All Hallows' Eve is upon us once again.

Tonight is the night for ghosts and specters, for black cats and vampire bats, and for a night kept alight by the fires of a thousand Jack-o-lanterns.

It's also the night for droves of masquerading children to wander the streets like a horde of rampaging zombies. But don't worry, it's not brains they're after, just candy.

"Trick or treat!" they'll shout with delight, not knowing the history and true meaning behind what they say. This seemingly innocent question is actually a veiled threat: Will you tender a treat or be subject to a trick of comical mischief? From most children, this statement is a hollow one to be sure, but even if it's not, there's really not much to worry about. By the end of the night, these sugar-seeking zombies will be too busy gorging themselves on candy to be much of a threat to anyone besides themselves. Why? They just can't help it.



Over thousands of years, our ancestors evolved to crave these nutrients - salt, because it is necessary to maintain hydration, sugar and fat, because they give us energy. Long ago, these nutrients were often scarce. This Halloween, they are anything but. All you have to do is throw a bed sheet over your head and walk from door to door with your arms outstretched.

Digging deeper, researchers from the University of Melbourne have discovered that salt can be addicting in the same manner as cigarettes. They found that rodents, when deprived of salt, develop the same proteins that cause junkies to crave nicotine. This neurological feature likely served our evolutionary ancestors well, but most people living in developed nations don't really need it.

It's a similar situation for sugar. Our tree-swinging, fruit-eating primate relatives evolved to be drawn to it's sweet taste because the sweeter the fruit, the more calories and water the fruit often contained. Today, humans are still left with the vestiges of that evolutionary trait. Scientists at the Monell Chemical Senses Center have found that our tongue, intestines, and pancreas are all biologically programmed to tell our brains to love sugar.

Lastly, when we ingest foods rich in fat, researchers have found that our bodies produce marijuana-like endocannabinoids that prompt us to overindulge. These substances are theorized to function by initiating the release of digestive chemicals that tell us we're still hungry. When food is scarce, this biological design is perfect for prompting us to store energy.

Fueled by evolutionary tendencies, tonight's trick-or-treaters will undoubtedly binge on candy filled with salt, sugar, and fat. Though they may not be haunted by vampires, ghosts, or werewolves, they will undoubtedly be tormented by a horrible stomachache.

Ahhhhhh bedtime. Yawwwwwwwwn. Strrrretttccchhh.

The mattress beckons. The covers call to you with their comfortable caress. The pillows yearn for you to plop your head down onto their plump padding.

The weariness caused by a long, arduous day amplifies the temptation of your bed. It's almost like a siren. Succumbing to it's call, you climb under the covers. The bed is so comfortable. Lights out.

An hour later...

Toss. Turn. Wiggle. Sigh. Still not asleep.

For many, something as simple as bedtime can all-to-often seem like the bane of their existence. But don't despair, science has produced a plethora of dos and don'ts on nighttime dozing. Take heed of these bedtime suggestions and you may find yourself on your way to a resftul slumber!

Don't: Eat spicy food. Seeking to test the effects of spicy food on sleep quality, scientists at the University of Tasmania recruited six young, healthy, male subjects and fed them Tabasco-infused (¡Ay caramba!) meals on some nights and non-spicy control meals on others. The verdict? Spicy meals "markedly disturbed sleep... increasing total time awake and tending to increase sleep onset latency."

Do: Stay away from the light. According to researchers from Harvard Medical School in Boston, exposure to electrical lighting can strongly suppress melatonin levels in the blood. Melatonin is a hormone that is well-known to regulate the sleep-wake cycles in mammals. The onset of darkness signals your pineal gland to release melatonin, indicating to your body that it's time for bed. Bright artificial light can trick your brain into thinking that it isn't bedtime.

Don't: Excessively use electronic devices. Televisions, cell phones, computers, and game consoles all serve as tempting distractions from a good night's rest. A recent poll from the National Sleep Foundation found that 95% of respondents use electronic devices in the hour before bedtime. This certainly makes it seem possible that the rise of technology is partly responsible for the trending decline in sleep duration. It might be past midnight, and you might want to let the Twitter world know your thoughts about the latest episode of Dancing with the Stars, but it's probably better to save that Tweet for tomorrow.

Do: Have Sex. Sex isn't only beneficial in the morning. An evening quickie, two to four hours before bed, can trigger the release of endorphins. These endorphins will likely cause relaxation and wakefulness in the short term, but when bedtime comes around, your body should be primed and ready for sleep.

Much ado has been made over the past week about Steve Jobs' apparent disappointment with President Obama. Media outlets across the globe have especially touted Jobs' dissatisfaction with what he deemed to be an Obama administration that is unfriendly toward business. According to Business Insider:

Jobs said the Obama administration was not business-friendly and said it was impossible to build a factory in the United States due to regulations and unnecessary costs. Apple had 700,000 factory workers employed in China, where it was much easier to build and run a factory, Jobs said.

