Over here in NSW Australia, we have just had the NSW election. I love elections, the free sausages down at the local school, the garage sale and most of all, the statistics. Elections are full of statistics, whether its the preferential voting system, the voting swings, or the TV coverage that claims to know the winner when 0.001% of the vote has been counted.
The week on The Mr Science Show Podcast, we cross to my excited recordings on the way to vote, have a discussion about the preferential voting system used in Australia, and take a look at the closest election victories ever, and the largest ever victory in a democratic election in Jaipur India.
We also have a give away of some tickets to see The Man in the Lab Coat at the Melbourne International Comedy Festival, some copies of Cosmos Magazine and a gift of Mr Science merchandise to the first person to write in from each continent in the world. Tune in and listen for your chance to win!
Grab the podcast feed here and the mp3 here
Thursday, 29 March 2007
Saturday, 17 March 2007
Questacon Outreach and Pluto's new friend
This week on the Mr Science Show Podcast, we talk to Jenny Lynch, coordinator of the Questacon outreach centre in Sydney about communicating science around Australia to 1-2 year olds, in shopping centres and in indigenous communities. Questacon is Australia's premiere interactive science centre, and has a number of outreach programs that travel Australia communicating science.
We also find that Pluto has a friend in New Mexico, who refuse to recognise it as a planetoid or dwarf planet, but maintain it to be a planet.
The other voice you hear on this episode is that of Celine Steinfeld.
Grab the podcast here or the mp3 for this edition here
We also find that Pluto has a friend in New Mexico, who refuse to recognise it as a planetoid or dwarf planet, but maintain it to be a planet.
The other voice you hear on this episode is that of Celine Steinfeld.
Grab the podcast here or the mp3 for this edition here
Monday, 5 March 2007
The Beer Drinking Scientists Podcast is now Official!
The Beer Drinking Scientists is now a stand-alone podcast, with a new format from our earlier short pilots (episodes 1, 2 and 3) and its own new website (http://bds.podbean.com).
Join Darren Osborne and myself for a drink and a chat as we take a look at the science issues affecting us all. In each episode, we will have a chat to the locals and see how science influences them, their opinions on the scientific topics of the day and how these topics influence us culturally, politically, and any other relevant way of which you can think.
In the first episode, we tackle the biggest scientific topic at the moment - Climate Change. What it is, who’s responsible and why we should care.
You can subscribe to the podcast here (or add http://bds.podbean.com/feed to itunes or your feed reader). The first episode can be directly downloaded here.
You can subscribe directly through itunes here.
Each podcast episode will come out roughly every 4-6 weeks, be about 30 minutes long and contain interviews, news and views, beer glass chinking, informed and not-so informed opinion and plenty of good fun. You can contact us at beerdrinkingscientists@gmail.com.
Join Darren Osborne and myself for a drink and a chat as we take a look at the science issues affecting us all. In each episode, we will have a chat to the locals and see how science influences them, their opinions on the scientific topics of the day and how these topics influence us culturally, politically, and any other relevant way of which you can think.
In the first episode, we tackle the biggest scientific topic at the moment - Climate Change. What it is, who’s responsible and why we should care.
You can subscribe to the podcast here (or add http://bds.podbean.com/feed to itunes or your feed reader). The first episode can be directly downloaded here.
You can subscribe directly through itunes here.
Each podcast episode will come out roughly every 4-6 weeks, be about 30 minutes long and contain interviews, news and views, beer glass chinking, informed and not-so informed opinion and plenty of good fun. You can contact us at beerdrinkingscientists@gmail.com.
Thursday, 1 March 2007
The science and costs of diesel cars
Sorry for the delay in this post - but I have a very good reason....
For the second time in the last month, I was stranded in different city, this time Australia's capital, Canberra.
But it wasn't turbulence or aircraft delays that kept me there. It was car repairs, and these car repairs not only taught me a little about the science of diesel engines, but about how expensive diesel cars can be.
So this week's post is about the science and costs behind diesel cars.
The story begins with a lovely weekend away with the girl, staying at a great hotel, eating nice food and generally having my one decadent weekend for 2007. Having taken in Little Britain Live, I headed out of the gravel car park, not knowing at the time of the troubles that lay ahead.
To put this in context, I drive a VW Golf, and its a diesel car. Its a good car, and two reasons I quite like it are:
Diesel is less refined that petrol. This means it is easier to isolate the heavier diesel from the crude oil that comes out of the ground than the lighter, more volatile petrol. One would think therefore that diesel should be cheaper, and it is in many parts of the world. Strangely, in Australia at the moment, diesel is more expensive than petrol. It seems to be because much less diesel is sold in Australia than petrol and so there are less competitive demands, and because it is not subject to the discount cycles that affect petrol - for a good explanation, see here.
Anyway, enough science and commerce and back to my story.
Driving through the gravel car park, a rock has flicked up, smashed the guard on the bottom of the car (see the gaping whole in the above picture), punctured something called the fuel cooler, which in turn bent the connection to the return fuel line, meaning that the plastic undercarriage of the car, the fuel cooler and the fuel line needed to be completely replaced, to the tune of $860 including labour costs.
Now this had me a little confused. What is this fuel cooler? What is a return line?
The first thing I discovered is that diesel coursing through the lines in a diesel car is under extremely high pressure, and so special plastic tubing must be used. This means that you can not simply cut out the part of the hose with the hole in it and clamp the two ends back together - you need to replace the whole thing. This is essentially why it cost so much - every damaged part needed to be replaced in its entirety (and imported from Germany I guess....)
There are a few differences between diesel and petrol cars. A petrol engine compresses the fuel at a ratio of 8:1 to 12:1 - this ratio is the ratio between the volume of a combustion chamber when the piston is at the bottom of its stroke and the volume when the piston is at the top of its stroke. The higher the compression ratio, the more energy that can be obtained, as there is more fuel and oxygen crammed into the same space on ignition. Diesel engines use a compression ratio of 14:1 to 25:1. This higher compression ratio leads to increased efficiency.
Unlike a petrol engine, a spark plug is not needed to ignite the fuel, as this compression raises the temperature above the flash point of the mixture - when a gas is compressed, its temperature rises. Diesel is directly injected into the combustion chamber, where compressed air is injected and the highly compressed mixture ignites. This is unlike a petrol engine where fuel and air are mixed before entering the chamber, and then the mixture is ignited by a spark plug. Petrol can not be compressed to the same extent as diesel as the compression would raise the temperature above the flash point well before this ratio was reached. This is why diesel engines are intrinsically more efficient than petrol engines.
I believe the return line returns diesel that is not used in the combustion back to the fuel tank. It would seem that this diesel is at extremely high temperature and pressure, and so needs to be cooled. This is where the fuel cooler tube comes in. A punctured fuel cooler and broken return line meant that about 20 litres of diesel leaked into car park, but luckily there was enough diesel floating around in the lines to get me to the nearest service station.
A couple of days later, after many phone calls to the service people and to VW, I got my car back. Unfortunately, this does not fall under warranty as it was an "accident" - fair enough in theory as no parts failed (one could argue the plastic on the bottom of the car really should be able to sustain the impact of rocks in a car park when travelling at low speed however...), but very annoying in practise as it was completely accidental with no one at fault. It also meant I didn't qualify for free towing - so I'm avoiding paying that remarkably large bill too! ($200 for towing across 2 suburbs??)
Anyway, enough whining, its a good story and I must be zen about it - I am lucky to have a car at all, and just recently have heard some horror stories about car damage. It taught me some nice science and gave me another opportunity to chat to my insurance company! I am sure I have got some of the science of diesel cars wrong, so if you can correct anything I have said in this post, please do. I would like to know more myself! Let me know if anything similar has happened to you.
This will be out on the podcast - mp3 here.
For some more info on diesel engines, check out How Stuff Works.
For the second time in the last month, I was stranded in different city, this time Australia's capital, Canberra.
But it wasn't turbulence or aircraft delays that kept me there. It was car repairs, and these car repairs not only taught me a little about the science of diesel engines, but about how expensive diesel cars can be.
So this week's post is about the science and costs behind diesel cars.
The story begins with a lovely weekend away with the girl, staying at a great hotel, eating nice food and generally having my one decadent weekend for 2007. Having taken in Little Britain Live, I headed out of the gravel car park, not knowing at the time of the troubles that lay ahead.
To put this in context, I drive a VW Golf, and its a diesel car. Its a good car, and two reasons I quite like it are:
- I do a lot of driving, long and short distance, and diesel cars are more fuel efficient than petrol cars,
- Even though when you burn diesel it produces more greenhouse gases per litre than petrol, the fact that diesel engines are so efficient means that per kilometre you produce less greenhouse gas output than petrol.
