However, over the years it seems something was lost in translation. With less focus placed on reducing and reusing, our recycling bins are overflowing week after week. Sure, it might be better to have an overflowing recycling bin than it is to have an overflowing trash bin, but how much better is it really?

At the same time we’re finally seeing an increase of recycling outside of the home at places like schools, gas stations, airports, etc. we’re also seeing a dramatic cutting back of the acceptance of recyclables created in the United States. China recently started restricting the import of recyclable waste including mixed paper and most plastics. The news of this happening was the first time that many people in the United States became aware that a lot of our recycling isn’t actually recycled here. For an act billed as a necessity to saving the environment, the fact that it uses an overwhelming amount of time and resources including fuel to ship it overseas is a little concerning.

But more than that, recycling is only a thing because recyclables are valuable. According to a press release, “The global waste management market size is expected to reach $484.9 billion by 2025.” This means that when you toss something into your recycling bin and it is not able to turn a profit it won’t be recycled. Unfortunately this isn’t rare.

Then there’s also the people that are too hopeful about the abilities of the recycling industry and as a result they toss everything in the bin regardless of what the code on the bottom of the item says or what their local rules say. It only takes a little bit of the wrong thing from a “wishful” recycler to ruin an entire batch of recyclable material. And this too isn’t rare. In fact, according to Waste Management one out of every four items that ends up in recycling bins doesn’t actually belong there.

Here are 11 things that “wishful” recyclers tend to toss in the bin:

1. Plastic Bags — To some it may be common knowledge that plastic shopping bags, bubble wrap, cereal bags, food wrap, and more cannot be recycled in your home bin but they still find their way into municipal recycling facilities far too often. These bags can clog up machines and workers must remove them by hand. Thankfully plastic bags are accepted at many stores including local co-ops and chains like Target and Trader Joes.
2. Receipts — Unfortunately, most receipts that you receive while shopping are coated in Bisphenol A (BPA). While yes they are paper, the fact that they are coated in BPA means that it contaminates the paper product being made when they get mixed in with the pulp. If you don’t need a receipt just decline it at the store since you can’t recycle it and more importantly because the BPA coating comes off onto your hands and other surfaces. This is especially important information for parents who often hand receipts off to antsy kids during shopping trips. Skip the receipts if you can and if you can’t be sure to wash your hands after handling them.
3. Pizza Boxes — Takeout and delivery pizza boxes can’t be recycled, despite their obvious cardboard construction. Any paper product with even the smallest amount of food strains cannot be recycled and this always includes pizza boxes. Thankfully many pizza boxes are now made to be compostable and will say so on the box but remember: compostable does not equal recyclable.
4. Bits of Food — Just because you can recycle something doesn’t mean you can recycle it dirty. Rinse out glass and plastic before tossing it in the bin and if the container is still greasy use some soap and water. Even a little bit of food can ruin an entire load of recycling.
5. Coffee Cups — Even the greenest among us find ourselves out and about without our own cup when we crave a cup of coffee. Unfortunately, while those cups are paper, they’re lined with plastic film to keep the liquid from soaking into and then out of it which makes them impossible to recycle. The lids and the paper sleeves are recyclable but the cups never are. Next time you’re out without your own reusable cup, ask the barista for a “here” cup and finish your drink before leaving.
6. Wrapping Paper — Some municipalities accept wrapping paper but it is important to check your local rules. However, the popular shiny and metallic papers are never recyclable. If you are able to recycle basic, matte wrapping paper be sure to remove ribbons and bows. In lieu of using store bought gift wrap, try transitioning into using newspaper, paper bags, or the brown paper that sometimes comes inside of shipping packages.
7. Shredded Paper — There are good reasons to shred certain documents at home but unless you compost it’s better to stick to shredding only that which must be shredded because recycling centers just can’t handle those tiny strips of paper. In fact they can clog up the equipment because they’re so small! Thankfully shredded paper can be composted but make sure not to include envelopes with plastic windows or anything else that isn’t paper. However, some municipalities will accept shredded paper but only if it’s placed in a paper bag and stapled close so please check your local rules for this one.
8. Broken Things — Broken plates and glass shouldn’t be placed in your recycling for various reasons. One of the biggest is that they pose a hazard to sanitation workers. If you have broken items wrap them in plastic and carefully put them in the trash.
9. Old Dishes — Plates and glassware are not recyclable. If you have items that are in good condition take them to a thrift store instead of throwing them away. Bakeware has a much different melting point and chemical composition than normal recyclable glass.
10. Bits of Metal — Some things are too small to recycle. Just like how a piece of paper is recyclable but shredded paper is not, the tab from a metal can isn’t recyclable by itself even though an entire can is. And it’s for the same reason—these small things can clog up the machinery and slow down the entire recycling process. If a soda can tab does fall off, place it inside the can when you’re done. If you have little bits of tinfoil, keep it somewhere safe and add to it until it becomes a big ball.
11. Food Boxes and Containers — Most freezer food boxes are coated in plastic, much like coffee cups. And just like coffee cups it makes these otherwise paper products not recyclable. Unfortunately this is the same for cartons that contain nut milk, oat milk, juice, soups, and more. Some municipalities currently accept these cartons but it is not the norm. You can find out more about how to recycle those containers here.

