Actuality

What's in a theory?

2011-01-07T20:35:00.001-06:00

One phrase that bugs me, and many scientists is the commonly misused "It's just a theory." I don't need to point out to you all the idiotic ways that this phrase has been used, as I'm sure most of you are familiar with some of them already. Plus, I'm not writing to tear apart those who don't understand science, more to help clear it up to all of us. So, I recently came across the image you see above. It think it is one of the clearest and easiest ways to see how the scientific process works.

In the scientific world, theories are not just whatever explanation someone dreams up. An idea must be supported by data and observations or it is thrown out before ever becoming a theory. There is a clear difference between the scientific definition of a theory and the common use of the word. A scientific theory has been verified against the data and is generally accepted as an accurate explanation of the observations. Better descriptions that I can do are here and here.

But a theory is not fixed and final. Theories are often modified as new discoveries are made. That is one of the key ways that science continues to move forward. A theory is updated until it can not be changed to fit the data, then a new theory is started. And even then the previous theory may not be invalidated, it is just modified to only apply to certain cases. There have been a couple of recent high profile cases where some claimed we should abandon a theory based on one piece of evidence that does not fit. But that is not at all how science works. A theory is only thrown away when another comes along which explains more, and does it more accurately. They are not discarded without a scientifically proven replacement that does the job better, even if we know they are not yet perfect on their own.

Often, theories remain even after they have been disproved. Though difficult to imagine, science is not very concerned with the absolute truth. Instead it looks for the ideas and methods that most accurately predict what happens. For example, say scientists are trying to determine what is that the center of a black hole. No light can escape so we can not observe it directly. If scientists were only concerned with the truth, they would abandon research, because finding the true answer will likely be impossible. But what scientists are really looking for is some explanation of how the black hole acts that agrees with all of the data, regardless of whether their idea is actually what they would find in the center of the black hole.

The best theories are ones that fit what we observe in the universe, not some kind of universal truth. It is the reason the Bohr model is still taught in high school science, even though it was proved obsolete by quantum mechanics. Then there is my favorite example: gravity. Guess what, Newton's theory of gravity is wrong. It does not work at very small or large distances or high speeds. Einstein's general relativity replaced it, but even that did not make it irrelevant as a teaching tool or an easy way to make most calculations for the conditions we deal with.

The point here is that science looks for the methods that work best for predictions, however well that may be. Theories are not thrown away with no replacement if they are found to be imperfect. We will continue to teach those that are most useful, and when science develops a theory, know that is has been tested against the data. But even then, that theory may be universally accurate, or it may only work under a small set of conditions. So the phrase "Just a theory" is not just misused on scientific ideas, it really does not mean anything at all. The only thing to throw out is any argument that begins with that phrase.

Giant Sinkhole is not Technically a Sinkhole

2010-12-22T23:45:00.001-06:00

In case you missed it earlier this year (end of May), here is some info and pictures from the sinkhole that appeared in the middle of a Guatemala intersection. The views of the thing are really amazing.

May 29, 2010 Guatemala City Sinkhole (Business Insider)

The hole was 100 ft in diameter, and 300 ft deep. You can see from the pictures that looking into it is like staring into the abyss. Somewhere down there is a clothing factory which used to be on the corner of the intersection. So how did this thing happen?

On May 29^th of this year, the remains of tropical storm Agatha caused record rainfalls of over 14 inches in Guatemala City, backing up sewer systems. The hole was probably caused by a sewer line that backed up and started to leak, and ash from recent volcanic eruptions may have helped clog the pipse. But a leaky sewer won't make a hole like this just anywhere. Guatemala City is built in a steep valley, with bedrock forming a deep-V. The bottom of the V is filled in with hundreds of feet of pumice-fill, which is loose gravel like rock from volcanic eruptions. Most of the city is built on the pumice-fill, which is easily eroded and can wash out down to the bedrock, up to 600 feet below. In fact, this is not the first time this has happened.