Jobs' frank words have prompted calls for a "Steve Jobs Act," which would include reductions in unnecessary regulations and policies to encourage and aid aspiring entrepreneurs to transform their innovative ideas into job-creating businesses, just like what Steve Jobs did with Apple.

Sounds like a great idea!

But while we're all in the habit of taking Jobs' words for Gospel, maybe we should heed another of Jobs' candid opinions that has recently emerged:

"Definitely, taking LSD was one of the most important things in my life. Not the most important, but right up there," Jobs told biographer Walter Isaacson.

This comment joins another similar statement from Jobs in reference to Bill Gates.

"He'd be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once or gone off to an ashram when he was younger."

In light of these comments, why not include provisions in the "Steve Jobs Act" that would ease restrictions on, or legalize certain potentially beneficial banned substances, such as LSD, 'magic mushrooms', and marijuana?

Scientific studies have recently shown LSD to be a potential cure of debilitating cluster headaches. In addition, Johns Hopkins researchers have found that 'magic mushrooms' can potentially change a user's personality for the better, boosting openness, imagination, and awareness of abstract ideas.

Psychoactive substances are also used by many civilizations as "entheogens." Entheogens are used to achieve spiritual or religious enlightenment as well as to attain inspiration into new ideas and experiences.

Some might argue that legalizing substances such as LSD, 'shrooms', and marijuana would be dangerous and could morally bankrupt society. If the substances are used in excess, this is certainly possible. But many things when used in excess can be debilitating for society - like food and alcohol, for instance.
  
For example, the Centers for Disease Control recently announced a study that estimated the societal cost of excessive alcohol consumption at $223.5 billion in 2006, or just about $2 per drink. In addition, numerous studies have revealed that obesity is raking huge costs on society. Earlier this year, research from the Society of Actuaries estimated these costs at almost $270 billion per year!

In stark contrast, LSD may have contributed to the founding of a company that has posted a 2011 revenue of $108.2 billion and is currently valued at $377 billion dollars.

Okay, maybe that statement is a tad far-fetched, but so was the idea of a "personal computer."

It's in the caudate nucleus.

That's the finding of a 2005 study from researchers at Stony Brook University and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. The researchers gleaned their results by examining nearly 2,500 brain images from seventeen students who claimed to be "in love."

But a more recent and admittedly less scientific examination of recent world events has yielded a different answer to the question in the title: "I don't know where love is, but there's not definitely not enough of it in the world."

Contributing to this finding are violent protests in Greece, the ceaseless spattering on Capitol Hill, a lack of "compassionate care" in the health industry, Wall Street greed, and the recent heart-rending story coming out of China about a two-year-old girl, who, after being run over by a van, was ignored by 18 passers-by and run over again before being dragged out of the street to safety. She would later die in a hospital.

The hippies of Occupy Wall Street may be slightly annoying and have poor hygiene, but they do make a valid point when they call for more peace, love, and understanding on planet Earth.

One well-known scientific facet of love is the release of the hormone oxytocin. This hormone has a myriad of beneficial effects on behavior, including promoting attachment, easing stress, reducing cravings associated with addiction, and boosting social skills. A 2007 study posted to online journal PLoS One found that oxytocin also makes us more generous. Researchers infused some subjects with oxytocin and others with a placebo. They then engaged subjects "in a blinded, one-shot decision on how to split a sum of money with a stranger." Their results found that those who had been given doses of oxytocin were 80% more generous!

Though it has been known to occasionally spur pain of its own, love has also been found to act as a painkiller. A study from the Stanford University School of Medicine discovered that love can relieve pain in almost the same manner as narcotic painkillers.

Despite the obvious benefits of love, the world still seems hesitant to fully embrace the emotion. Some say they don't have the time for love and others dismiss the call for more love as a fanciful, childish solution to modern, complex problems.

Musicals are often excellent exposés on love. The 2001 Academy Award nominated Moulin Rouge provided us with a terrific summation on the indecision about espousing the emotion. Caught in a tangle of intrigue, the two main characters, Christian and Satine faced a difficult decision on whether or not to express their love. 

"Love lifts us up where we belong. Where eagles fly, on a mountain high," Christian argued.

"Love makes us act like we are fools. Throw our lives away for one happy day," Satine responded.

Of course in the end, Satine and Christian both agreed that love can make us all heroes. How true. As pointed out by blogger Sean Cort of Psychology Today, love "transcends race, gender, age, nationality, socioeconomic status, religion, your height, your depth, your girth or even your state of mind."

Love brings us all together.

Forget all of the rubbish surrounding the issue of climate change.

Forget the inconvenient truths. Forget "Climategate." Forget the tear-jerking documentaries about polar bears. Forget the calls of a widespread scientific hoax. Forget the nimrods who deny or support the arguments for climate change based upon a bone-chilling winter day or a summer week of sultry temperatures. (That's weather, not climate!)

But: Embrace the newest piece of climate science, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study.

Conceived in the months following the allegations of scientific misconduct presented by "Climategate," the BEST study was created out of the desire to investigate climate change in the most transparent, honest, and comprehensive manner possible.

