Something really weird is happening at The Atlantic. A couple weeks ago, they published what could charitably be described as a pseudoscientific rant against genetically modified food. The article was so bad, that Scientific American and Slate ran rebuttals against it.

Now, they've done it again. An article titled "Cell Phones Are More Annoying than They Are Dangerous" starts off sensibly enough. The author correctly indicates that there is no scientific link between cell phones and cancer, and she also properly decries the hysteria surrounding "sexting" and talking-while-driving. So far, so good.

However, the author concludes:

Although the risks may not be as great as once imagined, cell phones could theoretically pose dangers both physical and psychological -- in the radiation they put off... The World Health Organization (WHO) still lists cell phones as "possibly carcinogenic to humans,"... (Emphasis added)

Cell phones do not cause cancer. They do not even theoretically cause cancer. Why? Because they simply do not produce the type of electromagnetic radiation that is capable of causing cancer. Michael Shermer explains, using basic physics:

...known carcinogens such as x-rays, gamma rays and UV rays have energies greater than 480 kilojoules per mole (kJ/mole), which is enough to break chemical bonds... A cell phone generates radiation of less than 0.001 kJ/mole. That is 480,000 times weaker than UV rays...

If the radiation from cell phones cannot break chemical bonds, then it is not possible for cell phones to cause cancer, no matter what the World Health Organization thinks. And just to put the "possible carcinogen" terminology into perspective, the WHO also considers coffee to be a possible carcinogen. Additionally, it appears that politics and ideology may have trumped science in the WHO's controversial decision.

Science writers need to stop giving credence to the "precautionary principle," which basically excuses wild speculation about the alleged dangers of everyday experiences. Not only is that bad policy, it is bad science.

Across the country, everyday citizens are engaged in scientific and technological pursuits. They do this in many ways: by inventing in backyards and garages, by taking part in large citizen science projects or by conducting self-experimentation.

Defined by OpenScientist, these citizen scientists are people, "who participate in the systematic collection and analysis of data; development of technology; testing of natural phenomena; and the dissemination of these activities on an avocational basis."

By this definition, one of the greatest citizen scientists of all time was Benjamin Franklin.

Going even further, Franklin embodied one of the purest definitions of a scientist: someone who thinks about the nature of the world in order to devise ways to better the lives of others. In this, he was incredibly successful.

American Scientist's Shawn Carlson insists, "Franklin was the first person to prove that pure science could benefit ordinary people."

Franklin was first to suggest how to size the atom, first to realize that the Earth's climate could change, first to track a hurricane and first to chart the Gulf Stream.

Franklin invented the lightning rod, bifocal glasses, and the flexible urinary catheter. He patented none of them, saying, "...as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously."

Besides his aptitude in the areas of science and technology, Franklin also proved to be a decent soothsayer for the disciplines. He once said:

"...The rapid progress true science now makes, occasions my regretting sometimes that I was born so soon: it is impossible to imagine the height to which may be carried, in a thousand years, the power of man over matter; we may perhaps learn to deprive large masses of their gravity, and give them absolute levity for the sake of easy transport. Agriculture may diminish its labour and double its produce; all diseases may by sure means be prevented or cured (not excepting even that of old age), and our lives lengthened at pleasure even beyond the antediluvian standard..."

Long before the Wright Brother's legendary first flight, Franklin seemingly portended the rise of modern-day airlines. His predictions on agriculture and disease -- though somewhat vague -- were also sowed into reality with the invention of agricultural machinery, genetic modification, refined planting techniques, vaccinations, antibiotics and modern medicine.

Franklin was, however, incorrect on human longevity. The 'antediluvian standard' he described refers to the ages of the Hebrew patriarchs in the Old Testament, whose lifespans extended past 900 years. Though the ages of modern humans can reach into the triple digits, we aren't even remotely close to that divine standard.

For all of Franklin's accomplishments, we must be in awe of the man. Once the awe settles, we can learn from him an empowering lesson: Your planet, your town, your home, can serve as your laboratory.

We live in a very different time from Mr. Franklin, but it still holds true that citizen scientists have the power to move humankind forward. You don't need to have advanced degrees or be published in peer-reviewed journals; you just have to be driven and curious.

Earlier this month, Pixar announced that their Academy Award-Winning film, Finding Nemo, will soon come to theaters in 3D. Pixar is excited about the film's transition to 3D, saying that the ocean scenes are perfect for the new medium.

Hopefully the 3D experience will be enough to satiate the little movie-goers' appetite for adorable fishy friends. Unfortunately, if the past is any indication, we could be in for another Nemo frenzy, which does not bode well for the fish.



When Finding Nemo was first released in 2003, clownfish sales soared. Clownfish were already popular, but the movie caused even more kids to want their very own Nemo. According to one study, the clownfish populations of some reefs dropped by 75% in the five years following the movie's release. About half of the fish sold in stores are taken from reefs, and the other half are farmed in captivity. The fad has also affected the reef itself because collectors sometimes use chemicals to knock out the fish, causing lasting damage to tropical ecosystems.