While amazing, neither of these holes are technically sinkholes. Sinkholes are formed from natural water erosion of bedrock (limestone or sandstone usually). The Guatemala "Holes" are not formed by natural water erosion, nor are they formed in bedrock. Unfortunately, geologists couldn't come up with a better term than "piping feature", so sinkhole is probably going to stick.

Links: Alien bacteria found (not really)

2010-12-05T02:03:00.001-06:00

The bacteria was found at this lake. (Beautiful pic) (NASA)

So I am a few days late on this. On Thursday, NASA announced that they discovered a new type of bacteria that makes us reexamine the conditions necessary for life to exist. The discovery was a bacteria that can use arsenic instead of phosphorus in it's DNA. Here is a link to the NASA release.

So what. Well, the DNA, which contains the blueprint for an organism to grow, of all previously known life on Earth is made up of only six elements, Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Sulfur, and Phosphorus. When astronomers search for lift on other planets, moons, or around other stars, they look for conditions that match what we think life needs to survive. The bacteria NASA discovered reportedly can substitute Arsenic for Phosphorus in it's DNA. Arsenic is highly toxic to most life on Earth. Previously, organisms have been discovered which can survive high levels of Arsenic, but this is the first claim of one using it to build it's cells. If true, it means it is possible for life to exist with a different set of conditions than we had thought. Very important for those searching the galaxy for life, because not only can the be open to locations with high levels of arsenic, but they have some evidence that even more combinations of elements could lead to life. This is really exciting for scientists and science-fiction readers/writers, who for years have hypothesized that there might be life out there built on different block than we are. We now have some evidence that is it possible. Maybe.

While the news is very exciting, a few places on the internet have gone a little overboard. First, the claims of the bacteria actually using the Arsenic in their DNA is not quite confirmed yet, it is just the most likely hypothesis as of now. It absorbs Arsenic and grows in it's presence, but many more tests are needed to confirm that it actually uses it in DNA, and how it does it. Nature has a good review.

Second, there is no evidence that this bacteria is alien in origin. At least not any more evidence than all life on Earth came from outer space. See panspermia for more information.

Likewise, third, this is not evidence that life evolved more than once on Earth independently. This bacteria is probably a mutated form of other previously existing bacteria species, but this has not been proven either way. The lake where it was found was connected other water sources just 10's of millions of years ago, it has not been isolated since like began to develop billions of years ago.

Finally, I do think there is one other implication here that seems to be missing from some discussions. If we have been studying life on Earth and evolution for hundreds of years, and just now found something that may cause us to modify our definition of what is necessary for life, what does it say about our efforts to find life in other places. With it so much more difficult to make observations on Mars, around Jupiter, Venus, or any other planet, who knows what exists that we have just not come across yet. Just because we didn't find life in our first observations on Mars, we can't be sure we have ruled out life being somewhere on that planet.

Here are a couple of the stories explaining the news.

Yahoo News
Mercury News
Popular Science

Why you get tired after Thanksgiving dinner. Hint: it’s not Tryptophan.

2010-11-24T21:02:00.000-06:00

Really the only thing that doesn't make you sleepy

You know the story. Have thanksgiving dinner in the middle of the afternoon, eat right up until you start to feel sick (and maybe a little more), and then find a couch or chair and fall half-asleep. If it happens, it's likely that someone will blame it on the Turkey. The old myth is that Turkey contains the amino acid tryptophan, which causes drowsiness. None of that is actually false. Turkey does contain tryptophan. And tryptophan is related to sleep – it is the only amino acid that can be converted to serotonin, which regulates our sleep patterns. But take a look at this list. Pork, chicken, and peanuts all have as much or more tryptophan as turkey. And beef and eggs are comparable too. But you don't hear people complaining that they are falling asleep because of the chicken sandwich they had for lunch. So what does make you sleepy at 6pm on Thanksgiving? The answer is: carbs. Think about the rest of the stuff on your plate: mashed potatoes, stuffing, cranberry sauce, breads, sweet potatoes, pie… maybe some vegetables (but who really eats those?). Most of what you eat at thanksgiving is carbohydrates. And the research shows that high carbohydrate meals cause sleepiness by releasing insulin, which releases much more serotonin than you get from the tryptophan in turkey. So now, thanks to my help, when someone at your thanksgiving dinner tomorrow claims they are falling asleep due to the turkey, you can be the annoying nerdy guy who tells them they are wrong. Or just have another piece of pie.

