Tag Archives: 杭州滨江楼风

Cormorant Eyes Rapidly Refocus in Dives Into Murky Water

by ,

first_imgYou’re hang gliding over a lake, and you spot a fish below.  From your hovering position, you drop into a rapid, steep dive headfirst into the water.  Whoops; your eyes just went out of focus, and you lost your fish in the murky depths.  Too bad you’re not a cormorant.    Cormorants (a kind of waterfowl) are able to adjust the lenses of their eyes from air-focus to water-focus in a split second, according to an article in Current Biology May 25.1  Four Israeli scientists bedazzle us:Cormorants (Aves; Phalacrocoracidae) are active fliers, yet they forage by pursuit diving and capture of fish with the bill.  In air, the cormorant’s cornea provides most of the total refractive power of the eye.  Underwater, however, corneal power is lost, as the cornea is now bathed in liquids of similar refractive index.  The retention of a sharp image, while performing precise visual tasks underwater, requires that the cormorant’s optical system compensates for the loss of refractive power of the cornea.  In addition, the underwater photic environment differs markedly from the aerial one, with the image quality undergoing a rapid deterioration through scatter and absorption.  Upon submergence, cormorants compensate for the loss of corneal power (>55 dioptres, D) and rapidly (>1000D/sec) attain a state of emmetropia, i.e. they are well focussed, by marked changes in the shape of their very flexible lens.The scientists somehow acquired accurate measurements of the birds’ optical acuity in air and in murky water.  The birds’ vision is as good as that of fish, seals and whales who spend most of their time underwater.  Cormorants, however, need outstanding vision in water as well as air.  “The requirements to perform precise visuo-motor tasks in two optically different media, and the uniqueness of the lenticular system of these birds,” they note with some admiration, ”make the vision of pursuit-diving birds a model of vertebrate capacities at the extreme.”1Strod, Arad, Izhaki and Katzir, “Cormorants keep their power: visual resolution in a pursuit-diving bird under amphibious and turbid conditions,” Current Biology, Vol 14, R376-R377, 25 May 2004.Strod and Arad work at the Hula Valley Nature Preserve in northern Israel; perhaps that is where they made some of the observations.  TV nature programs sometimes show these birds in action.  Next time you see one, you’ll have reason to appreciate even more the elegance of their fishing expertise.    Once again, this excellent intelligent-design paper was marred by a worthless insertion of the E word, probably because Current Darwin-Worship wouldn’t print it otherwise: they conclude, “Low turbidity levels are commonly encountered in natural water bodies and thus are of crucial importance in our understanding of the evolution, sensory ecology, and micro-habitat selection in aquatic organisms.”  This, as usual, means that nobody understands how these optical marvels evolved, but the Darwin Party hopes to some day.  I wonder if the authors really buy that promissory note.  So how many billion cormorants died of starvation till they got their optics right?  Sorry, 990 dioptres per second isn’t good enough; let’s bump it up to 1000 and make sure all the less fit go extinct.  For sure.  We don’t need such evolutionary whistling in the dark.  Cormorants knew the tune from the top, and in the right key, too; see sharp or be flat.(Visited 158 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

SETI Tries to Stretch the Habitable Zone

by ,

first_imgCan life exist outside the circumstellar habitable zone, that ring of life around a star where the temperature is comfy?  “For more than 150 years,” Ker Than wrote for LiveScience, “…this zone has been defined as a narrow disk around a star where temperatures are moderate enough that water on the surface of a planet can exist in a liquid form.”  His article surveyed newer, more optimistic ideas that extend the zone of life into dark, distant regions beyond.    The reasoning is based on three findings:Extreme life: Extremophiles can live on earth in places long thought inhospitable.Warm moons: Enceladus and Europa provide examples of locations outside the zone that may be warm enough for water.More of less: A red dwarf star’s habitable zone may be small, but there are so many of them (85% of stars), they add up.Ker Than acknowledged that the zones around red dwarfs would be so close-in, any planet would become tidally locked – hot on the lit side, freezing on the dark side.  But he claimed that new models “predict that if an orbiting planet had a thick enough atmosphere, heat could be redistributed from the lit side of the planet to the side that was dark.”    Some of these ideas came from a conference last fall sponsored by the SETI Institute, where about 30 scientists discussed whether planets orbiting red dwarf stars could be habitable. The Maybe Babies squeal with delight when they get their water bottle.  Water is nice, water is wet, water is necessary.  Water is not sufficient.  Like Jay Richards explained in The Privileged Planet, there is more to getting a habitable planet than “just add water.”  See the film for a long list of requirements that will dampen false hopes for life without design.(Visited 17 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Evolutionist Lost Faith Over Flawed Geology Lesson