Remember: when in doubt, throw it out. It’s better to mistakenly throw something away that could be recycled than be an aspirational recycler and ruin an entire truck load of recycling. And always check with your local municipality at least once a year to stay up to date on the rules where you live.

Reduce, reuse, recycle—in that order.

By Emma Fiala | Creative Commons | TheMindUnleashed.com

Pullman was living in Sun City West, Arizona with her cat Cocoa when she received a letter from APS informing her that she owed the utility company $176.84. She had only five days to pay the bill before APS would disconnect her service.

It was August 23, 2018 and the temperature outside was in the triple digits.

At the time, she was living on her Social Security income, which amounted to less than $1,000 per month. In an effort to help their mom, Pullman’s children covered her bills and helped with unexpected costs when needed. For example, in April of the same year, when Pullman’s air conditioner broke, her children had it repaired. Pullman’s daughter, Jeanine Smith, paid the phone bill and another daughter, Chris Hotes, paid for the internet.

According to Pullman’s final electric bill, she didn’t pay her balance with APS before the deadline of August 28. But APS didn’t cut her service. Instead, Pullman paid the utility company $125 on September 5, one day after she typically received her Social Security check.

Despite the payment, APS turn off Pullman’s electricity two days later, on September 7. Records indicate local temperatures reached 105 degrees that day and a nearby town recorded a high temperature of 107.

The following week, Hotes called the Sun City West Posse, after becoming alarming at not having heard from her mother. The group, responsible for conducting local wellness checks, alerted the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.

When they entered Pullman’s home that day, they found the 72-year-old woman in her bed—dead. According to the coroner’s report, her body was already in a state of decomposition thanks to the heat—a direct result of lack of air conditioning due to no electricity.

According to the medical examiner, Pullman’s death was caused by “environmental heat exposure in setting of significant cardiovascular disease.” In short, APS caused Pullman’s death.

Smith maintains that her mother was unaware that her electricity was at risk of being shut off. Had Pullman mentioned it to any of her children, they would have immediately covered the bill.

“We would’ve never let her power go out,” Smith said. “Never.”

Maricopa County began tracking heat-related deaths in 2006 and the county has seen a sharp increase over the last three years. 154 people died from heat-related causes in 2016, 179 in 2017, and 182 last year, in 2018. According to the data, 119 of those deaths were directly related to heat whereas in 63 cases heat was a contributing factor.

The data revealed something unexpected—40% of deaths happened indoors.

