inkycircus

A Confluence of Research

I get the news feed from the University of Washington's press office. I hadn't checked my RSS reader for while, and so there were a few releases waiting for me. The headlines are as follows.

1. Autism conference to look at link to mercury poisoning, mirror neurons, genetics (April 25)
2. Latest treatments, possible causes of autism to highlight press conference (May 1)
3. Children with autism have difficulty recognizing ordinary words (May 4)

And finally, my favorite,

4. 40 percent of 3-month-old infants are regularly watching TV, DVDs or videos (May 7)

Now I am not saying that TV and autism are connected or nothing...or that the rise of TV is responsible for the rise in autism (seeing as we've RULED OUT vaccines, it's as game as anything else)...it's just funny.

Now go play outdoors.

Treadmill + work = misery!

People these days don't do enough exercise. So, the brainy person who comes up ways to make exercise fun will save lives and make big bucks, because treadmills and running machines are effective but TEDIOUS. This isn't a new idea, pop into any posh gym anywhere around and you'll find a selection of telly programmes and radio stations on offer to stop you dying of boredom. However, what is a new idea is this - making you do your work while walking on a treadmill instead of perched on your arse at a desk, to stop you getting so fat. A new idea, and a silly idea. Gimmicks are cute, they sometimes work, we spend the majority of our day at work so why not make the most of that time and maximise movement, I get it. But talk about the worst of both worlds! If I'm miserable because I'm running on a running machine like a hamster in a wheel, don't give me a computer and make me work! That's just mean!

(PHOTO: CWCAV)

How to build a better bacon sandwich

I like a bacon sandwich as much as the next person. To make a top notch sarnie, you need nice thick white bread, lightly toasted, crispy grilled back bacon, fresh sliced tomato, a nice smooth layer of Hellman's mayo, and a single leaf of round lettuce. See how easy that was? Did I need a PhD to know that? No. That's why this research is quite cute, but doesn't really do science any favours. There isn't exactly lots of spare funding sloshing around at the moment, and I'm not sure this is the best receptacle for what little there is. Although I know it makes me a party pooper to say that.

(PHOTO: WINJOHN)

The Venerable Dave Ng Strikes With His Rapier Wit Once Again

Dave Ng, of Science Creative Quarterly fame, and World's Fair super fun blogness, is really REALLY funny. Why do I know this? Because he just wrote up a scientific dialogue, following in the footsteps of such greats as Plato, for Inkling and it cracks me up to no end. In fact, it should crack up most people with any ounce of humour at all.

The premise is genius: A geneticist and GAP ad celebrity model (you know...) ditz and duke out a discussion about genes. And it goes something like this:

CELEBRITY: You know, I am sooooo much hotter than you are.

SCIENTIST: I suppose.  Ironically, that is precisely the point – in that even this fact is a consequence of our DNA code.  Meaning that once again, it is genetics that is responsible for your observation.  Indeed, you are blessed with good genes.

CELEBRITY: You’re right.  My ass does look good in jeans. Your ass not so much.

...

And lucky for us, it goes on. Check it out: Jeans Versus Genes: the Ultimate Scientific Discourse

Celebrities - not the best authorities on matters of science

Pity the poor celebrities. Just because they are attractive and (occaisionally) talented, they should not be expected to be able to understand the vagueries of science, and should steer clear of the complicated stuff wherever possible. So says Sense about Science, a charity that seeks to prevent the misrepresentation of science.

Some of the examples of the sort of pseudo-science that inspired such advice are quoted in this Guardian Unlimited article, and several of them are especially cringe worthy. Reading the interview where Madonna says that she'd been working with a group of scientists for a while on ways to 'neutralise radiation' probably caused a lot of people to choke on their porridge. But lots of the other examples are just cases where these famous people have made some daft comment without thinking about it. Everyone has made some sort of outrageous statement at some point in their lives, but lucky for us we have our friends to tell us we're talking hogwash. These poor famous people have the misfortune to be wrong in public. So really, as well as educating them in true and correct science via the Sense about Science leaflet, it would be only fair to also teach them how to consider how their ideas will be received before they open their mouths.

And however sensible it is to make sure the rich and famous can tell their astrophysics from their Armani, we should all remember that nobody really listens to celebrities anyway. If we did, we'd all believe in Scientology...

Snow. Beautiful beautiful snow.

So I know Anna's all "snow sucks away my soul and douses the candle of my spirit" but this is just to say that snow is soooo beautiful. In fact I just need to emphasize that with even more 'o's - it's sooooOOOOOoo pretty and popular that there's this entire Electron Microscopy Unit Snow Page dedicated to its flakes. If you've been staring at a computer screen too long and fancy some new sights, take a look at their stereo images of snow crystals with crossed and relaxed eyes. Doesn't that just revivify your faith in saving the whales? Renew your hopes of ending global squabbles? Revive your flagging vim for the joi de vivre? As Marie Beyon Rey once said "we have only this moment, sparkling like a star in our hand ­ and melting like a snowflake. Let us use it before it is too late." Hear that Gosline? That's sparkling. Like a star. Yeah-hea-uh. Why do you think they're called snow ANGELS? Cause they belong in heaven. Hugs 'n kisses. I can heal your hatred with love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo.

Oracle or stoner?