Some customers don't seem to realize that tropical fish like Nemo can't live in a simple bowl like a goldfish. Other owners take the movie to heart and try to set their fish free. As a result, tropical fish are popping up in the wrong oceans and terrorizing the native species that live there.

The clownfish problem is just one example of the threats that marine animals face. One study thoroughly researches the existing conservation efforts for over a thousand "charismatic" species from sixteen families that are seen in Finding Nemo. Included in the study were species of sea turtles, pelicans, sharks, and, of course, clownfish. The results showed that one in every six of the species is threatened, and the principle threat is exploitation.

It may come as no surprise that several other animals have suffered after they were featured in children's movies. When Disney's 101 Dalmatians came out in 1996, many people went out purchased their own black and white bundles of joy. A little while later when the puppies grew up into adult Dalmatians with tons of energy, animal shelters across the country saw a 300 percent increase in their Dalmatian populations.

Similarly, there are many more people are buying owls nowadays, and it's just possible that the Harry Potter franchise may have had something to do with it. Unfortunately, when the magic wears off and it becomes clear that owls take a long time to train, many owl owners no longer want their feathered pets. In fact, a new owl sanctuary has opened in England for the sole purpose of absorbing the influx of unwanted owls.

It seems strange that Finding Nemo has had such a catastrophic affect on clownfish populations when the story is about freeing a fish that was captured from a reef. One article suggests that conservationists should better utilize animated features like Finding Nemo to educate the public about biodiversity and conservation.

Until then, I would like encourage all the little clownfish out there to "just keep swimming."

A mountain of rotting garbage silhouetted on the horizon. Noxious plumes of vile gas stream from its husk and rise like a haze against the setting sun. Plastic bags blow in the wind while flocks of seagulls scavenge amongst the waste.

This scene may represent a great many Americans' preconceived visions of a landfill: dirty, foul, and polluted. But despite these dour perceptions, we would all agree that landfills are necessary. Especially as long as the average American generates over 1,600 pounds of waste per year.

But I would like to add a new, more positive, descriptor to the list: sophisticated. How else can you describe some of the state-of-the-art landfills in this country?

Modern landfills feature all sorts of technologies and refined methods to ensure that the environmental impact of our immense consumption is minimized. For starters, a leachate collection system gathers any toxic liquids that percolate through the decomposing mass, protecting groundwater supplies from contamination. The collected liquids are then stored and analyzed before being transported to a nearby water treatment facility.

Space is also an important factor to consider in a landfill. The more compacted the trash, the better. To accomplish this, gargantuan bulldozers navigate through the heap and compress the garbage to an astounding 1500 pounds per cubic yard!

Another advanced feature is starting to become more commonplace in America's landfills. When rotting trash decomposes, it creates a large amount of methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas over twenty times more potent than carbon dioxide, but it's also an excellent source of energy. For this reason, an intricate system of pipes and wells can be utilized to collect the methane and channel it through engine-generators that burn the gas to produce electricity. There are now over 541 landfill-gas-to-energy projects in the United States, providing renewable power to 1.7 million homes!

When a landfill has concluded its useful lifespan, sophistication can metamorphose into beauty, which is exactly what's happening with Freshkills Park in New York City. Here, what was formerly the world's largest landfill will be become a 2,200 acre park. Reclamation efforts began in 2008 and will continue for at least 30 years. Per the City of New York:

The transformation of what was formerly the world's largest landfill into a productive and beautiful cultural destination will make the park a symbol of renewal and an expression of how our society can restore balance to its landscape.

Across the country, landfills make the best of a wasteful situation. They do not necessarily leave an indelible stain upon the earth. Instead, once a landfill has been used to its fullest extent, there are signs of rebirth and regrowth. Green prairies grow and become littered with packs of blue wildflowers rustling in the breeze. Scurrying animals populate the revived land. Nature returns.

He shambled through the door and slouched into a chair at the dining table. With the hood of his sweatshirt pulled over his brow, he placed his elbows on the table, leaned over and began to massage his temples.

"Ugggghhhhh," my friend groaned. "My head... is splitting."

"Did you go out to the bars last night?" I asked.

"No," he replied. "I'm not hung-over... I need Caffetto."

"What?"

"By that, I mean I need a pumpkin-spice latte."

"You may be addicted to caffeine. You know that, right?"

"Ugh... probably."

My friend wouldn't be the only one. Consider this: The average American ingests as much as 300 mg of caffeine per day, and sales of energy drinks exploded by 31.6% from June 2010 to June 2011.

But why focus just on caffeine addiction? One in ten Americans over the age of 12 are dependent on some kind of substance, and the economic toll of this dependency is estimated to exceed half a trillion dollars. That number doesn't include what can't be calculated: the sadness and hurt exacted on those suffering from addiction, as well as their family and friends.

There are even more addictions besides excessive substance and caffeine use. Americans are addicted to exercise, pornography, internet use, drugs, alcohol, sex, smoking, gambling, tanning, eating, hoarding, video games, shopping, working, television, smartphones and cosmetic surgery. Heck, we're even addicted to writing about addiction. Type "addiction" into a Google News search and you'll see what I mean. (There's like a million articles!)