Our aim is to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses, and to prepare an open record that will allow rapid response to further criticism or suggestions. Our results include not only our best estimate for the global temperature change, but estimates of the uncertainties in the record.

Analyzing temperature data from over 39,000 temperature stations worldwide, more than five times the amount previously examined by other studies, BEST has found that global warming is indeed real. The study found "reliable evidence of a rise in the average world land temperature of approximately 1 degree Celsius since the mid-1950s." The researchers did note, however, that their study did not assess "how much of the observed warming is due to human actions."

But the results of 'BEST' are not the biggest story surrounding the study. The biggest story is the breadth and openness of the study, itself. Chief scientist, Richard Muller, an "outspoken critic of the science underpinning global warming," has made every aspect of the study available to the public.

Another huge story surrounding the BEST study is that it was partly funded through a non-profit controlled by the infamous Koch Brothers, who are believed to be the money behind the "climate-denial campaign."

In the current "black and white" political climate, the BEST study is a breath of fresh air. Despite being headed by a skeptical chief scientist and funded by two of the most despised men amongst liberals, the study still found that global warming is real. The Berkeley Earth Temperature Study and the scientists behind it are shining examples of how scientific study and discourse should be conducted in the United States.

"There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people: religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin."
                                                                    -Linus van Pelt

Linus wasn't a fool to believe in the Great Pumpkin; he was just way ahead of his time. Today, great pumpkins are everywhere, and they're getting greater. In 1981, Howard Dill grew a record-breaking 493.5-pound monster. Just forty years later, growers are closing in on one ton.

You can thank genetics and avant-garde growing practices for this future feat of nature. Nowadays, growers are engaged in a never-ending quest to cross the seeds of prize-winning pumpkins. They all want to breed the next champion. Website databases such as pumpkinlink.com have sprouted up in order to chronicle the thousands upon thousands of genetic varieties available. To gain an edge, competitive growers worldwide are also employing bacteria, mycorrhizal fungi, innovative crop rotations, and so many fertilizers that it might make a commercial farmer blush.

"Generally they've been sprayed with so many chemicals that it's unwise to eat them," competitive grower Robert Sabin told Science Friday. Sabin did note, however, that it is perfectly safe to use giant pumpkins as boats.

But boating is definitely an afterthought for growers. The ultimate goal is size. And for that, you need the "Atlantic Giant." Growing as much as forty pounds a day, this breed of pumpkin is known to occasionally explode due to excessive growth. Despite the ever-present danger of being sprayed with innards, many growers treat these giants like their own children.

"I put a blanket on my pumpkin during the day [in order to protect it from the sun]. [The blanket] also keeps [my pumpkin] warm at night." Sabin said.

Considering their grandiose size, you might be wondering how these pumpkins can 'hold it all together'. The answer, discovered by Georgia Tech researcher David Hu, lies in weight distribution. As the pumpkins grow in size, they also become more oblong. This allows their weight to be distributed more evenly, Hu told ScienceNews.

Hu also found that as the great pumpkins grow even larger and appear more 'deflated', they tend to grow fastest in the areas of highest stress. The incredible mass and internal forces actually make it easier for cell division to occur, sparking accelerated growth.

With the one-ton record soon to be shattered, many growers are looking beyond the thrill of competition and see other ramifications for their humongous gourds. As reported by Smithsonian Magazine:

"By God, if we can get a pumpkin up to a ton, imagine what we can do to somebody's vegetable crop," says Dave Stelts, president of the Great Pumpkin Commonwealth. "What we are doing will be reflected on the dinner table of America."

Humans have left behind a lot of stuff on the Moon. Everything from ships and probes, to cameras and plaques, to defecation collection devices. You name it; humans probably left it. So let's take a look at five of the most interesting man-made objects left on the Moon.

5. Eagle - The Apollo 11 Lunar Module: This list would be remiss to not include an object such as this. On July 21, 1969, Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong crawled into the Eagle and descended down to the surface of the Moon. The rest, as they say, is history.

4. Luna 2 - The First Man-Made Object to Reach the Moon: As much as Americans may like to have a selective memory on this topic, the Russians did "get there first." Luna 2 successfully impacted the surface of the Moon on September 13, 1959, a full three years before the United States' Ranger 4 accomplished the feat in 1962 and ten years before the Apollo Moon Landings.

On another note, the Luna 2 looks strikingly similar to the evil interrogation robot in Star Wars Episode 4...


 3. The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment: Consisting of four silicon reflectors, the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment is still used today to accurately measure the distance between the Earth and the Moon. This is accomplished by bouncing laser beams off the reflectors and calculating the time it takes for the light to return to its source. Simple math takes care of the rest.

After forty years, the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment is still going strong. Besides calculating distance, the experiment has been used to discover that the Moon is slowly spiraling away from Earth at a rate of 38 millimeters per year and that the Moon has a liquid core.