How 3-D TV Works

2010-11-01T21:18:00.001-05:00

You have probably looked at 3-D images before with those goofy red and blue glasses. You may have even watched something in 3-D before. Maybe in a movie theater, maybe a TV broadcast from past years. I have done all of these things, but I still thought of 3-D movies or TV shows as a clunky gimmick. So it's a surprise to me as I keep seeing news stories about 3-D TV's. I wanted to know why, all of a sudden, everything needs to be watched in 3-D. As I figured, it comes down to technology.

How This Stuff Works

3DTV's - Not really like this. (MarkWallace)

Most 3-D technologies work by giving the viewer a different image for each eye. Differences in the images give an illusion of depth and make objects appear to be popping out from the screen. 3-D content is easy to produce, just by recording the same thing with two camera lenses in slightly different positions. It is easy enough to be used for many sporting events now. The trick is getting separate images from the screen to each eye of the viewer.

The old red and blue glasses did this by tinting the two images, so the eye with the blue lens could not see the blue parts of the image, and vise-verse. But this messes with the colors and everything ends up seeming blurry, so it didn't catch on. Polarization is another method, used today in movie theaters. Read more here about light polarization. Put simply, two different projectors show images with different types of light, and filters on your glasses block one type of light for each eye. This method requires special coatings on the screen and technology to project two images at the same time, but general consensus is that polarization is the current technology with the best viewing experience.

A Collection of Technologies

The method used in the new home 3-D TV sets is neither of these, and unlike the previous methods, does not put two images on the screen at the same time. Instead, a different type of glasses are used, just as goofy looking as anything else. These glasses have battery-powered LCD lenses that quickly flicker between clear and opaque, blocking half of alternating images on the screen for the right and left eyes, producing the 3-D effect. A few pieces of technology are needed. First, the glasses, which must contain a small battery and be cheap. Not difficult, but ten years ago it would not have been possible. Next, twice as much information needs to be stored and transferred for the video signal. It just happens that blu-ray movies and digital HD TV broadcasting recently allowed for a huge increase in how much information can be put into video signals.

The big one is refresh rate, the number of images per second that the TV displays. Old TV's displayed at 30 frames-per-second, the way video is still recorded. To add images for right and left eyes, double that, to 60 fps. But going from bright image to blackness 30 times per second makes a noticeable and nauseating flicker. So the systems must switch the image twice for each recorded frame, at 120 fps or higher. This is what is really enabling all 3-D TV's. For the last few years, TV manufacturers have been building sets with higher possible frame rates, because regular video looks smoother and cleaner that way. As TVs easily display 120 fps, it is almost trivial to set them up for 3-D. The last piece is to add a transmitter, like the one on a TV remote, to tell the glasses when to open and shut. That, and some extra programming is all that separates a 3-D TV from a regular HDTV.

Problems and (some) Solutions

There are some problems with the chosen method of 3-D display. Aside from being goofy looking and annoying, the glasses are blocking light to your eye for half of the time, so the picture will appear half as bright as without the glasses. The other is that the illusion of depth is difficult for our eyes to process, so any method of 3-D will cause eye strain after enough time. There are methods for displaying 3-D without glasses, including a TV set already built and Nintendo's new portable video game system, but you may have watch from a specific spot.

I think we will see many TV's with the capability for 3-D in the next few years. You can buy a 3-D TV now in many electronics stores, and they work just fine with 2-D. ESPN has already launched a 3-D channel. I don't know if we will all be wearing funny glasses in our living rooms to watch TV, but I thought you might be interested in how it would work.