The data also shows that heat-related deaths can be predicted by socioeconomic status. Maricopa County residents who are older, isolated, or more financially unstable are at greater risk, much like in many other localities across the country.

“It seems like more and more people are not able to afford to keep the air conditioning on,” Dr. Vjollca Berisha, senior epidemiologist with the Maricopa County Department of Public Health, said. Berisha stresses that utility companies need to cut customers a break, especially during the peak—and potentially deadly—summer months.

Smith last heard from her mother via email on September 5. Pullman thanked her daughter for having her phone repaired. “The phone is fixed, thank you very much, love you, bye,” the email read.

One day earlier, Hotes spoke to her mother by phone. During that call, Pullman requested help paying for her water bill, to which Hotes replied she would. On September 7 Hotes left her mother a message telling her to keep an eye out for the money she sent.

Hotes never heard back from her mother and the medical examiner’s report did not indicate on which day Pullman likely died.

Because Pullman was $51.84 short when she paid her APS bill, her electricity was disconnected. According to the shut off warning she received, if Pullman later wished to reconnect it, which would be assumed in triple digit heat, Pullman would owe up to $135 for that service—ten dollars more than she was able to pay only days prior. With those charges, outstanding balance, taxes and more, Pullman was set to owe a shocking $335.57.

The 72-year-old’s final bill indicated that she owed $287.86, after her $125 payment. This bill included a “field call charge” of $10.65, which was incurred on September 5.

A field call charge is incurred “when an authorized Company representative travels to the Customer’s site to accept payment on a delinquent account, notify of service termination, make payment arrangements, or terminate the service,” according to a schedule filed with the Arizona Corporation Commission by Arizona Public Service.

If a representative does indeed travel to the customer’s home when the charge is incurred, this means someone from APS visited Pullman’s home mere days before her death, informing her face-to-face to face that her electricity was being shut off during a deadly heatwave.

During a phone call with APS, Smith told the representative on the other end “You ended my mom’s life for $51.”

The following month she left a review for the utility company on the Consumer Affairs website, giving them only one star. Smith said:

“It’s not like she didn’t pay anything. She paid $125. She still had to eat. She still had to buy toilet paper. She had to pay her mortgage. The details just made me ill.”

While there are rules in Arizona regarding when a utility can and cannot cut service, the exact circumstances are vague and unclear. And, in Stephanie Pullman’s case, neither she nor APS had the necessary information anyway.

According to Arizona’s Administrative Code, a utility cannot be disconnected if the customer can prove that “termination would be especially dangerous” to their health via medical documents. The code also indicates that service cannot be shut off “where weather will be especially dangerous to health,” but does not include specific weather events, temperatures, or dates.

The code also indicates that service cannot be cut when “ill, elderly, or handicapped persons” cannot pay their bill. The code does note that service can be cut if the customer is aware but not taking advantage of “the availability of funds from various government and social assistance agencies of which the utility is aware.”

Pullman, a 72-year-old grandmother with heart disease and Type II diabetes may have qualified as “elderly” or “ill” but APS was unaware of either of these things and did not inform her of Arizona’s Administrative Code, information that may have saved her life.

Regardless of the information that Pullman did or did not have about how her age and health may impact the potential for shut-off, the soaring temperatures that day should have prevented APS from cutting her service. But, according to APS, temperatures of 105-107 degrees is not “dangerous to health.”

Jill Hanks, a spokesperson for APS, said in an email:

“APS does not disconnect service for non-payment on extreme heat days as determined by weather experts.

We use multiple third-party weather services, including the National Weather Service, to alert us when weather conditions may be dangerous to a person’s health.”

In Maricopa County, where Pullman lived, the National Weather Service issues excessive heat warnings only when temperatures reach or exceed 110 degrees. Typical advice given during times of high heat include staying indoors, in air conditioning.

Senate Bill 1542 sought to change the process by creating a law protecting residents from shutoffs during extreme weather that would cover all utility companies.

