Beer - history and production

History
Beer is one of the oldest beverages, possibly dating back to 6th millennium BCE, and is recorded in the written history of Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. The earliest known chemical evidence of beer dates to circa 3500–3100 BC. As almost any substance containing carbohydrates, namely sugar or starch, can naturally undergo fermentation, it is likely that beer-like beverages were independently invented among various cultures throughout the world.
Beer produced before the Industrial Revolution was mainly made and sold on a domestic scale, although by the 7th century CE beer was also being produced and sold by European monasteries. During the Industrial Revolution, the production of beer moved from artisanal manufacture to industrial manufacture, and domestic manufacture ceased to be significant by the end of the nineteenth century. The development of hydrometers and thermometers changed brewing because they allowed the brewer more control of the brewing process and greater knowledge of the results.

The brewing industry
Today, the brewing industry is a huge global business, consisting of several multinational companies and many thousands of smaller producers ranging from brewpubs to regional breweries. More than 133 billion liters (35 billion gallons) are sold per year — producing total global revenues of 294.5 billion dollars (147.7 billion pounds) in 2006. The industry is dominated by a few international players.
The acquisition of Miller Brewing by South African Breweries to form SAB Miller made it the second-largest brewing company in 2002.

Brewing
Beer is made by brewing. The essential stages of brewing are mashing, sparging, boiling, fermentation, and packaging. Most of these stages can be accomplished in several different ways, but the purpose of each stage is the same regardless of the method used to achieve it.

Mashing manipulates the temperature of a mixture of water and a starch source (known as mash) in order to convert starches to fermentable sugars. The mash goes through one or more stages of being raised to a desired temperature and left at the temperature for a period of time. During each of these stages, enzymes (alpha and beta amylase primarily) break down the long dextrins that are present in the mash into simpler fermentable sugars, such as glucose. The number of stages required in mashing depends on the starch source used to produce the beer. Most malted barley used today requires only a single stage.

Sparging (a.k.a. lautering) extracts the fermentable liquid, known as wort, from the mash. During sparging the mash is in a vessel known as a lauter-tun, which has a porous barrier through which wort but not grain can pass. The brewer allows the wort to flow past the porous barrier and collects the wort. The brewer also adds water to the lauter-tun and lets it flow through the mash and collects it as well. This rinses fermentable liquid from the grain in the mash and allows the brewer to gather as much of the fermentable liquid from the mash as possible. The leftover grain is not usually further used in making the beer. However in some places second or even third mashes would be performed with the not quite spent grains. Each run would produce a weaker wort and thus a weaker beer.

Boiling sterilizes the wort and increases the concentration of sugar in the wort. The wort collected from sparging is put in a kettle and boiled, usually for about one hour. During boiling, water in the wort evaporates, but the sugars and other components of the wort remain; this allows more efficient use of the starch sources in the beer. Hops are added during boiling in order to extract bitterness, flavour and aroma from them. Hops may be added at more than one point during the boil. As hops are boiled longer, they contribute more bitterness but less hop flavour and aroma to the beer.

Fermentation uses yeast to turn the sugars in wort to alcohol and carbon dioxide. During fermentation, the wort becomes beer. Once the boiled wort is cooled and in a fermenter, yeast is propagated in the wort and it is left to ferment, which requires a week to months depending on the type of yeast and strength of the beer. In addition to producing alcohol, fine particulate matter suspended in the wort settles during fermentation. Once fermentation is complete, the yeast also settles, leaving the beer clear. Fermentation is sometimes carried out in two stages, primary and secondary. Once most of the alcohol has been produced during primary fermentation, the beer is transferred to a new vessel and allowed a period of secondary fermentation. Secondary fermentation is used when the beer requires long storage before packaging or greater clarity.

Packaging, the fifth and final stage of the brewing process, prepares the beer for distribution and consumption. During packaging, beer is put into the vessel from which it will be served: a keg, cask, can or bottle. Beer is carbonated in its package, either by forcing carbon dioxide into the beer or by "natural carbonation." Naturally carbonated beers may have a small amount of fresh wort/sugar and/or yeast added to them during packaging. This causes a short period of fermentation which produces carbon dioxide.

Chimera beings

A cell biologist talks about the reality of part-human, part-animal creatures, and why his 'humanzee' patent was rejected.

