, you’ll have to look at a map. There is one available at the Cantor Art Gallery, this is also a great place to start your treasure hunt (aka art walk).

Angel of Grief

Don’t miss:

  • The Angel of Grief sculpture
  • The cactus garden on the walk back to the Cantor
  • Nearby you’ll find the Stanford Mausoleum (make sure to view both front and back sphinxes)
  • The Stone River next to the Cantor Arts is a wonderful 3-D treat to walk in and around
  • The Memorial Church is beautiful and a great place for a quiet meditation (Compline on Sunday evening is worth going to enjoy). there are many concerts here, and services too.
  • You must not miss the  Papua New Guinea sculptures – near Roble and Lomita Dr. this is a bit of a walk through the campus. If it is dusk or night, make sure to bring flashlights to see the amazing statues.

Take a look at this MAP it will help you find all the beautiful sculptures, architecture and points of interest. While you are in the Student Center area, relax and have a organic frozen yogurt. Fraiche yogurt is wonderful and not so sweet as others.

Lower Polk Art Night, a Monthly free event

This Lower Polk Art Walk monthly event is different every time, but it’s always interesting and fun.  
Find out more – click the link for the map.
Here’s a map, you can sign up for their newsletter too and that will alert you to special events.
Great art, great friends, new exhibits to explore, perfect night. Often there is music playing, movable events, food and drink (sometimes $ low cost)…. another words it is a local art party.
Do I need to say anything more? Meet your friends at the Starbucks (right near the Nikko hotel) if you are going as a group and then head to some of the interesting galleries on and near Polk street. The exhibits are imaginative and wide ranging and you will never expect the different people and art you will meet.
There are plenty of great restaurants and bars in the area so you can stop and have food and drink whenever you wish. Some galleries have snacks or food for sale. Some places have gone “all out” and have specially made treats and drinks.  You’ll meet the artists and groupies, you’ll get to ask about materials, creative ch alleges and new ideas. The walk has art of all kinds, green art, recycled art, fine art, antiques, floral arrangements, visiting artists, poetry slams and movies. Be prepared for variety.
NOTE: park carefully, there are many posted signs and although most meters stop at 6pm there are others that go til later!

AND MORE Art Walks and Museum Nights: Go have an Art Attack!

SAN JOSE, South First Street -First Fridays  First Fridays is a great stroll, fun for all. It includes bars, businesses, poetry slams, yoga studios and more. It is always changing, so check for details on the link above. LINK: ART WALK MAP   All the stops along the art walk are fun, but don’t miss the Museum of Quilts and Textiles, they usually have an “Art Event” or make and take event, which is great fun! For more fun in San Jose, check this link on cultural events/places.
San Jose Museum of Art:  This museum is one of my favorite in the SF Bay Area. The exhibits (usually 2) are fantastic and usually related in some way. The museum is the “just right” size….. I can walk through it, and enjoy each exhibit. They have night events, and even comedy or other shows for  $5. It is a perfect place to visit, kids enjoy it and there always seems to be a bit of fun or whimsy that appeals to all ages. This museum is free to the employees of the museum sponsors.
*Can you get in free at other times? Call the Membership line and ask! Usually you’ll need to bring a pay stub or business card with your company name imprinted. For Wells Fargo team members I know it is free, however, it is always best to check on hours, special events and evening hours.
Stanford University Art Walk (you can schedule one) or check the MAP and make your own walk.  You can reach Stanford University by CAL TRAIN from 4th and Townsend in SF or various train stations from SF to the Palo Alto station.  The walk is pleasant and can be a great start for a “scavenger hunt” type of adventure with a group. Make sure to visit the CANTOR Art Museum on the campus, it is always free, has some evening hours and many events and new exhibits.

Stanford Report: Wind, water and sun beat other energy


The best ways to improve energy security, mitigate global warming and reduce the number of deaths caused by air pollution are blowing in the wind and rippling in the water, not growing on prairies or glowing inside nuclear power plants, says Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford.

And “clean coal,” which involves capturing carbon emissions and sequestering them in the earth, is not clean at all, he asserts.

Jacobson has conducted the first quantitative, scientific evaluation of the proposed, major, energy-related solutions by assessing not only their potential for delivering energy for electricity and vehicles, but also their impacts on global warming, human health, energy security, water supply, space requirements, wildlife, water pollution, reliability and sustainability. His findings indicate that the options that are getting the most attention are between 25 to 1,000 times more polluting than the best available options. The paper with his findings will be published in the next issue of Energy and Environmental Science but is available online now. Jacobson is also director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford.

“The energy alternatives that are good are not the ones that people have been talking about the most. And some options that have been proposed are just downright awful,” Jacobson said. “Ethanol-based biofuels will actually cause more harm to human health, wildlife, water supply and land use than current fossil fuels.” He added that ethanol may also emit more global-warming pollutants than fossil fuels, according to the latest scientific studies.

The raw energy sources that Jacobson found to be the most promising are, in order, wind, concentrated solar (the use of mirrors to heat a fluid), geothermal, tidal, solar photovoltaics (rooftop solar panels), wave and hydroelectric. He recommends against nuclear, coal with carbon capture and sequestration, corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol, which is made of prairie grass. In fact, he found cellulosic ethanol was worse than corn ethanol because it results in more air pollution, requires more land to produce and causes more damage to wildlife.

To place the various alternatives on an equal footing, Jacobson first made his comparisons among the energy sources by calculating the impacts as if each alternative alone were used to power all the vehicles in the United States, assuming only “new-technology” vehicles were being used. Such vehicles include battery electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and “flex-fuel” vehicles that could run on a high blend of ethanol called E85.