In light of all these idiosyncrasies, one could easily come to the conclusion that America is full of loons (and that person might be right). There's no doubt that addiction rates have risen since the middle of the 20th century, but keep in mind that Americans are living in an age where we are bombarded with ceaseless stimulation from all angles. Denizens of the past simply did not have to contend with such frenzy.

This over stimulation offers more and more chances than ever before for addiction to take hold. Addiction is caused when neurons in the reward pathway of the brain release dopamine. The dopamine is later transferred to the synapses, where it binds to receptors and sparks feelings of pleasure. Normally, these feelings would be inhibited by a neurotransmitter called GABA, but when an excess of dopamine is consistently provided, the normal balance of the brain's circuitry is disrupted.


Of course, today, there is also an over-willingness to label and diagnose addiction. Take, for example, the situation described at the beginning of the piece where I jumped to the conclusion that my friend's headache was triggered by a lack of caffeine. Also, in 2007, the American Medical Association rightly asked, "Are video games truly addictive -- or just really, really fun?"

There also seems to be a fixation on the topic of addiction. Extremely popular shows like Hoarders, Celebrity Rehab and Intervention permeate cable television, and the topic never strays far from the doctor shows on daytime television.

Keep in mind that an activity from which we derive pleasure on a consistent basis is not really an addiction until it starts to become a compulsion and actually gives rise to adverse effects.

So in case you're wondering: yes, my use of the term "addicted" in the title is technically incorrect. But hey, it grabbed your attention didn't it?

Maybe you're addicted to reading about addiction!

One of the fascinating and sometimes wacky proposals put forth by this group is one to combat global warming. It stems from the reasoning that one way to reduce the heating of the earth is to reduce the amount of sunlight that the planet absorbs. The percentage of light shining on the Earth that is reflected away (causing essentially no warming to us) is called the planet's albedo. Bright new fallen snow has an albedo of roughly 90%, while a lump of coal has an albedo of only 5%.

"Science is an imaginative adventure of the mind seeking truth in a world of mystery."

-Sir Cyril Norman Hinshelwood, winner of the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1956

One of the primary goals of science is the betterment of mankind, and we would all like to believe that the pursuit of this noble end is paved with purely moral means. But the unfortunate truth is that the quest for knowledge has occasionally been conducted with draconian cruelty toward animals.

We can look back at René Descartes' work for original examples of this ghastly cruelty. Known as the "Father of Modern Philosophy" for his pioneering efforts in the discipline, Descartes' also made monumental contributions to the fields of geometry and mathematics. But for such an enlightened human, Descartes carried out some of his research with brutal inhumanity.


Descartes believed that animals were no more than organic automata. He contended that they were incapable of feeling pain or emotion, and that they were more akin to machines than living beings. In the 1600s, Descartes put this theory on open display. He and his assistants would conduct public demonstrations in which they vivisected and tortured conscious animals -- often dogs. As the animal subjects writhed and cried out in apparent agony, Descartes would tell onlookers not to worry. The movements and sounds, he insisted, were no more than programmed responses. The animals were not really in any pain.

Hundreds of years later, the topic of whether or not animals can feel pain remains a controversial issue, mostly because it is notoriously difficult to assess how animals experience the sensation. The majority of people would agree that animals can feel physical pain, but there may not be consensus on emotional pain.

By using monkeys to study depression in the late 1950s, University of Wisconsin Professor Harry Harlow showed that primates do appear to feel emotional pain. But in doing so, he acted with what many would deem to be heartless cruelty. Most infamously, Harlow utilized a tool he dubbed the "pit of despair" to completely isolate infant monkeys for weeks, months and even years. After long bouts of solitude, many of the subjects would blankly stare at the wall, repetitively circle their environment, or engage in self-mutilation. Harlow described his studies with frank detail:

No monkey has died during isolation. When initially removed from total social isolation, however, they usually go into a state of emotional shock, characterized by ... autistic self-clutching and rocking. One of six monkeys isolated for 3 months refused to eat after release and died 5 days later. The effects of 6 months of total social isolation were so devastating and debilitating that we had assumed initially that 12 months of isolation would not produce any additional decrement. This assumption proved to be false; 12 months of isolation almost obliterated the animals socially...

Harlow and Descartes' accounts are only two cases of callousness in a long history of animal research, but they are certainly compelling anecdotes. Today, however, we can all take solace in knowing that neither of these two experiments would ever be permitted.  

Though rare, there's no question that malfeasance can occur in animal research, but there's also no doubt that scientists have learned from their mistakes over the years. A recent study showed that 90% of monkey research was justifiable. (100% is better, but 90% efficiency in anything is quite good.) Also, the NIH suspended funding new chimpanzee research until further notice.

Animal research plays a vital role in science. In this role, cruelty has no place. Therefore, it is reassuring to see that today's scientists are making sure these precious resources are treated with respect.