by ,

first_imgA college student’s Biblical faith could not survive a geology lesson that seemed to offer convincing proof that the earth was old – much older than the Bible said it was.  This test of his faith was a tipping point.  He began to question the Bible, and ended up becoming a prominent evolutionist.  His books and articles present a halfway sympathetic view of his former creationist friends, but he is convinced now that science has disproved the Bible and established the truth of evolution.  But now, the rest of the story: that evidence that challenged his faith back then has since been shown to be wrongly interpreted – so wrong, in fact, that even secular geologists now agree with the creationist interpretation.    The man is Ron Numbers, now a professor of the history of science and medicine at the University of Wisconsin.  The geology lesson was about the fossil forests in Yellowstone.  In the 1970s, geologists taught that what looked like 30 separate forests had grown on top of each other, one at a time, only to be buried by periodic volcanic eruptions.  A sign at Specimen Ridge in the park explained this as a matter of fact.  Estimates ranged from 20,000 years minimum to 30,000, or 50,000 years or more were required – in any case, far more than a conservative Genesis timeframe could allow.    On May 18, 1980, an explosive event with profound repercussions for geological science took place.  Mt. St. Helens erupted.  In one day, this event literally overturned the long-age interpretation of Specimen Ridge.  In the Roadside Geology book about Yellowstone sold in the park, geologist William Fritz described his reaction to mudflows he witnessed along the Toutle River in Washington.  “It was just like Yellowstone!” he exclaimed.  Since that widely-observed natural experiment in catastrophic geology, the work of volcanic mudflows has become the leading explanation for how the Yellowstone fossil forests were emplaced, layers and all.  The old sign that explained the old theory to millions of park visitors is long gone.    When telling his life story, Ron Numbers has pointed to that premature lesson about the Yellowstone fossil forests taking tens of thousands of years to form as the incident that began turning him away from creationism to evolutionism.  Most recently, in an interview in Salon Magazine published January 2, he was asked at what point his ideas about creation began to change.  He responded,I wish I knew.  There are a few moments that proved crucial for me.  I went to Berkeley in the ’60s as a graduate student in history and learned to read critically.  That had a profound influence on me.  I was also exposed to critiques of young earth creationism.  The thing that stands out in my memory as being decisive was hearing a lecture about the fossil forest of Yellowstone, given by a creationist who’d just been out there to visit.  He found that for the 30 successive layers you needed — assuming the most rapid rates of decomposition of lava into soil and the most rapid rates of growth for the trees that came back in that area — at least 20,000 to 30,000 years.  The only alternative the creationists had to offer was that during the year of Noah’s flood, these whole stands of forest trees came floating in, one on top of another, until you had about 30 stacked up.  And that truly seemed incredible to me.  Just trying to visualize what that had been like during the year of Noah’s flood made me smile.He went on to describe how he and a fellow Bible-believing student wrestled all night with the implications of this explanation.  “Before dawn, we both decided the evidence was too strong,” he said.  This was a crucial night for me because I realized I was abandoning … the authority of Genesis.”    He did not indicate whether he had ever heard “the rest of the story” about Yellowstone.And thus, an evolutionist professor, who writes books against creationists, was molded – partly but significantly from a flawed interpretation of geological evidence.  Ron Numbers is the embodiment of a fable we told in our 11/13/2006 commentary.  An evolutionary explanation is presented as a matter of fact; it shakes a student’s faith; the damage is done; he “sees the light” of evolution and becomes a convert.  Then, years later, new evidence comes out showing that the creation explanation was trustworthy all along.    In both that case and this one, we are not saying that secular geologists have come running back to Genesis confessing their sins and saying the Bible-believers were right.  Of course they continue to talk long ages; the Yellowstone eruptions were umpty hundred thousand years ago with multiple episodes, the Nevada eruptions were similarly age-old, etc. (as if they were there with a stopwatch).  What’s important to remember is that data does not interpret itself.  Look again at the other story links at the end of the 11/13/2006 commentary.  Despite geologists’ philosophical commitment to the geologic column and its evolutionary foundation, they continually revise their stories, sometimes overturning them completely, as new evidence comes in (e.g., last week, 01/03/2007).  It just so happens that the latest interpretations of the Yellowstone and Nevada deposits are consistent with a catastrophic, flood-geology, young-earth view.  As such, they present neither a necessary nor sufficient reason to doubt the trustworthiness of the Bible.  