Diesel is less refined that petrol. This means it is easier to isolate the heavier diesel from the crude oil that comes out of the ground than the lighter, more volatile petrol. One would think therefore that diesel should be cheaper, and it is in many parts of the world. Strangely, in Australia at the moment, diesel is more expensive than petrol. It seems to be because much less diesel is sold in Australia than petrol and so there are less competitive demands, and because it is not subject to the discount cycles that affect petrol - for a good explanation, see here.
Anyway, enough science and commerce and back to my story.
Driving through the gravel car park, a rock has flicked up, smashed the guard on the bottom of the car (see the gaping whole in the above picture), punctured something called the fuel cooler, which in turn bent the connection to the return fuel line, meaning that the plastic undercarriage of the car, the fuel cooler and the fuel line needed to be completely replaced, to the tune of $860 including labour costs.
Now this had me a little confused. What is this fuel cooler? What is a return line?
The first thing I discovered is that diesel coursing through the lines in a diesel car is under extremely high pressure, and so special plastic tubing must be used. This means that you can not simply cut out the part of the hose with the hole in it and clamp the two ends back together - you need to replace the whole thing. This is essentially why it cost so much - every damaged part needed to be replaced in its entirety (and imported from Germany I guess....)
There are a few differences between diesel and petrol cars. A petrol engine compresses the fuel at a ratio of 8:1 to 12:1 - this ratio is the ratio between the volume of a combustion chamber when the piston is at the bottom of its stroke and the volume when the piston is at the top of its stroke. The higher the compression ratio, the more energy that can be obtained, as there is more fuel and oxygen crammed into the same space on ignition. Diesel engines use a compression ratio of 14:1 to 25:1. This higher compression ratio leads to increased efficiency.
Unlike a petrol engine, a spark plug is not needed to ignite the fuel, as this compression raises the temperature above the flash point of the mixture - when a gas is compressed, its temperature rises. Diesel is directly injected into the combustion chamber, where compressed air is injected and the highly compressed mixture ignites. This is unlike a petrol engine where fuel and air are mixed before entering the chamber, and then the mixture is ignited by a spark plug. Petrol can not be compressed to the same extent as diesel as the compression would raise the temperature above the flash point well before this ratio was reached. This is why diesel engines are intrinsically more efficient than petrol engines.
I believe the return line returns diesel that is not used in the combustion back to the fuel tank. It would seem that this diesel is at extremely high temperature and pressure, and so needs to be cooled. This is where the fuel cooler tube comes in. A punctured fuel cooler and broken return line meant that about 20 litres of diesel leaked into car park, but luckily there was enough diesel floating around in the lines to get me to the nearest service station.
A couple of days later, after many phone calls to the service people and to VW, I got my car back. Unfortunately, this does not fall under warranty as it was an "accident" - fair enough in theory as no parts failed (one could argue the plastic on the bottom of the car really should be able to sustain the impact of rocks in a car park when travelling at low speed however...), but very annoying in practise as it was completely accidental with no one at fault. It also meant I didn't qualify for free towing - so I'm avoiding paying that remarkably large bill too! ($200 for towing across 2 suburbs??)
Anyway, enough whining, its a good story and I must be zen about it - I am lucky to have a car at all, and just recently have heard some horror stories about car damage. It taught me some nice science and gave me another opportunity to chat to my insurance company! I am sure I have got some of the science of diesel cars wrong, so if you can correct anything I have said in this post, please do. I would like to know more myself! Let me know if anything similar has happened to you.
This will be out on the podcast - mp3 here.
For some more info on diesel engines, check out How Stuff Works.
MABUHAY from Australia!
One interesting thing that I have found is that this site gets a lot of hits, and the podcast alot of downloads, from The Philippines. The Philippines is the second highest country with English not as its first language in my list (second to Germany). This surprised me a little, so a big thank you to The Philippines. I'm not sure whether there is a devoted Philippino fan base or whether Google picks up this site a lot in The Philippines because of the stories and shows I did about the place (check out The Travelling Scientist), but whatever the cause, here is a message for you...
MABUHAY from Australia! Ako po ay si Marc. Maraming salamat sa pagbisita niyo sa aking website. Salamat din sa panahon na binibigay niyo para makinig sa aking palabas! Naway kayo ay may natutunan din!
MABUHAY from Australia! Ako po ay si Marc. Maraming salamat sa pagbisita niyo sa aking website. Salamat din sa panahon na binibigay niyo para makinig sa aking palabas! Naway kayo ay may natutunan din!
Monday, 26 February 2007
Monday, 19 February 2007
Hobbits and Interviews, but its not all about science
Something new I'm doing on Mr Science this year is reviewing various scientific books, podcasts and websites.
Book Review
Title: The discovery of the hobbit : the scientific breakthrough that changed the face of human history
Author: Mike Morwood and Penny van Oosterzee
Publisher: Random House Australia 2007
There are not many books that combine world-changing scientific discovery with political intrigue, soap opera relationships and international fueds.
Mike Morwood and Penny van Oosterzee take us on an amazing journey, detailing the astonishing discovery of a hominid species which lived as recently as 12,000 years ago, long after homo sapiens emerged from Africa and colonised the rest of the world. The hobbits of the Indonesian island of Flores were only a metre tall, hunted pygmy elephants and giant rats and were hunted by fierce komodo dragons.
The Discovery of the Hobbit, by Professor Mike Morwood from the University of New England and Australian co-leader of the discovery team, kept me intruiged and entertained throughout my 7 hours stuck in Townsville airport recently. And although I paid an airport price for the book, $35 for 7 hours entertainment, considering my options, is probably worth it.
Morwood, who co-wrote the book with science writer Penny van Oosterzee (famous for Where Worlds Collide: The Wallace Line and Dragon Bones: The Story of Peking Man) took a diary throughout the archaeological dig, and details not only the scientific discovery, but gives an insider's account into the personal relationships and ego clashes across international borders that threatened to destroy the scientific evidence, take credit from the researchers and leave the hobbit bones in the bottom of an Indonesian university.
The authors tell of how Professor Teuku Jacob, the father of Indonesian paleoanthropology, took the bones, much to Morwood's disgust, and whilst in his care, were irreparably damaged. The relationship between Morwood and Jacob was clearly not good, and Morwood reveals how Jacob almost took over the operation and all the credit not long after the bones were discovered.
It was these conflicts, based more around ego and ideology than science, that threatened to bring down the discovery.
Morwood, normally a teetotaller, took up drinking and smoking home-grown Indonesian products such was the stress caused by Jacob, the claims by Australian scientists Dr Alan Thorne and professor Maciej Henneberg, that the hobbits were just deformed modern humans, and the spiriting away to Germany of some remains for DNA testing without permission.
There were disputes between Morwood and colleague Professor Peter Brown over the nickname Hobbit, bureaucratic bungles and cultural hurdles to overcome, and this was even before any robust scientific discussion could be undertaken.
Morwood gives a fascinating explanation of his theories of the human evolution that brought about the homo florensiensis - that indeed it was an ancient hominid species that had undergone generations of island dwarfing (of which Morwood also gives an interesting account), rather than homo sapiens, or even homo erectus.
A fascinating book that balances a wealth of scientific detail with great story telling - something rare in a science book. It doesn't treat the reader as a dope or make science unapproachable, nor does it trivialise the astonishing discoveries for the sake of story telling.
----------
Podcast Review
Title: Science Talk Australia
Producer: Darren Osborne
Site: sciencetalk.libsyn.com
I should declare at the start that Darren is a friend of mine, and we've worked together on Diffusion and The Beer Drinking Scientists (which is soon to get its own podcast, thanks for the feedback, stay tuned), but that said, as a previous editor of The Helix magazine among other science and science communication qualifications, he knows what he's talking about.
Science Talk Australia is one of the few science podcasts that actually asks the researchers about their work. Each episode generally centres around an interview. The topics are all breaking stories, and Darren not only covers the scientific research angle, but also teases out from the researchers why we should care about their work - what is the context of their results, how does it effect us? This is something I like!
Its very listenable, approachable, informative and has recently been expanded to include breaking science news and a quiz. It appears in my itunes fortnightly, and at the time of writing is one spot ahead of mine in the Australian itunes science list - the bugger!
Recent interviews include conversations with Dr Severence MacLaughlin from University of Adelaide about how a mother's lifestyle before conception can affect her offspring and Dr Russell Keast of Deakin University who found that caffeine does not have the flavour enhancing qualities claimed by soft drink manufacturers.
----------
Website Review
Title: easternblot.net
Author: Eva and sometimes Ed
Site: easternblot.net
As is probably obvious, I really like science resources that make science accessible and put science in a social context - because, let's face it, science is interesting, relevant and fun. I stumbled across easternblot.net through random conversations over at myspace, and now its a mainstay of my feed reader.
The mission statement of the site is:
Science is involved in everything we see and do, and likewise, there is an aspect of non-science in all scientific research. Easternblot.net points out both sides of the story, by highlighting the science behind news items or everyday things, or by pointing out the social or artistic aspects of science.