Everybody likes clean energy. Everybody wants to get rid of dirty sources of energy and replace them with cheap, renewable energy from the sun and wind. The problem, though, is that enthusiastic green technology supporters seem to have a bit of trouble with basic math.

In an article for the website Earth Techling, Susan Kraemer praises the Obama Administration's green energy policy:

For the first time ever, the [Bureau of Land Management] has approved solar and wind projects on public lands. And it is a staggering amount of energy. Since the beginning of this administration, the BLM has approved a total of 27 utility-scale renewable energy projects amounting to 6.6 gigawatts (GW) of renewable energy on BLM lands: 16 solar projects, four wind farms and seven geothermal plants. (Emphasis added.)

That sounds impressive, but not if you actually know something about energy production. Let's do some math:

6.6 GW divided by 27 clean energy projects = 0.244 GW per project. That is not impressive. A large nuclear power plant can produce 1 GW of power, nearly five times as much.

But there is another problem. 1 GW of power from a nuclear power plant is not equivalent to 1 GW of power from a solar plant. Why? Because a nuclear power plant can produce 1 GW of power 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (more or less). A solar power plant cannot, because the sun isn't shining for half the day. The same logic applies for wind power, that is, when the wind isn't blowing.

The article goes on to say:

This would appear to be an end run around a Congress noted for obstruction, not only of all Democratic legislation, but very particularly, of Democratic renewable energy and climate legislation.

Well, that's a peculiar bit of revisionist history. Climate legislation, specifically cap-and-trade, was killed by the Democrat-controlled Senate in 2010. In fact, for about six months during the 111th Congress, the Democrats had a 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, plus an overwhelming majority in the House. Before he was elected to the U.S. Senate, candidate Joe Manchin (D-WV) famously ran an ad where he shot cap-and-trade legislation with a rifle. The Democrats are equally culpable in their failure to pass climate legislation.

To be sure, clean energy (including nuclear) should be a top priority of the United States. But, when green tech supporters avoid physics and math and blatantly engage in partisanship to advance their ideology, it becomes very difficult to support their cause.

Image: U.S. Air Force/Wikimedia Commons

Over the past two decades, many baseball players have turned to anabolic steroids to enhance their performance. This trend has tarnished the sport and negatively affected players' health. There simply must be a better way for players to improve their baseball prowess, but how? A new study from the University of Cincinnati published in the online journal PLoS One may have an answer.

A team of researchers led by neurologist Joseph Clark has found that high-performance vision training can improve a baseball team's batting statistics. After the implementation of a vision training regimen six weeks prior to the start of the 2011 season, the Division I Cincinnati Bearcats improved their team batting average from .251 in 2010 to .285 in 2011, while increasing their slugging percentage by .033. Meanwhile, the batting average in the Big East conference fell by .034.


To produce this marked improvement in batting average, players were required to attend three vision training sessions each week in the six weeks leading up to the start of the season. Once the season was underway, players continued to train their vision twice per week. All of the sessions lasted between 20 and 30 minutes.

The sessions were comprised of various techniques to improve visual acuity such as Dynavision, Tachistoscope, Brock String, Eyeport, Rotary, Strobe Glasses, Near Far Training, and Saccades. Here are descriptions of two of the techniques from the study's authors:

Saccades are rapid movement of both eyes in the same direction from one object to another voluntarily [5]. We set charts of random letters on a wall, both horizontally and vertically and had the players stand at varying distances and focus from one chart to another, calling out the letters they see in order on a line, alternating from one chart to another for a period of 1 minute. This simulates a fielder chasing a hit ball.

Near Far Training consists of the subject focusing on two different cards approximately 18 inches and 10 feet away [5]. The athletes focus back and forth on the card and count how many iterations they can do.

The authors noted some overt limitations of their study that any sports fan would realize instantly. Returning players may have simply matured and improved, or 2011 may have had a better recruiting class, or the competition may have notably fallen off. There are a host of factors that can affect a team's success.

However, the authors say, "there is no reason to believe that [batting average] would change more positively for the University of Cincinnati than overall for the other teams within the Big East conference."

In addition, the researchers cited a prior study that corroborates their findings:

The US Air Force Academy introduced a similar visual enhancement training program for their baseball team in 1994. The team batting average increased from 0.319 in 1993 to 0.360 in 1994 and they led the nation in hitting. The team slugging percentage also increased from 0.487 to 0.623 as home runs increased from 32 to 76. These improvements were accomplished with 18 of 21 players returning from the 1993 season [Dr. Michael F. Zupan; personal communication and [11].

The results of the study are compelling, and should make any baseball coach or player consider adding visual training to their regimen.

In the preceding decades, there have been few social issues as contentiously debated as pornography.

Opponents provide a plethora of justifiable arguments against pornography. For example, they say that it objectifies women and fosters a market that allows for the victimization of innocent children and women. Porn has also been labeled as an "enemy of the family" and as a contributor to the "demise of guys." Many opponents sum up their assertions by insisting that the human body is a temple, and porn is its unparalleled desecrator.

