Spinach crises

Difficult to imagine a world where spinach is bad for you. Goes against every cartoon principle of good nutrition created since the world began.

Popeye would be so ashamed.

(Note: Sorry for the long hiatus in blogging. I have been working in the mountains all summer. No Internet hookup. Have to figure out a remedy for that problem.)

Marriage amendment vote fails

Another attempt at considering an amendment to the US Constitution failed in the House vote.

The amendment, just like its predecessor, sought to define marriage as existing only between a man and a woman and was a priority for many family-values groups in and out of the Beltway.

This was the third vote in the American Values Agenda, which House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) introduced last month to minimal fanfare. After the amendment fell short yesterday, the Speaker criticized Democrats who opposed the measure and said a majority of Americans support the ban.

“Be assured that this issue is not over and that we will continue to send a message to the American people that preserving and protecting marriage is a priority,” Hastert said in a statement.

House Democrats condemned the marriage vote as a partisan political maneuver after the Senate rejected a similar amendment on a procedural vote last month that prevented leaders from bringing it to a vote.

A lot of the comments I see considering this issue seem to miss the real point. The underlying issue is a semantic question: What does “marriage” mean?

The Family Proclamation answers this, succinctly and unequivocally. I believe the official church interest in this matter is driven by prophetic inspiration, which forsees a developing crises involving of much greater scope than concerns about “alternative” fringe interests.

The final clause of the Proclamation is clearly politically directed, recognizing that legally defining marriage is rightfully a political issue, notwithstanding the sophistry of those who wish to simply disappear the problem by asserting that it is not.

LDS Church leaders urged public support from members in a letter sent to US Church units, to receive a mixed political reaction from supporters and detractors.

Some have suggested that from an LDS perspective, forcing others by law to live by correct principles is what Satan tried to impose. As I understand it, the proposal by Lucifer was that we would not have the option to exercise our own volition. He would dictate our actions. This arrangement would have had little in common with human government and laws which attempt to direct the choices we make under human agency. Under “Satan’s Plan”, there would be no choices.

We are instructed that all beings are endowed with fundamental insight into what constitutes the basis for morality. As moral beings it is our obligation to acknowledge that insight, and to attempt to codify it into a government structure and a legal system that reflect a positive disposition toward things which are “good” and a negative posture toward things which are “bad”. That our laws are an imperfect reflection of the ideal is axiomatic and acceptable, as long as our collective voice agrees that we are pointed in the right direction.

This is the real basis for the “definition of marriage” controversy. Now we experience discord in discussion of these issues because minority interests object to general rules which frame an advantage for others, but fail to address their specific minority concerns. Of course the ideal would be to implement laws which give no unfair preference to any single group, but there appears to be no way to serve that ideal perfectly. The acceptable compromise has long been that general rules which best serve the greatest number should prevail.

To propose to discard rules to which any minority finds marginal objection falls down the slippery slope toward anarchy.

The other day I listened to some ideas from a college student about the sanctity of room-mate relationships, as a strange parallel to the "gay marriage" rationale. It made me laugh. I have actually been campaigning to gain legal sanction for my loving relationship with my 1995 Toyota 4-Runner. For some reason, most refuse to take me seriously. ;-)

I agree that any focus on “gay” interests in considering this issue is off base, even to the point of being ridiculous. The attendent arguments are subterfuge to sidestep the most substantive question regarding the protection of the cultural definition of marriage, which affects vastly greater numbers than any “gay” actions ever will.

Perhaps it would be an acceptable (and infinitely more entertaining) solution, to designate a new government office regulating “gay” interests. Let us create an entire Federal bureaucracy exclusively for serving self-designated “gays”. It would prove once and for all that there aren’t really enough of them to warrant such a fuss.

Again, in my perception all of the discussion of peripheral issues effectively bypasses the vital point.

Perhaps it is more appealing for people to ignore the danger to real marriage, the issue that more directly concerns the vast majority, and instead focus on fringe, virtually inconsequential issues. Like whether “gays” are as good as normal people. Or whether polygamy should be legal.

In proper perspective, these are doubtless legitimate concerns, but should hardly rightfully occupy the top-of-the-list priority for the majority of us.