Additional Links

3-D TV at Wikipedia

How Stuff Works: 3-D TV

Issues: Coal Reserves

2010-10-08T01:41:00.000-05:00

I am interested in looking at the future of energy. From an engineering perspective, providing electricity and the power for transportation is one of the great accomplishments in history. But it's clear that 100 years from now, it won't be done the way it is today. So I am curious about how it will be done, particularly for transportation. First I wanted to see where we are with the current methods, like fossil fuels. Coal provides about half of the electricity for the US and for the world, so let's see how much coal we have left. Sorry if this is a little long, but there was plenty of interesting information. Also, I am just trying to answer the question of how long would coal last if we kept using it, I am not trying to get into any discussions about political or environmental impact. At least not yet.

There is more energy available in coal reserves than in oil or natural gas. Coal reserves are also more widely distributed between countries of the world than other fossil fuels. Getting a handle on how much coal is left for the world to use is not simple. The most widely agreed upon number is around 900 billion tons, from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the World Energy Council, and BP's annual report on energy assets. This number is the amount of "Proven" reserves, which is not the total amount of coal in the ground, but the amount that makes economic sense to dig up under current conditions.

Where is the Coal? (Gunnmap)

In reality there are vast amounts of coal (and oil and natural gas) that we will never use. The EIA estimates that in the United States alone, there are between 2 and 4 trillion tons of coal in the ground, but only about 500 Billion tons are technologically feasible to mine, and only half of that is economically feasible. These reserves change over time – up from new discoveries of reserves, better technology to put more reserves in play, and the addition of more economically feasible reserves as coal prices increase. The 900 billion tons has been steady for a while, but it is more likely an overestimate than an underestimate, because reserve numbers are not updated very well. China, for example, is still using reserve numbers from 1992, despite having mined about 20% of that amount since then. In all of our time so far, humans have burned about one quarter of the coal that would make up our reserves today. Europe is down to less than half of what it started with. But given a need for coal and no cost-effective alternative (a poor assumption), it is reasonable that we could mine twice the amount we current consider reserves.

None of that answered the question of how long the questionable amount of coal reserves will last. If we assume those 900 Billion tons are all we can mine, then it will last about 120 years at current production. But worldwide coal production and usage has been climbing rapidly, at a little over 5% per year for about the last ten. If that continues, then the world will run out in 40 years.

That scenario is unlikely, even without a push towards renewable electricity. The growth will start to plateau at some point. But some growth will happen, and 120 years is very optimistic, even figuring we double the potential reserves with new finds. Any estimates that claim 250 years of coal reserves are either overly-optimistic, or are considering only the United States.

The United States not only has the largest coal reserves in the world (Russia is second), but is mining relatively slowly (though is still the #2 producer). At current rates, the US has a little over 200 years before current reserves are exhausted. Compare that to China, which has the third largest reserves, but is mining almost three times more than the US, meaning that they have only 41 years at current rates. The EU has 51 years. As other countries begin to run out, production in the US might pick up for exports, so it makes sense to analyze this globally.

All of this might be a needless way looking at coal production, because economic factors might be too important for the world to ever end up completely running out of coal. There is the idea of production peaks (see peak oil) for finite resources, where, well before a resource runs out, it climbs to a maximum production, then falls over time until the resource is depleted. Now, the reasons for this are both physical and economic, and honestly beyond me. A peak in coal production may happen well before 2050, followed by anything from a global crisis - if the need for coal stays but supply drops - to no problems - if the world smoothly switches to other forms of energy as production declines. A common estimate for this coal peak is 2025, but predictions vary wildly, and peaks are difficult to predict (I.E. the oil peak may have already happened, but we won't know for sure until we see a few more years of data).

So, regardless of any peak, somewhere between 60 and 80 years of coal is likely available if a major shift is not made in coal usage. But a major shift is what I am concerned about. Oil and natural gas reserves will run out well before coal, so an option to keep in mind, along with other alternatives, is to use coal to replace other fossil fuels, with coal-to-methanol or coal gasification. I might write about them later, but it appears that the numbers don't support these methods. Replacing oil with coal will reduce the reserves of coal faster and still put the year of depletion around the same time for either scenario. It may be worthwhile to discuss these processes from a standpoint of energy independence, so the US could cut down on oil imports, and again, I am ignoring (for now) everything about CO2 emissions. I'll get to some of those topics in another post.