The sudden catastrophic model is superior in many respects to the slow-and-gradual model.  Since the Bible-believing scientists propounded this idea before it became the new consensus, even when Ron considered it incredible and laughable, and no one took it seriously at the time, you could even say that in this instance the Bible-believing, young-earth creationists have been vindicated.It’s ironic that the old-age view was presented by “a creationist.”  Obviously not all creationists accept the Genesis timetable.  But creationists who subscribe to an old-earth or theistic-evolution view should ponder the impact of that view on Ron as a student.  It did not help him resolve conflicts between the Bible and “science” – it eroded his trust in the Bible completely.  Some old-earth creationists like Davis Young have touted the Yellowstone fossil forests as proof positive that the earth could not be fitted into a few thousand years.  Now they have egg on their faces.  Regardless of one’s position on the age of the earth, one lesson is clear: what science is claiming today is always subject to change.  Using today’s consensus to argue against the Bible’s history, which has withstood scrutiny longer than any scientific claim, is risky business and of doubtful support for Biblical worldview construction.Ron Numbers’ view of creationism is more nuanced and sympathetic than that of the typical Darwinist, owing to his personal experience.  But since that fateful geology lesson, it appears he began interpreting subsequent scientific claims through a new lens – an evolutionary, materialist lens.  One can only wonder how differently his life would have turned out had someone rushed into that class at the end of the lecture, yelling, “Wait!  Mt. St. Helens has just erupted, and billions of tons of logs are being deposited in layers along the Toutle River in a matter of hours!  It’s just like Yellowstone!”    As stated in the 11/13/2006 commentary, unbelief often becomes a deep trench once it starts.  It is highly doubtful Ron Numbers would retrace his worldview journey back to that point if someone were to tell him about the paradigm shift at Yellowstone.  By this time he has cut too deep a trench to climb out.  His reputation among his peers is also on the line.  Few people who publish books taking strong positions ever change their minds.  The twig is bent; the die is cast.  He is no longer the Learnuh, he is the Mosstuh.  He has seen the light.  Miracles can happen, but the new Yellowstone story is unlikely to make someone who touts the so-called “overwhelming evidence for evolution” change sides at this late date.  Pastors, parents, and Christian teachers wanting to prepare students for adulthood should take some sober lessons from this case study.    In the first place, Biblical history should be presented as more than just stories.  It needs to be shown to correspond to actual historical events.  The new Archaeological Study Bible is a great resource to show the correspondence between Biblical history and archaeology and history from other sources.    Secondly, Christian students should not be insulated from contradictory ideas.  Conflicts are inevitable anyway, so it is very counterproductive to avoid them.  Children and teens want to know their beliefs are sound.  Instruction about scientific controversies must be age-appropriate, of course, but in Ron’s case, why did it take college age at Berkeley (of all places) for him to discover critical thinking?  That should have started before age 10.  (Note: “Critical thinking” at liberal universities often becomes imbalanced questioning of traditional values and religious beliefs – see quote by Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson in the header of the Baloney Detector).  It is by facing difficulties head-on that confidence in one’s worldview is built.  Like Johnson has often teased, we should teach students more about evolution than the schools want them to hear!  A student can’t understand our modern world without understanding Darwinism and evolutionary theory and the best arguments put forth to support it.  But, unlike in public schools, they should also get the scientific arguments against it.  A vast majority of American citizens believe that.    Thirdly, and even more important, students should learn the limits of science.  They need to develop a healthy skepticism of the ability of fallible human science to make knowledge claims about the past (or even the present, for that matter).*Ron grew up in a Seventh-Day Adventist church.  Though outside the mainstream of Protestant tradition, SDAs are staunch Bible believers.  However much his well-meaning parents and teachers might have thought they were protecting students by teaching only the young-earth view and avoiding contradictory scientific views from secular geology and evolutionary biology, it is clear in hindsight that insulation from challenge can backfire.  By high school and college age, young adults are questioning the beliefs they were taught as children anyway.  We should help them learn how to do it right.  Dodging hard questions or making a child feel guilty for doubt is a bad example.  It gives the impression that Christianity is anti-intellectual, or too weak to stand up under examination.  The great Christian physicist James Clerk Maxwell believed that Christianity was the only system that allowed full and free investigation, without sacred spots that were off limits to scrutiny.    