Interview with Dr. Stuart A. Newman
Reprinted from the May 2005 issue of Science & Theology News. Used with permission.Eight years ago, Dr. Stuart A. Newman, a professor of cell biology and anatomy at New York Medical College, applied for a patent on a humanzee, a hypothetical creature that would be half-human and half-chimpanzee. After much delay, his application was rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In truth, Newman now says, he was only trying to make the point that we have not thought long enough - or well enough - about the biotech future that quickly is becoming our present reality.Science & Theology News' web editor Matt Donnelly asked Newman about chimeras, humanzees and whether religious people should be concerned about a proliferation of human-animal mixtures.

What is a chimera?
To biologists, a chimera is an animal that is part one kind, part another, at the cell or tissue level. This distinguishes it from a hybrid, which is a blend of two species in every cell of its body. An example of a hybrid is a mule, which is the offspring of a male donkey and female horse. Since a mule results from a fertilization event, each of its cells contains equal amounts of horse and donkey DNA.

How can one create a chimera?
A chimera can result from one of several types of procedures other than fertilization:
· Grafting tissues from one species into another at a mature stage of development. Such "xenografting," which would include transfer of pig brain or heart tissue into Parkinson's or cardiac patients, does not alter the species identity of the host, but incurs the risk of passing new viruses to the recipient, or even causing new viruses to be created.
· Grafting tissues from one species of animal into the late-stage embryo of another. While this technique can lead to extensive replacement of a specific tissue system of the recipient (it has been used, for example, to produce mice with a human immune system for AIDS research), like (i) it does not alter the species type of the host (although mice with brains consisting entirely of human cells could be produced by this method).
· Mixing cells from two or more embryos (or embryonic stem cells) of different species at early stages of development and allowing the chimeric embryos to develop to later stages, or to full term. Unlike (i) and (ii), this "embryo chimera" technique can produce an animal of uncertain species identity, since every organ can potentially have any proportion of cells of the different species types. "Geeps" were first produced in this fashion in the 1980s from goat and sheep embryos.
Most people - other than committed animal rights advocates - will accept the chimeras of (i), and (ii) if the recipient embryo is not human. Many people are disquieted by the embryo chimeras of (iii), even if applied only to nonhuman animals. Most people would have a problem with (iii) if human embryo cells are part of the mixture.

Why did you apply for a patent on a humanzee?
Eight years ago, when the application was filed, no one had yet produced a human-nonhuman embryo chimera, but it was clear to me that it was possible to do so. Such entities could have practical uses. For example, chimeric embryos can be used by biologists to study the properties of human embryonic stem cells, as is now occurring in several laboratories and was endorsed by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in March. Chimeric full-term animals - part-human, part-pig, for instance - could serve as sources for transplantable organs or subjects for pharmaceutical drug evaluation not permitted with actual humans.
In discussions in the mid-1990s with economist and biotechnology critic Jeremy Rifkin, I came up with the idea of formulating an invention that was novel, technically feasible, useful, potentially profitable, but in violation of most people's views of appropriate uses of this technology. By applying for a patent on the humanzee, humouse, and other part-human embryos and animals, we hoped to alert the general public to the need for regulations and restrictions in this area.

Why wasn't the patent granted?
I did not intend to produce these entities, nor does the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) require that an inventor provide a prototype. Nonetheless, the PTO recently forwarded a final rejection of the part-human chimera. Although the PTO has been permitted since a Supreme Court decision in 1980 to issue patents on living organisms, a major ground for their rejection of my patent was their claim to have no guidance from Congress as to how "human" an organism can be before it is not patentable by the 13th Amendment's prohibition of slavery.

Is the biotech revolution an indicator of human progress or human folly?
Like every human activity, biotechnology is open to wise and foolish uses. The profit motive. coupled with an uncritical acceptance of the notion that new technology is the main way to human advancement, often leads to hype and incautious applications. In fact, existing technologies - sanitation, keeping water and air unpolluted, enabling poor people to eat enough and well-off people not too much, providing birth control and maternal and infant health services - would save more lives over the coming century than all foreseeable biotechnological applications.

What will be possible for biotech in 20 years? 50? 100?
In 20 years: New drugs for AIDS, cancer and infectious diseases. Therapeutic cells and tissues for spinal cord injury and certain other health impairments.
In 50 and 100 years: I hope for more along the same lines. I fear part-human organ donors, Huxley's Brave New World of custom-designed people and failed experiments, special-purpose humanoids and no more traditional, unengineered food crops.