Stacey Champion, local activist and author of the bill, said:

“Arizonans currently have no date- or temperature-based protection for utility shutoffs during extreme heat or cold, and this needs to be viewed as the public health crisis it is.”

Adding, “It is literally a matter of life or death.”

According to Phoenix New Times, the bill, “would have barred utilities in Arizona from disconnecting service when outside temperatures were forecast to fall below 32 degrees Fahrenheit or exceed 90 degrees. It also stipulated that utilities had to make “reasonable payment arrangements” with a customer before cutting service; if the customer didn’t honor that arrangement, then the utility could disconnect service only when temperatures were above 32 degrees or below 90, depending on the season.”

“It also would have unconditionally prohibited utilities from disconnecting service to a person or family if their household income fell below 200 percent of the federal poverty line and they made a minimum payment, or if an elderly person, pregnant person, child under the age of 5, or person on life support lived in the home. The bill also contained other stipulations aimed at protecting people with low incomes from being disconnected.”

But the bill never made it out of committee.

Smith maintains that if her mother had been aware that her electricity was at risk of being cut off, she would have asked family for help. Of Arizona Public Service, Smith said she didn’t want to talk to them again.

“There’s nothing they can do or say to change it. I just want policy change.”

APS began a temporary suspension of all disconnections for customers that are behind on their bills on Wednesday, saying they would take a step back and rethink their shutoff practices.

For now, the suspension is indefinite. APS claims to already have been re-evaluating shutoff policy, but hearing of Pullman’s case “factored into our decision to put that into effect.”

By Emma Fiala | Creative Commons | TheMindUnleashed.com

According to Richard Purdy who penned the scathing letter, PFOS “is the most insidious pollutant since PCB” and is the cause for a potential health crisis across the entire country, but most notably in the state of Michigan. PFOS is used in 3M’s ScotchGard stain-protection product line and isn’t the only PFAS chemical the company uses.

“It is probably more damaging than PCB because it does not degrade, whereas PCB does; it is more toxic to wildlife,” the letter reads.

“I have worked within the system to learn more about this chemical and to make the company aware of the dangers associated with its continued use,” Purdy wrote. “But I have continually met roadblocks, delays, and indecision. For weeks on end, I have received assurances that my samples would be analyzed soon — never to see results. There are always excuses and little is accomplished.”

A new report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Northeastern University has found that people in 43 states in the United States are exposed to drinking water contaminated with PFAS chemicals, of which PFOS is one.

Michigan has been hit hardest, with at least 46 sites where groundwater has PFAS levels above the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) lifetime health advisory guideline. According to Detroit Free Press, “The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy has estimated PFAS could be found at more than 11,300 sites in Michigan” including 17 bodies of water with “‘do not eat’ fish advisories, or limitations on consumption of fish, because of PFOS contamination.”

The revealing resignation letter was recently obtained by the Detroit Free Press along with numerous internal 3M documents. The documents were obtained by then-Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson during a 2010 lawsuit alleging environmental contamination by 3M in the state of Minnesota. The lawsuit was settled for $850 million in 2018.

While PFAS chemicals have proved useful in numerous applications including cleaning products, waterproof clothing, nonstick cookware, textiles, grease-resistant food packaging, leather, paper goods, paint and more, the very same properties that make it so successful in these applications is what makes it so harmful to environment. PFAS compounds are nearly indestructible, with some referring to them as “the forever chemicals.”

But the same qualities that made PFAS compounds so useful also makes them almost indestructible in the environment, giving them the ominous nickname “the forever chemicals.”

Documents show that 3M was, in fact, aware of PFAS toxicity in lab rats all the way back in 1950. In the mid-1970s, health concerns arose after studies of fish, rats, and monkeys. The problems were so prevalent, that the company became aware of rising levels of PFAS compounds in their employees’ blood along with a link to testicular cancer. PFAS compounds were “found to be completely resistant to biodegradation” way back in 1978.

