Tarantula Feet, Silk, and Research

"Tarantulas Shoot Silk From Their Feet, Researchers Find"
FoxNews.com (May 18, 2011)

"Talk about fancy footwork!

"British researchers have discovered that adult tarantulas can climb sheer walls by shooting strands of silk from their feet -- enabling the hefty arachnids to save themselves should they risk falling from a height. Tarantulas, it turns out, are actually quite fragile.

" 'The animals are very delicate. They wouldn't survive a fall from any height,' explained Claire Rind from the University of Newcastle in the U.K. Teaming up with undergraduate Luke Birkett, Rind made the surprising discovery using three ground-dwelling Chilean rose tarantulas.

"Gently placing one of the animals in a very clean aquarium with microscope slides on the floor, the duo cautiously upended the aquarium to see if the tarantula could hang on...."

It did.

It wasn't supposed to, but it did.

Apparently folks 'knew' that tarantulas couldn't hold on to a vertical surface: but the tarantula in the tank wasn't quite so well-informed. So to speak.

Even a gentle shake didn't dislodge the outsized spider. It slipped a little, but found footing again.

Back to that article.

"...Looking at the glass by eye, Rind couldn't see anything, but when she and Birkett looked closely under a microscope, they found minute threads of silk where the spider had stood before slipping...."

Long story made short, moults - the cast-off exoskeleton of Fluffy the tarantula - and scanning electron microscopy showed tiny, reinforced, silk spigots on the spider's feet. Quite a few of them.

Which explained how Fluffy got little threads of silk tying her feet to the glass.

It's possible that not all tarantulas spin silk from their feet. But since the three species checked by the researchers all do, and aren't very closely related: it looks like foot-silk may be a 'tarantula' trait.

All of which won't help you find a shorter route to work, make your teeth whiter, or find you a successful and rewarding career. But the Lemming thinks this sort of thing is fascinating.

The Lemming also thinks it's noteworthy that these British researchers decided to see whether or not tarantulas could hold on to a vertical glass surface. Instead of reading what an 'expert' said.

And that's another topic.

Finally, if you check the tags for this post you'll find "insects," and "animals." Spiders aren't insects, but this blog has a whole lot of tags already, and I'm not going to start a new "arachnid" one.

Spiders are animals, though: although many folks who speak the same dialect of English as the Lemming mean "mammal" when they say "animal." Which has the same number of letters. And most of the same letters. It's the "i" and "n" that sets "animal" apart.

Then there are words like eukaryotic: and that is yet another topic.

Not-completely-unrelated posts:

• "Hellgrammite: A Lake, a Character, and a - Thing"
  (February 27, 2011)
• "'Terribly Hairy Fly' of Kenya: 'Like a Spider With Hairy Legs'"
  (December 11, 2010)
• "Really Big Dragonflies: Oxygen's What Does It"
  (November 3, 2010)
• "Spiders, Arachnophobia, Crabs, and a Video"
  (November 21, 2009)
• "Trilobites, Arthropods, Evolution, and Why Mothra Isn't Real"
  (October 17, 2009)

United States Census Data: Online

"U.S. Gazetteer: 2000 and 1990"
United States Census Bureau

"Download Census 2000 U.S. Gazetteer files for places, counties, county subdivisions, and ZCTAs^TM (ZIP Code^® Tabulation Area). These files are available to the public 'as is'; the vintage matches the Census 2000 data available from the Census Bureau...."

They've got the same thing for 1990 census data, and a line to their "American FactFinder." If the Lemming ever wants to look through a few megabytes of text, that looks like a pretty good place to go.

Provided, of course, that the idea is to find statistics about some place in the United States.

If the Lemming wanted to find out what sort of paint Rembrandt used, or what the effect of imperial Rome's corn laws was - not so much.

No Fear: That Could Be a Problem

"Woman who cannot feel fear may help in treating PTSD"
Health, BBC News(December 17, 2010)

"A woman who cannot feel afraid because of a missing structure in her brain could help scientists discover treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

"Research published in Current Biology showed the woman felt no fear in a variety of scary situations....

"...The woman feels other emotions but said as an adult, she had never felt afraid.

"She is the first known case of someone who is unable to process fear.

"Researchers at the University of Iowa said her inability to feel frightened was because she is missing a structure in her brain called the amygdala...."

"...The woman experienced fear as a child and knows that some situations should be frightening.

"As an adult she has been in various frightening situations, including being threatened with a knife and held at gunpoint.

"These did not make her afraid...."

Lacking an emotional response to horror movies might not seem like such a problem - except maybe from the point of view of a film fan. Not being afraid when there's an objective reason to feel fear might be a problem.

Panic is a notoriously poor emotional state for making rational choices: but fear does seem to be a useful warning flag, letting us know that we'd better start paying close attention.

The Wikipedia article, "Amygdala," has a pretty good description of what that part of the brain does (as far as we know), where it is and how it's shaped.

Infrasound: Be Afraid, be Very Afraid

Or, get informed.

In a blatant display of self-promotion, the Lemming presents a micro-review of something the Lemming wrote - for another blog:

"Winter, Christmas, Small Town America, and News "
Sauk Centre Journal Blog (December 16, 2010)

"...This week's Sauk Centre Herald front page reminded me of reasons why I love living here. It's not that this example of small town America is some perfect little care-free haven, where improbably cheerful folks live just the way it was in the 'good old days.'

"I remember 'the good old days,' by the way: and they weren't. Which isn't quite another topic.

"The top headline this week is about wind turbines, a wind farm that's planned for this area, and concerns that a couple of folks have about it. It's not the aesthetics of the wind turbines that bothers them: They've heard that the blades make infrasound. That's another invisible thing that may hurt people. Or, not.My guess is that we've got more trouble with the 60-cycle hum generated by the power grid: but I'm not terribly concerned about that, either...."

That got the Lemming curious. In the Sauk Centre Journal Blog, I point out that "infrasound" is a fancy word for sound that's pitched too low for us to hear. Concerns about infrasound are real: in a very qualified way:

• "Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds, infrasound and wind turbines"
  Department of Otolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, via National Institutes of Health (June 16, 2010)
• "Scientist Challenges the Conventional Wisdom That What You Can't Hear Won't Hurt You"
  National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, commenting on the June 16, 2010 article

That WUSM, St. Louis, MO, study points out that each heartbeat produces "infrasound." so does each breath. Our bodies generate it every time we cough, too.

"Infrasound," as such, seems to be part of our environment. Part of us, for that matter.

The sort of sound wind turbines make? The WUSM article's abstract says that in unusual cases, some folks really do experience change in their ears. Sometimes.

Where concern about wind turbine sound is, on the scale between something serious and a new way to get research grants? The Lemming doesn't know.

It's a little hard to work up a panic over this, since, as the Lemming wrote in that other blog:

"...I remember when everything caused cancer. During those particular 'good old days,' we were also warned that some carcinogens caused heart attacks. These dire threats were discussed - quite seriously - in newspapers and magazines, and worked their way into college textbooks.

"Some of that, ah, concern was based on reality. Some - well, we've moved on to other terrifying threats...."

About the wind turbines? The Lemming thinks it shouldn't hurt to let researchers look into whether or not there's a cause for concern. Provided they do real research, the kind with facts and numbers.

Vaguely-related posts:

• "Lemming Tracks: '8 x 8' Water Rule, Real Research; Beer and Pretzels"
  (November 27, 2010)
• "Lots of Lead and Cadmium in Kids' Tableware: Spiffy"
  (November 22, 2010)
  • If the Lemming was 'smart'
    • I'd pick a simple attitude, like
      
      • Newspapers always lie!
      • Journalists walk on water!
      • It's a conspiracy!
    • And stick with it
  • The Lemming lives in the real world, though
    • Sometimes old-school journalism gets it right
    • Sometimes, not
• "Woman 'Cut in Half:' Journalistic Hyperbole, Remarkable Account"
  (September 23, 2010)
• "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Ear Wax Blockage * But Were Afraid to Ask"
  (May 23, 2010)
• "3D TV Health Concern: Sort of"
  (April 15, 2010)

'My Dog Ate My Blog?!'

Well, that's interesting:

My Dog Ate My Blog
"Almost Educational!"