Whether or not smut actually does this is a matter that is at least partially subjective, and we all harbor our own opinions. Over the years, scientists have attempted to bring objectivity to the topic by studying porn's effects, and many studies indicate that it definitely has an upside. Writing for Reason last week, Ronald Bailey presented two interesting correlations:

As it turns out, the more prevalent pornography has become the longer teens wait to have sex and the lower the teen pregnancy rate. In fact, teen pregnancy is down more than 40 percent from its peak in 1990. In addition, as access to pornography has increased, the forcible rape rate in the United States has fallen by 85 percent since 1980.

This correlative evidence is somewhat reinforced by laboratory research. Two studies conducted in 1986 and 1994 found that exposing males to violent or nonviolent pornography essentially produced no aggression towards females. Many psychologists theorize that pornography allows viewers to express any entrenched deviant sexual desires, reducing the inclination to carry out these lusts through criminal action.

In turn, a Queensland University of Technology study published in the Australian Journal of Communication supported these laboratory results. Researchers anonymously surveyed 1023 consumers of pornography and found that 58.8% of respondents thought, "pornography had a positive or very positive effect on their attitudes towards sexuality." Some of the most wholesome benefits listed by consumers were "increasing tolerance of other people's sexualities," "sustaining sexual interest in long-term relationships," and "helping them talk to their partners about sex."

There's no denying it: plenty of porn out there is perverted and lewd, but -- as some scientists have shown -- that doesn't necessarily entail that it will incite indecent behavior. To the contrary, salacious content may actually produce edifying outcomes.

Buildings - the places where we live, learn, eat, sleep, and work - greatly effect our lives and how we live them.

Consider how much of your time each day is spent inside. 80 percent? 90 percent? Even more? This simple revelation reveals how important a building's design really is. A structure should not merely provide shelter from the elements, it should uniquely cater to the needs of it's inhabitants in a manner that promotes creativity, health, and happiness.

One man who understood this principle was Steve Jobs. In November 1999, Jobs' budding company, Pixar, needed a new corporate headquarters, so he took it upon himself to pilot its design. Jobs obsessed over almost every minute detail of the building, desiring to create a workplace that "promoted encounters and unplanned collaborations."

"If a building doesn't encourage that, you'll lose a lot of innovation and the magic that's sparked by serendipity," Jobs told biographer Walter Isaacson.

Needless to say, Pixar's new headquarters exceeded even Jobs' elephantine expectations.


"Steve's theory worked from day one," John Lasseter, Pixar's chief creative officer, recalled to Isaacson. "...I've never seen a building that promoted collaboration and creativity as well as this one."

In realizing the profound affect that a building can have on its occupants, Jobs was ahead of the curve. Around the same time that Jobs was dreaming up Pixar's headquarters, a significant study came out from Heschong Mahone Group, a design consulting firm that - like Jobs - was also ahead of the curve. Their research showed that students who took lessons in classrooms with more natural light scored 25% higher than students in the same school district!

It's becoming more and more apparent that an adeptly and suitably designed structure can improve worker productivity, boost student test scores, decrease sick time, and even promote physical activity, all while increasing energy efficiency. Today, these boons aren't just available to Steve Jobs and Pixar, they're available to anyone. As entities across the United States look to renovate and upgrade existing structures, they must realize that they're building for the future. It's high time that innovative building and design practices be given the complete and full attention they deserve. Such designs may slightly be more expensive, but it's unprofitable to miss out on the benefits they can yield.

You arrive home. It's been a long day; one you'd rather forget. You're beaten, battered, and not exactly smelling like roses.

You've been through days like this before, and you know there's only one solution to cleansing the stain of a day like this: a refreshing, hot shower. Stepping into the bathroom, eagerness washes over you. This is going to be amazing...

Lights. Luffa. Action.

You give another outstanding performance, and the troubles of the day have been rinsed away!

A great many of us sing in the shower. We do this for a lot of reasons. For one, it allows us to embrace our inner rock star with only a paltry chance of embarrassment. Two, singing can improve our mental and physical well-being. And three, we sound totally awesome!

Okay, maybe not that awesome, but we do sound a lot better in the shower than in most other environments. This is because a shower's design employs many of the same characteristics as a closed recording studio. Most showers are narrow, enclosed spaces, and they operate like a "low-tech sound mixer." Thus, it's no small wonder that Weird Al Yankovic recorded his first single, "My Bologna," in a small bathroom!

A shower's narrow enclosure, which is often coated with hard, sound-reflecting bathroom tile, means that sound waves don't die out easily. This serves to boost the intensity of your vocals, making it seem like you possess a booming, chamber voice. The reflecting sound waves also echo in the shower, creating reverberation - the persistence of sound after the original sound is removed. Reverberation is a feature commonly sought after in auditoriums for its ability to produce richer, fuller sound. Your singing is also aided by background noise from the jets of water that serves to drown out any (rarely) missed notes.