How cool is that? The site tackles various topics, with my favourite tags being arts & crafts, Caffeine, Chemistry, communication and music. They also do reviews, and I must admit this spurred me on to finally do some reviews over here. There's also plenty of links to other sites.
----------
Speaking of reviews, feel free to leave comments on this site, on itunes with regards to the podcast, drop me an email, or even digg the podcast. Digg is great as I can see what episodes people like, what other science podcasts are popular, as well as getting great exposure.
These reviews will be out on the podcast this week - mp3 here
Book Review
Title: The discovery of the hobbit : the scientific breakthrough that changed the face of human history
Author: Mike Morwood and Penny van Oosterzee
Publisher: Random House Australia 2007
There are not many books that combine world-changing scientific discovery with political intrigue, soap opera relationships and international fueds.
Mike Morwood and Penny van Oosterzee take us on an amazing journey, detailing the astonishing discovery of a hominid species which lived as recently as 12,000 years ago, long after homo sapiens emerged from Africa and colonised the rest of the world. The hobbits of the Indonesian island of Flores were only a metre tall, hunted pygmy elephants and giant rats and were hunted by fierce komodo dragons.
The Discovery of the Hobbit, by Professor Mike Morwood from the University of New England and Australian co-leader of the discovery team, kept me intruiged and entertained throughout my 7 hours stuck in Townsville airport recently. And although I paid an airport price for the book, $35 for 7 hours entertainment, considering my options, is probably worth it.
Morwood, who co-wrote the book with science writer Penny van Oosterzee (famous for Where Worlds Collide: The Wallace Line and Dragon Bones: The Story of Peking Man) took a diary throughout the archaeological dig, and details not only the scientific discovery, but gives an insider's account into the personal relationships and ego clashes across international borders that threatened to destroy the scientific evidence, take credit from the researchers and leave the hobbit bones in the bottom of an Indonesian university.
The authors tell of how Professor Teuku Jacob, the father of Indonesian paleoanthropology, took the bones, much to Morwood's disgust, and whilst in his care, were irreparably damaged. The relationship between Morwood and Jacob was clearly not good, and Morwood reveals how Jacob almost took over the operation and all the credit not long after the bones were discovered.
It was these conflicts, based more around ego and ideology than science, that threatened to bring down the discovery.
Morwood, normally a teetotaller, took up drinking and smoking home-grown Indonesian products such was the stress caused by Jacob, the claims by Australian scientists Dr Alan Thorne and professor Maciej Henneberg, that the hobbits were just deformed modern humans, and the spiriting away to Germany of some remains for DNA testing without permission.
There were disputes between Morwood and colleague Professor Peter Brown over the nickname Hobbit, bureaucratic bungles and cultural hurdles to overcome, and this was even before any robust scientific discussion could be undertaken.
Morwood gives a fascinating explanation of his theories of the human evolution that brought about the homo florensiensis - that indeed it was an ancient hominid species that had undergone generations of island dwarfing (of which Morwood also gives an interesting account), rather than homo sapiens, or even homo erectus.
A fascinating book that balances a wealth of scientific detail with great story telling - something rare in a science book. It doesn't treat the reader as a dope or make science unapproachable, nor does it trivialise the astonishing discoveries for the sake of story telling.
----------
Podcast ReviewTitle: Science Talk Australia
Producer: Darren Osborne
Site: sciencetalk.libsyn.com
I should declare at the start that Darren is a friend of mine, and we've worked together on Diffusion and The Beer Drinking Scientists (which is soon to get its own podcast, thanks for the feedback, stay tuned), but that said, as a previous editor of The Helix magazine among other science and science communication qualifications, he knows what he's talking about.
Science Talk Australia is one of the few science podcasts that actually asks the researchers about their work. Each episode generally centres around an interview. The topics are all breaking stories, and Darren not only covers the scientific research angle, but also teases out from the researchers why we should care about their work - what is the context of their results, how does it effect us? This is something I like!
Its very listenable, approachable, informative and has recently been expanded to include breaking science news and a quiz. It appears in my itunes fortnightly, and at the time of writing is one spot ahead of mine in the Australian itunes science list - the bugger!
Recent interviews include conversations with Dr Severence MacLaughlin from University of Adelaide about how a mother's lifestyle before conception can affect her offspring and Dr Russell Keast of Deakin University who found that caffeine does not have the flavour enhancing qualities claimed by soft drink manufacturers.
----------
Website Review
Title: easternblot.net
Author: Eva and sometimes Ed
Site: easternblot.net
As is probably obvious, I really like science resources that make science accessible and put science in a social context - because, let's face it, science is interesting, relevant and fun. I stumbled across easternblot.net through random conversations over at myspace, and now its a mainstay of my feed reader.
The mission statement of the site is:
Science is involved in everything we see and do, and likewise, there is an aspect of non-science in all scientific research. Easternblot.net points out both sides of the story, by highlighting the science behind news items or everyday things, or by pointing out the social or artistic aspects of science.
How cool is that? The site tackles various topics, with my favourite tags being arts & crafts, Caffeine, Chemistry, communication and music. They also do reviews, and I must admit this spurred me on to finally do some reviews over here. There's also plenty of links to other sites.
----------
Speaking of reviews, feel free to leave comments on this site, on itunes with regards to the podcast, drop me an email, or even digg the podcast. Digg is great as I can see what episodes people like, what other science podcasts are popular, as well as getting great exposure.
These reviews will be out on the podcast this week - mp3 here
Tuesday, 13 February 2007
Love love love....
It's that time of year again, so I'd like to wish a HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY to all.
To keep you in the loving mood, head over to the Mr Science series on love, The Loving Scientist.
If you are single and looking to get the attention of that one special person, The Mathematics of Looking Beautiful, The Science of Speed-Dating and Scientific Dating Tips are for you.
If you are lucky enough to be waist deep in romance, then check out some of the reasons why we fall in love and how this is a chemical process in the brain. Perhaps you're interested in older ladies, or even risky sex....
And if you think this whole love and sex thing is just one big joke, then perhaps the idea that those who are more sexually appealing may be dumber might be up your alley.
So to all of you out there, to those special someones in your lives, and they know who they are in mine, have a wonderful Valentine's Day. I can't get e-nuff of your love! Now go read up on your Loving Scientist, hire Love Actually from the DVD store and take from this day whatever you will. I know Hallmark and flower companies love it, but its still fun and worth embracing (if not for purely scientific purposes, of course)!
To keep you in the loving mood, head over to the Mr Science series on love, The Loving Scientist.
If you are single and looking to get the attention of that one special person, The Mathematics of Looking Beautiful, The Science of Speed-Dating and Scientific Dating Tips are for you.
If you are lucky enough to be waist deep in romance, then check out some of the reasons why we fall in love and how this is a chemical process in the brain. Perhaps you're interested in older ladies, or even risky sex....
And if you think this whole love and sex thing is just one big joke, then perhaps the idea that those who are more sexually appealing may be dumber might be up your alley.
So to all of you out there, to those special someones in your lives, and they know who they are in mine, have a wonderful Valentine's Day. I can't get e-nuff of your love! Now go read up on your Loving Scientist, hire Love Actually from the DVD store and take from this day whatever you will. I know Hallmark and flower companies love it, but its still fun and worth embracing (if not for purely scientific purposes, of course)!
Thursday, 8 February 2007
Turbulent Townsville
Sometimes, the weather just doesn't work in your favour. Whether its raining out weekend sport or a BBQ, bringing an early end to the snow season, or simply melting the polar caps, raising sea levels and displacing millions of people, it can often be a minor inconvenience.
But on other occassions, it can be truly annoying.
I am currently sitting in the airport lounge in Townsville, North Queensland, awaiting my extremely delayed flight and hoping beyond hope that I don't have to stay here any longer. Townsville is a town that is built around James Cook University, the Army and the North Queensland Cowboys Rugby League team. However, univerisity hasn't gone back, much of the Australian Army is deployed overseas, and its not rugby league season yet, so suffice to say, there is not alot to do. Although, I'm not sure whether I would be tempted by that combination of attractions in any case...
No, to be fair, Townsville has its fair sure of beautiful attractions and lovely people. I'm just grumpy - that grumpiness that only airports can bring out of you!
Northern Australia is currently in the grip of cyclonic weather conditions. Cyclone Nelson has cut off much of the north by road, and caused massive flooding. This is a very strange thing to see coming from Sydney, which like much of the rest of the country, is drought-striken and in a water crisis.
So for my flight to be delayed is not surprising. However, for my flight to be delayed because the plane is late from Sydney because of Sydney storms, whilst it is perfectly clear outside here in Townsville, is rather infuriating! (Marc - I'm adding this 6 hours after we were supposed to leave, and we're still here. Each hour they delay the departure time by an hour.)
OK, time to stop complaining, and make something sciencey out of all this. One of the "features" of the trip up, and considering the weather conditions probably the trip back, was turbulence. Turbulence is air movement that cannot normally be seen and whilst many people enjoy this aspect of flying, I struggle with it!