Here's what their "About Us" page has to say:

"My Dog Ate My Blog is the creation of editors, writers, and marketers in the education industry looking for an outlet for their general creativity and immaturity.

"Our writers and contributors will be focusing on the categories of politics, technology, and pop culture, with an (almost) educational spin. If those topics don't sound appealing to you, well, we're at a loss. You are officially on the wrong blog...."

Okay: that's not all of what they say on that page: I'm trying to encourage you to go look for yourself.

One of their author's bios reads, "I'm red-green color blind and I abhor cheese. Jealous?"

This is not your stuffy, dry, prolixity-prone potpourri of pompous pedantry.

If you consider a day indubitably ill-spent if you don't read a sentence without words like 'ameliorate' or 'contradistinction:' Like they said, "You are officially on the wrong blog." Unequivocally.

The most recent post, when the Lemming checked, was:

"The Question of Frivolous Lawsuits"
sarah, My Dog Ate My Blog (December 1, 2010)

"Lawyers lurk everywhere. They are the authors of every phrase beginning with 'No purchase necessary,' and of every other long, inscrutable passage that you sign without reading. They are why you can't rent a car, skydive, check your coat, or be on reality television without making a promise not to sue. They are the reason that everything from gym equipment to beaches feature warnings that lifting weights or swimming can result in 'serious injury or death.' Philip K. Howard, the author of the best-selling Life Without Lawyers bemoans all the ways in which lawyers have ruined everything fun. In his view, lawyers have ripped the see-saws out of playgrounds (too dangerous), banned tag from recess, stopped tree-climbing–and soon, he implies, will bring an end to laughing, singing, dancing, and joy...."

Long paragraphs aside, it's a well-written piece. With the occasional factual error: like "...Each Halloween, parents across the country unwrap and inspect their children's candy out of a fear that some sick and sadistic neighbor has poisoned it. Many parents won't let their kids trick-or-treat alone for fear that someone will kidnap them right off the front stoop. These events would be horrifying international news stories if they ever actually happened–they never have...."
(emphasis mine)

That's technically accurate.

Joseph Wetterling, for example, wasn't on his front stoop: he was snatched from the driveway of his home in 1989. And it wasn't Halloween. (ABC News: more at Jacob Wetterling Resource Center, Jacob Wetterling Foundation)

I don't recall reading or hearing about poisoned Halloween candy. Not recently, anyway. Several decades back, though, the occasional pin or razor blade turned up in a treat. Sometimes that made the news - but like I said, it was several decades back, and some of them were hoaxes. Snopes.com recalls the 2000 case in Minneapolis, when someone with the unlikely name of James Joseph Smith put needles in Snickers Bars. The source Snopes cites is "Man Charged with Putting Needles in Halloween Candy," The Associated Press, Minneapolis Star Tribune (November 2, 2000).

Back when the Lemming was doing time in academia, I learned to research - carefully - before I used terms like "never" or "always." I haven't tracked the Smith case back through Minnesota's criminal records - but it does look like that 'never have' is a little optimistic.

Still - it's a pretty good read.

And the central point, that a calm approach to emotional cases is a good idea, is valid: in the Lemming's opinion. The supporting evidence? Well, can't have everything.

One more thing: My Dog Ate My Blog (love that name - it's memorable and funny) has a good, mnemonic / easy-to-remember URL: mydogatemyblog.com - that redirects you to http://www.guidetoonlineschools.com/blog. The guidetoonlineschools.com website, also has a memorable URL, since it's the - what else? Guide to Online Schools website.

The Lemming is running out of 'today,' when it comes to getting today's posts written, so - moving on.

Railgun: From the 1933 Electric Machine Gun to 2010 Cannon

---

Preface: It would be nice, in the Lemming's opinion, if everybody would always be nice. That doesn't happen. I've discussed niceness, war, and reality, in "War is Not Nice," Another War-on-Terror Blog. The Lemming will omit the customary hand-wringing in this post, regarding the need for weapons.

---

A railgun is a staple science fiction weapon. Unlike guns that use a small explosive charge, or compressed gas, to accelerate a projectile; a series of electromagnets in a railgun's 'barrel' act on a projectile, one after another.

As the projectile reaches each electromagnet, it shuts off and the next one is turned on.

Theoretically, very high muzzle velocities should be possible.

This isn't a new idea. A 1933 patent application describes a machine gun that uses magnetic flux instead of "gun powder or the like." We don't have electric machine guns today: quite likely because back in 1933 we didn't have high-output portable generators.

As David S. Zondy said, in his Tales of Future Past page on railguns, "...Mr. Virgil Grigsby of San Augustine Texas went for the small-scale version of what today is known as a "railgun" when he patented his electric machinegun, which would have revolutionised warfare if the extension cord had stretched a bit further...." ("Railgun," Tales of Future Past)

That was then. This is now:


(U.S. Navy video by John Williams, via FoxNews.com, used w/o permission)

"Navy Sets World Record With Incredible, Sci-Fi Weapon"
John R. Quain, Military Tech, FoxNews.com (John R. Quain)

"A theoretical dream for decades, the railgun is unlike any other weapon used in warfare. And it's quite real too, as the U.S. Navy has proven in a record-setting test today in Dahlgren, VA.

"Rather than relying on a explosion to fire a projectile, the technology uses an electomagnetic current to accelerate a non-explosive bullet at several times the speed of sound. The conductive projectile zips along a set of electrically charged parallel rails and out of the barrel at speeds up to Mach 7.

"The result: a weapon that can hit a target 100 miles or more away within minutes.

" 'It's an over-used term, but it really changes several games,' Rear Admiral Nevin P. Carr, Jr., the chief of Naval Research, told FoxNews.com prior to the test.

"For a generation raised on shoot-'em-up video games, the word 'railgun' invokes sci-fi images of an impossibly destructive weapon annihilating monsters and aliens. But the railgun is nonetheless very real.

"An electromagnetic railgun offers a velocity previously unattainable in a conventional weapon, speeds that are incredibly powerful on their own. In fact, since the projectile doesn't have any explosives itself, it relies upon that kinetic energy to do damage. And at 11 a.m. today, the Navy produced a 33-megajoule firing -- more than three times the previous record set by the Navy in 2008...."

33 Mega-whats?!

The energy involved, 33 megajoules, may not seem like much: although "mega" is an impressive syllable. Briefly, a joule is a measure of energy. A megajoule is, what else? - 1,000,000 joules. A joule is the energy involved in moving one meter with the force of one newton. A newton is the force it takes to accelerate one kilogram at 1 meter per second per second.

Another way of putting it is that the energy in one kilowatt-hour is about 3.6 megajoules. On the unlikely chance that you want more of that, Australian Academy of Science and GCSE.com websites define these and other terms.

33 Megajoules: How Bad Can That Be?

If the Lemming did the math right, at typical American energy costs, that 33 megajoules of energy costs between 20 cents and two dollars. That's according to EnergyVortex.com. We're apparently supposed to feel guilty about the power grid, by the way. Destroying the environment and all that.

The FoxNews.com article translates the railgun's destructive potential in a less geeky, more readily understood way. In the Lemming's opinion.

"...A single megajoule is roughly equivalent to a 1-ton car traveling at 100 mph...."
(FoxNews.com)

So: let's say one of those semitrailers that carries maybe a dozen cars is barreling down a freeway at 100 miles an hour. And hits a bridge piling. It's going to be bad for the driver: also anybody driving nearby; the bridge piling; and quite possibly the bridge.

33 megajoules is a lot of energy.

Why Railguns?

The Lemming could insert the conventional hand-wringing about the not-niceness of violence here: but you've heard it all before. Moving on.

Since railgun projectiles are essentially solid pieces of metal, with no explosives: if one is dropped, it won't explode. Navy crews who handle munitions would have one less thing to worry about. The railguns themselves don't use explosives to accelerate the projectiles: so that's another worry gone.

There are logistical and tactical advantages, too - discussed briefly in the article.

Impossible? In 1933, Yes

Navy ships with railguns won't be around for several years. There are still very serious technical issues to be ironed out. Back to that article:

"...The projectile is no cannon ball, either. At speeds well above the sound barrier, aerodynamics and special materials must be considered so that it isn't destroyed coming out of the barrel or by heat as it travels at such terrific speeds.