While you or I might turn to Mystic Meg or the Magic 8 Ball for advice, the ancient Greeks set a lot of store by the predictions and premonitions of their oracle - a mysterious lady perched on a rock in the town of Delphi. The greeks were a mighty race, and yet they turned to their oracle as a source of all knowledge and power - asking it/her trifling quesitons such as whether they should go to war or not. They truly believed she/it was their direct route of communication to a higher power. But it seems (say some scientists from Patras) that she/it was not communing with the gods after all, but merely getting merrily high on hydrocarbon vapours. There is a subsidiary fault running for 2km in the mountainous region where Delphi lies, and it meets a second fault near to the bedrock underneath the Temple of Apollo. This rock is porous, and is therefore "a site of ehanced degassing".  The rock is currently emitting a heady mixture of carbon dioxide, ethane and methane, but it's likely that around about the time the oracle held sway, the rock was also emitting ethylene. Couple this neurotoxic euphoria-inducing drug with a serious lack of oxygen and hey presto. One mystical oracle.

Via The Geological Society of America.

PS This story isn't especially new, it's long been suspected that the oracle was inhaling fumes. See this excellent in depth article from Sci Am. What does seem to be new is one of the first pieces of experimental evidence that the porous rock is still producing fumes today. And exactly what those fumes are.

(PHOTO: BLARY54)

The divine powers of ovulation: use them for good

I know a certain someone (totally not naming names, don't even ask me), who, when ovulating, finds a very "diverse" group of men sexy. If I am out with said person and she spots a dubious hottie and begins to extol his physical virtues, I will immediately ask, "honey, you ovulating?"

So it can come as no surprise that women seem to tart up their wardrobe at the precious peak of fertility. Or at least they do according to a study of 30 undergrad girls from UCLA. These women were all in relationships and  NOT on hormonal birth control (which begs the question, but anyway...). They gave urine samples several times over a month to determine their ovulation cycle and had their picture taken twice -  once near to ovulation and one far off. None of the participants had any clue as to what was going on.

The photos were judged by a panel of experts (25 women and 17 men) who had to determine in which image the woman was trying to appear more attractive. The panel chose the high fertility zone outfit 60% of the time. When the photo session fell upon the exact date of ovulation, the panel chose that as the more sexy ensemble 83% of the time. Women were more likely to wear skirts, jewelry and revealing clothing when closer to that all important high point in fertility...this being LA, we hoped they didn't have to worry about variations in the weather to account for said skimpiness.

From a modern day culture kind of way, this result is intriguing because hey, who hasn't woken up one morning feeling H.O.T. and just wanted to dress all slutty?  Even more interesting, from an evolution/animal behaviour view, is that human females are SHOWING signs of their fertility status. Female great apes like us are supposedly the only animals who conceal ovulation - most other animals give off smells or feathers or big red glowing butts. Why do we hide it? Sexual power games of some sort. (IE men just want to make the babies and if they knew it was baby-makin' time they'd just ditch for the rest of the month OR by hiding the baby-makin' time women can be sure to make babies with only the best males all the while "placating" the less deserving...) The details are still being hashed out by the behaviourists and evolutionary psychologists and anthropologists and physiologists. Anyways.

This leads us to another point. Are women gettin' all hot to trot for their own committed spouses or maybe, are they dressing to impress a little bit of "good genes" on the side? Studies**** of people have shown that  1)partnered women are more likely to flirt with, have interest in or fantasize about other men around ovulation, especially if they consider their partner to be less than smokin' hot. And 2) Women like manlier men and more masculine faces around ovulation. 3) Women generally just want more of the sex, but they want it more with other men as the relationship goes on.

So is the clothing just another on the list of evidence convicting women of attempting to cheat - even if only in their "primal" brains? You know, I find it hard to answer that one. I just keep on getting stuck in the misogynistic hellhole that is evolutionary psychology. Let's try this: Will the power of ovulation force a partnered woman to wear a miniskirt and stilettos, fall helplessly in bed with a big hunk-o-beef-cake and have hot hot sex? No. Will her fertility peak make it impossible to resist the FINE man she's been flirting with FOREVER, while being stuck in a crummy horrid marriage ? No. Harder? Maybe.

****Many studies of human sexual psychology are prone to severe crapiness. Grains of salt all around.

Let's give a big hand to RSI

ANOTHER WAY TO RISK RSI - TYPE ON A KEYBOARD LIKE ANNE DOES...

If you're a politician or a wannabe politician, the sort of thing that probably keeps you up all night is worrying about how to get votes. But how about if you were to get plenty of votes, but also get repetetive strain injury (RSI) by 'pressing the flesh' or shaking too many hands? What a nightmare! You'd have to resort to putting your arm around your constituent's burly shoulders instead! Well, if you have neglected to take steps to protect your right hand, the American Occupational Therapy Association has come to your rescue. Their official advice say you need to warm up, exercise, and ice down your hand in this important period before the election. It's very kind of the therapists, but doesn't it smack of someone with a wee tiny bit too much time on their RSI-free hands?

Via Science Magazine, of all places...

Stadiums = potential deathtrap

I was skimming through the science news, when my eye caught on an article about sports stadiums and lightening damage. For some reason my brain put 2 and 2 together and made 47 and said "Ah yes of course, storms, and rising heat and bright lights and lots of people and hurricanes and stuff. How interesting!". Turns out I'm a dink and in fact it's all just about how lightening storms could cause even more devastation than usual if they strike a stadium because of all those helpless people marooned out in the open. And because of all the panic when lightening starts blasting the pitch and everyone crams into the tunnels to get away and the impending doom and stuff. And how people underestimate the danger and don't plan for this sort of eventuality because the statistics say lightening striking a stadium when it happens to be full of people is really really unlikely. Not quite what I thought the story was about but it's still something I hadn't thought about before...

Via ABC Australia. (PHOTO: CMX82)