All things together, the gentle, soothing streams of water coupled with the mellifluous tones of your voice make singing in the shower a divine experience. But remember, the melodiousness of your shower vocals doesn't extend beyond the confines of the bathroom. So the housemate who can hear you from the living room may not be sharing in your bliss.

by Katherine J. Dickinson

If you mix science, art and food, you are bound to come up with something interesting (and tasty). But who knew it could also be so stunning?



Artist Caren Alpert has united these disciplines in her series "terra cibbus," a collection of microscopic pictures of food. From Brussels spouts to lifesavers, her subjects are quite diverse. Each picture, however, allows the viewer to see the subject in a way they haven't seen it before. 






In order to achieve this feat, Alpert used a scanning electron microscope (SEM) to take her pictures. This microscope works by first shooting a beam of electrons at, say, a fortune cookie. The beam knocks other electrons off the surface of the cookie, and the microscope detects the displaced electrons. It then uses the information to form an image.



One of the ways that a SEM is different from a light microscope is that it uses electrons instead of light to create images. Because they are not limited by the comparatively small wavelength of light, electron microscopes can magnify objects up to two million times while light microscopes can only magnify objects a couple thousand times.



Another property that distinguishes the SEM is its ability to produce a 3D image of an object. Traditional light microscopes and even SEM's sister, the transmission election microscope (TEM), show only the cross-section of an object.



But making 3D images first requires some tricky preparation. Because electrons don't travel well through air, the sample must be viewed in a vacuum. In fact, all the water has to be removed from the sample or it will explode. The dehydration process takes several steps, and afterward the whole sample has to be coated in a layer of gold or platinum.



When SEMs were first developed, marketing experts thought there would be very little demand for them. But now, there are many scientists who find SEMs quite necessary for their research.  Dental researchers have used SEMs to study enamel acid etching techniques so that dentists can securely bond things to your teeth.  Other scientists have used them to see exactly how viper venom damages living tissue.


Scientists have even developed a microscope that can take images at the atomic level. The scanning tunneling microscope (STM) works by running along the surface of an object with a probe "like a record player". The probe detects changes in electric current as it skims along a field of atoms and translates these changes into an image.



The STM's images aren't perhaps as pretty or artsy as the SEM pictures, but if you ask me, the simple fact that we can now look at individual atoms is a poetry in itself.

"The perception that women are scarce leads men to become impulsive, save less, and increase borrowing."

That's the finding of a new study out from the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. From the study's press release:

The researchers had participants read news articles that described their local population as either having more men or more women. [Participants] were then asked to indicate how much money they would save each month from a paycheck, as well as how much they would borrow with credit cards for immediate expenditures. When led to believe women were scarce, the savings rates for men decreased by 42 percent. Men were also willing to borrow 84 percent more money each month.

Incredibly, Vladas Griskevicius, the study's principal investigator, says that participants were totally unaware that sex ratios were having any effect on their behavior. When considered in the context of animal instinct, this makes perfect sense. In most animal species, males carry out a biologically-programmed competition for mates, often through violent conflict. While in civil human society, it appears that our more aggressive instincts have been displaced by competition via spending.

To potentially corroborate their findings on a meta scale, the researchers reviewed demographic and spending data for 120 U.S. cities. Surprisingly, they discovered that, "communities with an abundance of single men showed greater ownership of credit cards and had higher debt levels."

While one should be careful not to draw too many sweeping conclusions from this study (correlation is not causation, remember), there is one comparison that is just too tantalizing to ignore. The United States Congress is often accused of being a tad overindulgent with their spending, occasionally racking up huge deficits. Well, women in Congress have also historically been in deficit. In fact, they've never controlled more than 20% of the seats. And this year - one in which Congress recorded the second highest deficit in history - the number of women in Congress witnessed an historic decline.

I'm not sayin'; I'm just sayin'.

Are your normal party gags just not cutting it anymore? Have your friends and family seen that cheeky card trick one (or ten) too many times? Do you need some new material? Well, the Newton Blog has got you covered with some science-centered suggestions that are sure to impress.

1. The Möbius Strip. This one is a good "warmer-upper." A Möbius Strip is a belt-shaped loop with only one side, meaning that you can trace your finger along the face of the entire loop without ever crossing an edge. It's very easy to make. All you need is a long rectangular piece of paper and some tape. Simply twist one end 180 degrees and connect it to the other and voilà, you've created a mind-blowing geometric shape that you can show off to your mates!


2. The Aluminum Can Trick. While your friends are fiddling around with the Möbius Strip, you can prepare for your next feat, this one involving physics. You'll need an empty 12 ounce aluminum can and between 70 and 100 mL of water (about a fifth to a quarter of the can's volume). Pour the water into the can, then balance the can diagonally on its edge. Once in this position, the water will level out and keep the can stable, allowing you to (carefully) spin the can around. Cool!


3. The Soap & Pepper Trick. Now we're getting into the meat and potatoes. First, fill up a bowl with water and sprinkle a healthy dose of black pepper into the liquid. Once this is done, douse your finger with a few squirts of hand soap or dish detergent and touch your finger to the center of the pepper pool. The pepper will dramatically sprint to the edges of the bowl!