PFAS, which have been linked to a host of medical conditions such as cancer, thyroid problems, hormone imbalances, pre-eclampsia, learning disabilities and more, are found in the blood of almost 99% of Americans.

Documents obtained during the 2010 lawsuit revealed, not only this shocking resignation letter, but documents outlining 3M’s research into PFAS compounds. It turns out, 3M has been well aware for years that the compounds do not break down in the environment as expected, that they were found in both the blood of employees and the public, and laboratory rats and other animals were experiencing negative health effects.

Despite the revelations, 3M continued to sell PFAS compounds used in a range of products including things that touch both human skin as well as food. The company also neglected to inform the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

However, in the 1990s, the EPA became increasingly aware of researching showing the presence of PFAS compounds in the environment and reached an agreement with 3M in 2000 to phase out the use of PFOS by 2003. While 3M stopped using PFOA in 2000, other companies—including DuPont, the company responsible for Teflon—continued their use until an agreement with the EPA to phase them out by 2015.

According to Purdy’s 1999 letter, the environmental specialist argued years before any action was taken that 3M had already “waited too long to tell customers about the widespread dispersal of PFOS in people and the environment.”

“3M continues to make and sell these chemicals, though the company knows of an ecological risk assessment I did that indicates there is a better than 100% probability that perfluorooctansulfonate (PFOS) is biomagnifying in the food chain and harming sea mammals. This chemical is more stable than many rocks.” 

“3M told those of us working on the fluorochemical project not to write down our thoughts or have email discussions on issues because of how our speculations could be viewed in a legal discovery process. This has stymied intellectual development on the issue, and stifled discussion on the serious ethical implications of decisions.”

Now, almost 10 years after the 2010 lawsuit in Minnesota, a new one in Michigan is using the very same internal documents.

Both current and former residents of the small midwest town of Parchment, Michigan are suing 3M and Georgia-Pacific over a toxic mess left in a landfill. PFAS compounds have leached from the landfill into the town’s water supply thanks to a paper mill responsible for manufacturing food safe paper coated with 3M’s product. As a result, thousands of current and former residents of the town were unknowingly exposed to high levels of the compound via municipal drinking water.

Nicholas Coulson, the Detroit environmental class-action attorney who is bringing the lawsuit against 3M said of the allegations against the company, “What we’re alleging that 3M did is really a crime against humanity.”

“It’s an absolute outrage that, in the name of profit, for decades they suppressed this information, and they continued to pump these chemicals out in incredible quantities into the natural environment. And the terrible result of that is that some communities, like Parchment, have had to bear the brunt of it.”

“3M had really, really sufficient notice to know that, one, these things don’t go away, they build up and build up and build up, both in the environment and the body, and two, that they cause really harmful effects,” Coulson added.

In his 1999 resignation letter, Richard Purdy concluded:

“I have worked to the best of my ability within the system to see that the right actions are taken on behalf of the environment. At almost every step, I have been assured that action will be taken—yet I see slow or no results. I am told the company is concerned, but their actions speak to different concerns than mine. I can no longer participate in the process that 3M has established for the management of PFOS and precursors. For me it is unethical to be concerned with markets, legal defensibility and image over environmental safety.”

Purdy wasn’t the only one to sound the alarm. The documents reveal that, dating back to the 1970s, numerous employees—including an employee named M.T. Case who author memos revealing toxicity, another who went by Dr. King, and Eric Reiner who worked in the company’s Environmental Engineering and Pollution Control division—urged the company to act on the research.

In a response to the Detroit Free Press, 3M seemingly bragged of their dedication to “research, technology, and clean-up” while calling the story gleaned from the internal documents “incomplete and misleading“:

“3M has dedicated substantial time and resources to researching PFAS and, to that end, we have invested more than $600 million on research, technology, and clean-up efforts related to PFAS. As a responsible steward of our community, we have a record of sharing information we learn with government regulators, the scientific community, as well as local and federal officials.

