The National Parks are a living record of America's past.

Living here in the San Francisco Bay Area I marvel at the diverse culture that sprouts from our surrounding parks and open spaces. In Golden Gate Park alone you can practice fly-fishing, sail a model boat, ride a horse, play golf, kick a soccer ball, tackle rugby, or pitch a horseshoe, bocce or baseball. You can see where the buffalo roam or spin round and round on an antique carousel. Skate, bike, row a boat, play music, dance to the beat of your own drum and stop to smell the roses. Nearby, down at Ocean Beach surfers ride the waves and kids make sand castles. Stroll the promenade at Crissy Field and you’ll see people soaking up the sun on the beach, flying kites, fishing off the pier or windsurfing under the Golden Gate. Go to Fort Funston where you can run your dogs down to the beach or launch your hang glider off the cliff and soar into the sky. I can go on and on but you get the picture. And that’s just here in San Francisco! Add the Peninsula, North, South and East Bay then combine all the city, county, state and federal parks with all the regional open spaces and count your blessings. It’s been said that if you go to any neighborhood in Bay Area, there is a park or a trailhead less than a mile away. These places are calling us outside to play. And in the process they are building our communities, and in many ways defining who we are and who we want to be.

Of all the activities happening in the parks, probably the most important and rewarding is volunteering to help preserve and protect these amazing places. I urge you all to pitch in. Contact your local regional parks and open space district and see what you can do to help. It’s up to all of us to make sure these wonderful places are saved and maintained for everyone in the future.

If you've watched the show, or are reading this blog about the National Parks, the chances are you also know that filmmaker Ken Burns is about to release his next series "The National Parks: America's Best Idea." Through our role in the development and distribution of the series, KQED is collecting viewer stories about their own experiences with these hallowed places. Let us know what these marvelous open spaces mean to you by sharing your story. We’d love to hear about your favorite park, Bay Area or beyond.

Watch the National Parks Special: Bringing the Parks to the People television story online.

Sand dunes near Stovepipe Wells, in Death Valley. Photo: Craig Miller.The quietest place I've ever been was in a national park and I don't think I'll ever forget what it was like.

Now, okay, "quiet" is a somewhat subjective thing. When I lived on the upper (way upper) west side of Manhattan in the 1980s, any interval without hearing a car alarm seemed like blessed relief. Quiet can be measured, of course, with sound pressure meters. Anything below about 40 decibels is pretty darn quiet for most people's purposes.

The National Park Service (NPS) says the quietest place it has yet measured is a spot in Great Sand Dunes National Park, where Vicki McCusker, who helps oversee the natural sounds program for the Park Service, says it was "bottoming out" their meters.

I've never been there but it's hard to imagine greater quietude than an afternoon I spent in Death Valley. Coincidentally this was also on a sand dune, near Stovepipe Wells. It was also Christmas Day, which kept the tourist traffic to a minimum. It was at a point in my life when I was in desperate need of some deep introspection, so I parked my car along Highway 190 and trekked into the dunes, found an accommodating slope and sat down. Occasionally a fly (or something) would buzz by. Other than that, the loudest thing was the buzzing in my own head, which I can only hope would've been inaudible to anyone with me.

It's interesting how, when things get really quiet, our bodies try to make up for it with ringing ears and internal chaos. The noted bioacoustician Bernie Krause talks about the time he and his wife, Kat were hosting guests from New York, who literally had to leave the Krause's semi-secluded Glen Ellen "sanctuary" because the night-time quiet was creeping them out.

I asked Krause what he could draw from that. "Well, it tells me that we’re more insane than I ever thought in the first place," he mused. "I mean, we’re definitely verging on pathological.  Because it’s exactly those kinds of sounds–the urban acoustic envelope in which we enfold ourselves–that kind of urban noise that’s driving up the numbers of prescriptions for Prozac."

Surveys of national park visitors would seem to bear that out.  In the early 1990s, NPS surveyed 15,000 visitors in 39 parks, about noise issues (NPS manages 391 "units" nationwide, 58 of which are designated as "parks"). More than nine out of ten visitors surveyed cited "enjoyment of natural quiet" as a reason for visiting. This survey provided some juice for the ongoing natural sounds program in the parks.

An open question is: where does it go from here? Much of the current effort in the parks appears to be geared toward developing "air tour management plans," a response to concerns that first arose over the increasingly crowded skies above the Grand Canyon. McCusker told me that while aircraft overflights are the most pervasive noise issue across the parks, the most common complaint is probably over loud motorcycles (note to "straight-pipe" Harley owners).