Very few will ever suffer any negative repercussions if the questions surrounding “gays” are never settled. This thread unravels into the surreal. As one who aspires to be a true disciple in the restored gospel, I try my best to understand direct statements from the First Presidency and to follow their counsel. Ideas forwarded by some in this discussion have thoroughly confused me. I cannot see how such thinking can possibly reconcile with the intent of the official statement.

In this context I can see how President Hinckley gets the impression that things might be as bad today as in the evil society of Sodom and Gommorah. While the Lord’s spokesman warns us that the traditional family is under heavy attack, some of us respond by hoping for more fully funded social welfare programs. The damage that accrues from problems with conventional marriages negatively impacts so many countless lives. As the problems multiply it becomes progressively more rare to find a “normal” family untroubled by problems with conventional marriage. Many of these problems are obviously inventions of our contemporary culture, and we could presumably discover effective means to correct them, if we only tried. Yet we are always distracted from the task by hand-wringing about “gays”.

I have wondered if just the open discussion of such trivia perhaps serves a bit of latent prurient interest.

(Speaking first for myself, of course. ;-)

Further discussion of BYU actions against "gay" protesters demonstrating on campus here and here.


I would observe that although it might be so inferred from certain comments on the internet, I would suppose that neither BYU nor the church has any independent civil authority to arrest protesters, or to so act in any other matters under the jurisdiction of civil laws. Offenders would be arrested by law enforcement officers, and answerable for legal violations directly to officers of the court, not BYU staff or officials.

Strangely, we also find homosexual apologists within the church actually looking to the Book of Mormon for proof-texts to represent the righteousness of accommodating homosexual activist demands. It makes little sense -- would we argue that because there is no Book of Mormon passage which explicitly forbids same-sex marriage, then it should be okay?

Indeed, as far as I know, there is no specific mention of proscriptions against homosexuality in the Book of Mormon, but there is explicit recognition of strict cultural observance of the Law of Moses. The Brass Plates apparently contained texts similar to our Old Testament, which offers condemnation for all kinds of sexual perversions in the most specific and unequivocal terms imaginable..

This Old Testament passage characterizes the law under which Book of Mormon society operated.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:

And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. (Leviticus 18:22-25)

I strongly suspect no specifics were ever mentioned explicitly in the abridged histories of the Book of Mormon because the editors considered the topic of such abominations too disgusting and degrading to mention. Because they lived with and accepted this law, they already recognized how evil and awful the consequences of sexual immorality, therefore it needed no further elaboration.

Defenders of sexual deviance are ever wont to point out that such perversions have ancient historical roots and have existed in all societies from the beginning of time. This assertion, even if true, hardly constitutes a rational defense or justification for evil practices.

Men and women...

Let me enthrall you with a few trivial incosequential but true factoids about men and women...

Women's hearts beat faster than men's.

Proportional to their weight, men are stronger than horses.

Men get hiccups more often than women.

Men can read smaller print than women; women can hear better.

A bolt of lightning...

Lightning forks across the sky today, thunder rumbles through the nearby canyons.

Read some interesting notes about lightning here.

Are you worried about being struck during a lightning storm? Consider what might happen to swimmers in the water.

Current from a lightning strike will follow the path of least resistance within the area of potential to ground. A human swimmer in open water would probably not intersect such a low-resistance path, except in rare circumstances.

Not so with a person in the bathtub of water. Plumbing fixtures in houses tend to be good conductors of electricity, and might carry electrical potential right down to ya! If you happen to be right in the way, some of the current will pass through you. (Electrifying thought!)

But the bottom line is, the path of a lightning strike is impossible to predict -- no matter where you are standing.

A number of years ago, I was in the middle of a brief but violent thundershower while we were boating on Lake Havasu. In anticipation of strong winds and big waves, my dad and I anchored our boat in deep water offshore. When the storm hit, there were numerous lightning strikes all around us--it literally lit up the sky for a period of half an hour.

However, as far as I could tell, most of the strikes hit on the sand dunes and hills around the lake. Few of them hit the water. I did not spot any dead fish.