2. Luna 15 - The Final Competitor: On July 21, 1969, the United States was not the only country to have a space vessel orbiting the Moon. Unbeknownst to most, the race to land a man-made object on the Moon and return it safely to Earth came down to the wire. The Soviet Union's Luna 15 was launched three days before Apollo 11 and was intended to land on the Moon, collect soil, and return to Earth well before the American astronauts. Unfortunately for the Soviets, Luna 15 crashed into the lunar surface hours after Neil Armstrong took "one small step for man."

Despite the tense rivalry between the Unites States and the Soviet Union, the simultaneous missions of Luna 15 and Apollo 11 became a glowing act of cooperation between the adversarial countries. The Soviet Union released Luna 15's flight path to ensure that it would not conflict with Apollo 11.

1.  The Silicon Disk of Goodwill Messages: Left by the astronauts of the Apollo 11 mission, the silicon disk contains statements from the leaders of 73 countries. In 1969, NASA revealed the following about the commemorative object:

The same process used in making integrated circuits produced the message disk. First, the messages were photographed and the photo reduced 200 times. The resulting image was transferred to glass which was used as a mask through which ultra-violet light was beamed on-to a photosensitive film on the silicon disc. After a photo development step, the disc was washed with hydrofluoric acid which accomplished the final etching.

The words on the disc, which is roughly the size of a 50-cent piece, are still readable through a microscope. These statements, like the other objects left on the moon, serve as reminders of the truly awe-inspiring endeavors that mankind has accomplished, and can still accomplish.

"Man has reached out and touched the tranquil moon. May that high accomplishment allow man to rediscover the Earth and find peace there."

                                                -Pierre Elliot Trudeau

A USA Today piece reports that college laboratories have a poor safety record, specifically, somewhere between 10-50 times worse than the chemical industry. That sounds bad, but having done plenty of research both as an undergrad and graduate student, I'm not convinced that college labs are inherently unsafe.

Most universities already have plenty of rules to make sure accidents don't happen. For instance, a lot of labs have a strict no food/drink policy (which all of us violated by hiding candy and coffee under our desks). The real problem, most likely, is not a lack of rules, but (1) inexperienced students doing semi-dangerous things; (2) the strange hours typical of grad student life; and (3) boredom.

Let me explain.

Your humble correspondent had some mishaps during his 10-odd years of laboratory experience. None of them were due to a lack of rules; instead, all of them could be explained by some combination of the alternative reasons given. For example:

1) I once reached over a Bunsen burner and singed off some of my arm hair. (Burnt hair smells awful, by the way.)

2) In the same lab, after a long day (in the middle of the night, when no one was around and boredom had set in), I decided to entertain myself by burning away a Petri plate full of ethanol. (We regularly use ethanol to clean microbiology equipment.) Unfortunately, the Petri plate was made of plastic, so it started to melt. That's when I panicked, grabbed some paper towels, and attempted to put out the fire. As you might have guessed, the paper towels caught on fire, too, so that's when I swept everything on the floor and stomped on it. It wasn't graceful, but it worked.

3) In a different lab, students performed "old school" microbiology-- and they used "old school" techniques, like mouth-pipetting bacteria. (Imagine trying to suck water only part-way up a straw. That's what we were doing, and it's a very big no-no.) But, I gave it a try. That resulted in a salty mouthful of E. coli.

There's far more where that came from (e.g., burning paper towels with sulfuric acid and a bizarre occurrence cryptically referred to as the "bleach incident"), but those will have to wait for another post.

For now, suffice it to say that there are plenty of rules to keep students safe. The trick is getting them to follow those rules.

The other day, as I was liberally forking pasta onto my dinner plate, I couldn't help but notice the size of the plate, itself. This thing was big.

The next thing I noticed was how pitiful my portion of pasta was in relation to this overly large plate. Not wanting to make inefficient use of eating space, I decided to heap on few more sporkfuls of spaghetti. What followed was a glorious act of gluttony.

This recent experience - one that many of us have probably encountered - begets an interesting question: Does the size of our plate affect how much we actually eat?

At an outside glance, it certainly seems possible. Data has shown that average plate size in the United States has mirrored the increase obesity. Since the 1980s, the surface area of a typical dinner plate has risen by 44%, while obesity rates have reached epidemic proportions.

But correlative data won't cut it here; a controlled study is needed to give us the 'skinny' on this poser.

Low and behold, researchers from the nutritional sciences department at Penn State University put the issue of plate size and consumption to the test in 2008. For the study, the researchers had forty-four participants eat a buffet-style lunch one day a week for three weeks. At each lunchtime, the participants were tendered with a different size plate and told to eat as much as they wanted. Their caloric intake was monitored for the duration of the lunch. The study's results "showed that plate size had no significant effect on energy intake." Going into more detail, the researchers stated that:

Participants in the... study made significantly more trips to the buffet when they were given the smallest plate. These findings show that using a smaller plate did not lead to a reduction in food intake at meals eaten in the laboratory.