"Then there's question of electrical requirements. Up until recently, those requirements simply weren't practical. However, the naval researchers believe they can solve that issue using newer Navy ships and capacitors to build up the charge necessary to blast a railgun projectile out at supersonic speeds. Ellis says they hope to be able to shoot 6 to 12 rounds per minute, 'but we're not there yet.'

"So when will the railgun become a working weapon? Both Ellis and Carr expect fully functional railguns on the decks of U.S. Navy ships in the 2025 time frame...."
(FoxNews.com)

Video, and the Boom Explained

A Wired article's video includes USN footage of the recent railgun test:
"Video: Navy's Mach 8 Railgun Obliterates Record"
Spencer Ackerman, Danger Room, Wired (December 10, 2010)

"There wasn't much left of the 23-pound bullet, just a scalded piece of squat metal. That's what happens when an enormous electromagnetic gun sends its ammo rocketing 5,500 feet in a single second.

"The gun that fired the bullet is the Navy's experimental railgun. The gun has no moving parts or propellants — just a king-sized burst of energy that sends a projectile flying. And today its parents at the Office of Naval Research sent 33 megajoules through it, setting a new world record and making it the most powerful railgun ever developed.

"Reporters were invited to watch the test at the Dalghren Naval Surface Warfare Center. A tangle of two-inch thick coaxial cables hooked up to stacks of refrigerator-sized capacitors took five minutes to power juice into a gun the size of a schoolbus built in a warehouse. With a 1.5-million-ampere spark of light and a boom audible in a room 50 feet away, the bullet left the gun at a speed of Mach 8.

"All that energy was 'dump[ed] in 10 milliseconds,' says Charles Garrett, project manager at Dahlgren for the railgun.

But since there no explosion powering the projectile, why should the railgun have made any noise at all? Answer: the bullet went so fast it released a sonic boom."

The video's been making the round: on usnavyresearch's YouTube channel and cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com, for example.

Here's that YouTube video reduced to fit in this blog. The full-size display is on YouTube:

"Electromagnetic Railgun world record setting event"

usnavyresearch, YouTube (December 10, 2010)
video, 0:50

"The Office of Naval Research Electromagnetic Railgun located at the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division, fired a world-record setting 33 megajoule shot, breaking the previous record established January, 31, 2008."

Related posts:

• "Spaceships Launched on Rails: Not-So-New Idea Proposed"
  (September 15, 2010)
• "Ray Guns are Science Fiction: Energy Weapons? Not So Much"
  (July 22, 2010)
• "Set PHASERs on Stun: Koloc's Kugelblitz Research is For Real"
  (February 20, 2009)
• "Binder Clips and #2 Pencils: Deadly Weapons?!"
  (September 2, 2008)
• "Boeing Building Laser Gunship: No, Really"
  (December 15, 2007)

Like this post? Tweet it: Tweet Or, not: your choice.

Arsenic and Old Science: NASA and Extraterrestrial Life

The Lemming doesn't know what it is about the science folks at FOXNews and Saturn - but today's article has a name in the byline: also an update on NASA, extraterrestrial life, and looking for a quarter in the yard.

No, really: that last phrase makes sense, in context.

"Are Aliens Among Us? Sort of, NASA Says"
John Brandon, Science, FOXNews, (December 2, 2010)

"Alien life has been among us all along, according to new biological findings announced by NASA Thursday.

"Research conducted by biochemist Dr. Felisa Wolfe-Simon from the U.S. Geological Survey has turned the quest for alien life on its ear, suggesting that phosphorous[!], carbon, and the other fundamental elements found in every living thing on Earth aren't the only signs of life. Wolfe-Simon will explain the findings at a hotly anticipated NASA press conference today at 2 p.m.

"After a two-year study at California's Mono Lake, near Yosemite National Park, Wolfe-Simon found that a bug will grow in the presence of the toxic chemical arsenic when only slight traces of phosphorous are present. It's a radical finding, says molecular biologist Steven Benner, who is part of NASA's 'Team Titan' and an expert on astrobiology -- forcing the space agency to redefine the quest for other life in the universe.

" 'When we're searching for alien life, if it's not a Ferengi from Star Trek, what would it be?' Benner asked FoxNews.com. In his estimation, we've always defined life as something that has the exact same chemistry as a life-form on Earth. The new discovery will likely change that equation, because it means the basic building blocks of DNA are not quite what we thought...."

So far, so good. Biologists are learning quite a bit from studying extremophile - critters that live in places that most other plants, animals, bacteria, fungi - and so on - can't survive in.

There's more to the article, including these quotes:

"...'It's a paradigm shift,' says Dimitar Sasselov, an astrobiologist who leads the Origins of Life Initiative at Harvard University. 'The possibility that Earth-life biochemistry is not universal is a transformational concept. It fills the search [for alien life] with optimism. NASA is moving in a good overall direction. What is needed is to take alternatives for life's chemistry to heart and fund research work better.'

"Arsenic is poisonous to nearly all forms of life on earth. Even small amounts of the poison become embedded in living tissue, causing liver failure and ultimately death -- in nearly everything BUT these bacteria...."

Nit-Picking by the Lemming

Good grief. This article was presumably done by a 'science' reporter. Well, he was probably educated in America.

It's Phosphorus, not "Phosphorous"

"Phosphorous," that multivalent nonmetallic element of the nitrogen family, spelled "phosphorus"

Arsenic, Phosphorus, Livers, and Life

Arsenic is bad for us because we've got livers - and arsenic is not good for the liver. Or the rest of us. It's chemically similar to phosphorus - and I'll get back to that. Plants don't have livers - and arsenic isn't particularly good for them, either. Again, it's a chemical thing. (National Institutes of Health)

Like just about everything else (November 22, 2010), there's a little bit of arsenic in all of us - it doesn't start being a problem until there's too much. One of the reasons arsenic in plants is studied is because the stuff was used to kill boll weevils. (Dartmouth Toxic Metals Research Program) And the Lemming is getting off-topic.

Looking for a Quarter in the Yard

The Lemming said that looking for a quarter made sense, in context. Here's the context:

"...science fiction author Robert Sawyer told FoxNews.com, there could be even more profound implications. We have always looked for alien life that matches our biology, but now we have found a different life-form that uses arsenic in its basic DNA structure, he said.

"Sawyer explained that NASA science probes have always looked in the most likely places we thought life could exist -- on Mars or Europa, a moon of Jupiter. There is an old joke, he says, about how someone lost a quarter in their garage, then looks out in the yard for it. A neighbor asks why they are looking there instead of in the garage; the light is better, he answers.

" 'We tend to use the tools we know and the places we know to look for alien life,' Sawyer said, explaining that humans want to find a walking, crawling alien and not one that just has different DNA...."
(FOXNews, emphasis mine)

What is it about Saturn?

The Lemming doesn't know what it is about the folks doing science news at FOXNews and Saturn.

Here's a somewhat non sequitur reference to Saturn:

"...Benner, said the arsenic-loving organism at Mono Lake grew without high levels of the nutrient phosphate (although some phosphates were still present). Just as important, it could change how we look for alien life on other planets, especially on Saturn and the moons of Jupiter...."

NASA's feature - I'll get to that in just a bit - doesn't mention Saturn. The gas giant isn't - outside of some fairly imaginative science fiction - near the top of the list for places we're looking for life.

Titan orbits Saturn - and that's another topic. (December 1, 2010)

NASA, Arsenic, and the Search for Life

"NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built With Toxic Chemical"
NASA (December 2, 2010)

"NASA-funded astrobiology research has changed the fundamental knowledge about what comprises all known life on Earth.

"Researchers conducting tests in the harsh environment of Mono Lake in California have discovered the first known microorganism on Earth able to thrive and reproduce using the toxic chemical arsenic. The microorganism substitutes arsenic for phosphorus in its cell components.

" 'The definition of life has just expanded,' said Ed Weiler, NASA's associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate at the agency's Headquarters in Washington. 'As we pursue our efforts to seek signs of life in the solar system, we have to think more broadly, more diversely and consider life as we do not know it.'

"This finding of an alternative biochemistry makeup will alter biology textbooks and expand the scope of the search for life beyond Earth. The research is published in this week's edition of Science Express.

"Carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur are the six basic building blocks of all known forms of life on Earth. Phosphorus is part of the chemical backbone of DNA and RNA, the structures that carry genetic instructions for life, and is considered an essential element for all living cells.