This trick actually has nothing to do with a reaction between the soap and the pepper. In fact, you can use any small, floating substance to accomplish the feat. (I prefer dill weed or basil.) The answer to this ruse revolves around the mixture of the soap and water. Water normally has a very high surface tension -- its molecules at the surface are highly attracted to one another. When soap molecules are added, the surface tension is rapidly lowered throughout the water as the soap emanates from the middle of the bowl. The floating substance follows the higher surface tension to the edge of the bowl.



4. Using Fire to Suck Up Liquid. At last, the grand finale. Here's what you're going to need: a ceramic plate, (colored) water, a glass, a cork, and 2-4 matches. Pour the water into the plate. Then, stick the matches into the cork with the "flame side" up. Place the cork contraption into the water. Now, with the glass in hand, light the matches and quickly place the glass over the flaming matches. The water will be sucked up into the glass. This works because combustion burns up the oxygen within the glass, creating carbon dioxide and water. Because there is significantly less gas within the glass, the water rushes in to fill the volume.



That's all for now. For more terrific science gags, head on over to Professor Richard Wiseman's YouTube page, 'Quirkology' (pictured above).

It's January, and it's 40 degrees in the Midwest: T-shirt weather.

In the Twin Cities, one can look left and look right. But there's no white to be found.

Mild temperatures and a lack of snowfall have defined the United States' 'faux' winter thus far. In the heart of the country, Chicagoans experienced nearly 20 December days of 40-degree temperatures. On the Pacific Coast, Los Angelenos have witnessed temperatures rising into the mid- to upper-80s on numerous occasions.

The snow drought has also been felt coast to coast. Buffalo, New York usually has 40 inches of snow by now. This year, it has five. In addition, December snowfall in the Sierra Nevadas was only 12% of the average. It's the least amount since 1849!

Some of the blame for this year's mild and snowless winter rests with La Niña, the oceanic-atmospheric phenomenon defined by lower than normal sea temperatures. This has pushed the jet stream slightly to the north. But most of the blame can be placed on the fact that this year, "the refrigerator door was left closed" in the Arctic. This means that the Arctic Oscillation Index -- the measure of atmospheric pressure variations at sea level above 20 degrees north latitude -- has gone strongly positive, resulting in ocean storms and colder weather moving northward into Canada and the upper latitudes.

There are negative implications tied to the current weather pattern. Ski resorts have taken a huge hit, and farmers who rely on winter snow melts are worried about the possible ramifications of a precipitation-free winter come springtime. The California Department of Water Resources says that melting mountain snow accounts for about one-third of the water used by California households, industries, and farms.

But the news isn't all bad. The moderate weather has undoubtedly granted a small reprieve to wallets in the northern states by easing the costs of winter heating. And -- if I may provide a personal anecdote -- my rate of embarrassing snow-bank crashes is vastly below average. I'm sure there are many out there who can relate.

In 1984, Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys stumbled upon a DNA-based method for biological identification. He instantly knew that he had something big on his hands. Two years later, Jeffrey's technique, termed "DNA profiling," was used for the first time in a criminal investigation. Since then, DNA profiling has been utilized by forensic scientists to convict or exonerate scores of individuals accused of such heinous crimes as murder and rape. But now, it's being used to identify criminals of a different sort: people who don't scoop their dog's poop.

Wherever there are dogs, there are owners who don't pick up after their dogs. The poopetrators leave little land mines in all sorts of places. Parks, lawns, and sidewalks are the most commonly soiled.

Besides the obvious gross factor, this carelessness presents health and environmental concerns. The excrement is a breeding ground for unfriendly bacteria, and it can enter the storm system, where it eventually floods our rivers and lakes with excess nutrients. That can contribute to algal blooms and other environmental problems.

In attempt to put a stop to this disgusting crime, a small number of communities and apartment complexes are now employing the services of PooPrints, a program that utilizes DNA analysis to link the wayward dropping back to it's dropper, and in turn back to the dog's owner. Punishment -- often in the form of fines -- can then be assessed accordingly.


PooPrints has not been widely adopted yet, in part because of the gritty work involved. Community managers or property owners begin by ordering DNA collection kits (at $30 per dog) and collecting cheek swabs from all of the canines under their jurisdiction. Once this phase is complete, the detective work begins. When a crime scene is located, enforcers must collect samples and mix them with a solution which kills off any extraneous bacteria. These samples are then sent to a lab to identify the 'wrong doo-dooer.'

Critics of PooPrints say that it is ridiculous and unneighborly. But proponents tout its results.

"I would say it only took about a month's time to see a dramatic difference... The property has cleaned up 99 percent," manager Debby Logan told Ira Glass on This American Life.

I personally believe that PooPrints would be a great tool for a townhome association, apartment complex, or even a small municipality. Last spring, as the Minnesota snows slowly melted from my lawn, it was not the perky beginnings of green and growing grass that met my eyes. Instead, I was greeted with mound upon mound of brown. I had been victimized by a serial pooper. If PooPrints can prevent this heinous (albeit slightly humorous) experience from happening to someone else, then surely the program is worth the effort.