Chuck Colson and Nancy Pearcey gave a memorable example of facing controversy in chapter 5 of their book How Now Shall We Live? (Tyndale, 1999).  They portrayed a father confronted by his daughter’s questions about evolution.  He didn’t have ready answers at the time.  But he did a brave thing that made an impression on her: he answered, “I don’t know, but I’ll find out.”  And he let her know he was willing to lay his own faith on the line to find answers.  So with his daughter, he did a research project on the evidence for creation and taught her more than just answers to her specific questions: he taught her that a Christian need not be afraid of investigating the evidence.  He showed her that the way to handle a doubt is to confront it with research and honest analysis of both sides of a controversy.If Ron Numbers had left the safety of church and home armed with critical thinking skills and an arsenal of sound strategies to consider skeptical claims fairly, how much different would his life had been?  It’s hard to say.  Some students will rebel for other reasons: perhaps, a rationalization to explore their lusts, or a desire to fit in with a peer group.  It appears, though, that Ron has maintained a soft spot for his childhood worldview, as if nostalgic for it.  Some ardent anticreationists grew up in a church but were completely unprepared for the allure of evolutionary propaganda.  They not only embraced it readily, but became ardent foes of Christianity.  E. O. Wilson and Michael Shermer come to mind.  From Ron Numbers’ own testimony, though, it seems he and his friend sincerely wanted to keep their faith.  They respected truth and yet were conflicted by what appeared to be solid evidence against what they had been taught.  A solid education in handling difficulties and controversies honestly and critically is good insurance against sudden challenges by conflicting ideas.It goes without saying that bad beliefs deserve to fall when unable to withstand a challenge.  Some Christians fall for foolish ideas that are not supportable from the Bible or scientific evidence, like myths of NASA support for Joshua’s long day, or speculations about where heaven is in the visible universe.  Critical thinking demands the honesty to abandon a belief that is no longer defensible after rigorous investigation of the evidence and research into all the well-reasoned points of view.  The same standard cuts both ways.  When will the evolutionists abandon Haeckel’s; embryos, junk DNA, vestigial organs and the other discredited props for their beliefs?    Unfortunately for Ron, his doubts about a young earth were aggravated by legitimate doubts about the credibility of SDA’s prophetess Ellen White – a writer no other Christian groups consider authoritative.  This contributed to him tossing the whole religious package altogether.  Most SDAs are very congenial and sincere people, but any Christian who gets too closely tied to one particular sect or denomination should take warning.  Beware if you belong to any group that becomes ingrown and isolated, trusts only its own material and shuns fellowship with other true Christians in other denominations.  Sectarianism can pose a setup for rejection of all Christianity by the young when maybe the fault is with unusual teachings or practices of the denomination, not the Bible itself.  The more a church, tradition, or a strong leader becomes the authority rather than the Bible itself, the greater the risk.Science is a search for truth, but it is not the truth.  It is limited in its domain (the observable world).  It is done by fallible humans.  Science is tentative at best, and often wrong.  There are deep and abiding philosophical doubts about the ability of mere mortals to comprehend reality by our senses with any confidence that what we deem scientific today is true, necessary, universal and certain.*  It bears repeating: evidence does not interpret itself.  Over and over in these pages you have read about evolutionists twisting and forcing contradictory evidence into the rigid container of their world view.  The same evidence can often bear one or more other equally-valid interpretations.  At best, science can claim evidence is consistent with a belief but cannot thereby claim it is True with a capital T.  Even the claim of consistency is a judgment call.  It often involves willfully ignoring some inconsistent evidence rivals might consider weighty.    The next time someone shows you supposedly incontrovertible evidence that the Bible cannot be trusted, and that science has proved it wrong, don’t be so quick to believe the claim.  Like the father in the story above, go find out.  The Bible has withstood millennia of attacks from all sides.  Sometimes you may have to wait a few years for the scientific consensus to shift back, or for a volcano to blow the old theory up in smoke.  A world view worth living by is one that is rooted and grounded in conviction that has been tested by challenge.  Victorious faith requires both exercise and armor.  Young people should go to “world view boot camp” for both.  Exercise teaches one how to use the armor, and the sparring of ideas allows quality armor to show its true mettle.(Visited 61 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Vapor Barriers, Radon, Basement Slabs, and VOCs — How to Stop the Poison?

