Search This Blog

Friday, November 22, 2013

Greenhouse Gas Emission in Highly Populated Countries

USE: Every human being

I write this post when I was triggered some thoughts after reading this post from SiliconIndia. I got to see the numbers from this post, but this problem is very REAL.

As a born-Indian, I visit my country ever-so-often and each time I go to India, the initial few days are a struggle between my respiratory system and the environment. The pollution in every major city is so much higher than a city in moderately populated country and now from this post, I get the number that CO2 emission has increased by 7.7 percent from the past year. Those days are the times I wonder, how are people even living here. But then the lung just gets used to the available environment and life moves on. From my perspective, this shouldn't be the case, something has to be done.

Comparing some stats from the post and other details:
Country CO2 Emission Area Sq miles (Sq Km) CO2 Emission
percent/sq mile
density/sq mile
China 27 percent 3.748 million sq miles (9.707 million km²) 7.2 x 10^-6 365
United States 14 percent 3.794 million sq miles (9.827 million km²) 3.69 x 10^-6 84
India 6 percent 1.269 million sq miles (3.288 million km²) 4.72 x 10^-6 954

The population density per sq mile was obtained from here.

I would agree that similar stats have been discussed in other posts, but my main purpose of this post was to discuss about these stats. I am considering only three countries as they are among the highest emitters of CO2.

Discussion on the above data:
China seems to be at a high threat, but as per latest news, "Consumption from renewable sources and hydropower in China grew by a quarter in 2012." This shows some good progress, although I do not have personal experience of the atmosphere in China.

From the statistics of US, it seems that the CO2 is so much more from other sources than just human beings, as on an average 84 people emit a relatively high amount of CO2.

And India, a lot of people, a lot of vehicles, a lot of CO2.

What can be done:
 Considering the huge amount of population and the need for more, what can be possibly done to solve this ever-rising problem. I believe awareness, above and more, a peer-pressure. For example, a while back, smoking had been one of the cool-factors, people were peer-pressured into smoking. And from the increasing number of lung cancer deaths led to awareness spreading of smoking as a bane and soon enough number of smokers started to reduce. Similarly, being green, should be a trend, people, kids, everybody could be peer-pressured to be green. In a way Tesla Motors is making this happen, the trend for owning a Tesla car has become a trend. (I hope they come up with their economy model soon!!)

Similarly, different ways to reduce CO2 emission, such as for example:
Each person: reduce the need for possessing machine-made goods. More machine-made goods, more factories manufacture, more CO2 emissions.
Each house: reduction in the number of vehicles per house, resorting to electric vehicles; more vehicles, more CO2 emissions. From personal experience, I am aware that most families own more than 1 vehicle, it would be a great step to make one of the vehicles electric for a start.
Each state/country: make ways to resort to renewable sources of energy (I am aware that a lot of people are already working towards this and I am making only a suggestion here :))

Finally, I conclude by saying, if all were to take this problem personal, we would start to adopt the various green ways of living.

Thank you for taking time to read the post!

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Doctor versus Doctor

USE: This post is helpful for anyone who is young and making a life/career decision and for anyone looking out for general info.

As I am on my way towards a doctoral degree in Electrical Engineering, I have always felt that Doctor of Science (PhD) is not the same as Doctor of Medicine (MD), while in most senses this is correct, from some reading/research and dutiful watching "Grey's Anatomy", I was able to conclude that both have the same value/range of difficulty depending on the path taken.

A general PhD candidate can be broadly classified as Type 1 and 2 as shown below.

Type 1 Type 2
Industry oriented  Academia oriented

The outcomes of both are slightly different. While both lead to becoming a Doctor. Type 2 is more respectful and close to a MD. But although does not pay equivalently to a full-fledged MD.

I would like to chart out the path of both types of Doctors inorder to prove my theory:
Doctor of Medicine Type 1 PhD Type 2 PhD
12 years of schooling 12 years of schooling 12 years of schooling
4 years of Undergrad (medicine
4 years of Undergrad (engg
4 years of Undergrad (engg
4 years of Medical School 2 years of Master's+3-4 years of
PhD (or 5 year dual program)
2 years of Master's+3-4 years of
PhD (or 5 year dual program)
1 year Intern + 2-4 year
Residency at a Hospital
2-3 years Researcher in an Industry 1-2 years of PostDoctoral Research
4 years of Attending
Physician (or) 2-3 years
Specialty Fellowship 
Senior Researcher Assistant Professor
Full-fledged Doctor Principal Scientist Associate Professor

The time frame for some of the positions I have not mentioned as they are completely based on performance and only approximate figures can be made.

While the path to both type of Doctor are strenuous and hard, the rewards vary differently and ofcourse the stress associated with the job are also different. The rewards and stress of a medical doctor is by far very high when compared to a PhD. Due to short of actual figures, I would not like to add approximate salary figures in this post.

As a conclusion, I think both are difficult in their own sense and ofcourse very valuable as people of this degree have a responsibility to the society to continuously work towards the betterment and should not be judged based on the commercial value they finally receive.

[PS: this post compares only the degrees mentioned above and the comments are not applied to any other degree]

Thank you for taking time to read this post and your critical views are always appreciated. 

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Smart Touring Needs

My recent road trip to a Los Angeles (LA), California, my very first visit, helped me realize the pros and cons of technology. An otherwise mundane life doesn't require our tools to be smart. LA as we know is the Hollywood hub, with tons of people working in different in small jobs just to enter Film Industry. The traffic is challenging to drive in because of the roads and especially the drivers. That is the feeling when going from city like Phoenix, where traffic is so much more organized.

Since LA is a huge city, for a person going there for the first time, requires constant suggestions to get to know places. The tripAdvisor, Yelp are some of the apps helped quite a bit. But apart from the help, there were times the suggestions led us to trouble.

On our first day, we head to the Downtown LA, Grand avenue, Olvera street (oldest street in LA). We tried to find parking and all the suggestions provided by Internet suggestions were closed because it was Saturday and most parking lots are closed. Fortunately asking around helped to find the good one.

Then battery is one huge concern for smart phones. It gets impossible to talk to people, search places around and browse all day. A fully charged smart phone dies out by mid-Evening. Existing solutions for this problem are either stationary (need to attach the phone to outlet or external battery), or bulky (a double rechargeable external battery cover).

I am aware that these problems are already out there to be solved. These seems important issues to be voiced out. "Smart phones cannot be smart if it has no life".

Thank you for taking time to read the post and your critical views are always appreciated.