The small set of documents from the Minnesota litigation portrays an incomplete and misleading story that distorts the full record regarding 3M’s actions with respect to PFOA and PFOS, as well as who we are as a company. 3M acted responsibly in connection with products containing PFAS and we will vigorously defend our environmental stewardship.”

With 19 million people in 43 U.S. states currently exposed to drinking water contaminated with PFAS chemicals, the task of cleaning up these “forever chemicals” that are reportedly more stable than some rocks, is daunting. Companies like 3M that repeatedly prioritize profits and production of their products over people must be held accountable for the havoc wreaked on the environment, their customers, and their employees. While 3M did lose its $300 million/year revenue-maker ScotchGard after the 2000 agreement with the EPA, the loss only represented a mere 2% of 3M’s total sales. And while 3M bragged in their response to the Detroit Free Press of the $600 million spent on “research, technology, and clean-up efforts related to PFAS,” those amounts pale in comparison to the company’s profits, including the $7.9 billion earned in sales in the forth quarter of 2018 alone.

Time and time again, massive corporations that have caused harm—either knowingly or not—are tasked with clean-up costs or fines that barely make a dent in their bottomline. Without significant consequences for their actions, corporations like 3M will likely continue to prioritize profits over the health of the environment and even their customers. Perhaps the newest lawsuit against 3M will finally hold the company accountable to a degree that will impact the future.

One year later, in October of 2018, the chair of Harvard’s astronomy department co-wrote a paper examining the object’s acceleration, which they described as “peculiar.” The two, Harvard professor Avi Loeb and Harvard postdoctoral fellow Shmuel Bialy, suggested that the object “may be a fully operational probe sent intentionally to Earth’s vicinity by an alien civilization.” That’s quite the claim and the pair instantly received significant backlash for their controversial theory.

Loeb said of the potential for making contact with alien civilization:

“As soon as we leave the solar system, I believe we will see a great deal of traffic out there. Possibly we’ll get a message that says, ‘Welcome to the interstellar club.’ Or we’ll discover multiple dead civilizations — that is, we’ll find their remains.”

In a recent interview in The New Yorker, Loeb attempts to shed on some light on the object, the paper he co-authored and the controversial theory that his paper presented.

So what’s so unusual about ‘Oumuamua anyway? Loeb explains that astronomers can calculate the rate at which rocks are ejected in space and how that calculation leads one of many peculiar facts about ‘Oumuamua:

“When you look at all the stars in the vicinity of the sun, they move relative to the sun, the sun moves relative to them, but only one in five hundred stars in that frame is moving as slow as ‘Oumuamua. You would expect that most rocks would move roughly at the speed of the star they came from. If this object came from another star, that star would have to be very special.”

The object was observed spinning every eight hours while it’s brightness changed significantly, leaving the astronomers puzzled.

“When it was discovered, we realized it spins every eight hours, and its brightness changed by at least a factor of ten. The fact that its brightness varies by a factor of ten as it spins means that it is at least ten times longer than it is wide. We don’t have a photo, but, in all the artists’ illustrations that you have seen on the Web, it looks like a cigar. That’s one possibility. But it’s also possible that it’s a pancake-like geometry, and, in fact, that is favored.“

‘Oumuamua is shaped like a pancake, another bizarre and significant observation. Why a pancake and why is that abnormal? Objects that orbit the sun have a shape influenced by the gravitational force of the sun, the same force that results in their orbit. Deviation from that rule happens in objects like comets. Evaporation of ice from the surface of a comet creates gasses that push it, sort of like a rocket, and also cause the tail of evaporated gas that most stargazers are familiar with. ‘Oumuamua doesn’t have one of those.

“We don’t see a cometary tail here, but, nevertheless, we see a deviation from the expected orbit. And that is the thing that triggered the paper. Once I realized that the object is moving differently than expected, then the question is what gives it the extra push.“

‘Oumuamua is unlike any comet we have ever seen in our solar system, so it probably isn’t one. Could it be an asteroid?