The group of our young scouts were not as prudent in their choice of ground to weather the storm. Several of them could be seen scampering across the tops of nearby dunes, with bolts of lightning detonating all around them -- one of even pausing to water the weeds, in defiance or ignorance, or just responding to the urgency of the moment, I cannot tell. Though we thought they looked like prime targets for flash-barbeque, amidst the all the roaring and flashing, none of the scouts were harmed.

I understand this capriciousness of lightning is presumed to be due to the localized accumulation of electrical potential that causes a lightning strike. It may well be that there is a better conductor nearby, but the location of the highest potential seems to be a bigger factor. Among the lightning folk tales we hear so often, some suggest that some type of insulation from the ground, like rubber tennis shoes, may provide a safety factor. But this seems a rather pitiful provision, considering that the electrical charge may have already passed through miles of air, which is a very good insulator.

If you do happen to provide a convenient ground conductor for one of these frightful bolts from the blue, just remember, there is still hope. In wilderness first aid training I learned that the most common outcome from being struck by lightning (other than flash burns) is cardiac fibrillation.

The electrical discharge through the body disrupts the electrical rhythm of the heart pacemaker, with the result that the heart muscles lose their coordinated pumping action, and just flutter ineffectually. Reportedly, CPR can be very effective in sustaining the life of a person in this condition. Ideally, an AED can be used immediately to restart the heart rhythm.

The American Heart Association has recently published new guidelines for CPR and the application of AED devices.

Temple divorce II

Reiterating some thoughts shared elsewhere...

I am vitally interested in these questions. While I have implicit faith that Heavenly Father will eventually help us understand all the implications, I don't know exactly what a divorce means in terms of my temple covenants.

For myself, I suppose that civil divorce from a temple marriage is relatively meaningless, in the eternal scheme of things. This is an act intended to cover a situation that can only exist in this temporary state. I am thinking that perhaps Jesus' words about divorce in the New Testament have strong application to the idea of cancelling a temple sealing. He said that the followers of Moses were given permission to divorce only because they stubbornly and wilfully insisted. I don't believe this was to their credit, and the pervasiveness of divorce in our society has similar significance.

I prefer to think that I stand assured of the blessings that have been promised, if I keep myself worthy, regardless of the acts or worthiness of others. While I cannot imagine exactly how these blessings will come about, I trust that it is so. My temple covenants are eternal. They cannot be abrogated or compromised by decrees of civil law, nor by the faithlessness of others. It is a fundamental doctrine of the gospel that we are accountable for our own acts, and will not be punished for the misdeeds of others.

Yet it stands to reason that we could not have any kind of eternal relationship - as in my case, given the fact that my exwife and I could not even survive a couple of decades of trial here. Alma counsels that "this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God" and that the same spirit which possesses our bodies now will continue with us in the worlds to come. Our marital relations will not undergo some miraculous transformation at the last day. Impossible to guess now how these difficulties will be worked out, but they must be, and will be, eventually.

It may be that some of our struggle with a rationale for divorced and fragmented families stems from our inability to understand the real nature of celestial marriage. I suppose what we can picture now is a very simplified version of what life with Heavenly Father will really be. We strive to model our earthly families after the form and function of the celestial, as far as we can envision that environment. From my perspective, this is a good thing to look forward to-things can only get better. (And I find myself feeling as though they could not get much worse, just now.)

I will always wonder, though: If I was really a good person, perhaps these evil things would not have happened to me. During the time when I was happily married - and it was quite a long stretch - I often expressed in prayers my gratitude for such a good marriage. What can I say now? Thanks for the memories, it was good while it lasted? I just don't feel as if "Better luck next time" is a very comforting thought.

What to think about women?

Two current news articles together form an interesting backdrop for questions of the day.

Why are women outperforming men on campus?

Are they? Some authorities think so.

"Yes, there are a lot of guys doing well, even exceptionally well, in college. But the trend is otherwise. Women now make up 58 percent of those in our colleges and universities; in some places, their ratio is 2 to 1. They are a majority in graduate schools. And they win most of the places on honors lists. (Yes, men are more likely to graduate from college than they were two decades ago, but socially speaking that's not the achievement it was two decades ago.)"

The editorial confuses quantity with quality, which has been a misdirected focus of the liberal-minded affirmative action crowd for most of my life. It was thought that numbers equated with representation, therefore if there were fewer women in college, they were poorly represented. Of course we understood that the reason was patriarchal discrimination.