by ,

first_imgHow’s this for a dicey scenario: Arlene DiMarino is a homeowner with chemical sensitivities who lives a couple of blocks away from an EPA Superfund site.“I am aware of a toxic plume of underground water that is close by,” she writes in a Q&A post. “I am concerned that these VOCs can permeate the cement floor and foundation.”She plans to pour another layer of concrete over the existing basement slab. This will give her an opportunity to insert a vapor barrier to block any toxins from migrating into the house. But what’s the best product to use?Alternatives to 6-mil polyAs GBA senior editor Martin Holladay points out, concrete itself is a good air barrier, as long as any cracks that develop are sealed with caulk.But, he adds, it’s important to install a vapor barrier — typically 6-mil polyethylene with taped seams — under any concrete slab. Air Barrier or Vapor Barrier? (podcast)RELATED ARTICLES 7 Steps to an Energy-Efficient House: 1. The BasementVapor Retarders and Vapor BarriersForget Vapor Diffusion — Stop the Air Leaks!Radon and Air TightnessGreen Basement Renovation: Adding Under a HomeGreen Basics: Foundation Drains Vapor Barriers Are a Good Thing, Right?CONSTRUCTION DETAILS RELATED MULTIMEDIAcenter_img Other points of view are quick to emerge, like this flat statement from Robert Riversong: “I would never use standard 6-mil polyethylene under a concrete slab.”Instead, Riversong recommends a product called Tu-Tuf, a robust, cross-laminated, 4-mm-thick plastic that’s advertised as free of pinholes. (It’s made by Sto-Cote Products and sold widely over the Internet.)David Meiland suggests a product called Stego Wrap, which is 15 mils thick and said by the manufacturer to resist tears, splits, and punctures.There’s also something called SlabShield, writes Andy Ault. SlabShield combines two layers of polyethylene and one of aluminum. The polyethylene sandwich protects the aluminum, a highly effective vapor barrier, from lime in the concrete. The manufacturer also claims that SlabShield provides a thermal break.Ault says he used SlabShield on a Habitat for Humanity LEED Platinum project and was pleased with the result.“It is much stronger than typical 6-mil, so it is designed for that type of rugged application that Robert alluded to,” Ault writes. “We had volunteers walking on it, and it never missed a beat. The ship-lap edge design also gave us a high comfort level that the taped seams will perform well.”Yet another possibility, writes Craig, is Red Guard, a waterproofing and crack-prevention membrane made by Custom Building Products.“Typically it is used under tile, and it is being used in some applications as a shower pan liner,” Craig says. “It seems perfect for a situation between slabs because it acts as a crack isolation membrane and vapor barrier, so it should seal any cracks in the original slab and prevent any new cracks from leaking vapor through. “A building scientist disagreesAs posters recommend tougher and tougher vapor barriers, Garth Sproule points to a conversation with Joseph Lstiburek, who couldn’t care less if a sub-slab layer of plastic has a few holes in it.Even if Arlene were to don a pair of golf spikes and walk all over her plastic vapor barrier, it would still do a pretty good job, Lstiburek says in a Green Building Advisor podcast. “So what’s the total surface area of the punctures compared to the total surface area of the plastic?” he says. “If I’m there for about two hours, maybe it’s 10 percent. So I basically have reduced the vapor control layer effectiveness of that plastic sheet by 10 percent.”When the barrier is topped by four inches of concrete, she’ll have a very effective air barrier and “a darn good vapor retarder.