So, it appears that while many Americans are hesitant to get up off the couch to change the television channel, they are perfectly content to get up in order to heap more food onto their plate. I don't mean to scold; I'm guilty of this as well.

It also appears that despite the observational data showing a potential link between the rise in obesity and an increase in plate size, plate size is not the reason why Americans are getting fatter. So setting restrictions on plate size will not serve as a simple fix to our nation's weight problem.

Despite my original suspicions stemming from my feast of spaghetti, it now seems silly to me that plate size would have anything to do with how much we actually eat. After all, basic American ingenuity easily allows us to overcome this barrier.

There's no denying it: Ph.D theses can make for some pretty dry reading material...

...But they make for some phenomenal dance numbers.

Last Friday, sixteen finalists were announced for the "2011 Dance Your Ph.D" Contest. These finalists are in the hunt for a $500 cash prize given to the winner of each category (physics, chemistry, biology, and social science) and the ultimate grand prize of an additional $500 and a trip to TEDxBrussels 2011 where they will be crowned the grand champion.

The rules of the contest are fairly simple. You must have a Ph.D or be working for one, your Ph.D must be in a science-related field, and you must be a part of the dance. These lax regulations allowed for some extraordinarily creative entries.

Stephen Steiner danced his thesis, "Carbon Nanotube Growth on Challenging Substrates: Applications for Carbon-Fiber Composites," in a black-lit basement accompanied by the melodramatic tones of Lady Gaga. Lara Park took a different approach with her thesis, "The Effect of Western Style Diet Consumption on Epigenetic Patterns." Park began her entry with a footloose dance number meant to demonstrate the unhealthiness of the typical Western diet. She then switched gears to a more atmospheric vibe in order to describe intranuclear activity.

More amazing than the scientists' surprising ability to bust-a-move is how well a lot of the entries were able to depict complex subjects and make them readily understandable through dance. Sissi Li best underscored this notion with her entry describing student interrelations and learning styles within a physics classroom. Li seamlessly integrated the information from her thesis into a dance, and, in doing so, made her thesis easily comprehensible to a broad audience.

These groovy scientists are definitely on to something. If they can convey intricate theses through simple dance, what's to stop teachers from doing the same thing with other topics?

William Lau, of Saint Marleybone School in the United Kingdom has already attempted to teach Excel spreadsheet skills through break dancing with decent success:

We initially planned to teach spreadsheet skills through the medium of street dancing, but maybe we also ended up teaching street dancing through the medium of spreadsheets, [Lau said to The Guardian].

In 2000, a meta-analysis studying whether dance can lead to improved academic success delivered some promising results. The researchers, led by Mia Keinanen, discovered that dance instruction was somewhat correlated with improved visual spatial skills. While Keinanen insisted that more rigorously controlled studies are needed to test this correlation, she theorized that dance instruction could possibly be used to teach cognitive skills that can be deployed in non-dance disciplines.

If the 2011 "Dance Your Ph.D" finalists are any indication, Keinanen's theory is quite promising.

On Monday, University of Minnesota researcher, Jaako Mursu published the results of a long-term study examining the effects of vitamin and mineral supplementation on older women. The study found that the use of certain supplements was associated with an increased risk of death when compared with non-use.

Representatives of the supplement industry were quick to denounce the study as biased, with the Council for Responsible Nutrition - the self-described "science behind the supplements" - releasing a statement calling Mursu's study "a hunt for harm."  According to Duffy MacKay, vice president for scientific and regulatory affairs at the Council for Responsible Nutrition:

...The authors show their own bias with this statement: 'We recommend that [dietary supplements] be used with strong medically-based cause, such as symptomatic nutrient deficiency...' which basically means these researchers would rather wait till we all get scurvy before acknowledging any need for supplemental nutrients.

To me, the author's statement doesn't impart much bias, but Mackay's statement certainly does. In addition, his far-fetched quip about scurvy is an affront to oranges and other natural bastions of Vitamin C everywhere.

Besides, a lobbyist labeling a scientist as biased? That's laughable.

Narrator: "It's time to learn about science on Ask Mr. Lizard."

Mr. Lizard: "Hi, kids."

Timmy: "Hi, Mr. Lizard. What are we going to learn today?"

Mr. Lizard: "Well, Timmy; what do you think would happen if we mixed potassium nitrate, charcoal, and sulfur?"

Timmy: "Gee, Mr. Lizard. I don't know."


Ask Mr. Lizard is a fictional show taking place within the world of Disney's 1990's television program Dinosaurs. The gist of the show is simple. Mr. Lizard exhibits the spectacle of science by demonstrating subjects to his juvenile assistant, Timmy. Mr. Lizard focuses on some of science's more interesting topics. For example, he shows Timmy a volcano's geothermal energy, how a jet engine works, and what happens when you put nitroglycerin in a blender. Mr. Lizard even graciously allows the inquisitive Timmy to carry out the demonstrations, himself (often while Mr. Lizard hides behind a lead shield).