A Photograph of Philosophical Importance

2010-09-13T23:15:00.000-05:00

Take a look at this photograph.

At first it might appear slightly interesting, a black and white photo, clearly from many decades ago. But this photograph is special because of its timing. This was taken way back in 1838, by Louis Daguerre as he was experimenting with the process to record images. It is of the Boulevard du Temple in Paris, and is one of the first photographs ever taken. Now the streets of Paris were not as empty as they appear here. Early photographs had to be exposed for several minutes (over ten for this one) to collect enough light, so anything that is not completely still for that time becomes a blur, and anything moving faster than a snail is invisible. Notice how blurry the trees are compared to buildings or streetlamps. This street was probably busy, but the moving people and carriages blended into the background. Except in the lower left. Let me zoom in.

A shoeshine and his customer were still enough to be captured in this photograph. That makes this the earliest photograph of a person. Let me repeat that: Above is the very first photograph of a human being. Just something to think about.

Anti-Aging Science

2010-09-11T17:37:00.000-05:00

Most things with the words Anti-Aging attached would take quite a leap to be considered science. But there is some real research in the area. Here is something that looks like a mini-breakthrough. A study has found a compound that was given to people as a dietary supplement, and may slow down the process of aging (but not stop or reverse it). It works by activating enzymes in our body that rebuild parts of DNA (telomeres) which shorten over time and may play a part in making us old and wrinkly. Telomeres also have something to do with AIDS, so this could be used as a treatment for AIDS patients also. Read a more in-depth summary of the research here.

A Lake in Antarctica

2010-09-06T18:11:00.005-05:00


In a radar image, Lake Vostok appears as a smooth patch. (NASA)

One of the largest lakes in the world is located in Antarctica. If you are familiar with Antarctica, this should sound strange, because the entire continent is covered with ice. It should be too cold for lakes to exist there, and that is true…on the surface. But some unique conditions exist that allow lakes of liquid water to form under kilometers of ice. They are called subglacial lakes, and about 150 have been found in Antarctica. Geothermal heat rises from the bedrock below the glacier, and the glacier itself traps the heat at the base, keeping it insulated from the surface, where the temperature can be -60C (-75F). The heat melts the bottom of the glacier, and depressions in the bedrock trap the liquid water as the glacier slides overtop, sealing it off. At high pressure water freezes at lower temperatures, so the millions of tons of ice pressing on the lake makes its temperature hover around -3C (27F), despite the lake being fresh water.

The largest of the subglacial lakes is called lake Vostok, after the Russian research station that sits on the ice 4000 meters (13,000 ft) above the lake. The lake is approximately the same size and shape as lake Ontario (250km by 50km). With an average depth of over 300m (1000 ft), Vostok is the 7^th largest lake on Earth by volume.

Most interesting about lake Vostok is its potential as an ecosystem. The lake has been sealed off from the surface for at least one million years. It is possible that bacteria or other microorganisms have adapted to the unique environment of the lake, and a unique set of species may live in it. Space scientists are especially interested, because lake Vostok is incredibly similar to liquid oceans that are probably below the icy surfaces of Jupiter's moon Europa and Saturn's Enceladus. Sealed from the surface and with no sunlight, if life continues to exist in lake Vostok after millions of years, it would be the best evidence yet that those moons may be hosting primitive life right now. The lake can also be used to test robots that we might send to investigate the ocean below Europa. We might know more about life in the lake very shortly. The Russian research team has been drilling down to the lake for about 15 years, stopping and starting many times, partially for concerns about contaminating the sterile lake. In March of this year, they announced that they are only 100 meters from the surface of the lake, and expect to break through some time this winter.

Update: Micro-pumps for micro-needle patches!

2010-09-06T13:00:00.005-05:00

Patch Pump for Vaccine Delivery (Purdue University)

Remember a few weeks ago, I linked to an article about micro-needle patches? They were an ingenious new way to deliver vaccines easily (and painlessly). However, this new article mentions a problem not stated in the previous one; Large molecules of many drugs do not readily dissolve out of the needles and into the skin. For that, they needed a pump of some sort to drive the medicine into the skin. Scientists at Purdue University have done just that! The mechanism seems complicated (and slightly worrisome if something were to break in the pump), but it's still in the testing phase, so lets just get excited about it!