"Phosphorus is a central component of the energy-carrying molecule in all cells (adenosine triphosphate) and also the phospholipids that form all cell membranes. Arsenic, which is chemically similar to phosphorus, is poisonous for most life on Earth. Arsenic disrupts metabolic pathways because chemically it behaves similarly to phosphate.

" 'We know that some microbes can breathe arsenic, but what we've found is a microbe doing something new -- building parts of itself out of arsenic,' said Felisa Wolfe-Simon, a NASA Astrobiology Research Fellow in residence at the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, Calif., and the research team's lead scientist. 'If something here on Earth can do something so unexpected, what else can life do that we haven't seen yet?'

"The newly discovered microbe, strain GFAJ-1, is a member of a common group of bacteria, the Gammaproteobacteria. In the laboratory, the researchers successfully grew microbes from the lake on a diet that was very lean on phosphorus, but included generous helpings of arsenic. When researchers removed the phosphorus and replaced it with arsenic the microbes continued to grow. Subsequent analyses indicated that the arsenic was being used to produce the building blocks of new GFAJ-1 cells.

"The key issue the researchers investigated was when the microbe was grown on arsenic did the arsenic actually became incorporated into the organisms' vital biochemical machinery, such as DNA, proteins and the cell membranes. A variety of sophisticated laboratory techniques was used to determine where the arsenic was incorporated...."

Now that's interesting. Also spelled correctly, and without any irrelevant mentions of Saturn. Or Ypsilanti.

Related posts:

• "NASA, Extraterrestrial Life: and Titan is a Moon of Saturn, not Mars"
  (December 1, 2010)
• "Viking Life Experiments, Revisited"
  (September 14, 2010)
• "Organic Compounds in Murchison Meteor: Lots of Them"
  (February 16, 2010)
• "DNA - A Universal Pattern? Could Be"
  (April 8, 2009)
• "Life on Ceres? Could Be"
  (March 5, 2009)
  Particularly
  • Exploding Martians and the Viking Life Experiment

More related posts, at

• "A Serious Search for Other Worlds, Life, and - Maybe - Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence"

---

The title of this post? "Arsenic and Old Science..."? Arsenic and Old Lace is a 1944 Cary Grant comedy. That has nothing to do with extraterrestrial life. Or Saturn.

Lemming Tracks: "8 x 8" Water Rule, Real Research; Beer and Pretzels

Ever tried drinking those eight glasses of water - eight-ounce glasses, of course?

Somewhere around the time when experts warned that everything caused cancer¹, The Lemming decided to drink as much as was needed to feel comfortable, and leave it at that.

Sloshing Toward Enlightenment

Ever wonder, as you sloshed between the lavatory and the water faucet, why the eight x eight rule was so 'scientific?'

Turns out, although 'everybody knows' that the eight x eight rule is very 'scientific,' the idea is about as solid as the emperor's new clothes.

About eight years ago (yet another eight!), a brave soul at the Dartmouth Medical School, Lebanon, New Hampshire's Department of Physiology decided to find out where the eight x eight rule came from.

Even though The New York Times itself had published the rule.

Daring!

Here's what he found.

Or, rather, didn't find.

Take a Deep Breath: Journalese Ahead

The Lemming will be back, after this rather extensive - and possibly boring - excerpt from a refreshingly competent bit of research.

Real research: with citations and everything. Not the sort of 'expert' proclamations you see in news media.

"INVITED REVIEW"
" 'Drink at least eight glasses of water a day.' Really? Is there scientific evidence for '8 × 8'?"
Heinz Valtin, with the Technical Assistance of Sheila A. Gorman
Department of Physiology, Dartmouth Medical School, Lebanon, New Hampshire 03756
Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 283: R993-R1004, 2002. First published August 8, 2002; doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00365.2002 0363-6119/02 $5.00 (November 2002)

"ABSTRACT

"Despite the seemingly ubiquitous admonition to "drink at least eight 8-oz glasses of water a day" (with an accompanying reminder that beverages containing caffeine and alcohol do not count), rigorous proof for this counsel appears to be lacking. This review sought to find the origin of this advice (called "8 × 8" for short) and to examine the scientific evidence, if any, that might support it. The search included not only electronic modes but also a cursory examination of the older literature that is not covered in electronic databases and, most importantly and fruitfully, extensive consultation with several nutritionists who specialize in the field of thirst and drinking fluids. No scientific studies were found in support of 8 × 8. Rather, surveys of food and fluid intake on thousands of adults of both genders, ... strongly suggest that such large amounts are not needed because the surveyed persons were presumably healthy and certainly not overtly ill. This conclusion is supported by published studies showing that caffeinated drinks (and, to a lesser extent, mild alcoholic beverages like beer in moderation) may indeed be counted toward the daily total, as well as by the large body of published experiments that attest to the precision and effectiveness of the osmoregulatory system for maintaining water balance...."

"INTRODUCTION

"WE SEE THE EXHORTATION EVERYWHERE: 'drink at least eight glasses of water a day' (17). The advice comes not only (as in the above quote) from a respected health columnist of The New York Times, but also from numerous writers in the popular press (3, 6, 10, 26, 54). Some, perhaps many, physicians counsel their patients in a similar vein, both orally and in writing. So prevalent is the recommendation that it is now commonly expressed simply as '8 × 8' (signifying that each of the 8 glasses in question must have a volume of 8 oz).

"As we look around us in our daily activities, we can observe how slavishly the exhortation is being followed. Everywhere, people are carrying bottles of water and taking frequent sips from them. Prior to September 11, when there was little restriction on how much baggage passengers could carry onboard airplanes..."

"POSSIBLE ORIGIN OF 8 × 8

"Despite a comprehensive search of the literature (see SEARCH STRATEGY, end of article), I have not been able to find an article where 8 × 8 is recommended on the basis of solid scientific evidence. The closest reference was an obituary on the renowned nutritionist Fredrick J. Stare, brought to my attention by Dr. Barbara Rolls, an expert on the topic of thirst (76). The obituary (77) stated, in part, that Dr. Stare "was an early champion of drinking at least six glasses of water a day." A former colleague of Dr. Stare, Dr. Elizabeth Whelan (82), found the following passage in a book that Dr. Stare coauthored with Dr. Margaret McWilliams in 1974 (81):

"How much water each day? This is usually well regulated by various physiological mechanisms, but for the average adult, somewhere around 6 to 8 glasses per 24 hours and this can be in the form of coffee, tea, milk, soft drinks, beer, etc. Fruits and vegetables are also good sources of water.

"The passage, which is not referenced, appears as part of a very brief section at the very end of the book, after the authors have discussed various aspects of nutrition (calories, carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins, etc.) in the preceding 174 pages. Thus water is taken up in this book almost as an afterthought....

But, Dr. Stare had a "leading position in the field of nutrition." He was an "exert," in other words.

Back to the article.

"Furthermore, lest the advocates of 8 × 8 now adopt this quote from Dr. Stare as scientific evidence, let me point out the following: 1) this is an apparently casual opinion by Drs. Stare and McWilliams, which is undocumented by any scientific experiment; 2) there is a huge difference between 'somewhere around 6 to 8 glasses' and 'at least eight glasses' (17), and it is the latter recommendation that is in question; 3) in Drs. Stare and McWilliams's passage, caffeinated and alcoholic drinks such as coffee, tea, soft drinks, and beer are allowed, whereas these categories are excluded by the proponents of 8 × 8; and 4) Drs. Stare and McWilliams introduce their estimate with the statement that water intake is 'usually well regulated by various physiological mechanisms,' whereas the advocates of 8 × 8 claim that if we wait for these mechanisms to determine our water intake we will already be dehydrated.

"According to J. Papai (65), P. Thomas has suggested a different origin for 8 × 8. Thomas reminds us that in 1945 the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council wrote (31):

"A suitable allowance of water for adults is 2.5 liters daily in most instances. An ordinary standard for diverse persons is 1 milliliter for each calorie of food. Most of this quantity is contained in prepared foods.

"Thomas suggests that the last sentence was not heeded, and the recommendation was therefore erroneously interpreted as eight glasses of water to be drunk each day. The Food and Nutrition Board is currently reevaluating its recommendation [see below, under National Academy of Sciences (USA), Food and Nutrition Board]...."