If that was true then, what is the cause of the current female overpopulation in colleges today? It seems that the promotion of women's causes has nothing to do with it. The editors opine that men are absent from college today because they're lazy and play too many video games.

That answers it for me.

Another fascinating editorial offering from the Wall Street Journal.

If you're married to clergy do you have to host church teas?

While this discussion extrapolates only loosely to mormon culture, it opens some fascinating questions for me. Some of the ideas I have been dwelling on for decades.

Second-wave feminism was, for clerical wives, a double-edged sword: No longer were women accorded honor and respect simply because they were married to a minister. And some clergy wives, reading "The Feminine Mystique" along with everyone else, began to rethink all those hours they had devoted to polishing the church silver. A role that had once seemed noble began to seem, well, exploitative...

...The problem with a facile feminist critique of the role of clergy wife is that it misses the real beauty of the collaboration sometimes found in clerical marriages. There is something wonderfully seamless about their lives--their work and their marriage is all of a piece. Husband and wife are profoundly knitted together, and their shared calling offers something of a rebuke to the hyper-individualism that characterizes so many American marriages. Indeed, they may set a nice example for the flock.

"The Bishop's Wife" makes an interesting parallel, doesn't it? Actually, the entire final paragraph tips up a red flag with regard to all contemporary marriages. There used to be beauty in collaboration. The clergy wife did not require separate recognition to lend a sense of self-worth. She and her spouse were literally "as one". Traditional marriage used to be based in similar axioms. This is truly an indication of what value has been sacrificed in the name of equalizing the competitive plane for women.

I've been following another parallel thought in a blog discussion about hyphenated-names for women. When I see these, to my irreverent and bigoted eyes, they always end up mapping into something suggestive of lesbians.

Firefighting II

 We have a newly formed community fire brigade, Indianola Volunteer Fire Department. Our crew is designated as Sanpete County Fire Station 18. We are assigned to cover the eight local subdivisions and all of the public and private lands in the north end of Sanpete County.

We have a 1000 gallon tanker truck with pump that we call our light water tender, and a pickup truck with 200 gallons that serves as light brush truck. Next week we are getting a 5000 gallon water tender that is being retired from a Moab fire department. Eight residents in our community are certified for wildland firefighting, and we have a number of other enthusiastic but less formally qualified volunteers.

On Thursday night we responded to a fire alarm in our area. Six members of our department reported to the fire scene at Skyline Mountain Resort with our two engines. It was totally dark by the time we arrived at the fire. There were about 20 vehicles of various types there, with 50 or so firefighters working to put down the flames.

A campfire had gone out of control at one of the many cabins in the area. It started spreading in the deep cottonwood fluff that accumulates like snowdrift in the shady canyon bottom under all the tall old cottonwoods. People who own these homes obviously love the big old trees, but they also make for a serious fire hazard. Anyway, apparently big clumps of burning fluff were drafted up by the quickly growing flames, spinning away on the draft, and spreading more than a dozen spot fires along about half a mile of the canyon bottom. Our crew pulled into one of the nearby home sites and put out one of the bigger spots just alongside the stream. It was burning in a big pileup of dead logs alongside the stream. There was also a nearby cottonwood tree that was actively burning all along the trunk up to about 40 feet high. The tallest flames were too high up for us to reach with our water, and it was too dangerous to run chain saws in the dark to cut it down, so we hosed down what we could reach and stayed away out from under the burning tree.

We worked on putting out flames and wetting down hot spots until just after midnight. Then rolled up the hoses and came home.

Then, on Friday morning we went back to do the mopping up. We spent several more hours in the canyon, searching the area for remaining hot spots that might flare up again.

In fact the entire Skyline Drive area of the Manti-La Sal Forest is currently in a stage where old dead trees predominate. People love those big old trees because they are so picturesque, but most don't realize that they represent a forest nearing the end of life. Sooner or later the whole forest will burn, mostly all the range over 8500' elevation, an area over 100 miles long and 30 miles wide. All those aging Engleman spruces and subalpine firs -- old and susceptible to bark beetles. The growth habit of this forest ecosystem tends toward cycles of new growth, maturation, senescence, bark beetle infestation, fire, and regeneration, over a period of a couple of hundred years. Right now, we are waiting for a really big fire. There has not been a very large scale fire on this range in recorded history.