Krause, who conducted a year-long project documenting soundscapes in Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park, hopes the research will also be used to develop new rules governing on-the-ground noise pollution. "If the parks can set aside places where people can go and hear the natural world as it is, at any season of the year, then that will be a really big benefit for visitors coming to the parks," he says. "Otherwise, you’re seeing the parks with the wrong soundtrack. It’s like watching Star Wars without a soundtrack."

So check out this four and a half minute “journey” I produced with Bernie Krause, founder of Wild Sanctuary. It takes you from the familiar cacophony of the urban soundscape to a serene spot in Sequoia Park.

QUEST on KQED Public Media.

Listen to the radio report, "Soundscapes of National Parks" online.

Simone Crew (left) is now a freshman at Haverford College in Pennsylvania.

Today’s episode of QUEST-TV includes a 2-minute segment that marks our first collaboration with the San Francisco spoken word presenter Youth Speaks and The Redford Center, based in Provo, Utah. For the past four years, these organizations have been putting on a contest for young spoken word artists who perform poems about environmental themes. In our first installment of QUEST-TV’s Youth Speaks Green feature, 18-year-old San Francisco poet Simone Crew performs excerpts from her poem Yasmeena, which she originally performed at this contest. You can download a copy of the complete poem here.

Through Youth Speaks Green, we’ll explore how young people in the Bay Area view the challenges of becoming green. We’ll be looking beyond clean fuels, efficient vehicles and solar panel rebates and delving instead into the personal. Crew, who is now a freshman at Haverford College in Pennsylvania, wrote the poem when she was 16 and centered it on her experiences with an eight-year-old girl called Yasmeena, whom she had babysat. Through Yasmeena’s insistent questions, Crew began to feel the weight of the responsibility to conserve the natural world for her. In an engaging play of mirrors, we as the audience get to watch Crew observing Yasmeena, as Yasmeena makes sense of the world around her.

Crew will be performing a new environmentally-themed poem at the Sundance Film Festival in January of 2010, as part of a Youth Speaks team.

In coming episodes, we hope to present you with the work of other talented young Bay Area poets in our Youth Speaks Green segments.

Watch the Youth Speaks Green television story online.

Zoloft is a popular drug used for the treatment of depression symptoms.

Depression is hardly new. The Roman physician Galen, in the second century A.D., expounded on the prevailing medical view that four bodily fluids, or humors, existed within all people but that the unique variation of these humors within people resulted in individual differences among people in their behavior and temperament. An excess of black bile, for example, indicated a melancholic personality.

Fortunately, a lot of scientific progress has been made since then in understanding depression to be an organic, brain-based medical condition that afflicts millions. In fact, an individual has a ten to fifteen percent lifetime risk of developing a major depressive episode. But as Dr. Karl Deisseroth, a Stanford neuroscientist and psychiatrist, told me during our interview for “Illuminating Depression”, “Diagnosis is a big challenge because in psychiatry, we don’t have a lab test. There’s not a blood draw that you can do as you might to check how your liver is doing or how your thyroid function is doing.” So given that the diagnosis of depression is based on clinical observation (most often done by a primary care physician), one can’t help feel that hard, empirical understanding of depression is somewhat lacking, especially when compared to diseases of other organs like the heart and lungs where tests do exist to gauge the presence of pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases.

This was the most interesting observation for me when working on this story. Imagine a medical disease that afflicts eighteen million people in the U.S. (26 million if you include Bipolar Disorder), for which more than 160 million prescriptions were filled in 2008, that is one of the leading causes of disability in the U.S., but a disease for which no definitive medical model of pathology exists. Increasingly, doctors are prescribing antidepressants to treat not just depression but a host of other medical conditions, including chronic pain and insomnia, some of which can co-occur with depression. Sure, we’ve made strides since the time of Galen’s bodily humors and the Freudian view of misplaced hostility and mourning to explain depression, but in some respects, we’re still in the dark about why some people get depression while others don’t, why some people respond to one treatment and not another, or why one person will suffer from a form of depression that is less or more severe than another person. This lack of clear, empirical understanding comes at an awful price to victims of depression, as they encounter remarks from people that tell them to “snap out of it”, implying that they somehow can control the emotional crumbling and dark ideations that accompany the disease.