If you haven't guessed already, the show usually doesn't end too well for Timmy. And while "Mr. Lizard" is slightly educational, the show is plainly more focused on tickling the funny bone instead of tingling the brain.


On the other hand, Watch Mr. Wizard, the 1950's television show that inspired "Mr. Lizard', was both entertaining and informative. In the show, the fatherly host, Don Herbert explained the science of everyday things to his curious young assistants. The show was the first of its kind, utilizing the airwaves to reveal the wonders of science to countless Americans both young and old. By 1955, the show's popularity was so great that there were 5,000 Mr. Wizard Science Clubs and over 100,000 children applying for memberships. Thirty-six years later, Jim Henson and Disney parodied the legendary "Mr. Wizard" by creating what can only be described as "the best science television show within a television show."
   
Now, let's return to the original question posed by Mr. Lizard and find out what exactly happens when potassium nitrate, charcoal, and sulfur are mixed.

Timmy: (After thoroughly mixing the ingredients) "Gee, Mr. Lizard. Nothing's happening."

Mr. Lizard: (While handing Timmy a burning lighter) "Well, Timmy. Maybe we need to put some light on the subject."

Timmy: (Taking the lighter) "Oooohh."

BOOM.

A 2008 survey found that a mere 28% of Americans "meet the level of scientific literacy needed to understand scientific terms, concepts, methods, and the impact of science on society."

In addition, recent battles in the blogosphere have prompted stark realizations about the anti-science beliefs of the two major political parties in the United States. Both Democrats and Republicans share convictions that fly in the face of scientific consensus. We have leftists who are anti-vaccine, anti-genetically modified organisms, anti-animal research, and anti-nuclear power. We also have those on the right who are anti-climate science, anti-evolution, anti-stem cell research, and even anti-water fluoridation.

No matter how you look at it, when the dogmatic dust settles and the hot air dissipates, science loses by a landslide.

This does not bode well for America, but if you think it's bad here, look at China.

Using the same questionnaire as the aforementioned 2008 study, the Chinese Research Institute for Science Popularization found that a paltry 3% of Chinese adults are scientifically literate. 28% looks pretty good now, doesn't it?

A lot of factors contribute to China's piddling scientific literacy. For starters, a massive study of the Chinese Academy of Sciences found that 80% of their researchers are reluctant to participate in science communication activities. In addition, the number of local Chinese television stations with science channels decreased by over half from 2002 to 2010.

With this combination of troublesome circumstances, the Chinese population is being left in the dark on major scientific issues. This is incredibly troubling, especially considering the problems that China is facing. Rampant degradation of the environment, possible food shortages, and the rise of nuclear power are glaring topics, and how China deals with them will have massive ramifications for the global economy. Issues of this magnitude surely require a scientifically literate population.

While the scientific literacy problems in China are mostly due to a lack of education opportunities, there is no shortage of such opportunities in the United States. This makes Americans' scientific illiteracy that much more inexcusable.

In addition, American citizens of both political persuasions are choosing to be scientifically ignorant by replacing reason with partisan beliefs. If this disconcerting trend continues, America's population may find itself in the same position as China: blind on science.

With tough choices ahead for the United States, stagnation in scientific literacy is not an option. Especially considering that -- unlike the Chinese -- American citizens have tremendous power to influence the direction of their country.

In 2008, Major League Baseball was facing an epidemic of massive proportions... besides steroids.

Fans and players alike were being terrorized by incidents of shattered bats at a rate of one per game. That may sound like an insignificant number, but I say that when it comes to sharp pieces of wood traveling at high velocities towards my face, I'd prefer to keep the rate as low as possible. Major League Baseball agreed.

Thus, the league contacted David Kretschmann, an engineer and wood scientist at the Forest Products Lab located at the University of Wisconsin. Kretschmann immediately began searching for the root of the problem and realized that it began with trees.

"Traditionally, bats were made out of white ash," Kretschmann told On Wisconsin. "Today, about sixty percent of bats are made of maple, where in 1990, that figure was only about three percent." Kretshmann theorized that Barry Bonds' influence may have had something to do with it this rapid change in bat choice. In 2001, Bonds switched to a maple bat and hit seventy-three home runs, setting the single season record.

So why were maple bats breaking more often? Somewhat surprisingly, the shattering bat problem actually had nothing to do with the strength of the wood, itself, but in how the bats were cut. A bat is strongest when it is cut parallel to the wood's grain. Because maple has a less defined grain, it was harder for bat makers to cut the wood properly.

From their studies, Kretschmann and his colleagues were able to devise a simple solution to fix the problem. Inspectors now clearly mark the wood's grain with ink before a bat is cut. This easy modification rapidly reduced the rate of shattered bats from one per game in 2008 to .45 per game in 2011.

Now, when little Jimmy and Johnny bring their baseball gloves to the Saturday afternoon game, sporting aspirations of catching a foul ball or two, their parents won't have to worry that they might catch a splintered piece of wood, instead.