How can religious people help inform the dialogue on the uses of biotechnology?
Religious and modern secular culture have a shared history and have contributed to a common legacy of respect for the natural world and the value of the human individual. This suggests that people across the spectrum of belief can work together to resist the negative prospects of biotechnology.
Secularist critics of these technologies recognize the value of an unengineered nature, but do not base this on a belief in a supernatural creator nor on a denial of the facts of organic evolution. They see perils in engineering human embryos, but do not consider this to be a warrant to restrict women's reproductive autonomy. Religion has been a repository of many of these values during periods when social and economic agendas have ignored them.
Religious people, in my view, should welcome the fact that these precepts are increasingly informing the discourse around technology and individual autonomy, and encourage the secularist critique. This would not be fostered by seeking, as some are doing, to turn back the clock on science and social progress by using the political process to impose a particular metaphysics on public life.

GLOBAL WARMING

The Supreme Court ordered the federal government today to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars. In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars. Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the landmark environmental law, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion. The case is Massachusetts v. EPA, 05-1120.Greenhouse gases, flowing into the atmosphere and oceans at an unprecedented rate, are leading to larger extreme climatic events, rising sea levels and other marked ecological changes.The politics of global warming have changed dramatically since the court agreed last year to hear its first global warming case. Business leaders are saying they are increasingly open to congressional action to reduce greenhouse gases emissions, of which carbon dioxide is the largest. Carbon dioxide is produced when fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas are burned.The court had three questions before it.
Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision?
Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases?
Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?
The court said yes to the first two questions. On the third, it ordered EPA to re-evaluate its contention it has the discretion not to regulate tailpipe emissions. The court said the agency has so far provided a "laundry list" of reasons that include foreign policy considerations. The majority said the agency must tie its rationale more closely to the Clean Air Act.The decision also is expected to boost California's prospects for gaining EPA approval of its own program to limit tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. Federal law considers the state a laboratory on environmental issues and gives California the right to seek approval of standards that are stricter than national norms.

California's Breakthrough on Global Warming Could Have a Major Impact on Policy in Washington

August 30, 2006
Governor Schwarzenegger has embraced a cap on vehicle and industry emissions as a way to make California a trendsetter in fighting global warming. California's Global Warming Solutions Act aims to cut emissions to 1990 levels, or around 25 percent, by 2020 with an enforceable cap and mandatory reporting for top polluters.

California's breakthrough on global warming could have a major impact on policy in Washington. The nation's most populous state is the world's 12th-largest emitter of greenhouse gases and could suffer dire consequences if global temperatures increase only a few degrees. California is the world's 6th-largest economy.
Governor Schwarzenegger in the breakthrough pushed for a market-based system that will eventually give companies tools to meet emissions targets, like carbon credit trading.
National Submissions to the U.N. Climate Secretariat in Bonn 2005

Most of the rise in greenhouse gases was caused by a 1.7 percent gain in emissions in the United States, the world's biggest source of greenhouse gases, to a record 7.07 billion metric tons. Emissions in the European Union and Canada also rose while Japan's dipped.

Most Industrialized nations except the United States and Australia have ratified Kyoto, which obliges an overall cut in emissions of at least 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12 with a shift to cleaner energies such as wind and solar power.

Kyoto is meant as a tiny first step by rich nations to slow global warming that many scientists say could spur more heat waves, droughts, floods, more powerful storms and swamp coastal areas by melting ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland.

Things you can do today to reduce Global Warming

There are many things you can do in your daily life that can have an effect on your immediate surrounding, and on places as far away as Antarctica. Here is a list of things that you can do to make a difference.

There are many things you can do today to reduce your own adding to on this problem!

Tropical Tree Growth Slowed
Other big changes are being monitored in the tropics, too.
Data on tree growth, tropical air temperatures and CO2 readings collected over 16 years indicate that a warming climate may cause the tropical forests to give off more carbon dioxide than they take up.
This would upset the common belief that tropical forests are always a counterbalance to carbon, taking huge amounts out of the atmosphere.
The study, by Deborah and David Clark of the La Selva Biological Station in Costa Rica, and Charles Keeling and Stephen Piper of the Scripps Institution, reports that rainforest trees grow much more slowly in warmer night time temperatures, which is a hallmark of climate change in the tropics.

Tropical Tree Charles Keeling
Landscaping Your Home for Energy EfficiencyIn Winter, by maximizing solar heating while deflecting winds away from your home; and in Summer by maximizing shading while funnelling breezes toward your home.