During the all too commonplace frantic day, clarity can be hard to come by. There are times when we wrack our brains, grit our teeth, close our eyes, and clench our fists... grasping for a Eureka moment. But, solutions, novel ideas, and comforting thoughts often come when we least expect them, which is why it's always wise to be prepared, lest they be forgotten.

In this endeavor, you can't always trust your brain to track and sort through these thoughts, so instead, it's best to utilize good ole' pen and paper or -- for the more tech savvy -- an app on your iPhone. Because while paper can be eaten by your dog or a cell phone can be dropped in the toilet, these two mediums are still a much surer repository of wisdom than memory, which can all too often be fleeting. As explained by Professor Alison Preston,

A short-term memory's conversion to long-term memory requires the passage of time, which allows it to become resistant to interference from competing stimuli or disrupting factors such as injury or disease. This time-dependent process of stabilization, whereby our experiences achieve a permanent record in our memory, is referred to as "consolidation."

Unfortunately, in our daily lives, we are often bombarded with aforementioned "competing stimuli," making it difficult for this "consolidation" process to run to completion. Distractions from television, work, children, and viral YouTube videos vie for our attention at every turn. Thus, maintaining a journal -- however small -- of our thoughts can help to sort through this confusion.

Keeping a written record of your thoughts and ideas may also give rise to unexpected health benefits. Sorting through stressful experiences on paper has been shown to reduce symptoms of asthma and rheumatoid arthritis in patients afflicted with these ailments. This has been reinforced by numerous studies from University of Texas psychologist Dr. James Pennebaker, who is leading a pioneering investigation into the healing powers of writing.

On his website, Pennebaker admits that research on the topic is still in its infancy, but he and his team believe that they have enough preliminary information to claim that writing "about emotional upheavals in our lives can improve physical and mental health."

Whether keeping track of ideas or working through life's experiences, it appears that pen and paper can aid your brain and promote your health.

Tummies talk to us. Whether it is from pangs of hunger or a sensation of satiety, our guts like to keep in contact. For the longest time, I considered this "communication" to be no more than intelligible mumbling. But a somewhat recent discovery has got me thinking about those burps, bubbles, and gurgles in a whole new light. Because, as it turns out, your gut has a mind of its own.

Termed the "Second Brain" by Dr. Michael Gershon, the enteric nervous system is a collection of over 100 million neurons embedded within the lining of the gastrointestinal system. While this amount of neurons actually pales in comparison to the brain's 100 billion, the neural tissue formed by these neurons constitutes an intricate and autonomous system that plays a big role in all vertebrates.

Scientists theorize that the enteric nervous system originally evolved to locally control motility, blood flow and secretion in the digestive system. This way, "The brain in the head doesn't need to get its hands dirty with the messy business of digestion," Gershon told Scientific American. Two brains, it seems, are better than one.

Besides managing digestion, the "second brain" appears to partly regulate our mood. Well over 90% of serotonin -- a neurotransmitter thought to contribute to well-being -- is found within the gut, and its presence clearly factors in to the workings of the enteric nervous system. Too much serotonin can overwhelm the system's receptors, causing irritable bowel syndrome, while too little serotonin presents its own array of problems.

Since the enteric nervous system is connected to the brain via the vagus nerve, Dr. Emeran Mayer, a professor at UCLA, says that "A big part of our emotions are probably influenced by the nerves in our gut."

And remember, humans aren't the only lifeforms whose emotions can be influenced by the "second brain." This fact has renowned canine behaviorist Dr. Patricia McConnell saying, "Wow," and also considering what this means for our dogs.

"How many of you have seen dogs who have digestion problems who also have behavior problems related to emotional control (especially fear)?," McConnell asked on her blog. "I can't tell you how many dogs I've seen as clients who had both problems, and whose treatment ended up effecting both systems."

Further studies are undoubtedly needed to fully examine the functions of the enteric nervous system in both humans and critters.

In the Lord of the Rings trilogy, cinematic eye candies like gigantic ents, epic battles, and immense landscapes unleashed the story's massive scale and truly brought Middle Earth to life. Most of these spectacular effects were rendered using tools that moviegoers are well aware of -- computer-generated imagery (CGI) and blue screens, for example. But there was one trick that left many viewers scratching their heads, wondering how it was done: director Peter Jackson managed to transform grown men into dwarfs and hobbits.

When asked about the methodology behind this movie magic, Jackson was more than happy to divulge the secrets:

...we're doing a lot of bluescreen work where we can composite [the hobbits] onto scenes at a smaller size. We're also using a lot of old fashioned techniques like forced perspective, which is a technique that you simply put the hobbit actor a bit further away from the camera than the human-sized actor, and therefore the hobbits appear to be smaller... [But] we've also made that more complex by being able to move the camera with forced perspective shots, which people have traditionally not been able to do.