New pump created for microneedle drug-delivery patch.

Link: New Dinosaur may be Closest Relative to Modern Birds!

2010-09-01T17:33:00.001-05:00

As a kid, when most other kids wanted to become pop stars or actresses or astronauts, I wanted to be a paleontologist. A part of me regrets not following that path in life, but I can still get excited when a new dinosaur is discovered!

Left leg and foot of Balaur bondoc.
Credit: Mick Ellison; Zoltan Csiki;
Matyas Vremir; Stephan Brusatte;
Mark Norell; AMNH

Last month, paleontologists in Transylvania described a new dinosaur from fossils dug up in September of last year. They called the dinosaur Balaur bondoc, which basically means "stocky dragon" and is part of the dromaeosaurid theropod group, which also includes velociraptor and deinonychus. They are also the group of dinosaurs that spawned the line of modern birds. This new dinosaur has some morphological differences from other theropods, including two large foot claws, opposed to other raptors' single large claw. Balaur's hand bones are heavily fused, with only two working digits, which is believed to be an evolutionary precursor to modern birds' wings. These, among other features, make paleontologists believe that Balaur is the closest known relative to modern birds.

Very Cool.

A "stocky dragon" from Transylvania.

Beefy dino sported fearsome claws.

Balaur bondoc: A raptor unlike any you have ever seen.

Issues: Follow-up, HFCS and Mercury

2010-08-31T00:33:00.000-05:00

Well, here I am back at my favorite topic. Over at my first post on the health effects of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) a commenter brought up the topic of mercury in HFCS. I did a little research and thought the results were interesting enough to warrant a follow-up post. I am presenting an opposing conclusion from the comment left, I am really grateful for the response, and hope I will get more.

On mercury in HFCS, there were two studies done in Jan of 2009, one peer reviewed, by Dufault et. al. in Environmental Health. The other was by Wallinga et al. at the Institute for Agriculture Trade Policy. Wallinga was actually an author on both papers.

The Dufault paper measured the mercury levels in HFCS samples from three manufacturers, and found levels as high as 570 part-per-billion (ppb), with a third of the samples above 100 ppb. A study by Health Canada shows that many common foods have 1-5 ppb levels of mercury, and fish typically are the largest contributor to mercury in our diet with 25-100 ppb levels common. The acceptable level of mercury in drinking water is 2 ppb. At average American consumption of HFCS of 50 g/day, HFCS contaminated to 500 ppm mercury could supply as much mercury as dental fillings or certain mercury containing vaccines, both of which are not recommended for pregnant women or small children, but at the same time are not areas of concern for health toxicity.

The Wallinga study measured common processed foods that contained HFCS for mercury. They found that 31% of foods tested (more on this later) had detectable levels of mercury, but the highest concentration was 0.35 ppb, which was actually below the detection limit of the equipment in the Dufault paper, and less than is found in almost every vegetable from the Health Canada survey.

Part of the problem is not just the levels of mercury were found to be high, it is that HFCS, as a refined product, should have no (or very little) mercury. Vegetables absorb mercury from the soil, but mercury in HFCS probably indicates an industrial source, which can cause the most concentrated and dangerous mercury contamination. Mercury in HFCS likely comes from caustic soda or hydrochloric acid used in production. There are mercury free alternatives to these, and they are currently used (almost exclusively, claims the Corn Refiners Association), hence many of the samples tested below the detection limits.

One thing to point out is that there is more than one form of mercury. All are neurotoxins that can damage brain functions, but organic methyl-mercury, the type found in fish, is much more dangerous than elemental mercury or inorganic compounds. See the EPA guide here. It is unclear which type was in the samples. Either way, whether the levels in the HFCS samples are enough to cause health problems is still not understood, because we can't test effects by feeding people mercury, so studies are difficult. But levels are high compared to other everyday sources of mercury, so safety would say we should do what can be done to reduce them.