The consequence of all this is that it’s incredibly tough to create effective, lasting treatments for the disease if we can’t exactly track how the disease affects not only specific regions of the brain but the activity among individual brain cells in regions that may not have even been known to play an integral role in the disease. My layperson’s view is that treating depression currently is a bit like bringing in a car to the mechanic and telling him to fix it but there’s a catch – the mechanic can’t get under the hood to observe directly what’s wrong with the car. We suspect that the problem is with the engine but good luck with opening it up and peering into its pistons. So the mechanic attempts to work on the engine but indirectly, and whatever repairs are attempted may affect the engine but they may also have unwanted effects on the car’s transmission, muffler, timing belt, etc.

Fortunately, advances in imaging techniques like two-photon microscopy and fMRI are elucidating the activity of the depressed brain, allowing the previously impenetrable forest of billions of neurons to be explored, to see their pathways altered, their branches pruned by the disease. And scientists like Philippe Goldin and Kelly Werner are compiling biomarkers like DNA and brain blood flow activity to see if those biomarkers can help predict if people suffering from anxiety and/or depression will respond more favorably to cognitive behavioral therapy than to mindfulness meditation, for example. Dr. Deisseroth is using genetically engineered, photosensitive proteins implanted into rodents’ brains to control brain activity at the level of individual neurons.

Dr. M. Bret Schneider told me during our interview, “A real cure for depression is gonna involve being able to selectively affect those portions of the brain which don’t function properly in depression… But fathoming the huge number of possibilities in each brain with every brain being a little bit different than every other one, is gonna require individualized solutions and will be a scientific feat.” I suppose that with a disease as complex as depression, where one’s individual genetic makeup can influence the kinds of side effects one may experience with an antidepressant, it’s apropos that the future of treating and eventually curing it will entail personalized medicine. Until then, let’s hope that more people bring psychiatry into the research lab to study illnesses like depression, for it’s only through the methodical rigor of science that we have the best hope for curing depression.

Watch the Illuminating Depression television story online.

An image of a bioreactor being developed by OriginOil scientists.

Today’s episode of QUEST features our 10-minute TV story about efforts to produce biofuels from algae. In 1996, when the U.S. Department of Energy concluded its 25-year research project into the potential of algae as biofuels, its report concluded that the most cost-effective way to grow algae was in open ponds. With climate change and geopolitics prompting new research into the algae-as-fuel question, some companies are pursuing the open pond route, while others are looking into closed systems such as bioreactors. In our TV story we profile OriginOil, a Los Angeles-based company developing a bioreactor that looks like a miniature Christmas tree, complete with bright, colored lights. And we interview the CEO of Aurora Biofuels, a company based in the Bay Area city of Alameda, which is re-imagining open ponds, as well as trying to create strains of algae that are ideal for fuel production. Before becoming the CEO of Aurora Biofuels, Bob Walsh worked at the oil company Shell for 25 years. Here’s an excerpt of QUEST’s March, 2009, interview with Walsh, most of which didn't make it into the TV segment.

QUEST: What excited you about algae?

BOB WALSH: I ran oil products businesses for many years and understand the cost-competitiveness and the commodity basis of it. And what excited me about algae was, A, it’s renewable. B, you're using a feed stock of carbon dioxide, which is basically free. And finally, what excited me about this company, Aurora Biofuels, was the aspect of solving it end to end, not just the biotech (end of things), but also the engineering aspects.

Q: What has algae been grown for in ponds in the past?

WALSH: Algae’s been grown in open ponds for decades. And typically it’s been done with nutraceuticals – spirulina, which many people use as a protein pill. That is grown in open ponds, but not very cost-effectively because they haven’t had to be very cost-effective. They can charge $10 per pound.

Q: What would be the difference that you would be looking for in terms of cost-effectiveness, compared to what’s been done already?

WALSH: Historically, algae were just grown in an open pond and captured carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and the sun. What we’re actually doing is injecting the CO2 we recover from a steel mill or power plant, to give the algae food. And we’ve engineered it to get better mixing, so it grows more quickly. And then finally, rather than drying the algae out, we actually do a wet extraction of the oil, which is much more cost-effective than drying it as they have historically done for proteins.

Q: So what price would you be aiming for, and what price can the algae be grown for now?

WALSH: Oil today has been around $50 per barrel. We believe we need to be competitive in the $50-60 range. And that’s what our final target is. I think oil will be $60-100 over the next 10 to 15 years.