There are a number of ways that turbulence can come about:
Thermals - Air rises when it is heated by the sun, and cold air sinks. So if one mass of air heats up, this can cause air flow causing turbulence.
Jet streams - At high altitudes, there are fast air currents. These can shift, causing a disturbance in the nearby air.
Mountains - Air passes over mountains and causes turbulence as it flows above the air on the other side.
Wake turbulence - If you are flying near the ground, a passing plane or helicopter can set up small, chaotic air currents.
Microbursts - A storm can cause a strong downdraft close to the ground.
The danger with turbulence is that it cannot always be predicted. The cockpit suffers least from turbulence, whilst the rear of the plane cops most of the disturbance. You don't need clouds for turbulence, however I usually notice it most when flying through them. On the way up, the pilot tried to stay below the clouds that were causing the turbulence. However, after a period of time, the clouds got lower and lower, and the plane couldn't continue to stay below them. However, the pilot said we were too heavy to fly above them - so we flew in the clouds for the best part of the flight, and it was a bumpy ride!
Aircraft radars can't detect turbulence. Turbulence is the leading cause of in-flight injuries, so remember to keep those seat-belts done up! It can range from very mild, to the extremely dangerous (but rather unlikely) case of the plane being totally out of control with massive changes in altitude. Between 1981 and 1997, there were 342 reports of turbulence affecting major air carriers. Three passengers died, two of which were because they were not wearing seat belts. 80 suffered serious injuries, 73 of these were also not wearing their seat belts.
One example of turbulence was a flight from Singapore to Sydney with 236 passengers on board, as well as and 16 crew. The airplane encountered turbulence over central Australia when it hit an air pocket and dropped 100 m. Nine passengers, including one pregnant woman, and three crew members suffered neck, back and hip injuries, with one of the passengers requiring surgery. They were all not wearing seat belts.
I'll get this out on the podcast soon, assuming I get back..... (mp3 here)
But on other occassions, it can be truly annoying.
I am currently sitting in the airport lounge in Townsville, North Queensland, awaiting my extremely delayed flight and hoping beyond hope that I don't have to stay here any longer. Townsville is a town that is built around James Cook University, the Army and the North Queensland Cowboys Rugby League team. However, univerisity hasn't gone back, much of the Australian Army is deployed overseas, and its not rugby league season yet, so suffice to say, there is not alot to do. Although, I'm not sure whether I would be tempted by that combination of attractions in any case...
No, to be fair, Townsville has its fair sure of beautiful attractions and lovely people. I'm just grumpy - that grumpiness that only airports can bring out of you!
Northern Australia is currently in the grip of cyclonic weather conditions. Cyclone Nelson has cut off much of the north by road, and caused massive flooding. This is a very strange thing to see coming from Sydney, which like much of the rest of the country, is drought-striken and in a water crisis.
So for my flight to be delayed is not surprising. However, for my flight to be delayed because the plane is late from Sydney because of Sydney storms, whilst it is perfectly clear outside here in Townsville, is rather infuriating! (Marc - I'm adding this 6 hours after we were supposed to leave, and we're still here. Each hour they delay the departure time by an hour.)
OK, time to stop complaining, and make something sciencey out of all this. One of the "features" of the trip up, and considering the weather conditions probably the trip back, was turbulence. Turbulence is air movement that cannot normally be seen and whilst many people enjoy this aspect of flying, I struggle with it!
There are a number of ways that turbulence can come about:
Thermals - Air rises when it is heated by the sun, and cold air sinks. So if one mass of air heats up, this can cause air flow causing turbulence.
Jet streams - At high altitudes, there are fast air currents. These can shift, causing a disturbance in the nearby air.
Mountains - Air passes over mountains and causes turbulence as it flows above the air on the other side.
Wake turbulence - If you are flying near the ground, a passing plane or helicopter can set up small, chaotic air currents.
Microbursts - A storm can cause a strong downdraft close to the ground.
The danger with turbulence is that it cannot always be predicted. The cockpit suffers least from turbulence, whilst the rear of the plane cops most of the disturbance. You don't need clouds for turbulence, however I usually notice it most when flying through them. On the way up, the pilot tried to stay below the clouds that were causing the turbulence. However, after a period of time, the clouds got lower and lower, and the plane couldn't continue to stay below them. However, the pilot said we were too heavy to fly above them - so we flew in the clouds for the best part of the flight, and it was a bumpy ride!
Aircraft radars can't detect turbulence. Turbulence is the leading cause of in-flight injuries, so remember to keep those seat-belts done up! It can range from very mild, to the extremely dangerous (but rather unlikely) case of the plane being totally out of control with massive changes in altitude. Between 1981 and 1997, there were 342 reports of turbulence affecting major air carriers. Three passengers died, two of which were because they were not wearing seat belts. 80 suffered serious injuries, 73 of these were also not wearing their seat belts.
One example of turbulence was a flight from Singapore to Sydney with 236 passengers on board, as well as and 16 crew. The airplane encountered turbulence over central Australia when it hit an air pocket and dropped 100 m. Nine passengers, including one pregnant woman, and three crew members suffered neck, back and hip injuries, with one of the passengers requiring surgery. They were all not wearing seat belts.
I'll get this out on the podcast soon, assuming I get back..... (mp3 here)
For more info and some examples of turbulence incidents, see: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
For a fluid dynamics explanation, see here.
Tuesday, 30 January 2007
Science Year 2006
Before we get too far into 2007, and before I finally take down my Christmas lights, its time we took a look back at the science year that was 2006.
This story will feature on the podcast very soon - it will also be the 50th Mr Science podcast episode, and so will feature these stories, plus some music, recordings and a few other tidbits from the year that was. I will post about that story when I finish up the recording - sometime this week, sorry for the delay.
(Edit - The mp3 for this episode can be found here, or on the podcast.)
So, to the stories, and coming in in 10th place in my top 10 science stories of 2006 ...
10. A brave new world of transhumanism is upon us.
9. Weird Science
2006 had some weird and wonderful science. Here are two examples that caught my eye:
a) Whales speak in dialects:
Scientists have eavesdropped on whale conversations and found that Pacific Northwest blue whales have different accents and sound different to western Pacific Ocean or Chilean blue whales. We don’t know why.
b) Penis Transplant Removed:
A 44-year old man who lost his penis in an unfortunate accident had it reattached. But not long after, Chinese doctors had to remove it again due to problems that you might not encounter in other microsurgery cases. The doctors stated that is was “because of the wife's psychological rejection as well as the swollen shape of the transplanted penis”. So much for “For better or worse”. Poor bloke.
8. Fields Medal No Show
Mathematicians are known to shun the limelight, but surely not awards ceremonies and even US$1 million? When the International Mathematical Union, meeting at the 2006 International Congress of Mathematicians in Madrid, announced the recipients of the 2006 Fields Medals - often called the Nobel Prize of mathematics – one recipient, Grigori Perelman, failed to show and declined the award.
In 2002-2003, Perelman worked out a proof of one of mathematics' oldest problems, the century-old Poincare conjecture. This result is not only a major achievement, but profoundly important with possible use in discovering the shape of the universe. It carries a bounty of $1 million from the Clay Mathematics Institute. It is expected that Perelman will win some or all of that money, and it seems quite unlikely that he will accept it! If you’re reading Grigori, I’ll have it!
7. Rats born to Mice
If you asked a rat to “Come to Papa”, or indeed “Who’s your Daddy”, and assuming the rat could talk, then you could be surprised by the answer. In one of the weirdest scientific breakthroughs of 2006, scientists have produced offspring from sperm cells grown in a different species with rats giving birth to mice.
Scientists have been able to develop one animal’s sperm in another for about a decade, including human sperm in rats. However, now we know that this sperm is fertile.
We have reproductive biologist Takashi Shinohara and his colleagues from Kyoto University in Japan to thank. The breakthrough raises the possibility of generating viable human offspring by growing human sperm in other animals, but Shinohara is not in favour of pursuing that avenue. Besides the ethical minefield, he noted that animal viruses could encode themselves into the sperm DNA.
So next time you flippantly ask “who’s your Daddy”, or even curse that someone is “A son of a bitch”, listen carefully to their response. You might be surprised.
6. Neanderthal DNA Mapped
The disappearance of the Neanderthals and why we homo sapiens won the human race, when about 50 000 years ago we were neck and neck, is a mystery as we have never known exactly what Neanderthals were like. How were they like us? How did they differ? Were they intelligent or simply cartoon cavemen? If the answers to these questions have a genetic answer, then 2006 saw us take some great steps to discovering them. Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and his team have managed for the first time to obtain nuclear DNA sequences from a 45 000-year-old male Neanderthal from north-western Croatia. Their results also suggest that Neanderthals split from modern humans about 500 000 years ago, suggesting that they didn’t interbreed with our ancestors.