So far this is all contradictions. HFCS can have mercury, but it is the less damaging kind. HFCS samples had high levels of mercury but the foods that contained HFCS did not. And the problem is not in the contradiction, but in the response. First, the scientific view on these results. The studies indicate that mercury may be present in HFCS in significant concentrations, but it appears that the mercury contamination has somehow not worked its way into the food we buy. But neither study proves either claim. They are both exploratory studies with very small sample sizes and the main takeaway is from the Dufault study, which shows further testing of HFCS for mercury is needed and for safety, and food companies can move to materials without risk of mercury contamination. The studies are cause for concern and indicate methods for improving safety, but are not proof that HFCS is unsafe. Then there was the response, where the problems were twofold.

I don't want to make this blog a place where I complain about the public's reaction to scientific ideas, there are plenty of other places for that on the internet. I would rather inform, but in this case, it is relevant. The first problem was media reaction. On one hand, media stories took the IATP study and ran with the statement that 31% of foods had detectable mercury, while ignoring detection levels or concentrations (which are everything in toxicity). When viewed with those results, the IATP study actually counters the other study by showing the mercury levels in purchased food are not high enough to panic. Media made it out as the opposite. Then, of course, the other side emerged, from the Corn Refiners Association. They immediately began trying to discredit the studies. Some of the reasoning they use is correct to avoid panic, but they went much further, pulling data from only the IATP study to show how low mercury levels are in food, hiding Dufault's results. Neither extreme was based on a good scientific assessment of all data.

The second problem came from the scientific and industrial sectors. I have not been able to find follow-up studies to test HFCS more widely for mercury, which would seem like the obvious next step. Nor could I find proof that the HFCS manufacturers have moved away from mercury containing substances, though they do make claims to that effect. And finally, there seems to be little discussion of regulations, other than previously existing calls for a ban on HFCS. It should be noted that Sweden passed a blanket ban on mercury in all products.

It worth saying again that the studies on mercury in HFCS are not a reason to panic and go to extremes. But they are also not to be dismissed. Scientific reasoning leads to a very different response than the reaction from either side over the last year and a half .

Links: Plants Send for Help and Changing El Ninos

2010-08-27T10:36:00.000-05:00

Tobacco Hornworm Caterpillar (A. Williams)

To start off today, we have a cool story that outlines one example of an evolutionary arms race. We usually see examples of predator/prey races, but it occurs in herbivore/plant interactions as well! Tobacco plants calling predatory insects to their aid when being eaten by caterpillars? If that isn't an extremely cool instance to evolutionary warfare, I don't know what is!

Plants send SOS signal to insects.

One of the worrisome unknowns about climate change is the effect on the Earth's oceans. We've been able to predict what we think might happen, rising sea levels, changes in currents and temperatures, etc., but until it happens, it's hard to tell what will actually occur. Well, it's happening, so the data is starting to come in. NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) have teamed up to study the effect of climate change on El Ninos. The findings show effects, of course, but what these effects mean for those that are influenced by the phenomenon aren't known yet.

El Ninos are growing stronger, NASA/NOAA study finds.

Lakes of Minnesota and Wisconsin

2010-08-25T13:30:00.000-05:00

Growing up in Wisconsin near the Minnesota border, there was a little rivalry between the states. More than once I heard the claim that Wisconsin actually has more lakes than Minnesota probably from people who had lived in the badger state for their entire life. So I wanted to check this out.

Lake Minnetonka, which means "Big Water" (Boricuaeddie)

Minnesota is the land of 10,000 lakes. Look at their license plates. But the state does not actually have 10,000 lakes. It has more. The official number is 11,842 lakes. So how about Wisconsin? Well, the Wisconsin department of natural resources claims that there are 15,074 lakes in Wisconsin. So Ha! But hold on. It turns out that the two states have different definitions of a lake. Minnesota's count includes only those that are all over ten acres and named. Wisconsin counts them even without a name and has no size limit. Wisconsin only has about 6,000 named lakes, even including those under ten acres. If Minnesota counted all lakes down to four acres without names, it is likely there would be over 20,000.