I am Not an Expert: But I have Seen Human Beings

Ever get the impression that some 'experts,' particularly the 'child-rearing experts' of post-WWII America, had heard of human beings, but never actually seen one?

The Lemming has seen human beings. Living ones. In fact, I have been accepted into a small community of these strange creatures: here in the heart of darkest Minnesota.

After decades of observations, I have come to a few conclusions, about how healthy human beings eat foods and drink fluids.

When a human being is thirsty, it probably needs water or other fluids.

When a human being is not thirsty, it probably doesn't need water or other fluids just then.

In fact - and this may be the most startling discovery of all - human beings have been known to be thirsty, waited several minutes before ingesting fluids: AND SURVIVED!!

Perhaps a panel of 'experts' could get a government grant - a few million dollars should do - to study human beings in the wild.

The Lemming suggests that grant writers focus on a topic of manageable scope: like "A Longitudinal Study of Fluid Intake Among Indigenous Populations in Central Minnesota, With Particular Emphasis on the Ratio of Beer to Pretzels."

More silliness:

• "Lemming Tracks: Ice Age, Global Warming, Climate Change, and Living Scared"
  (November 19, 2010)
• "Segway Boss, Dr. Frankenstein, and Getting a Grip"
  (September 27, 2010)
• "Nuclear Weapons, Space Aliens, Conspiracy Theories, and Getting a Grip"
  (September 24, 2010)
• "Tanning Beds, Addiction, and Pale Mutants"
  (April 21, 2010)
• "Tofu Turkeys, Genetically Altered Foods, and the Evil Eye"
  (November 14, 2009)
• "Junk Science: Not Everyone in a Lab Coat Is Right"
  (May 18, 2009)
• "Wacky Warning Labels: Off-Road Commode Wins This Year"
  (April 29, 2009)
• "Not-So-Silly Science: Women Who Look Like Women are Healthier"
  (January 7, 2009)

---

¹ To be fair, those often-anonymous experts didn't quite name everything on Earth as a carcinogen. On the other hand, one of my college textbooks had a list of "known carcinogens." Full page. Fine print.

We've got a phrase for that sort of thing now: "junk science." (Junk May 18, 2009)

When Your Mind Wanders: Do You Worry That it Won't Come Back?

"People spend 'half their waking hours daydreaming' "
BBC (November 12, 2010)

"People spend nearly half of their waking hours not thinking about what they are actually doing, according to a US study conducted via the iPhone.

"More than 2,200 volunteers downloaded an app which then surveyed them about their thoughts and mood at random times of day and night.

"The Science study suggested minds wander, even from demanding tasks, at least 30% of the time.

"A UK expert said other studies confirmed people are easily distracted.

"The iPhone was a novel research tool for researchers at Harvard University...."

You've probably read about this somewhere else today: the news seems to be pretty big in the English-speaking world.

Here's what probably makes it so interesting. Not the nuts-and-bolts of the test procedures, what comes after that:

"...While their study sample was composed entirely of people who owned the device, and were prepared to download and be disturbed by an app of this kind, the researchers said it provides an insight into how our minds can wander during the day.

"After gathering 250,000 survey results, the Harvard team concluded that this group of people spent 46.9% of their time awake with their minds wandering.

"Dr Matthew Killingsworth, one of the researchers, said: 'Mind-wandering appears ubiquitous across all activities.

" 'This study shows that our mental lives are pervaded, to a remarkable degree, by the non-present.'

"Happiness

"In addition, the survey data on happiness appeared to show a modest connection between the degree of mind-wandering and the level of happiness.

"People who were most distracted away from the task in hand were more likely to report feelings of unhappiness.

"Reports of happiness were most likely among those exercising, having a conversation or making love, whereas unhappiness was reported most while people were resting, working, or using computers.

"Dr Killingsworth said: 'Mind-wandering is an excellent predictor of people's happiness.'..."

Killingsworth could be right. The Lemming's mind wanders quite a bit. And I've been diagnosed with major depression. And my mind wanders. A lot. Which shouldn't be surprising, since more recently I've been diagnosed with ADHD-inattentive.

Four-plus decades of undiagnosed ADHD might have something to do with major depression, or maybe it's the other way around. The Lemming's guess is that both have something to do with each other and could very well have a common cause. Which isn't the same as being part of an American nonprofit outfit that isn't political at all according to them. Sort of, although "nonpartisan" and "apolitical" aren't the same as being a politico.

Oops. The Lemming's mind wandered again. Time to haul in the leash.

Wandering Minds and the BBC

I'll get back to wandering minds and the BBC right after this. I've written about ADHD, major depression, and me in another blog. These posts should give a pretty good background on the subject. (I'm not trying to 'make' you read these posts - like I could. Deciding whether or not to follow these links is strictly up to you.)

• "ADHD, an Apostolic Exhortation, Another Document, and V8"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (November 11, 2010)
• "Original Sin, Free Will, ADD, and There Goes the Air Conditioner"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (October 15, 2010)
• "Aspergers, Meditation, Tolerance and a Loud Pump"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (September 3, 2010)
• "Medication for Depression? Yeah: The Catholic Church is Okay With That"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (February 25, 2010)

As the name of that other blog suggests, I'm one of those people. You have been warned.

Let's see. Mind-wandering research. Happiness. The BBC. An interesting correlation.

Conclusions, Assumptions, and 'More Research!'

In the words of Uncle, in Jackie Chan Adventures, the Lemming thinks Dr. Killingsworth's findings call for "MO-O-ORE RESEARCH!"

For starters, the population studies were folks who had iPhones. That's a good way to stay in touch with folks 24-7, but it also limits - as noted - the study to folks who have decided to get fairly up-to-date information technology. And are willing to participate in a fairly intrusive psych study.

Maybe the results of this test show that folks who are prone to wandering minds are less happy: if they've got iPhones.

Or that folks who own information technology are more likely to be happy, if they're the sort whose minds plod along in the same rut, day in and day out, no matter what opportunities for other experiences are available.

There have been times when the Lemming could have used that tendency to focus exclusively on whatever's in front of a person's head at the moment. It helps when studying for tests, or chopping beets. The Lemming had a job chopping beets, once. I wasn't very good at the job - and have a scar to prove it.

Back to that research - which the Lemming thinks calls for more research.

It's interesting - but hardly, in my opinion, conclusive. It's like Uncle said.

"Mommy Brain" Research by a Mother

"Mommy Brain: It's Not What You Think"
Emily Sohn, Human News, Discovery News (October 22, 2010)

"New moms may feel their brain cells dying with every cumulative hour of sleep loss. But a new study offers hope.

"In the first months after giving birth, the study found, parts of a mother's brain may actually grow. Even better news, doting mamas who gushed the most about how special and perfect their babies were showed the most growth.

"The parts of the brain that grew are involved in motivation, reward behavior and emotion regulation. That suggests that, by reshaping itself, the post-partum brain motivates a mother to take care of her baby, and then feel happy and rewarded when she does.

"The findings may eventually help women who feel disconnected from their babies or even hostile toward them in the early months, said lead author Pilyoung Kim, a developmental psychologist, now at the National Institutes of Mental Health in Bethesda, Md...."

Some of the regions that grow are the hypothalamus, prefrontal cortex and amygdala. The prefrontal cortex is where we do a lot of what we think of as 'thinking:' "mediating conflicting thoughts, making choices between right and wrong or good and bad, predicting future events, and governing social control." ("What Is the Prefrontal Cortex," wiseGEEK)

Back to the article:

"...During pregnancy and the post-partum period, women often feel their brains turning to mush. New moms report that they have trouble remembering things that they used to remember easily. It's such a common phenomenon that women often call it 'Mommy Brain.' Some research has even shown that women's brains shrink slightly during pregnancy...."

"...As for the complete loss of memories for names, trivia and other ordinary things that come with giving birth, the brains of new moms may simply have new priorities.