Using some the techniques in our number 7 story, perhaps one day we will be able to recreate the full Neanderthal genome (the team predicts the full genome will be sequenced within 2 years) and give birth to one.
5. Steve Irwin's Death
Steve Irwin, probably one of the best known advocates for wilderness and animal conservation in the world, tragically passed away in 2006 in North Queensland, Australia. He was arguably Australia’s best-known science communicator, although he was more popular overseas, particularly in America, than he was at home. His unconventional methods of communicating his work – some say he provoked animals to get them to attack on camera in order to bring viewers to his Crocodile Hunter television series – drew criticism from some and inspired others, yet it is unarguable that Irwin will have a lasting effect on the environmental and conservation movements in Australia and around the world.
4. Cervical Cancer Vaccine
2006 saw a vaccine for cervical cancer approved for the first time. The vaccine, first developed by Australian of the Year, Professor Ian Frazer, is now available to those willing to pay for it. There are two vaccines out there - one from Merck, the other from GlaxoSmithKline. Both have demonstrated in clinical trials that they can prevent infection from the two types of the human papilloma virus (HPV) that account for up to 70 percent of cervical cancers. In the US, over 10 000 women contract invasive cervical cancer annually and nearly 4 000 die from it.
3. South Korean Fraud
Until 2006, South Korean Hwang Woo-Suk was considered a pioneer in the field of stem cell research. However, on May 12, 2006, Hwang was “indicted on embezzlement and bioethics law violations linked to faked stem cell research.”
So, he faked it all! His famous 2004 and 2005 Science Magazine articles in which he claimed to have succeeded in creating human embryonic stem cells by cloning, were found to contain vast amounts of fabricated data.
He also had a shot at cloning mammoths, fraudulently obtained money for his research and embezzled $A3.8 billion worth of state and civilian donations to his research team. In one saving grace for the researcher, investigators into the affair found that his claim to being the first to successfully clone a dog, was accurate. The dog, an Afghan Hound, was named Snuppy.
2. Pluto's Fall
In an even greater fall from grace, 2006 saw the astronomical demotion of Pluto from planet, to planetoid. The hub of all space knowledge, the International Astronomical Union (IAU), came up with the first ever definition of what it is to be a planet – and Pluto failed. At one stage, it looked as though our Solar System may have ended up with a number of new planets, including Pluto’s moon Charon, the asteroid Ceres and the newly discovered body 2006UB313. However, in the end, it was decided that because these bodies had not completely cleared their orbit of other space material and debris, they could not be officially called planets. So now we have only 8 planets.
“We made a mistake 76 years ago," says Mike Brown, an astronomer at the California Institute of Technology. “I thought that people would be too scared to demote Pluto. It is the right scientific decision.”
This has meant a tough job for text book writers around the world. But there is a nice symmetry now – in general, atoms are most stable when they have 8 electrons in their outer-most shell. Now we have a stable solar system with 8 planets. Intelligent Design? Convergent Evolution? Coincidence? Who knows!
1. Global Warming
Former US Vice President and failed US Presidential candidate Al Gore has finally won an election – well at least the entirely undemocratic election that came up with this list. His Documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, has become the third-highest-grossing documentary of all time and brought the issue of global warming to forefront of the public consciousness.
2006 saw global warming become the most talked about scientific topic of the year. Some scientists denied it, others blamed everything from animal migrations to the performance of the local sporting team on it, but you certainly couldn’t ignore it – global warming was everywhere in the press. As it’s a process that takes of the order of 100 years to have an effect, it is difficult to prove, however many researchers in the field now think that global temperatures could rise by as much as 5 degrees Celsius, and sea levels by 20 feet. Some good news is that whilst carbon dioxide levels continue to climb, levels of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas, have stabilised.
The debate has now caused the EU and California to adopt a carbon trading system. And even the Australian government has been forced to think about it – which given our reliance on dirty old coal as an energy source (despite having massive areas exposed to the sun and wind that could be used for solar or wind power), and also the fact that there could be a whole lot of Pacific Islanders without an Island to live on knocking on the Aussie and Kiwi doors if the sea levels rise, is only a good thing.
------
So there you have it. Let me know what you think - what were your highlights? And keep the Mr Science feedback coming in, so we can make this year bigger and better than the last.
This story will feature on the podcast very soon - it will also be the 50th Mr Science podcast episode, and so will feature these stories, plus some music, recordings and a few other tidbits from the year that was. I will post about that story when I finish up the recording - sometime this week, sorry for the delay.
(Edit - The mp3 for this episode can be found here, or on the podcast.)
So, to the stories, and coming in in 10th place in my top 10 science stories of 2006 ...
10. A brave new world of transhumanism is upon us.
Well almost. 2006 saw Harvard nanotechnologist Charles Lieber and colleagues demonstrate for the first time that transistors can control the function of individual living nerve cells.
“This work could have a revolutionary impact on science and technology,” Lieber said. “It provides a powerful new approach for neuroscience to study and manipulate signal propagation in neuronal networks at a level unmatched by other techniques; it provides a new paradigm for building sophisticated interfaces between the brain and external neural prosthetics; it represents a new, powerful, and flexible approach for real-time cellular assays useful for drug discovery and other applications; and it opens the possibility for hybrid circuits that couple the strengths of digital nanoelectronic and biological computing components”
“This work could have a revolutionary impact on science and technology,” Lieber said. “It provides a powerful new approach for neuroscience to study and manipulate signal propagation in neuronal networks at a level unmatched by other techniques; it provides a new paradigm for building sophisticated interfaces between the brain and external neural prosthetics; it represents a new, powerful, and flexible approach for real-time cellular assays useful for drug discovery and other applications; and it opens the possibility for hybrid circuits that couple the strengths of digital nanoelectronic and biological computing components”
More info at PhysOrg.com
9. Weird Science
2006 had some weird and wonderful science. Here are two examples that caught my eye:
a) Whales speak in dialects:Scientists have eavesdropped on whale conversations and found that Pacific Northwest blue whales have different accents and sound different to western Pacific Ocean or Chilean blue whales. We don’t know why.
More info at MSNBC
b) Penis Transplant Removed:
A 44-year old man who lost his penis in an unfortunate accident had it reattached. But not long after, Chinese doctors had to remove it again due to problems that you might not encounter in other microsurgery cases. The doctors stated that is was “because of the wife's psychological rejection as well as the swollen shape of the transplanted penis”. So much for “For better or worse”. Poor bloke.
More info at Live Science
8. Fields Medal No Show
Mathematicians are known to shun the limelight, but surely not awards ceremonies and even US$1 million? When the International Mathematical Union, meeting at the 2006 International Congress of Mathematicians in Madrid, announced the recipients of the 2006 Fields Medals - often called the Nobel Prize of mathematics – one recipient, Grigori Perelman, failed to show and declined the award.
In 2002-2003, Perelman worked out a proof of one of mathematics' oldest problems, the century-old Poincare conjecture. This result is not only a major achievement, but profoundly important with possible use in discovering the shape of the universe. It carries a bounty of $1 million from the Clay Mathematics Institute. It is expected that Perelman will win some or all of that money, and it seems quite unlikely that he will accept it! If you’re reading Grigori, I’ll have it!
More info at Scientific American and Science Magazine
7. Rats born to Mice
If you asked a rat to “Come to Papa”, or indeed “Who’s your Daddy”, and assuming the rat could talk, then you could be surprised by the answer. In one of the weirdest scientific breakthroughs of 2006, scientists have produced offspring from sperm cells grown in a different species with rats giving birth to mice.Scientists have been able to develop one animal’s sperm in another for about a decade, including human sperm in rats. However, now we know that this sperm is fertile.
We have reproductive biologist Takashi Shinohara and his colleagues from Kyoto University in Japan to thank. The breakthrough raises the possibility of generating viable human offspring by growing human sperm in other animals, but Shinohara is not in favour of pursuing that avenue. Besides the ethical minefield, he noted that animal viruses could encode themselves into the sperm DNA.
So next time you flippantly ask “who’s your Daddy”, or even curse that someone is “A son of a bitch”, listen carefully to their response. You might be surprised.
More info at Live Science
6. Neanderthal DNA Mapped
The disappearance of the Neanderthals and why we homo sapiens won the human race, when about 50 000 years ago we were neck and neck, is a mystery as we have never known exactly what Neanderthals were like. How were they like us? How did they differ? Were they intelligent or simply cartoon cavemen? If the answers to these questions have a genetic answer, then 2006 saw us take some great steps to discovering them. Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and his team have managed for the first time to obtain nuclear DNA sequences from a 45 000-year-old male Neanderthal from north-western Croatia. Their results also suggest that Neanderthals split from modern humans about 500 000 years ago, suggesting that they didn’t interbreed with our ancestors.
Using some the techniques in our number 7 story, perhaps one day we will be able to recreate the full Neanderthal genome (the team predicts the full genome will be sequenced within 2 years) and give birth to one.