For the rest of baseball fans - especially those sitting in the lower sections of the ballpark - this new reprieve from the danger of shattered bats will allow them to safely not pay attention to the game. Before, they were unsafely not paying attention to the game.


Source: Allen, John. "Bat Man." On Wisconsin. Fall 2011: 21

If you're looking to find out how to fly or turn invisible, I'm afraid the Newton Blog cannot help you.

But if you're interested in superhuman abilities such as abnormal strength, regenerative powers, or hyper athleticism, you've come to the right place! Believe it or not, these talents are rare, but well-documented. And it may be possible that our brains are the key to unlocking these abilities.

Consider abnormal strength. Over the years, we have been provided with countless examples. You know the typical story: a 120 pound mother sees her son trapped under a car and lifts the vehicle a foot off the ground in order to save her child. This scenario, demonstrating "hysterical strength," has some science to back it up. Our muscle tendons feature a physiological component called a golgi tendon organ. It's purpose is to inhibit the muscles from producing too much contractile force, which could cause tissue damage. It is theorized that in cases of hysterical strength, the brain overrides the golgi organ, thus allowing a person to exceed their strength threshold.

Playing Devil's advocate, superhuman strength always seems to occur when motor vehicles are involved. Perhaps this pattern says more about the ease of lifting cars than it does about the potential of human strength.

Moving on, regenerative powers are demonstrated through the well-recorded placebo effect. The idea is simple: a doctor or researcher prescribes a drug to a person and tells the person that the drug will make them better. Even though the medication may be inert, the person's condition still improves. Placebos have reportedly cured a host of ailments, including depression and cancer. The success of placebos seems to indicate that our bodies have some kind of chained regenerative powers that need only be unlocked. Could the brain be the key?

The brain is undoubtedly key to athleticism. Just look at a recent study from the American College of Sports Medicine (as reported by the New York Times):

Cyclists were told that a [virtual avatar] would be going 2 percent faster or 5 percent faster than the cyclist had ever gone. The other group was deceived. Each cyclist was told to compete against an avatar that would be moving as fast as that athlete had in his best effort. Actually, the avatar was programmed to race 2 percent harder or 5 percent harder.

The cyclists in the first group gave up from the start when they knew the avatar would be moving faster than they ever had. [But], cyclists in the second group, who were deceived, kept up with their avatars when they were programmed to perform 2 percent harder than each athlete at his best.

"The brain appears to conserve the body's limited fuel to a certain degree, not allowing athletes to work too hard," the study's architect, Dr. Jo Corbett said. Yet Corbett's study found that it is possible to disregard this limitation by deceiving the brain.

Human cases of abnormal strength, regenerative powers, and hyper athleticism all have one thing in common: they require a psychological stimuli. By finding ways to reproduce these stimuli, could we effectually use our brains to think our way to superhuman powers? This would take the phrase, "Mind over matter" to a whole new level.

I remember my first iMac.

It was graphite in color and came with a 60 gigabyte hard drive, a DVD/CD-R combo Drive, and a 700MHz G3 Processor. I named it "Cami."

To buy it, I had spent the previous nine months saving the money I had earned from working odd jobs ranging from refereeing soccer to collecting pop cans to strict manual labor. My parents covered half of the computer's $1400 cost, but $700 was still a lot of money for a 13-year-old to muster.

For the next four years, that iMac was my gateway to a large and growing world; it was my medium to connect with friends; it was my partner in crime. I loved that machine, and I have loved all of my subsequent Apple purchases: from "Trinity" to "Rano" to "Kooby." (Yes, they all received names.)

It seems odd, doesn't it? To grow emotionally connected to a piece of technology. But that is what Steve Jobs made us do. It is this feeling that makes his recent passing unusually personal to millions of people.

Steve Jobs didn't just give us technology; he gave us partners in life. In a way, that makes us all related to Steve.

Because of Steve, buying an Apple product isn't like purchasing a new television, it's like taking home a new puppy.

The latest Macintosh computer, the newest iPod, the most recent iPhone, they are vehicles through which we experience life. You can use your MacBook to deeply connect with a loved one, no matter how much distance may separate you. You can find solace by listening to music on your iPod. You are overjoyed when you receive your new iPad. You become incredibly frustrated when the next iteration of iPhone is not what you hoped it would be (though you buy it, regardless).

Above all, Steve Jobs challenged us to "think different." It greatly saddens me to realize that we will not hear him say, "There is one more thing..." ever again.

But the best way to honor Steve's memory is not to mourn his passing; it is to heed his words:

No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.

Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma -- which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.

At the height of Manifest Destiny in the mid 1850s, hundreds of thousands of Americans courageously trekked across the country's uncharted expanse of fertile plains and pristine forests en route to California. The Gold Rush was at its peak and the promise of a new life out West was too tempting for many to ignore.

"Westward, ho!" they said back then.

Now, the saying might be "North Dakota, ho!"

With the Bakken rock formation resting below its surface, North Dakota is sitting on a gold mine... of oil. Reports estimate that 11 to 18 billion barrels of oil could be extracted from the Bakken formation.