“So I haven’t increased, even from a measurable perspective, the amount of water vapor transmission from the ground into the floor with the ripped and torn plastic sheet,” Lstiburek says. “That’s why I always laugh at the people that say, ‘Well, you gotta tape the joints and you gotta be careful not to puncture it.’ Give me a break!”Replies Riversong: “I disagree with Dr. Joe. With a good sub-slab radon-mitigation system that effectively depressurizes the soil, an intact concrete slab might be good enough. But, if there is any positive soil gas pressure, then no concrete slab will be tight enough to prevent radon intrusion, which can pass through a crack too small for the eye to see.”What about a real radon-mitigation system?In new construction, the area beneath the basement slab is often vented to the outside, giving radon, a naturally occurring radioactive gas, a way to escape. The vent can be passive or powered by a fan.This is the retrofit measure recommended by Riversong, who suggests removing the existing concrete slab, and adding a layer of crushed stone and a perforated pipe connected to a roof vent.Others agree. “Pulling everything existing and starting from scratch is never a bad strategy,” writes Ault, “but that will at least double your cost (if not more), so you need to be sure that the cost/benefit ratio makes sense for you.”As Ault points out, ceiling height also is a concern. If a new slab lowers the basement ceiling height to less than 7 feet, it could be a code problem should Arlene or a future owner want to make the basement a living space.Our expert’s opinionHere’s GBA Technical Director Peter Yost’s opinion:Looking at Arlene’s basement problem from the radon perspective is a good one, in my bookIn my own home, with a leaky basement floor and no spare head height at all, and a radon problem exacerbated by the installation of spray foam insulation on the basement walls, I tried a variety of ways to air seal the radon out, to no avail.If you can’t keep it out, flush it outAnd when I called a local radon technician to see about a sub-slab depressurization system solution, he let me know that it was unlikely that he could pull hard enough with even two fans to depressurize such a leaky slab. So our solution was a heat-recovery ventilator servicing just the basement.But exhaust fans use energyThe HRV drove the radon concentration well below the EPA threshold of 4 pico-curies per liter. It was a practical, easy solution to a soil gas problem, albeit with a steady energy penalty (our FanTech HRV pulls about 1 watt per cfm on any of the three 100/150/200 cfm settings).If you can’t give up the height, and you don’t have the stomach to completely redo your basement slab, I would go after any potential or actual soil gas problem with some sort of exhaust strategy, purchasing the highest-efficiency fan your money can buy (there are HRVs in the GBA Product Guide with efficiencies up to more than 5 cfm per watt).One way to offset the extra energy useOne last note: I reduce the energy penalty of our HRV in the late fall/winter/early spring by hanging our wash in the basement. The HRV easily handles (by exhaust exchange) the 4 pounds of water left in a load after our horizontal-axis washer is done with it. And I’ve checked the interior relative humidity in the basement to verify that this approach is not a problem; it barely bumps the interior RH. Sub-Slab Retrofit for Radon VentUnderground Water Barrier Retrofit (Rubber Membrane)Underground Water Barrier Retrofit (6-Mil Poly)last_img read more