More info at Scientific American, New Scientist (here and here) and Nature
5. Steve Irwin's DeathSteve Irwin, probably one of the best known advocates for wilderness and animal conservation in the world, tragically passed away in 2006 in North Queensland, Australia. He was arguably Australia’s best-known science communicator, although he was more popular overseas, particularly in America, than he was at home. His unconventional methods of communicating his work – some say he provoked animals to get them to attack on camera in order to bring viewers to his Crocodile Hunter television series – drew criticism from some and inspired others, yet it is unarguable that Irwin will have a lasting effect on the environmental and conservation movements in Australia and around the world.
4. Cervical Cancer Vaccine
2006 saw a vaccine for cervical cancer approved for the first time. The vaccine, first developed by Australian of the Year, Professor Ian Frazer, is now available to those willing to pay for it. There are two vaccines out there - one from Merck, the other from GlaxoSmithKline. Both have demonstrated in clinical trials that they can prevent infection from the two types of the human papilloma virus (HPV) that account for up to 70 percent of cervical cancers. In the US, over 10 000 women contract invasive cervical cancer annually and nearly 4 000 die from it.
More info at Scientific American
3. South Korean Fraud
Until 2006, South Korean Hwang Woo-Suk was considered a pioneer in the field of stem cell research. However, on May 12, 2006, Hwang was “indicted on embezzlement and bioethics law violations linked to faked stem cell research.”
So, he faked it all! His famous 2004 and 2005 Science Magazine articles in which he claimed to have succeeded in creating human embryonic stem cells by cloning, were found to contain vast amounts of fabricated data.
He also had a shot at cloning mammoths, fraudulently obtained money for his research and embezzled $A3.8 billion worth of state and civilian donations to his research team. In one saving grace for the researcher, investigators into the affair found that his claim to being the first to successfully clone a dog, was accurate. The dog, an Afghan Hound, was named Snuppy.
2. Pluto's Fall
In an even greater fall from grace, 2006 saw the astronomical demotion of Pluto from planet, to planetoid. The hub of all space knowledge, the International Astronomical Union (IAU), came up with the first ever definition of what it is to be a planet – and Pluto failed. At one stage, it looked as though our Solar System may have ended up with a number of new planets, including Pluto’s moon Charon, the asteroid Ceres and the newly discovered body 2006UB313. However, in the end, it was decided that because these bodies had not completely cleared their orbit of other space material and debris, they could not be officially called planets. So now we have only 8 planets.
“We made a mistake 76 years ago," says Mike Brown, an astronomer at the California Institute of Technology. “I thought that people would be too scared to demote Pluto. It is the right scientific decision.”
This has meant a tough job for text book writers around the world. But there is a nice symmetry now – in general, atoms are most stable when they have 8 electrons in their outer-most shell. Now we have a stable solar system with 8 planets. Intelligent Design? Convergent Evolution? Coincidence? Who knows!
More info at Mr Science and Scientific American
1. Global Warming
Former US Vice President and failed US Presidential candidate Al Gore has finally won an election – well at least the entirely undemocratic election that came up with this list. His Documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, has become the third-highest-grossing documentary of all time and brought the issue of global warming to forefront of the public consciousness.2006 saw global warming become the most talked about scientific topic of the year. Some scientists denied it, others blamed everything from animal migrations to the performance of the local sporting team on it, but you certainly couldn’t ignore it – global warming was everywhere in the press. As it’s a process that takes of the order of 100 years to have an effect, it is difficult to prove, however many researchers in the field now think that global temperatures could rise by as much as 5 degrees Celsius, and sea levels by 20 feet. Some good news is that whilst carbon dioxide levels continue to climb, levels of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas, have stabilised.
The debate has now caused the EU and California to adopt a carbon trading system. And even the Australian government has been forced to think about it – which given our reliance on dirty old coal as an energy source (despite having massive areas exposed to the sun and wind that could be used for solar or wind power), and also the fact that there could be a whole lot of Pacific Islanders without an Island to live on knocking on the Aussie and Kiwi doors if the sea levels rise, is only a good thing.
------
So there you have it. Let me know what you think - what were your highlights? And keep the Mr Science feedback coming in, so we can make this year bigger and better than the last.
Monday, 22 January 2007
The Beer Drinking Scientists - Promo 3
The Beer Drinking Scientists have moved on to the 3rd and final destination of the night, so join Darren Osborne and myself as we tackle the Mars Global Surveyor, and the link between chillies and spider bites, in the final (but only for now) Beer Drinking Scientists.
Probably because it was near the end of the night, we also chat about a few Martian films and other assorted issues that seemed relevant at the time.
More info on the Mars Global Surveyor can be found here.
Enjoy - listen to the podcast here or the show directly here
Probably because it was near the end of the night, we also chat about a few Martian films and other assorted issues that seemed relevant at the time.
More info on the Mars Global Surveyor can be found here.
Enjoy - listen to the podcast here or the show directly here
Sunday, 14 January 2007
The Beer Drinking Scientists - Promo 2
Join Darren Osborne and myself as we again host the Beer Drinking Scientists.
This recording is from our second stop of the night, in the Rocks Sydney.
This recording is from our second stop of the night, in the Rocks Sydney.
In this edition, we discuss a massive ethanol / methanol stream discovered in space, and a scientific paper into "Beer Goggles" - why people are more likely to have "risky sex" when they have had too much to drink.
Enjoy - listen to the podcast here or the show directly hereFriday, 5 January 2007
Blogs and Awards
Happy 2007 to all!The kind people at First Science have asked me to be a blogger on their site, so to check out some extra Marc-opinions which are hosted on one of the best science resources on the net, check out www.firstscience.com - Your first stop for science online
First Science features news, articles, perspectives, science facts, games, scientific photographs as well as being one of the first innovative sites to offer TV to download. They have recently renovated their site, and it is very impressive looking now.
I have also been nominated in the 2007 Australian blog awards, so feel free to get over there, nominate this site in various categories and vote often when voting opens!
Friday, 29 December 2006
The Beer Drinking Scientists - Promo 1
Join myself and Darren Osborne as we bring you a new series called The Beer Drinking Scientists. In these podcasts, Darren and myself talk all things beer and science topics of the day.
In this very first episode, we visit the James Squires Brew House in Darling Harbour, Sydney, sample the local ales, give them a good discussion and rating, before tackling the scientific topic of how humans perceive the temperature.
The theory behind these podcasts is, as Darren says, that the beer might kill off some of the slower brain cells and allow the smarter ones to get down to business on the weightier scientific topics. And, we have a great time talking science in a social context.
Enjoy - listen to the show directly here.
In this very first episode, we visit the James Squires Brew House in Darling Harbour, Sydney, sample the local ales, give them a good discussion and rating, before tackling the scientific topic of how humans perceive the temperature.
The theory behind these podcasts is, as Darren says, that the beer might kill off some of the slower brain cells and allow the smarter ones to get down to business on the weightier scientific topics. And, we have a great time talking science in a social context.
Enjoy - listen to the show directly here.
Tuesday, 19 December 2006
Human Evolution
Humans are undoubtably still changing. Culturally, technologically, intellectually and emotionally, humans have always been evolving. But are we still biologically evolving? Or have our cultural, technological, intellectual and emotional advances stopped genetic selection and biological evolution? Early homo sapiens could not possibly have envisaged the world in which modern day humans live, or our amazing technological capabilities, but have our changes had anything to do with genetics, or simply our developing culture?
Check out the following story, and a panel discussion, on my podcast.
It is arguable that we are no longer at the mercy of natural selection. We are now born into an environment that is largely of our own making – thousands of generations before us have helped craft a habitat in which genetic selection is largely unneccesary for our survival. No longer are only the healthy or rich breeding, or the strong surviving – babies with genetic mutations now survive childbirth and those of us who can not chase down wild animals can buy food from the supermarket. Reproductive technology has allowed many more people to breed than in the past.
There is an argument that we are even causing "reverse evolution". Technology and medicine enables almost everyone to have children, preventing unfit genes from being purged from the gene pool.
"Relaxed selection combined with a high mutation rate is probably causing gradual deterioration of many functions, especially disease defences," Gregory Cochran, adjunct professor of anthropology at the University of Utah, told New Scientist.
With this in mind however, we need to take a look at the 2005 discovery of two genes by Bruce Lahn of the University of Chicago, one of which may have emerged as recently as 14,000 years ago and is now carried by 70% of the world’s population. The other may be as recent as 500 years old and is carried by 25% of the world’s population. Another example of recent genetic selection is in some parts of Africa where there has been an increase in the frequency of a gene which offers some protection against infection with HIV-1. And another very interesting example is the increase of the dopamine receptor gene DRD4. It is interesting because it is associated with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and has somehow been selected for.