Some forest ecologists believe humans have disturbed the natural cycle by putting out fires too quickly. Not too long ago this interrupted cycle balanced out the logging and clearcutting practices we used to harvest timber. But timber cutting is much curtailed these days, as many environmental groups find such fault with cutting down forests, and tend to sue everyone that tries. The US Forest Service has been developing a "fire use" policy for some time now. The idea is to let moderate to small wildland fires burn, with emphasis on monitoring and containment to protect developed areas. Some think it is already too late, and the only thing that can happen now is massive fires all over the west, on the scale of the Yellowstone conflagration.

The Millburn and Oak Creek areas are our neighbors -- the southern end of our Indianola Ward, though our communities are separated by an undeveloped mountain ridge between us. Happily for them, their firefighting duty is covered by the Fairview FD, which is better manned and equipped for the job. Up until a month ago, we had to rely on Fairview to cover our fire calls. In most cases their response time for this area was almost an hour. Mostly they would show up to help comb the ashes. We're hoping to do a lot better, given some time and a bit of practice.

This summer we are bidding on a work contract up in the Joe's Valley area. The project is to spray weedy species that thrive in areas where cattle have heavily overgrazed for many years.

Female genetic study

This is one of the most intriguing bits of information yet, from current studies of the human genome.

Female genetic study

Females are MOSAICS

In female mammals, most genes on one X chromosome are silenced as a result of X-chromosome inactivation. However, some genes escape X-inactivation and are expressed from both the active and inactive X chromosome. Such genes are potential contributors to sexually dimorphic traits, to phenotypic variability among females heterozygous for X-linked conditions, and to clinical abnormalities in patients with abnormal X chromosomes. Here, we present a comprehensive X-inactivation profile of the human X chromosome, representing an estimated 95% of assayable genes in fibroblast-based test systems. In total, about 15% of X-linked genes escape inactivation to some degree, and the proportion of genes escaping inactivation differs dramatically between different regions of the X chromosome, reflecting the evolutionary history of the sex chromosomes. An additional 10% of X-linked genes show variable patterns of inactivation and are expressed to different extents from some inactive X chromosomes. This suggests a remarkable and previously unsuspected degree of expression heterogeneity among females.

This does have some really fascinating implications.

Here's a fun article that discusses the function of X inactivation in producing tricolor female cats.

Mosaics

One thing that makes the new chromosome study so intriguing...

"Early in embryogenesis in mammals, all but one X chromosome are functionally inactivated through a process called X chromosome inactivation. Because this inactivation occurs randomly, all normal females have roughly equal populations of two genetically different cell types and are therefore a type of mosaic. In roughly half of their cells, the paternal X chromosome has been inactivated, and in the other half the maternal X chromosome is inactive. This has a number of important biological and medical implications, particularly with regard to X-linked genetic diseases."

This article reflects conventional thinking about X inactivation. But the latest study indicates that it isn't nearly this simple -- in human females, the X inactivation is incomplete and shows quite a range of variability. Apparently even in the cells within an individual.

Blascho's Lines revealed under UV

Part of the import is that alleles which are heterozygous may be pathogenic -- something like the possible adverse results from conditions like trisomy. It is pretty confusing to me when I try to think of exactly what happens when multiple different alleles in the same cell are actively transcribing to produce the same protein, but if they're very different, it seems obvious that the results will not be good.

At the very least this might explain why I have such a hard time understanding the female of the species.

Anyway, where this is taking me --

Imagine an organism with such fundamental characteristic capriciousness built in, from the level of chromosomes on up.

Little wonder that women should reserve the right to change their minds. Their very constituent cells are explicitly built, from the ground up, upon that very theme.

In more recent studies of genetic variation, it has been observed that males of the species exhibit a wider range of genetic variability than females, and this accounts for major gender differences in the relative level of intelligence.