" 'We are clearly showing that mothers have better memories about things related to their infants,' said Kim, who has a four-month old of her own. 'There are a lot of things going on, and mothers might feel forgetful about things that are not related to their infants. It's just dependent on what is really important for us to remember at the time.' "

Offhand, the Lemming thinks that storing "trivia" in a person's head is a convenient ability - and one which can be duplicated with a pocket organizer. We don't have carry-along gadgets that can:

• Mediate conflicting thoughts
• Make choices between right and wrong, good and bad
• Pedict future events
• Govern a person's social behavior

From the Lemming's point of view, "mommy brain" is a step up. But then, I've always been a bit in awe of how my wife manages the household.

And that's another topic.

Bigelow Aerospace, Private Space Station, International Enterprise

"Bigelow Aerospace Soars with Private Space Station Deals "
Leonard David, Space.com (October 19, 2010)

"A private space company offering room on inflatable space habitats for research has found a robust international market, with eager clients signing up from space agencies, government departments and research groups.

"Space entrepreneur Robert Bigelow, chief of Bigelow Aerospace, has been busy marketing his private space modules, an outreach effort leading to six deals being signed with clients this year.

"The deals, in the form of memorandums of understanding, involve Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore, Sweden, Australia and the United Kingdom.

" 'These are countries that do not want to be hostage to just what the International Space Station may or may not deliver,' Bigelow told SPACE.com in an exclusive interview. [Bigelow Aerospace plans private moon bases.]..."

The Lemming has been following Bigelow Aerospace for a couple years now. I think Robert Bigelow has the right idea, building a line of commercial space stations.

Back to that article.

"Robust and global

"A question that continues to float through the halls of NASA and the Congress: Is there a commercial market for utilizing space?

" 'We've got a very certain and loud answer to that. Not only is there a commercial market, but it's a one that's robust and global,' said Michael Gold, director of Washington, D.C., operations and business growth for Bigelow Aerospace...."

"...While countries in Asia and Europe take commercial advantage of space, 'my fear is that this could become yet another extremely lucrative economic opportunity that is engendered here ... and then shipped overseas,' Gold cautioned. 'The U.S. Congress should spend less time questioning the business case of the commercial market. They need to spend more time trying to figure out how to grow that market and ensure that it happens here in the United States.'..."

The Lemming thinks Mr. Bigelow is being rather charitable in his assessment of the U.S. Congress. Their greatest role in his enterprise might be to get out of the way, and let his company build space stations.

Before someone has a fit: This isn't an 'America first' thing. Yes, Bigelow Aerospace is based in the United States. B.A.'s clients, though, are all over the world. Or will be, provided that America's leaders don't 'protect' us from having a chance at one of the 21st century's major business opportunities.

Getting There

There are still pieces of 'business in space' to be put in place: like how to get there and back. Boeing's CST project is a hopeful start.

Bigelow Aerospace and Boeing may build space stations and the vehicles to take folks up and back. If they don't, the Lemming is pretty sure that someone else will. As I wrote before, "When it's Time to Build Spaceships, People Will Build Spaceships." (October 4, 2009)

Related posts:

• "Russia Will Have First* Commercial Space Station?"
  (September 29, 2010)
• "Boeing CST-100 Spaceship: Passenger Service to ISS, Commercial Space Stations"
  (July 21, 2010)
• "Last Space Shuttle Atlantis Launch: More of a Beginning, Than an End"
  (May 14, 2010)
• "Bigelow Aerospace: Space to Rent or Lease, in Orbit"
  (January 20, 2010)
• "Bigelow Aerospace Space Habitat Prototype Passes Milestone"
  (May 12, 2008)

---

More:

• "Humanity in Space: The Next Few Decades"

Pollen Grains, Breakfast Cereal, and Galaxies: There's a Connection

"What Holds the World Together? The Cheerios Effect"
Inside Science News Service, Eric Betz, via FOXNews (September 10, 2010)

"Have you ever noticed how the last bits of cereal in the bowl always seem to cling to one another, making it easy to spoon up the remaining stragglers? Physicists have -- and they've given it a name: the 'Cheerios effect.'

"This effect isn't exclusive to breakfast cereals, however. It also reveals itself in the way particles move in the air, pollen floats on the surface of water and galaxies cluster throughout the universe.

" 'If you put Cheerios in a bowl, they aggregate,' said Arshad Kudrolli, a physicist at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. 'Or if you look at foam floating on a beer, you get clumps. That's because of surface tension.'..."

It seems that pollen grains, Cheerios, and galaxies clump together in somewhat the same way. The forces involved are different at different scales - but the underlying math may be very similar.

And, worth studying.

Which is where these researchers come in. The Inside Science News Service article isn't too technical, and gives a pretty good overview of what the scientists are studying - and how they're doing it. A funnel is involved, by the way.

'More Than 100 Earth-Like Planets' Found? Well, No: Not Really

"Claims of 100 Earth-Like Planets Not True"
Space.com (July 22, 2010)

"Despite overzealous news headlines this week, NASA's Kepler spacecraft has not indentified [!] more than 100 Earth-like planets in the galaxy.

"The planet-hunting telescope, launched in April 2009, has so far confirmed only five alien planets beyond the solar system, mission scientists told SPACE.com.

"The erroneous reports of new planets were generated in response to a recent videotaped speech Kepler co-investigator Dimitar Sasselov gave at a TED (Technology Entertainment and Design) conference in July.

" 'More than 100 "Earth-like" planets discovered in past few weeks,' read the headline of a Wednesday article in the U.K.'s Daily Mail newspaper. The Observer, another U.K. paper, also reported the finding.

"However, Sasselov was referencing only possible planets among the Kepler data, scientists said...."

- - - Which is why I didn't write a post about this REMARKABLE! STUNNING! EPICALLY AMAZING! discovery, when those headlines popped up.

Sure, it'd be cool if a whole bunch of 'class M' planets dropped out of the Kepler data - and then the U.S.S. Enterprise arrived to beam up some scientists for a ride to the new worlds.

Not likely, though.

The Space.com article briefly describes the sort of information we are getting. I think it's impressive: but I've been following astronomy, planetary sciences, and space exploration for - probably longer than most of those journalists have been alive.

And, I pay attention to what people say and write: the actual words they use, and what they mean. That made me a pretty good researcher/writer: but kept me from reporting ASTOUNDING! COLOSSAL! events, when none had happened.

This "More than 100 'Earth-like' planets discovered" SNAFU is a case in point, for why it's a good idea to read well past the headlines - and then start researching, to see what real events inspired the journalist.

Today's Information Age technologies make that a whole lot easier than it was, back in my 'good old days.' At that's another topic or two. Maybe three.

---

Related posts, at

• "A Serious Search for Other Worlds, Life, and - Maybe - Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence"

Build Your Own Orbital Observatory: No Kidding

"Extreme Hobbyists Put Satellites Into Orbit With $8,000 Kits"
Gadget Lab, Wired (July 20, 2010)

"Attention wannabe supervillains: Putting your own, personal satellite into orbit is not such a far-fetched idea after all. Interorbital Systems, which makes rockets and spacecraft, created a kit last year that lets almost anyone with a passion for electronics and space build a satellite. The $8,000 kit includes the price of the launch.

"The company is now ready to launch its first sub-orbital test flights in California next month.

" '$8,000? That's just the price of a cool midlife crisis,' says Alex 'Sandy' Antunes, who bought one of the kits for a project that will launch on one of earliest flights. 'You could buy a motorcycle or you could launch a satellite. What would you rather do?'..."

Well, the motorcycle may last longer. Each "TubeSat" weighs about 1.65 pounds, is a bit bigger than a Kleenex box, and is launched into an orbit that guarantees that it'll fall back to Earth after a few months.

On the up side, while its in orbit, the onboard transmitter sends a signal strong enough for you to receive on the ground. Provided that you've got a handheld amateur receiver - and that the satellite's in the sky overhead.

I can see it as a just-for-fun DIY project for someone with more disposable income than I've ever had - just for the thrill of picking up 'Hi! I'm Joe's satellite' when it appears in your slice of sky.

My guess is that the $8,000 price tag will attract private-sector researchers and the occasional school, too.

Or, you could transmit back some really expensive home movies.

Putting the Bite on an Old Assumption About Human Jaws

"Human Bite Stronger Than Thought"
Human News, Discovery News (June 27, 2010)

"Humans have a much more powerful bite than previously thought, thanks to the mechanics of their skull, say Australian researchers.

Stephen Wroe from the University of New South Wales in Sydney and colleagues reported their comparison of human and other skulls recently in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

"'The traditional view is that modern humans have lost the ability to generate a powerful bite,' said Wroe.

