Archive for the 'Body' Category

There is No Pink Spoon

The physics of pink – why it isn’t in the rainbow

We see pink when our eyes register a mixture of red and blue light. However, there’s no wavelength corresponding to pink, because the spectrum of light (or electromagnetic radiation) is more like a long line stretching from really low energy radio waves which carry our favourite TV shows, to microwave, infrared, red …your favourite rainbow acronym… violet… ultraviolet, x-rays etc. There’s no red-pink-violet, only red-orange-yellow-green-cyan-blue-violet.

Can We Say So Long to DST?

Why Daylight Saving Time Should Be Abolished

I’m not at all opposed to this; I have an increasingly hard time dealing with the time change — especially in the spring. And the argument about saving energy (in the US) seems to have gone by the wayside with more widespread adoption of air conditioning. I do enjoy the extra evening hour of sunlight in the spring and fall because it extends the time I can go geocaching, but I’d manage if we eliminated the practice.

The Fonzie Workout

Just Cool It

They continued to study Cao for the next six weeks. If they applied cooling between sets, Cao’s performance held steady in set after set. Without cooling, it decayed. “It was as if he had no fatigue,” Heller recalls. “We saw incredible gains over the next six weeks. He tripled his capacity to 620 pull-ups.” Preventing muscle exhaustion allowed Cao to train harder, leading to rapid gains in muscle strength. Heller and Grahn theorize that more blood, and thus, oxygen, is available to the muscles when the body doesn’t have to route extra blood to the radiators for cooling.

Ha Ha Ha HA Ha

What Woody Woodpecker Can Teach Us About Football

Kids always ask the best, most basic questions; they haven’t learned yet to pretend to be smart, to be ashamed of their ignorance; they’re just curious about how the world works. And the best scientists ask those kinds of questions too, which is why we might roll our eyes and chuckle a bit when we read about two California scientists who decided to delve into the underlying science of why it is that woodpeckers don’t get headaches.

A Dog Named Van de Graf

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

The Wise Gyroscope

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Abstract: Owls have a curious variability in the postrotatory head nystagmus following abrupt angular deceleration. Owls can exhibit a remarkable head stability during angular movement of the body about any axis passing through the skull. The vestibular apparatus in the owl is bigger than in man, and a prominent crista neglecta is present. The tectorial membrane, the cupula, and the otolithic membranes of the utricle, saccule and lagena are all “attached” to surfaces in addition to the surfaces bearing hair cells; these attachments are very substantial in the utricular otolithic membrane and in the cupula.

I want to say side-fumbling is almost completely eliminated, but I will link to the story instead.

Previously we have seen chicken-head stability.

Bonus: slo-mo landing

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Looking for a Straw-Colored Needle in a Large Haystack

There’s a bit of buzz about the WHO characterizing cell phones as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”. This is a pretty detailed explanation of what that means, from Ed Yong (I think; the link that brought me here said so, but I don’t see Ed’s name on the page anywhere)

World Health Organisation verdict on mobile phones and cancer

What does that mean?
It means that there is some evidence linking mobile phones to cancer, but it is too weak to make any strong conclusions. Specifically, IARC’s panel said that the evidence that mobile phones pose a health risk was “limited” for two types of brain tumours – glioma and acoustic neuroma – and “inadequate” when it comes to other types of cancer.

The Chairman of the group, Dr Jonathan Samet, said, “The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk.”

The post goes into some detail about why this is really a non-issue: there is still no proposed mechanism, there are obvious flaws in some of the studies and there are a lot of conflicting results. That last part ties into an important point — the underlying reason that researchers are getting conflicting results is because the system being measured is inherently noisy and the effect under scrutiny is small.