Q: What would the algae biofuels facility of the future look like?

WALSH: You’ll situate it very close to a CO2 source – a steel mill or a power plant. It will encompass several thousand acres of barren land – because you want dry, barren land – and use salt water. And it would produce roughly 120 million gallons a year of useable fuel into the existing infrastructure.

Q: Can algae fuel actually make a contribution to our transportation needs?

WALSH: Algae can be a player. It’s going to take a lot of different solutions because of the different climates and things that you need for it. It’s also a trillion-gallon market. And so it’s not going to happen tomorrow. But certainly algae can be a 5- to 10-percent player in ten years, in the marketplace.

Watch the Algae Power television story online.

Professor Gordon Frankie of UC Berkeley was an early adopter of urban beekeeping. A couple years ago, it was all the rage in the science news world: Colony collapse disorder. Bee populations declined upwards of 30% here in California, a decline that has continued without much fanfare into 2009. While scientists continue to find new clues in the mysterious affliction, a new trend in beekeeping is emerging, which QUEST recently covered in a radio piece: urban bee farming to build biodiversity and catalog native species.

Professor Gordon Frankie of UC Berkeley was an early adopter of urban beekeeping. In the late 1990s, he started the Urban Bee Project, an experimental project to document bee populations in the Bay Area. Gordon used this data to plant a bee garden right in downtown Berkeley (how he managed to get approval of that is mystery to me). The project has catalogued over 80 species of native bees, a number expected to grow well over 100. Gordon has even used the research to create a bee-friendly garden builder.

Gordon will discuss the Urban Bee Project at the next East Bay Science Café. In addition, there are a whole host of local beekeeping organizations that offer educational events.

Native Bees: A rich natural resource in urban California gardens

When: Wednesday, September 2^nd 2009

Where: East Bay Science Café, La Pena Cultural Center, 3105 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley

Cost: FREE

Local Beekeeping Organizations

• Alameda County Beekeepers Association
• Santa Clara Valley Beekeepers Guild
• Santa Cruz Guild for Beekeepers
• Mount Diablo Beekeepers Association
• Sonoma County Beekeepers
• San Francisco Beekeepers Association
• San Mateo Bee Guild
• Marin County Beekeepers

Also, you can watch QUEST's TV story "Better Bees: Super Bee and Wild Bee" below:

QUEST on KQED Public Media.

"For every five hours of cable news, less than a minute is devoted to science" – Chris Mooney, Author of Unscientific America

Chris has been a lightning rod for controversy ever since he released the bestseller, The Republican War on Science, in 2006. Chris cites some famous stats that scientific illiteracy is increasing: 46 percent of Americans reject evolution and think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. In his new book, he points the finger at a profit driven media, science phobic politicians, and the arrogance of scientists themselves. (Chris' recent showdown with famous science blogger PZ Myers is widely documented). His main point: this gap hinders productivity and has us falling behind in global innovation.

Then there was the recent Pew survey showing a widening gap between scientists and the public on key issues of global warming, evolution, and use of animals in research. The survey also looked at scientific illiteracy using a 12 question quiz (Take the quiz yourself!) with some surprising results:

• 54% incorrectly identified electrons as bigger than atoms
• 46% thought antibiotics kills viruses as well as bacteria
• 24% failed to correctly a basic question on plate tectonics

But it isn't all doom and gloom, Chris outlines his strategy for closing that gap including sexing up science and training a new generation of science ambassadors in society at large.

Chris Mooney: Unscientific America

When: Monday, August 3^rd 630 PM – 830 PM

Where: Kellogg Auditorium, Silicon Valley Bank, 3005 Tasman Dr., Santa Clara, CA

Time: 6:30 p.m. check-in, 7 p.m. program, 8 p.m. book signing

Cost: $15 members and non-members advance. $20 members and non-members at the door, Tickets

Air conditioners are one of 23 home products soon required to be revamped in the U.S. . Photo Credit:

According to a new report released today by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, or ACEE , Americans could eliminate 158 million tons of greenhouse gas per year by 2030 – that's the equivalent of shutting down 63 large coal-fired power plants – and $123 billion, by changing the way some of our most common household appliances work.

This is old news to many of the folks at California Energy Commission , who have pushed for such changes for decades. But the real news is that these aren't just recommendations anymore. They're policy, or soon will be.