"He said this has been driven by the fact that humans have relatively weak jaw muscles and lightweight skulls, compared to our fossil ancestors and living great apes.

"Some scientists argue a weaker bite evolved in response to humans eating softer foods, processing them with tools and cooking.

"But, said Wroe, there has been no direct data to support these conclusions. He said the very thick tooth enamel coating human teeth is generally associated with processing hard foods in primates...."

It's amazing, what one discovered, when experts collect and analyze data, instead of reading each other's books.

Sorry - the Lemming had a long night, and may be a bit less chipper than usual.

The article gives a little information about the human skull. Basically, we've got lighter bones and less muscle in our heads than, say, a gorilla. But they're placed more efficiently.

And the enamel in our teeth is thicker than in most primates. It better be, since between our teeth, where it counts, we're 40% to 60 % more powerful than any of the great apes. Of course, we don't have as many pounds of bone and muscle.

Still, our teeth aren't anything to sneeze at:

"...'Pound for pound we're actually biting harder than a gorilla or a chimpanzee,' said Wroe, adding there's no big difference between the bite force of a human and the nutcracker man, once body size is allowed for...."

The Lemming wouldn't recommend trying to crack walnuts with your teeth, though: Our ancestors worked long and hard to develop tools for that sort of thing.

Don't start feeling too superior to chimps and gorillas, though: they're better at chewing tough vegetable fiber. Which, considering what they normally eat, they have to do for hours - and hours - and hours.

A Touching Bit of Research: Tactile Sense and Decision-Making

"Sense of Touch Affects Decision-Making? Maybe Not a Crazy Idea"
Starting a Small Business Without Losing My Mind (June 25, 2010)

"When I read this article's headline and first paragraph, I was ready to dismiss the whole thing as silly science: the sort of thing that folks with letters after their name do sometimes, to increase their own status or push some political preference. Or maybe because they don't know any better...."

That blog post is brilliant! Insightful! Thought-provoking! The Lemming should know: I wrote it myself.

Seriously? I ran into a Wired Science article last Friday: "Sense of Touch Shapes Snap Judgments," whose headline and cleverly-written first paragraph encouraged me to dismiss the whole thing as more silly science.

I'm glad I kept reading, because I think the researchers are onto something:

"...The experiments included would-be car buyers who, when seated in a cushy chair, were less likely to drive a stiff bargain. The findings don't just suggest tricks for salesman, but may illuminate how our brains develop.

" 'The way people understand the world is through physical experiences. The first sense they develop is touch,' said study co-author Josh Ackerman, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology psychologist. As they grow up, those physical experiences shape how people conceptualize abstract, social experience, he said. 'Later on, you can do what we did — trigger different physical experiences, and produce changes in people's thoughts.'

Published June 24 in Science, the study is the latest addition to a booming field of embodied cognition, which over the last decade has scientifically eroded the notion that mind and body are distinctly separate...."

"The notion that mind and body are distinctly separate?" Okay - although I thought we'd known that we use our brains for thinking for - well, quite a long time. (More about that in another of my blogs: "State-of-the-Art Neuroscience, About Two Dozen Centuries Back," Drifting at the Edge of Time and Space (June 1, 2010))

Anyway: My post over in Starting a Small Business Without Losing My Mind wasn't much more than a sort of 'hey, this might be useful' heads-up. Plus a suggestion that soft chairs for clients might be a good idea.

Besides practical marketing applications, I think this "embodied cognition" research is very interesting: because it looks like we may be discovering a physical angle on the development of metaphor.

"Metaphor?" If you're not very familiar with that term, you've got lots of company. In my opinion, Western civilization may be the culture which has most successfully ignored metaphor and poetry in general. Which is another topic. (More: ""God Created Man in His Image" wasn't Written by An American," A Catholic Citizen in America (January 25, 2010))

Brain Scans and Marketing: This Isn't Science Fiction

"Now scientists read your mind better than you can"
Reuters (June 22, 2010)

"Brain scans may be able to predict what you will do better than you can yourself, and might offer a powerful tool for advertisers or health officials seeking to motivate consumers, researchers said on Tuesday.

"They found a way to interpret 'real time' brain images to show whether people who viewed messages about using sunscreen would actually use sunscreen during the following week.

"The scans were more accurate than the volunteers were, Emily Falk and colleagues at the University of California Los Angeles reported in the Journal of Neuroscience...."

"...About half the volunteers had correctly predicted whether they would use sunscreen. The research team analyzed and re-analyzed the MRI scans to see if they could find any brain activity that would do better.

"Activity in one area of the brain, a particular part of the medial prefrontal cortex, provided the best information.

" 'From this region of the brain, we can predict for about three-quarters of the people whether they will increase their use of sunscreen beyond what they say they will do, Lieberman said...."

The functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, predicted the subjects' behavior correctly about 75% of the times.

I'll admit to being a little spooked by this article. It's unsettling to think that a gadget can 'look' inside my head and do a better job of predicting what I'll do better than I can. Even if it's possible only in tightly controlled conditions.

On the other hand, I can see the possibility of very useful medical applications for this sort of technology. Which could be used for - or against - a patient.

Oh, well, it isn't a perfect world.

More:

• "The Future: Just Like Today, Only Different"

Looks Like Suicide Really isn't the Smart Choice

Suicide is not a happy topic. This post's title isn't so much a joke as a sort of summary of some really interesting research:

---

"Suicide attempts less likely in men with higher IQs"
CNN (June 3, 2010)

"Young men with low IQs are much more likely than their peers to attempt suicide later in life, a new study has found. In fact, men with the lowest IQs are about four times more likely to attempt suicide as those with the highest, and the risk tends to go up as IQ drops.

"This may seem surprising to those who associate suicide with tortured geniuses like Ernest Hemingway and Vincent Van Gogh.

" 'There's a perception that people with higher IQs might be more neurotic, more anxious, and more depressed--Woody Allen style,' says Karestan Koenen, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist and associate professor at the Harvard School of Public Health.

" 'But the literature is very consistent that people with lower IQs are at increased risk not just of mental health problems, but of all kinds of physical health problems,' adds Koenen, who was not involved in the new study but has researched IQ and mental health.

"In the study, which was published on the website of the British Medical Journal, researchers followed 1.1 million male military recruits in Sweden for an average of 24 years. All of the men took a standardized IQ test between the ages of 16 and 25...."

Smart People aren't All Crazy?

I've figured that a person could be a functional human being and still be fairly smart - stereotypes about angsty artists and suicidal poets notwithstanding. Whaddaya know: now there's some evidence to back up that assumption.

The researchers seem to have known what they were doing, when it came to analyzing the data:

"...Even after other factors that may influence suicide risk were taken into account--such as socioeconomic status, education, and even body mass index--the men with the lowest IQ were still about 3.5 times more likely to attempt suicide.

" 'We're not talking about a hospital group or a sick population, so these findings are generalizable to the general population,' says the lead author of the study, David Batty, Ph.D., a Wellcome Trust Fellow at the Medical Research Council, in Glasgow, Scotland. The Wellcome Trust funded the study...."

Facts, Guesses, and Disclaimers

They gave some educated guesses about why the smart guys didn't try to kill themselves as much - and were careful to point out what they don't know:

"...However, Batty and his colleagues point out that the findings may not necessarily apply to women, to older men, or to men in other countries. And there was no apparent link between IQ and suicide attempts in men with psychosis, they note.

"People with a lower IQ may be more likely to attempt suicide because they may have more trouble talking about or resolving personal problems, Batty suggests.

" 'Individuals with higher IQ scores may be better able to describe to friends and health professionals some of the problems they're going through,' he says. 'Another explanation might be that individuals with higher IQ scores can come up with more solutions. They may identify the need to see a health professional earlier, or deal with the root causes of their suicidal thoughts by changing jobs or solving relationships.'..."

Suicide: For Me, It's Personal

With my background, I'm more inclined to go with the 'able to deal with it' explanation: although sometimes professional help can, well, help. I've discussed suicide and depression in another blog, A Catholic Citizen in America:

• "Prayer, Medicine and Trusting God"
  (March 4, 2010)
  • Bottom line? Take your meds
• "Medication for Depression? Yeah: The Catholic Church is Okay With That"
  (February 25, 2010)
• "The Catholic Church Won't Even Let People Kill Themselves"
  (January 28, 2009)

Like I said, suicide is personal for me. I considered killing myself when I was in my teens. And decided it was a bad idea. That was in the sixties. I still think I was right.