“Its brightness varies by a factor of ten, and the maximum you typically observe is a factor of three. It has a much more extreme geometry, and there is some other force pushing it.”

So the question remains, what is making ‘Oumuamua move?

“The only thing that came to my mind is that maybe the light from the sun, as it bounces off its surface, gives it an extra push. It’s just like a wind bouncing off a sail on a sailboat. So we checked that and found that you need the thickness of the object to be less than a millimeter in order for that to work. If it is indeed less than a millimeter thick, if it is pushed by the sunlight, then it is maybe a light sail, and I could not think of any natural process that would make a light sail. It is much more likely that it is being made by artificial means, by a technological civilization.”

Loeb, who has “long been interested in the search for extraterrestrial life,” according to The New Yorker, took the opportunity to elaborate on just that:

“I should say, just as background, I do not view the possibility of a technological civilization as speculative, for two reasons. The first is that we exist. And the second is that at least a quarter of the stars in the Milky Way galaxy have a planet like Earth, with surface conditions that are very similar to Earth, and the chemistry of life as we know it could develop. If you roll the dice so many times, and there are tens of billions of stars in the Milky Way, it is quite likely we are not alone.“

If ‘Oumuamua did originate from an alien civilization, it didn’t come from our solar system. According to Loeb, it would have originated from somewhere in our galaxy instead, but there’s a chance “that the civilization is not alive anymore.”

“Imagine another history, in which the Nazis have a nuclear weapon and the Second World War ends differently. You can imagine a civilization that develops technology like that, which would lead to its own destruction.”

Loeb insists the point is simple:

“[T]his is the very first object we found from outside the solar system. It is very similar to when I walk on the beach with my daughter and look at the seashells that are swept ashore. Every now and then we find an object of artificial origin. And this could be a message in a bottle, and we should be open-minded. So we put this sentence in the paper.”

In response to those criticizing his paper and in summary of why ‘Oumuamua is worth paying attention to, Loeb had this to say:

“The point is that we follow the evidence, and the evidence in this particular case is that there are six peculiar facts. And one of these facts is that it deviated from an orbit shaped by gravity while not showing any of the telltale signs of cometary outgassing activity. So we don’t see the gas around it, we don’t see the cometary tail. It has an extreme shape that we have never seen before in either asteroids or comets. We know that we couldn’t detect any heat from it and that it’s much more shiny, by a factor of ten, than a typical asteroid or comet. All of these are facts. I am following the facts.”

Speaking of the facts, Loeb drew a grand distinction between his curiosity of and the facts surrounding ‘Oumuamua and popular ideas such as the multiverse and extra dimensions:

“The multiverse is a mainstream idea—that anything that can happen will happen an infinite number of times. And I think that is not scientific, because it cannot be tested. Whereas the next time we see an object like this one, we can contemplate taking a photograph. My motivation, in part, is to motivate the scientific community to collect more data on the next object rather than argue a priori that they know the answer. In the multiverse case, we have no way of testing it, and everyone is happy to say, “Ya!”

Another mainstream idea is the extra dimension. You see that in string theory, which gets a lot of good press, and awards are given to members of that community. Not only has it not been tested empirically for almost forty years now but there is no hope it will be tested in the next forty years.“

In the end, Loeb’s questioning is simply a part of science:

“We have seen an object from outside the solar system, and we are trying to figure what it is made of and where it came from. We don’t have as much data as I would like. Given the data that we have, I am putting this on the table, and it bothers people to even think about that, just like it bothered the Church in the days of Galileo to even think about the possibility that the Earth moves around the sun. Prejudice is based on experience in the past. The problem is that it prevents you from making discoveries. If you put the probability at zero per cent of an object coming into the solar system, you would never find it!”

In conclusion: “If these beings are peaceful, we could learn a lot from them.”