Wind was by far the most promising, Jacobson said, owing to a better-than 99 percent reduction in carbon and air pollution emissions; the consumption of less than 3 square kilometers of land for the turbine footprints to run the entire U.S. vehicle fleet (given the fleet is composed of battery-electric vehicles); the saving of about 15,000 lives per year from premature air-pollution-related deaths from vehicle exhaust in the United States; and virtually no water consumption. By contrast, corn and cellulosic ethanol will continue to cause more than 15,000 air pollution-related deaths in the country per year, Jacobson asserted.

Because the wind turbines would require a modest amount of spacing between them to allow room for the blades to spin, wind farms would occupy about 0.5 percent of all U.S. land, but this amount is more than 30 times less than that required for growing corn or grasses for ethanol. Land between turbines on wind farms would be simultaneously available as farmland or pasture or could be left as open space.

Indeed, a battery-powered U.S. vehicle fleet could be charged by 73,000 to 144,000 5-megawatt wind turbines, fewer than the 300,000 airplanes the U.S. produced during World War II and far easier to build. Additional turbines could provide electricity for other energy needs.

“There is a lot of talk among politicians that we need a massive jobs program to pull the economy out of the current recession,” Jacobson said. “Well, putting people to work building wind turbines, solar plants, geothermal plants, electric vehicles and transmission lines would not only create jobs but would also reduce costs due to health care, crop damage and climate damage from current vehicle and electric power pollution, as well as provide the world with a truly unlimited supply of clean power.”

Jacobson said that while some people are under the impression that wind and wave power are too variable to provide steady amounts of electricity, his research group has already shown in previous research that by properly coordinating the energy output from wind farms in different locations, the potential problem with variability can be overcome and a steady supply of baseline power delivered to users.

Jacobson’s research is particularly timely in light of the growing push to develop biofuels, which he calculated to be the worst of the available alternatives. In their effort to obtain a federal bailout, the Big Three Detroit automakers are increasingly touting their efforts and programs in the biofuels realm, and federal research dollars have been supporting a growing number of biofuel-research efforts.

“That is exactly the wrong place to be spending our money. Biofuels are the most damaging choice we could make in our efforts to move away from using fossil fuels,” Jacobson said. “We should be spending to promote energy technologies that cause significant reductions in carbon emissions and air-pollution mortality, not technologies that have either marginal benefits or no benefits at all”.

“Obviously, wind alone isn’t the solution,” Jacobson said. “It’s got to be a package deal, with energy also being produced by other sources such as solar, tidal, wave and geothermal power.”

During the recent presidential campaign, nuclear power and clean coal were often touted as energy solutions that should be pursued, but nuclear power and coal with carbon capture and sequestration were Jacobson’s lowest-ranked choices after biofuels. “Coal with carbon sequestration emits 60- to 110-times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy, and nuclear emits about 25-times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy,” Jacobson said. Although carbon-capture equipment reduces 85-90 percent of the carbon exhaust from a coal-fired power plant, it has no impact on the carbon resulting from the mining or transport of the coal or on the exhaust of other air pollutants. In fact, because carbon capture requires a roughly 25-percent increase in energy from the coal plant, about 25 percent more coal is needed, increasing mountaintop removal and increasing non-carbon air pollution from power plants, he said.

Nuclear power poses other risks. Jacobson said it is likely that if the United States were to move more heavily into nuclear power, then other nations would demand to be able to use that option.

“Once you have a nuclear energy facility, it’s straightforward to start refining uranium in that facility, which is what Iran is doing and Venezuela is planning to do,” Jacobson said. “The potential for terrorists to obtain a nuclear weapon or for states to develop nuclear weapons that could be used in limited regional wars will certainly increase with an increase in the number of nuclear energy facilities worldwide.” Jacobson calculated that if one small nuclear bomb exploded, the carbon emissions from the burning of a large city would be modest, but the death rate for one such event would be twice as large as the current vehicle air pollution death rate summed over 30 years.

Finally, both coal and nuclear energy plants take much longer to plan, permit and construct than do most of the other new energy sources that Jacobson’s study recommends. The result would be even more emissions from existing nuclear and coal power sources as people continue to use comparatively “dirty” electricity while waiting for the new energy sources to come online, Jacobson said.

Jacobson received no funding from any interest group, company or government agency.

Energy and vehicle options, from best to worst, according to Jacobson’s calculations:

Best to worst electric power sources:

1. Wind power 2. concentrated solar power (CSP) 3. geothermal power 4. tidal power 5. solar photovoltaics (PV) 6. wave power 7. hydroelectric power 8. a tie between nuclear power and coal with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

Best to worst vehicle options:

1. Wind-BEVs (battery electric vehicles) 2. wind-HFCVs (hydrogen fuel cell vehicles) 3.CSP-BEVs 4. geothermal-BEVs 5. tidal-BEVs 6. solar PV-BEVs 7. Wave-BEVs 8.hydroelectric-BEVs 9. a tie between nuclear-BEVs and coal-CCS-BEVs 11. corn-E85 12.cellulosic-E85.


Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles were examined only when powered by wind energy, but they could be combined with other electric power sources. Although HFCVs require about three times more energy than do BEVs (BEVs are very efficient), HFCVs are still very clean and more efficient than pure gasoline, and wind-HFCVs still resulted in the second-highest overall ranking. HFCVs have an advantage in that they can be refueled faster than can BEVs (although BEV charging is getting faster). Thus, HFCVs may be useful for long trips (more than 250 miles) while BEVs more useful for trips less than 250 miles. An ideal combination may be a BEV-HFCV hybrid.