A few years ago a psychiatrist determined that I had major depression. Now, thanks to medications - mostly serotonin uptake inhibitors - I'm able to spend more time using my brain, and less fighting with the controls. That's how it felt, anyway. Sort of like having the power steering and brakes working again.

Why go into this personal detail?

Someone very dear to me killed herself. I might have done the same, earlier, if I hadn't been able to reason my way out of suicide. I really don't think suicide is a good idea - and I hope that by sharing this article, and some of my memories, I might tip the balance toward someone deciding to give living another try.

This sounds corny, but there's a little truth to it: Change happens. Happy feelings don't last. But neither do feelings like sadness and despair. Change happens: and that can be a good thing.

Cell Phone Conversatons Annoy: Now We Know Why

"Science Explains Why Cell Phone Conversations Annoy"
FOXNews (May 21, 2010)

"Whether it is the office, on a train or in a car, only half of the conversation is overheard which drains more attention and concentration than when overhearing two people talking, according to scientists at Cornell University.

" 'We have less control to move away our attention from half a conversation (or halfalogue) than when listening to a dialogue,' said Lauren Emberson, a co-author of the study that will be published in the journal Psychological Science.

" 'Since halfalogues really are more distracting and you can't tune them out, this could explain why people are irritated,' she said in an interview...."

Okay: So halfalogues are more more distracting - and therefore more irritating. Why are they more distracting? A few paragraphs down, there's this:

"...Emberson said people try to make sense of snippets of conversation and predict what speakers will say next.

" 'When you hear half of a conversation, you get less information and you can't predict as well,' she said. 'It requires more attention.'..."

Works for me.

The study suggests that a passenger using a cell phone can distract the driver - and suggest more studies. In driving simulators.

I think that'd be a good idea. I don't, as a rule, think that what America needs is more regulations: but the driving-while-talking thing does seem to need addressing. I've seen too many folks whoosh past my windshield, cheerfully chatting through their cell phones: and the town I live in is home to about 4,000 people. I don't like to think about the close calls an urbanite would experience.

Irritating? Maybe, Maybe Not

I've felt irritated, sometimes, when someone has a cell phone conversation when I'm in earshot. But that's when I'm trying to pay close attention to something else, like music. Sometimes the halfalogue is more intriguing than irritating: something cell phone users might want to remember.

Tanning Beds, Addiction, and Pale Mutants

"Indoor Tanning Is Addictive, Study Finds"
LiveScience (April 19, 2010)

"Some people's indoor tanning habits qualify as an addiction similar to being hooked on alcohol or other addictive substances, a new study suggests.

"The results show that about one-third of college students who frequent indoor tanning facilities could be considered addicted based on criteria used to diagnose substance abuse addiction. And these tan-o-holics also reported a greater use of alcohol and marijuana, and had more symptoms of anxiety than those who weren't considered hooked.

"The findings back up previous indications that sunbathing, both artificial and the real thing, can be habit-forming. A small 2006 study found that those who persistently visit tanning beds can experience withdrawal symptoms if they don't get their UV-high. And a 2008 study revealed that about 18 percent of outdoor tanners qualified as addicted. (Ultraviolet, or UV, rays emitted by the sun are what cause sunburns).

"The results of the current work, which is based on a larger sample and possibly more robust research methods, also suggest that reducing the risky behavior might take more than just public awareness campaigns. For some, it might require interventions more along the lines of what's used as treatment for substance abusers...."

I've run into quite a bit of silly science, as the decades roll by. (December 17, 2008) This 'tanning addiction' thing sounds like it might not be another of those weird little exercises in wishful thinking we get from the 'experts' now and then.

I'm not terribly surprised to learn that some experts say that tanning beds and booths cause cancer. For a while there, just about everything caused cancer. Except maybe water. And that drowns people. I've sometimes felt it was a wonder that some PAC didn't try to ban water, in the interests of public safety.

Tanning, though, really could be a problem. There's fairly solid evidence showing a link between (over) exposure to ultraviolet light and cancer.

A Digression on Pale Mutants

Like I said, over-exposure to UV can be bad for people. Particularly for melanin-deficient people like me.

My ancestral roots, as far back as the family's found them, are in northwestern Europe. And I look it: That's a photo of my right eye.

Homo sapiens sapiens developed - as far as we're able to tell - in a nice, sunny part of this planet. Then some of us moved to other places. Eventually, one lot wound up in what's now northwestern Europe. Like all people, they needed exposure to sunlight now and again. UV is involved in how we make vitamin D and serotonin, among other things.

Back where we're 'supposed to be,' that's no problem. Up in northwest Europe, the climate is: not sunny. The cold and damp strongly encouraged folks to cover up with furs, cloth - just about anything that would keep them warm.

My forebears kept warm, but they also were deprived of sunlight. Often, all they got was a few minutes a day, on their faces. If they were lucky.

With normal pigmentation, that's just not enough for people.

Normal people.

Something happened to that isolated bunch. We lost most of our ability to produce melanin. That made our skin pale enough for sunlight to get through - even if it was for a few minutes a day over a fraction of a square foot.

We survived, but now we look funny. Pale. Often with freckles. Leave us out in the sun too long, we burn and peel. Don't get me wrong: I've grown up among people who look more-or-less like me, and I'm used to our appearance. It can even be attractive.

But, like I say, we look funny. Different.

Somewhere in the 20th century, the idea that folks who simply can't have a normal complexion and stay healthy should be "tan" anyway caught on in America.

I make it a point to get outside on a regular basis and let my skin adapt by adding a little to the meager supply of pigmentation my ancestry gives me. But I make sure that I don't get over-exposed. I may sound like James Earl ("Darth Vader") Jones: but I've long since come to terms with the fact that I'll never have his complexion.

We're not all alike. And, I think, that's okay.

Back to Tanning, Cancer, Addiction, and All That

'Tanning addiction' may be partly psychological - but there may quite likely be a physical component, too.

"...The results suggest that tanning and drugs might be similar in terms of the way they get people hooked, the researchers say. Indeed, the UV-light from tanning beds has been shown to put people in a good mood, possibly because it triggers the release of pleasure-inducing chemicals in the brain, called endorphins...."

The article does a pretty good job of discussing the effects of tanning beds, and the studies of that point toward tanning being an addictive behavior. What it does not do is describe - adequately, in my opinion - the people being studied. I may have missed something, but the only demographic information I found about them was that they were "undergraduates."

Maybe the amount of melanin in a person's skin has nothing whatsoever to do with the way that person's skin reacts to sunlight or artificial UV. Somehow, though, I rather doubt it.

Generally, I don't think who a person's ancestors were is all that important. But for some things, like sickle cell anemia and a tendency to burn in the sun, it does matter where your ancestors came from.

The LiveScience article wasn't all that long, so maybe someone decided to drop references to how the researchers sorted out the people studied.

I've been talking about ethnicity quite a bit in this post: because I think it may reasonably be considered a factor in tanning addition. At least, the researchers should be able to say that, based on their data, people with normal complexions are just as likely to be addicted to tanning as the washed-out Euro-Americans.

Welcome to the Wild, Wonderful World of Coeds and College

There was a time when American "undergraduates" were, with a very few exceptions, nice young men from nice Yankee families. And their southern counterparts, of course.

That was the 19th century.

In the 20th century, women (finally) got the vote, and started showing up as undergraduates. In droves. American academia also got a bit more comfortable with the idea that people who weren't from the 'right' families might be educable, too.

Change happens.

This is the 21st century, folks. An American undergraduate is a man or woman who may bear a passing resemblance to delegates from any member state of the United Nations. Some WASPs are having conniptions about that, but I'm okay with the idea. Partly because I only look Anglo.

But I'm getting off-topic again. Time to stop writing.

An only vaguely-related post, but it might be interesting. Or not:

• "Homo Erectus, Kitchens, and Human (Pre)History"
  (December 21, 2009)

---

Related posts, at

• "Change, American Culture, Trilobites, Humanity's History, and the Big Picture"