Greater intersex phenotype variability found in males

Popular misconceptions regarding agency

From a General Conference address.  (May 1992 Ensign,  Our Moral Environment, President Boyd K. Packer)

While we pass laws to reduce pollution of the earth, any proposal to protect the moral and spiritual environment is shouted down and marched against as infringing upon liberty, agency, freedom, the right to choose.

Interesting how one virtue, when given exaggerated or fanatical emphasis, can be used to batter down another, with freedom, a virtue, invoked to protect vice. Those determined to transgress see any regulation of their life-style as interfering with their agency and seek to have their actions condoned by making them legal.

People who are otherwise sensible say, "I do not intend to indulge, but I vote for freedom of choice for those who do."

Regardless of how lofty and moral the "pro-choice" argument sounds, it is badly flawed. With that same logic one could argue that all traffic signs and barriers which keep the careless from danger should be pulled down on the theory that each individual must be free to choose how close to the edge he will go.

The phrase "free agency" does not appear in scripture. The only agency spoken of there is moral agency, "which," the Lord said, "I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgement." (Doctrine and Covenants 101:78.)

One of the mistaken ideas we often hear associated with the "free agency" term is that it implies some ideal state of borderline anarchy. I'm pretty sure this idea has been sorely abused since Joseph Smith spoke the words, "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."

Joseph never taught that it was wrong for those who know and follow the correct principles to "impose" their ideas of righteousness on others. Support for government and respect for the law are explicit principles in church doctrine. The most common associated complaint we hear from those of liberal persuasion is that we cannot exist with true freedom unless people of faith keep their mouths shut about their beliefs. We shouldn't be forcing our religion on others. We cannot legislate morality. Blah blah blah.

Apparently they believe God expects everyone to make up our minds and commit to good or evil in a sort of moral vacuum. Heaven forbid that we should ever pass laws that actually reflect the true values we understand based upon commandments of God. Unthinkable -- that would be depriving others of their "free agency"!

It seems almost a cliche among those who favor this thinking that implementing laws which impose moral values epitomizes "Satan's Plan". Thus the ultimate evil consists of telling someone else how to follow the laws of righteousness. If there ever was a more backward approach, it is difficult to imagine what it would be.

One of the most important teachings I know on this issue is found in 2 Nephi  chapter 2. The idea of opposition is very well understood, but another important principle stands out:

Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other. (2 Nephi 2:16)

Clearly an important implication here is that "enticement" is an essential element in our exercise of agency. This rather contradicts the notion that true agency requires us to operate from an exclusively intrinsic base, with no external forces influencing our choices. Most of us with experience at the primary level of church education understand very well that we must be guided in our choices by the Holy Ghost -- "Choose the Right" is our motto. We choose the right by inspiration. This is our "enticement" to good. And of course there are also always evil enticements drawing us the other way.

This is the cost which enables our agency. There is no principle in the gospel that can be construed to dictate that the environment in which we are required to practice our agency must be free from rules and laws that guide our thinking and acts. Indeed, a clear view of church history with regard to civil government would seem to indicate just the opposite. The church has always promoted strong government and the passage of laws based in principles of righteousness.

In fact, under the common misapplication of the term, "free agency" actually exists nowhere. Many of us live in bondage of various forms that constrain our ability to freely make choices. I believe we must ultimately be judged for our actions based on the options available to us, and the enticements we were subject to at the time.

Elder Packer's point is a legitimate one. Moral agency is never "free" in any way. It always comes at a cost, and it is always compromised by the enticements of the world.

What is "temple divorce"?

The term seems to be rooted in Mormon folklore.

On divorce in Mormon culture from Encyclopedia of Mormonism

I have never heard a satisfying explanation for "temple divorce", and in fact I'm not sure the church even uses such terms formally.  Elder James A. Culimore considers this question in a 1975 Church publication.

Temples are not about divorcing. "Divorce" itself, it would seem, really has only temporal connotations, so in terms of binding covenants sealing for time and all eternity, it does not seem like the appropriate term.

I understand the church offers an administrative action referred to as "cancellation of sealing". But I am still not sure I understand what that means. How can an eternal covenant be "canceled"?

Do the participants kneel together at the same altar in the temple where their sealing was pronounced, and somehow un-promise?

Specific counsel from Elder Dallin H. Oaks somewhat illuminates this discussion, which frequently generates more heat than light.