The increased risk‚ from one of the studies (remember, there are others that saw no increased risk), is a 40% increase of those two types of brain tumors, which sounds like a lot, except … you need to look at this in context. Even a substantial increase in a small risk still leaves you with a small risk. We’ve seen this before with traffic analysis, and now we have it for cancer analysis. Matthew Herper has already run the numbers

96% of the U.S. population, or about 300 million people, have cellphones. If everyone’s risk of glioma went up 40% as a result of cellphone use, the number of gliomas in the U.S. would increase by 8,000. That’s a one in 40,000 increase in each person’s risk of glioma, which still isn’t very big.

But the study the WHO is citing only showed the 40% increase in the 10% of people who used cellphones most. I don’t know how many people in the U.S. would now fall into this group, but we’d be talking about maybe hundreds of cases spread out over the whole U.S. population.

We can look at this another way. A fair amount of data has not yielded a statistically significant result. Any signal that exists is still buried in the noise, requiring more statistics, but until you get those statistics, you can’t rule out an effect. What you can do is say that the effect is no larger than some amount, and what is probably the worst-case scenario analyzed above — in the unlikely event the study wasn’t an aberration — yields a very small risk. Which is probably why the collective response of scientists has been “meh”

It’s Ungodly

The Dangerously Clean Water Used To Make Your iPhone

The ordinary person thinks of reverse-osmosis as taking “everything” out of water. RO is the process you use to turn ocean water into crystalline drinking water. And in human terms, RO does take most everything out of the water.
But for semiconductors, RO water isn’t even close. Ultra-pure water requires 12 filtration steps beyond RO. (For those of a technical bent, the final filter in making UPW has pores that are 20 nanometers wide.

Water is a good cleaner because it is a good solvent–the so-called “universal solvent,” excellent at dissolving all kinds of things. UPW is particularly “hungry,” in solvent terms, because it starts so clean. That’s why it is so valuable for washing semiconductors.
It’s also why it’s not safe to drink. A single glass of UPW wouldn’t hurt you. But even that one glass of water would instantly start leeching valuable minerals back out of your body.

And Now, My Beauties, Something With Poison in it, I Think.

Chemistry of Morphine, Heroin, and Lemon Poppy Seed Cake

You’ve heard the warnings – don’t eat poppy seeds before taking a drug test. The seeds can trigger a false positive reading for opioids, making your potential employer think you could be a heroin addict. A few years back, Mythbusters reproduced the anecdotes, showing that just two poppy seed bagels was enough to make Jamie test positive for drugs. (Other studies have shown the same thing.)

I like saying that I eat poppy seed bagels for the plausible deniability whenever I’m within earshot of my boss.

You’ll Only Look Like Stretch Armstrong

Mind tricks may help arthritic pain

“We were giving her a practical demonstration of illusory finger stretching when she announced, ‘My finger doesn’t hurt any more’, and asked whether she could take the machine home with her. We were just stunned – I don’t know who was more surprised, her or us.”

I wonder how closely this is related to the phantom pain solution of amputees

Before TMI meant TMI

TMI: Fear, Fukushima and Facts

A critique of the xkcd radiation dose chart I linked to, with some more details and caveats, some of which I recognize as true from by background (but wasn’t going to post on my own because it’s too far away from my areas of competence). Randall’s shortcoming is the mixing of chronic and acute exposure doses (long-term and short-term), which are not equivalent, i.e. a dose spread out over a period of time (e.g. months) does not have the same biological effect of the same dose that happens in a period of minutes or hours or days. Giving the body a chance to repair itself matters.

via fine structure

Over on the Other Side of the Line

Understating the risks is just as irresponsible as overstating it.

The Mind of Dr. Pion: Don’t believe what the press is telling you!

There is no explicit by-line on this article, but the video contains an interview with BBC reporter Chris Hogg in Tokyo that repeats that a half life of 8 days means “that after 8 days the risk will have dissipated”.

The reporter is WRONG. Twice, because that is also not what the officials said. His ignorance of basic physics, in this case a topic I always teach in a college general education class, led him to misinterpret what was actually said by a government spokesman and hence mislead the public.

« Previous PageNext Page »

ScienceForums.Net Blog Network | More Blogs | Search Blogs | RSS Logo SFN RSS