According to the ACEE, the Obama Administration plans to revamp 23 common household products – everything from battery chargers and clothes dryers to air conditioners – by requiring that manufacturers make more energy-efficient models. The ACEE report (no doubt intended to put a little wind into the White House's sails) adds to the story by calculating just what a difference those changes would collectively make.

For background, check out two of our recent Quest Radio stories, Air Conditioning Reinvented, and Let's Weatherize. You can also read the whole ACEE report, after registering (it's free) with the ACEE.

QUEST Producer Chris Bauer rides into the hunt in the back of a pick-up truck.

"Oh, we’ll get letters."

I knew going into this story that we might ruffle some feathers. But one of the things that made this story so intriguing to me is that it would bring up some questions about where people stand on what can be a pretty touchy subject.

So full disclosure – I generally side myself on the side of environmentalists, naturalists and true scientists. I think extremism one way or the other is generally not a good idea. I believe in the overwhelming scientific evidence that global climate change is happening and human behavior is the root cause. I'm pro-open space. I like clean air and water. I support the restoration of native ecosystems. I champion native plants and animals. I am against pollution, invasive species and uncontrolled urban sprawl. Some things we judge for ourselves one side or the other. Such as, I am for native song birds and against feral cats. But some other things don’t tie up into a pretty package. For example, I love natural ecosystems but I am not ready to support clear-cutting the cypress trees in The Presidio. I'm not a hunter. But I eat meat. I may feel some pangs of guilt when I see an animal shot but those feelings are rarely there when I purchase meat at the grocery store. I like my barbecue. That’s me. (If you eat meat too, check out our great Quest radio story on Low-Carbon Diets and get a preview of the letters we’ll receive regarding this story.)

So where do you stand? And what happens if your stances are on opposite sides of the fence? Perhaps you are for clean energy and also happen to care for the native bird populations? See our story "Fatal Attraction: Birds and Wind Turbines."

Sometimes these questions can prompt us to examine what is truly most important to us. This brings me to the invasive pigs. There are people who are adamantly opposed to all hunting or any animal control. I can understand and respect their opinions. But many of those same people also consider themselves pro-environment. So is the thought of shooting a pig so distasteful that you are willing to sacrifice the native flora and fauna? What happens to the indigenous fox, deer, ground squirrel or California quail? Are you willing to give up California's live oaks, wildflowers and other native species that may be directly impacted by this invasive species? You can’t always have it both ways. Anyway…something to chew on.

Oh, and by the way… We'll get letters.

Watch the Hog Wild television story online.

What is it about new beginnings that gets people all stirred up? We're not sure, but we’re definitely feeling the excitement as we launched our shiny, new 2009-2010 QUEST Science Education Institute on Saturday, May 30 at the Oakland Zoo.

For those of you who just tuned in, the QUEST Science Education Institute is KQED Education Network's year-long professional development program for Bay Area school districts. The QUEST Institute was created to provide an accessible, hands-on approach to understanding new media and technology and how it can be used in classroom teaching. Over the course of the year-long Institute, we work with teams of science educators and educational technologists from school districts to provide training and resources on using QUEST multimedia to enhance science education. The Institute is part of our commitment to enhancing 21st century skills in the science classroom and enables us to work directly with Bay Area school districts to support learning plans and align our resources with district technology integration goals.

Of course, none of these lofty goals could be achieved without a corresponding amount of enthusiasm and commitment from the Institute participants. This year's participating teams come from the Acalanes UHSD, Antioch USD, San Ramon Valley USD, Mt. Diablo USD, and Fairfield-Suisun USD. Over the course of the next year, they will be attending workshops on technology tools and resources such as Google Maps, podcasts, and Flickr. The teams will also have the opportunity to design a media and technology implementation plan that works for their district and receive ongoing support with implementing their plans.

This year's participants begin the Institute with a keen awareness of the pervasiveness of technology and the need to connect with students in new and surprising ways. As learners change the way they receive information, they must learn to communicate what they have learned more effectively in order to succeed. As QUEST Series Producer, Amy Miller, a guest speaker at the launch event described it, "We find ourselves confronted with scientific and technological changes every day, and, as media professionals, we struggle to make sense of it and present it to our audience in relevant ways. Science teachers, therefore, have a pivotal role to play in nurturing future scientists who understand the importance of communicating with audiences both within and outside their field – a skill that is just as important in the scientific profession as in any other."