UAAP Season 80 Preview: Sablan vows different UST Tigers will show up

by ,

first_imgUAAP SEASON 80 PREVIEW: UST Growling Tigers428 viewsSportsVentuno Web Player 4.51 Hotel says PH coach apologized for ‘kikiam for breakfast’ claim Ethel Booba on hotel’s clarification that ‘kikiam’ is ‘chicken sausage’: ‘Kung di pa pansinin, baka isipin nila ok lang’ Coach: Boy SablanLast Season: 3-11 (8th Place)Holdovers: Marvin Lee, Jeepy FaundoAdditions: Steve Akomo, Christian Garcia, Jordan Sta. AnaKey Losses: Louie Vigil, Jon Sheriff, Renzo Subido, Mario BonleonCoach Boy Sablan acknowledges that after last year’s disastrous run, the UAAP Season 80 campaign will be make or break for him in University of Santo Tomas.ADVERTISEMENT Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next LATEST STORIES Gilas Pilipinas joins Fiba Asia Champions Cup in China Chief Justice Peralta on upcoming UAAP game: UP has no match against UST PLAY LIST 01:00Chief Justice Peralta on upcoming UAAP game: UP has no match against UST00:50Trending Articles01:37PNP vows dismissal for cadets in alleged hazing at PNPA02:49Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games With key figures from last season’s campaign gone, the Growling Tigers will lean on veterans Marvin Lee and Jeepy Faundo to carry the fight.But Sablan believes that UST’s unpredictability makes it dangerous, as he expects several players to step up unlike others who depend largely on only one go-to guy.“You won’t rely on just one person. Everybody can be depended on. There are no main guys. I’m not particular on one, two, or three players. Now, I have more confidence on my players. I trust what they can do on the court.”While he’s not willing to make any promises, he guarantees that UST will be better prepared for the challenges that this season brings.“No promises,” he said. “That the team prepared well and we’ll try do everything we practiced the last eight months during the games. You’ll see the changes in our players. That’s one thing you have to watch out for. You’ll see the difference.”ADVERTISEMENT Robredo should’ve resigned as drug czar after lack of trust issue – Panelo But Sablan is willing to take on all comers in his second season at the helm for the Growling Tigers with a squad that he can proudly say is his own.“I built this team unlike last year’s. When I arrived, I had no choice but to run with whatever I had. This time, I’m in control of everything. We had a longer preparation this time and I believe we’re in a better groove,” said Sablan in Filipino.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSSEA Games: Biñan football stadium stands out in preparedness, completionSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSBoxers Pacquiao, Petecio torchbearers for SEA Games openingParading a mix of veterans and new recruits, Sablan is confident with the group that is slowly showing signs of maturity after the numerous pocket tournaments it participated in in the run up for this season.We had a longer time to prepare, not like before that we only had two months of preparation. So now, we’re running a bit better. The system I was trying to instill last year is finally happening. The bottomline is we had a longer preparation,” said Sablan.center_img Trump signs bills in support of Hong Kong protesters Celebrity chef Gary Rhodes dies at 59 with wife by his side Celebrity chef Gary Rhodes dies at 59 with wife by his side Lacson: SEA Games fund put in foundation like ‘Napoles case’ Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. MOST READ For the complete collegiate sports coverage including scores, schedules and stories, visit Inquirer Varsity. NATO’s aging eye in the sky to get a last overhaul View commentslast_img read more