So it would seem that there are still genetic changes that are being selected for occurring within the species. These are very interesting findings, as racial and ethnic groups diverged somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, meaning that various groups across the planet may differ genetically to various degrees. It could be a massive political issue if different world races were not bioligically equal – one would hope we are culturally evolved enough to deal with it.
But none of this should be much of a surprise. Our era of rapid technological progress, and hence a fast changing environment, is exactly the conditions under which natural selection should thrive. For example, the invention of dairy herding selected for a gene that gives adults the ability to digest milk sugars.
These days however, we are seeing more and more that human technology and culture help humans “adapt”, where to adapt in the traditional genetic fashion would take hundreds or thousands of generations. And with the ability of technology to deal with our troubles rapidly increasingly, this will be an escalating effect.
Given all this, where are we going to end up? Christopher Wills of the University of California, San Diego argues that our culture is the driving force in human evolution and has been driving the rapid evolution of the human mind. It began when it was the brains of our ancestors, as opposed to their physical attributes, that allowed them to succeed, and now Wills argues that in the modern world nobody can do everything, so the advantage lies in being good at something that not many others can do well.
"My prediction is that we are not simply getting smarter, we are selecting for more variability in our behaviours," he told New Scientist.
This is an interesting theory, as it means our culture is selecting for more variability within our gene pool, with this all pushing towards higher intelligence. Whilst Cochran thinks that we may be breeding out immunity to disease, he also thinks we may be selecting for intelligence – he recently published a paper claiming that natural selection has genetically increased the intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews in the past 1000 years, as they were forbidden to work in manual trades and had to make money in more ceregral activities (Journal of Biosocial Science, vol 37, p 1). Perhaps he thinks that our higher intelligence, combined with advances in technology, will more than make up for our increased vulnerability to disease.
We should also not forget the role of sexual selection in evolution – that is, how we choose our mates - but we have already discussed this in a number of articles on Mr Science already. And we have not yet even dealt with the role of computing and artificial intelligence in evolution. With our concepts of what we mean by free-will and consciousness racing to keep up with developments in artifical intelligence, this is one area that could completely change our concept of evolution and what drives it. There will be a time when we start genetically changing ourselves and incorporating technology into our bodies. There may be a time when we create artifically intelligent robots, and indeed we may well change other animals to have some form of intellect. Our environment will be entirely of our own making. Evolution will always exist, indeed probably progressing at such a pace in the future that we can not imagine it at the moment, but undoubtably, natural selection as driven by “traditional” means will not exist.
So where now for the human race? The October edition of Focus magazine published seven alternatives for the human race, some far sighted, some near sighted, some serious, some not. I suspect the future is a mix of all of them.
Check out the following story, and a panel discussion, on my podcast.
It is arguable that we are no longer at the mercy of natural selection. We are now born into an environment that is largely of our own making – thousands of generations before us have helped craft a habitat in which genetic selection is largely unneccesary for our survival. No longer are only the healthy or rich breeding, or the strong surviving – babies with genetic mutations now survive childbirth and those of us who can not chase down wild animals can buy food from the supermarket. Reproductive technology has allowed many more people to breed than in the past.
There is an argument that we are even causing "reverse evolution". Technology and medicine enables almost everyone to have children, preventing unfit genes from being purged from the gene pool.
"Relaxed selection combined with a high mutation rate is probably causing gradual deterioration of many functions, especially disease defences," Gregory Cochran, adjunct professor of anthropology at the University of Utah, told New Scientist.
With this in mind however, we need to take a look at the 2005 discovery of two genes by Bruce Lahn of the University of Chicago, one of which may have emerged as recently as 14,000 years ago and is now carried by 70% of the world’s population. The other may be as recent as 500 years old and is carried by 25% of the world’s population. Another example of recent genetic selection is in some parts of Africa where there has been an increase in the frequency of a gene which offers some protection against infection with HIV-1. And another very interesting example is the increase of the dopamine receptor gene DRD4. It is interesting because it is associated with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and has somehow been selected for.
So it would seem that there are still genetic changes that are being selected for occurring within the species. These are very interesting findings, as racial and ethnic groups diverged somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, meaning that various groups across the planet may differ genetically to various degrees. It could be a massive political issue if different world races were not bioligically equal – one would hope we are culturally evolved enough to deal with it.But none of this should be much of a surprise. Our era of rapid technological progress, and hence a fast changing environment, is exactly the conditions under which natural selection should thrive. For example, the invention of dairy herding selected for a gene that gives adults the ability to digest milk sugars.
These days however, we are seeing more and more that human technology and culture help humans “adapt”, where to adapt in the traditional genetic fashion would take hundreds or thousands of generations. And with the ability of technology to deal with our troubles rapidly increasingly, this will be an escalating effect.
Given all this, where are we going to end up? Christopher Wills of the University of California, San Diego argues that our culture is the driving force in human evolution and has been driving the rapid evolution of the human mind. It began when it was the brains of our ancestors, as opposed to their physical attributes, that allowed them to succeed, and now Wills argues that in the modern world nobody can do everything, so the advantage lies in being good at something that not many others can do well.
"My prediction is that we are not simply getting smarter, we are selecting for more variability in our behaviours," he told New Scientist.
This is an interesting theory, as it means our culture is selecting for more variability within our gene pool, with this all pushing towards higher intelligence. Whilst Cochran thinks that we may be breeding out immunity to disease, he also thinks we may be selecting for intelligence – he recently published a paper claiming that natural selection has genetically increased the intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews in the past 1000 years, as they were forbidden to work in manual trades and had to make money in more ceregral activities (Journal of Biosocial Science, vol 37, p 1). Perhaps he thinks that our higher intelligence, combined with advances in technology, will more than make up for our increased vulnerability to disease.
We should also not forget the role of sexual selection in evolution – that is, how we choose our mates - but we have already discussed this in a number of articles on Mr Science already. And we have not yet even dealt with the role of computing and artificial intelligence in evolution. With our concepts of what we mean by free-will and consciousness racing to keep up with developments in artifical intelligence, this is one area that could completely change our concept of evolution and what drives it. There will be a time when we start genetically changing ourselves and incorporating technology into our bodies. There may be a time when we create artifically intelligent robots, and indeed we may well change other animals to have some form of intellect. Our environment will be entirely of our own making. Evolution will always exist, indeed probably progressing at such a pace in the future that we can not imagine it at the moment, but undoubtably, natural selection as driven by “traditional” means will not exist.
So where now for the human race? The October edition of Focus magazine published seven alternatives for the human race, some far sighted, some near sighted, some serious, some not. I suspect the future is a mix of all of them.
Homo astronauticus – We colonise the universe, but travel between the planets we inhabit takes too long, so the selective pressures (environmental, sexual, cultural ect) of each planet takes hold and eventually various different species of humans inhabit the universe.- Homo cyberneticus – Over time we enhance ourselves with computing parts. Eventually, nothing biological remains and our brains and consciousness are merely parts of a computing network.
- Homo hippocraticus – Casearean births have selected for babies with bigger brains and we have naturally become smarter. Eventually we correct genetic diformaties and become ultraintelligent and beautiful.
- Homo climatalogicus – We live in a world of rapid climate change, and that means we live totally enclosed in climate controlled glasshouses. Natural selection could not keep up with this change, but our technology could.
- Homo postapocalyptics – An asteroid hits the Earth, we blow up most of the Earth in a nuclear explosion, or there is some other catastrophy wiping out most of the population – only the strong survive on the post-apocalyptic Earth.
- Homo immortalus – Nanotechnology and genetic engineering combine to end all death. Will we live in an overcrowded world where we have to work forever, or has technology taken us to the stage where we no longer need to work at all, and we take massive risks, all in the knowledge that technology will save us?
- Homo tribalensis – Genetic engineering has made us a very vain race in which we select for beauty. We look good.
Sunday, 10 December 2006
Movember Farewell - Time lapse and Memories
Here is my video remembrance of Movember - the month in which a few of us grew moustaches to raise money for men's health.Yes, I realise that this is not particularly "sciencey", but its good fun. A big thanks to the other members of the team, who also feature in this video.
The time lapse is not perfect, but some of the reflections, and some of the work of the other guys, particularly Adrian, are pretty funny. I quite liked my moustache, I miss the little guy.
You can watch this below or download it here
Wednesday, 6 December 2006
A couple of promotions
This is a message of thanks for a couple of companies.
First off, a big thanks to The Podlounge for featuring the Mr Science Podcast on their homepage. You can see this feature here. Lots of love back to you, podlounge.
And also a thanks to itunes, who recently rated the Mr Science Podcast top of their Natural Sciences section in the Australian store, after recently featuring it on their podcast homepage. Lots of love back to you also, itunes.
Thanks again to those who subscribe to the show.
First off, a big thanks to The Podlounge for featuring the Mr Science Podcast on their homepage. You can see this feature here. Lots of love back to you, podlounge.And also a thanks to itunes, who recently rated the Mr Science Podcast top of their Natural Sciences section in the Australian store, after recently featuring it on their podcast homepage. Lots of love back to you also, itunes.Thanks again to those who subscribe to the show.