Buy a Hybrid Car
The average driver could save 16,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $3,750 per year driving a hybrid.

Buy a Fuel Efficient Car

Getting a few extra miles per gallon makes a big difference.
Save thousands of lbs. of carbon dioxide and a lot of money per year.

Carpool When You Can
Own a big vehicle? Carpooling with friends and co-workers saves fuel.
Save 790 lbs. of carbon dioxide and hundreds of dollars per year.

Inflate Your Tires
Keep the tires on your car adequately inflated.
Save 250 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $840 per year.

Change Your Air Filter
Check your car's air filter monthly.
Save 800 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $130 per year.

Reduce Garbage
Buy products with less packaging and recycle paper, plastic and glass.
Save 2,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide per year.
Composting helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the number of trips trucks must make to the landfill as well as the amount of methane released by our landfills.

Use Recycled Paper
Make sure your printer paper is 100% post consumer recycled paper.
Save 5 lbs. of carbon dioxide per ream of paper.

Buy Minimally Packaged Goods
Less packaging could reduce your garbage by about 10%.
Save 1,200 pounds of carbon dioxide and $1,000 per year.

Unplug Un-used Electronics
Even when electronic devices are turned off, they use energy.
Save over 1,000 lbs of carbon dioxide and $150 per year.

Plant a Tree
Trees provide a microclimate and sustained moisture for you.
Trees suck up carbon dioxide and make clean air for us to breath.
Save 2,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide per year

A modest proposal

[...] I am assured by our merchants, that a boy or a girl before twelve years old is no salable commodity; and even when they come to this age they will not yield above three pounds, or three pounds and half-a-crown at most on the exchange; which cannot turn to account either to the parents or kingdom, the charge of nutriment and rags having been at least four times that value.
I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection. I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.
I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that of the hundred and twenty thousand children already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one-fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or swine; and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in the sale to the persons of quality and fortune through the kingdom; always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

Candidates for Shakespeare

Mark Twain said Shakespeare was not written by Shakespeare but by someone else of the same name. Another humourist believes that “Bacon supplied the plots, Oxford the poetry and Shakespeare the jokes!”
In Shakespeare’s canon, in his Sonnets, in his two narrative poems, say sensitive critics, it is possible to hear many voices and detect many minds. These ‘contributions’ encompass many levels of knowledge – from the lower and base to the higher and finest, the human, the universal, the divine.
That may be just fanciful: the mechanics of mind mean we often hear what we want to hear, and one man’s ego’s delusions are another’s arguments against. Quite a few areas of his plays contain uneven writing, poor writing, hurried writing – read into all that what you may, but undoubtedly, the talent and genius that produced 36 plays in 25 or so years surely had its off-days.
He was writing, maybe collaborating for the stage, for his acting troupe, and not for posterity: it must have been a pressure-cauldron what with researching and writing, memorising, acting and ‘directing’ , meeting deadlines, and of course never forgetting his interests in ‘business’ as he steadily gathered wealth.
So many different names have been claimed serious contenders as Author of Shakespeare’s Works... and one critical giant in today’s literary world of Shakespeareana has confessed, just a year or two ago, that after decades of study and writing and teaching, still “I find the enigma insoluble”.
Let’s explore just a few names of those whom many see as “the real Shakespeare” and determine why the Mystery seems as dense as ever.

Francis Bacon Born into aristocracy and who eventually achieved office under Elizabeth and high office under James 1

Edward de Vere 17th Earl of Oxford, another of high aristocratic line, who was well educated, poet and playmaker

Christopher Marlowe Shakespeare’s contemporary playwright, equally revered but who died/did not die? too early

William Stanley 6th Earl of Derby, was well educated and well travelled and had knowledge of literature and theatre

Roger Manners 5th Earl of Rutland, well educated and well travelled, was young for Shakespeare? but knew Denmark well

Mary Sidney Herbert Countess of Pembroke, poetess with equal talent as patroness of many leading poets and writers (And, as an example of the “other 40” as claimants, there has been, in recent years, a persuasive argument made for Sir Edward Dyer as the hidden Shakespeare. The flaw, again, as with de Vere, is that he died early, in 1607).

(And, as an example of the “other 40” as claimants, there has been, in recent years, a persuasive argument made for Sir Edward Dyer as the hidden Shakespeare. The flaw, again, as with de Vere, is that he died early, in 1607).

Also have a look at this site:

http://home.eol.ca/~cumulus/Shakespeare/index.htm