Just a few years ago this might not have been true, but recent innovation has brought forth techniques such as hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. The oil that was once out of man's reach, locked in shale deposits buried deep underground, is now able to be harvested. According to National Public Radio:

Two years ago, America was importing about two thirds of its oil. Today, according to the Energy Information Administration, it imports less than half. And by 2017, investment bank Goldman Sachs predicts the US could be poised to pass Saudi Arabia and overtake Russia as the world's largest oil producer.

America's new oil boom has rapidly transformed small towns such as Williston, North Dakota. In Williston, unemployment is below 2% with as many as four thousand more jobs available. In addition, rent for small apartments is as high as $1,000 per month and wait lines at Walmart are as long as thirty minutes.

Though this new oil rush is an undeniable boon for the economy, there are consequences that should be considered. Hydraulic fracturing is a relatively new beast and we have yet to fully understand the environmental ramifications of utilizing the technique. Groundwater contamination, excessive water use, and human-caused earthquakes are a few of the legitimate concerns about fracking.

But despite the aforementioned environmental worries, the American people should embrace the country's oil boom and allow fracking to continue. However, we must accept that oil mining and production requires sensible regulations and oversight from a bolstered Environmental Protection Agency. In this "oil rush" endeavor - one that is so vital to our nation's economy and energy security - the EPA and the oil companies can work as partners to the benefit of all.

In addition, steps must be taken to ensure that fracking is performed responsibly and efficiently in order to protect groundwater supplies. Surely we can all agree that the amount of water required to fracture a well - as much as seven million gallons - is a tad exorbitant. Well-drillers must find ways to recover and recycle this "fracking fluid" mixture. They also need to work in unison with the EPA and the scientific community to discover ways to safely frack without risking groundwater contamination.

Americans must also recognize that the current oil boom will not last forever and thus take steps to prepare for a future without oil. High fuel efficiency standards are an excellent start. This will ensure that America's new found wealth of oil is not squandered due to wastefulness. In addition, Oil companies benefiting from the boom need to be taxed. These tax revenues should be re-invested not into subsides for clean energy technologies, but into research and development that will advance these technologies to a point where they don't require subsidies. By pairing the oil boom with investments in research and development, we can ensure that the clean energy technologies of the future will be ready to take the mantle from the carbon-based energy technologies of today.

The United States cannot turn away from the tremendous opportunity offered by this new oil boom, but we cannot blindly "drill, baby, drill" either. Congress must put forth legislation that responsibly addresses America's modern abundance of oil.

Last Thursday, the world witnessed a historical moment in Chinese spaceflight: the launch of their Tiangong-1 space lab. As the country's "Heavenly Palace" streaked toward the starlit sky riding a majestic ball of fire, millions of Chinese were undoubtedly looking on with pride. For those watching the launch on China's state television channel (CCTV), their feelings of pride were also undoubtedly mingled with confusion. That's because the telecast of the momentous Chinese launch was set to the orchestral chords of "America the Beautiful."

International news agency, AFP, noted once such confused response:

"At the time, I was eating in a hotel with foreigners from an American company and Chinese clients and we were watching the live broadcast," posted one user on Sina's Weibo, China's answer to Twitter.  "All the Chinese there wanted to disappear," he said of the embarrassed response.

So, what was the meaning of this cross-cultural musical mash-up? Was it simply a gaffe? Were the Chinese paying homage to the United States, a country that has boldly lead in space exploration for decades? Or, was the song meant to signify what many deem to be a shift in dominance: that China is now poised to overtake the United States in both scientific and technological endeavors?

For starters, the "gaffe" explanation is a definite possibility. But by "gaffe," I don't mean "accident." An operator did not simply hit the play button on "America the Beautiful" instead of "The East is Red."

We all know that the Chinese government takes their propaganda very seriously, but we also know that the Chinese have produced a plethora of political dissidents. Is it possible that someone at CCTV was making a political statement? Certainly.

It's also possible that that the music was a planned homage to the United States, meant to honor the country that paved the way for manned spaceflight. Interestingly enough, "America the Beautiful" was played as the welcome music for President Richard Nixon when he visited China in February of 1972. In January of that year, Nixon had ordered the development of NASA's space shuttle program. In March, the United States launched Pioneer 10, the first man-made satellite to leave the solar system.

Which brings us to the third possibility. Almost forty years have passed since the United States accomplished those aforementioned notable achievements in space exploration. Today, the future of America's space dominance is uncertain at best. Is it possible that CCTV played "America the Beautiful" as a challenge? Perhaps to say that, "America may have won the space race of the past, but China is intent on winning the race of the future."

So, are any of these explanations correct? According to a CCTV representative responding to The Guardian:

"I don't know how to answer your question," Chen Zhansheng of the... propaganda department said. "I cannot help you."

We may never know the true reason behind CCTV's playing of "America the Beautiful" during their historical launch broadcast, but we can still appreciate the irony of a Chinese space station blasting off over "purple mountains" and into "spacious skies."