Monday, 4 December 2006
Diffusion Science Radio - UP LATE
I was very lucky to host the Diffusion Science Show "Up late" edition last Saturday night. Myself, Matt Clarke, Jacqui Hayes and Vanessa Gardos wandered into 2SER at 11pm, and broadcast across Sydney live until 1am.This gave us a chance to talk about the topics about which we always wanted to chat, without worrying too much about offending anyone.
This recording actually has quite a lot of static on it, and whilst I have tried to clean it up, it was impossible to clean up with the tools I have, so you may find this a little hard to listen to in some places. It sounds like listening to a badly tuned radio, so it might be OK to listen to in the car, on the train or on a plane. We still thought it important to get this episode out there, at least so we can all hear it again!
Grab the file from the podcast here.
The topics we chat about include (all in a science context):
- Cricket
- The future of humanity
- Neanderthals
- Elephants
- What if human disappeared over night
- Nudist beaches
- Consciousness
Listen to this show here
Sunday, 3 December 2006
The Cloning Debate - Part 2
A few weeks back, I republished an article I wrote in 2001, in which I asked a number of prominent Australians their views on cloning.
I have attempted to re-contact these same people to see whether or not their opinions have changed during these 5 years. I am pleased to have received 3 replies so far, although a few of my initial contacts have proved very hard to find, or have move out of the field (Prof. Alan Trouson). Their opinions have been very interesting. I intend to take a closer look at some of these ideas in the near future - especially the views from Clonaid, who I will interview, probably in early 2007.
Dr Paul Willis
One of Australia's leading science communicators, ABC Catalyst and radio Presenter, PhD in Palaeontology
I would say that my position has modified somewhat over the last 5 years. Therapeutic Cloning (TC) does offer the potential for cures to some pretty horrible diseases and, as such, ought to be pursued to see what it can really do. This should proceed at a research level. Once we know the true abilities of TC for various diseases, then we will be better placed to consider their implementation across society. But I am still concerned that we are looking at expensive medical treatments that will only really benefit a few, relatively rich people in the world. This particularly comes into focus when some of the more frivolous potential applications for TC are put on the table. Do we really need to spend billions learning how to make ego-copies of ourselves or developing complicated ways to avoid aging when that money could be more wisely spent saving many lives with much simpler, already proven medical technologies, treatments and basic public hygiene? This is an ethical problem with TC that is often ignored but should, in my view, be ahead of the more popular ethical issues such as embryonic destruction (which I think is a non-issue anyway because the embryos are destined for destruction anyway) or cross-species technologies (again, a non issue if there is no genetic material transfer between species).
Thomas Kaenzig
Vice President, Operations
Clonaid
www.clonaid.com
More and more people understand the benefits of the human cloning technology. Being in favor of therapeutic human cloning has already become "mainstream" today and the same thing will happen soon with reproductive human cloning. The ridiculous "ethics" argument brought up by opponents to human cloning is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism, through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and new technologies.
Luckily, nothing can stop science ....
Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja
Science and Research Portfolio, Australian Democrats
From her speech on the Prohibition of Human Cloning For Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendement Bill 2006 - Reproduced in part here after discussions with the Senator's office
I am a strong supporter of this technology (therapeutic cloning), in particular somatic cell nuclear transfer... Scientific endeavour has been an enduring area of interest to me. I have been particularly concerned with finding an appropriate balance between allowing the cutting-edge research and technology that we have to prosper and needing to protect our community through effective regulation of scientific activity...You need to understand how science progresses. It doesn't progress with a single step that means that you suddenly have cures. It moves incrementally towards a goal, and you gradually put in place bits of the jigsaw and solve various technical problems that are required... Those people who think that there is no moral problem with embryo research should be allowed to carry out that research and should not be prevented from doing so by the power of the law. Those people who think the research is wrong should be allowed to say so and to protest against what they believe to be wrong. And those who do not wish to participate in the treatments that arise from stem cell research should be allowed to avoid such treatments... Whether or not this technology will be progressed is beyond dispute. And if it does not happen here, it will happen elsewhere. Unless opponents are suggesting that we ban all imports of therapies derived using somatic cell nuclear transfer then Australians may well ultimately benefit from this technology, regardless of what happens here. But do we not want to be part of this? Do we not want invest in the potential and the hope that it presents us with? At stake is whether or not we want our research community to play the role that they are able to in this. If we allow this bill to pass, we can ensure that Australians benefit not only from the outcome but from the knowledge that is gained in the process and the increased speed with which progress may come about if Australias innovative prowess is allowed to be brought to bear on this challenge.
Add to del.icio.us
I have attempted to re-contact these same people to see whether or not their opinions have changed during these 5 years. I am pleased to have received 3 replies so far, although a few of my initial contacts have proved very hard to find, or have move out of the field (Prof. Alan Trouson). Their opinions have been very interesting. I intend to take a closer look at some of these ideas in the near future - especially the views from Clonaid, who I will interview, probably in early 2007.
Dr Paul WillisOne of Australia's leading science communicators, ABC Catalyst and radio Presenter, PhD in Palaeontology
I would say that my position has modified somewhat over the last 5 years. Therapeutic Cloning (TC) does offer the potential for cures to some pretty horrible diseases and, as such, ought to be pursued to see what it can really do. This should proceed at a research level. Once we know the true abilities of TC for various diseases, then we will be better placed to consider their implementation across society. But I am still concerned that we are looking at expensive medical treatments that will only really benefit a few, relatively rich people in the world. This particularly comes into focus when some of the more frivolous potential applications for TC are put on the table. Do we really need to spend billions learning how to make ego-copies of ourselves or developing complicated ways to avoid aging when that money could be more wisely spent saving many lives with much simpler, already proven medical technologies, treatments and basic public hygiene? This is an ethical problem with TC that is often ignored but should, in my view, be ahead of the more popular ethical issues such as embryonic destruction (which I think is a non-issue anyway because the embryos are destined for destruction anyway) or cross-species technologies (again, a non issue if there is no genetic material transfer between species).
Thomas KaenzigVice President, Operations
Clonaid
www.clonaid.com
More and more people understand the benefits of the human cloning technology. Being in favor of therapeutic human cloning has already become "mainstream" today and the same thing will happen soon with reproductive human cloning. The ridiculous "ethics" argument brought up by opponents to human cloning is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism, through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and new technologies.
Luckily, nothing can stop science ....
Senator Natasha Stott-DespojaScience and Research Portfolio, Australian Democrats
From her speech on the Prohibition of Human Cloning For Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendement Bill 2006 - Reproduced in part here after discussions with the Senator's office
I am a strong supporter of this technology (therapeutic cloning), in particular somatic cell nuclear transfer... Scientific endeavour has been an enduring area of interest to me. I have been particularly concerned with finding an appropriate balance between allowing the cutting-edge research and technology that we have to prosper and needing to protect our community through effective regulation of scientific activity...You need to understand how science progresses. It doesn't progress with a single step that means that you suddenly have cures. It moves incrementally towards a goal, and you gradually put in place bits of the jigsaw and solve various technical problems that are required... Those people who think that there is no moral problem with embryo research should be allowed to carry out that research and should not be prevented from doing so by the power of the law. Those people who think the research is wrong should be allowed to say so and to protest against what they believe to be wrong. And those who do not wish to participate in the treatments that arise from stem cell research should be allowed to avoid such treatments... Whether or not this technology will be progressed is beyond dispute. And if it does not happen here, it will happen elsewhere. Unless opponents are suggesting that we ban all imports of therapies derived using somatic cell nuclear transfer then Australians may well ultimately benefit from this technology, regardless of what happens here. But do we not want to be part of this? Do we not want invest in the potential and the hope that it presents us with? At stake is whether or not we want our research community to play the role that they are able to in this. If we allow this bill to pass, we can ensure that Australians benefit not only from the outcome but from the knowledge that is gained in the process and the increased speed with which progress may come about if Australias innovative prowess is allowed to be brought to bear on this challenge.
Add to del.icio.usSaturday, 25 November 2006
Elevators, Chimps and Love? Plus a little live radio
This week on the Mr Science Show Podcast, we tackle the topics of:
In other news, tonight (25/11/06) the Diffusion Science Radio Show is going live and up-late on 2SER between 11pm and 1am. We are taking the opportunity to produce some live and unscripted radio. Highlights from this show will appear on my podcast soon.
Grab this show here
- A 100,000 km space elevator
- Young chimp males like older chimp women
- Being tall and young makes you more attractive at speed dating
In other news, tonight (25/11/06) the Diffusion Science Radio Show is going live and up-late on 2SER between 11pm and 1am. We are taking the opportunity to produce some live and unscripted radio. Highlights from this show will appear on my podcast soon.
Grab this show here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