Wisconsin may claim more, but by any consistent measure, Minnesota has more lakes. Also more lake area, not counting the great lakes that form state borders. Minnesota has about 2.6 million acres of lakes compared to one million for Wisconsin. Counting great lakes, Wisconsin jumps to 7.1 million acres, from large portions of Lakes Superior and Michigan. The state of Michigan, by being surrounded by great lakes, has over 25 million acres of water, second only to Alaska, despite having no ocean coast.

Finally, don't forget about the vast expanse to the north. Whoever gave Minnesota its nickname probably felt silly if they ever made it to Canada. Ontario, Minnesota's Canadian border buddy, claims to have over 250,000 lakes, more than the entire United States. And Quebec is even more lake filled. If only counting lakes over three sq km, which is 741 acres, Quebec has almost 10,000 of these lakes: 8,275 to be exact. Ontario has 3,899. Minnesota and Wisconsin have a pathetic 318 and 240 in comparison. Quebec has 43.7 million acres of lakes, despite not bordering a great lake, 16 times more than Minnesota. Quebec is 6.6 times larger than Minnesota.

Canada as a whole claims to have over two million lakes, compared to about 125,000 for the lower 48 U.S. states. Topping even this claim, is Alaska, which claims to have over three million lakes over 20 acres. Many of these are on the northern edge of the state and are seasonal and vary with snowmelt. As for large lakes, Alaska only has one larger than 1000 sq km compared to 24 for Canada. Minnesota may be the land of 10,000 lakes, but if you want to see the land of millions of lakes, just head north. Use the map below to explore some of the lakes of Canada.

View Larger Map

The Mother of All Extinctions

2010-08-22T12:00:00.000-05:00

Despite the paranoia of many people today, there is really no reason to create contingency plans for velociraptor attacks. In fact, all of the velociraptors (or any other giant man-eating dinosaurs), are dead. Around 65 million years ago, there was a mass extinction you may have heard of. It was called the KT extinction because it formed the boundary between the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods. This extinction event has been studied heavily, but was only one of five major extinctions known as the "big five". The most devastating extinction actually occurred about 150 million years before that and formed the boundary between the Permian and Triassic Periods. It is known as the PT extinction and marked the beginning of the age of the dinosaurs.

The PT extinction was so massive it is commonly called the "Great Dying" or the "Mother of all Extinctions" and occurred around 250 million years ago. It's estimated that around 95% of marine species and 70% of land species went extinct and was the only known mass extinction of insects. The composition of creatures in the sea previous to the extinction was mostly shelled creatures that were attached to the sea bottom. However, events of the extinction hit these animals hard. After the extinction, the sea was more heavily composed of free-swimming creatures. Dominant land creatures in the Permian were Sauropsids ("Lizard Faces") and Therapsids ("Beast Faces"). Sauropsids were the group that gave rise to reptiles, dinosaurs, and, eventually, birds and Therapsids were "mammal-like reptiles" that were the ancestors of mammals. Other land creatures of the Permian included some of the largest insects that ever lived, including Meganeuropsis, a dragonfly that had a wingspan of 27 inches (2.25 feet)! The PT extinction prevented the Earth from being overrun by giant dragonflies and nearly all of those massive bugs went extinct. Additionally the PT extinction was what finally wiped out the last of the trilobites.

Sketch of Lystrosaurus: D. Bogdanov

After the PT extinction came the Triassic era, the first of the well-known sequence of Triassic-Jurassic-Cretaceous that enveloped the time of the dinosaurs. However, it took a long time before the Triassic gave rise to dinosaurs such as Eoraptor and Plateosaurus. The Triassic period was overrun by "disaster species", or "weedy" species that thrived in disturbed environments. For example, bivalves, clams and oysters, were rare and out-competed in Permian, but took over the sea floor after the extinction. Lystrosaurus was a therapsid (mammal-like reptile) that flourished until dinosaurs began evolving later in the Triassic period. It's believed that Lystrosaurus alone made up 90% of land vertebrates in the early Triassic. This is the only time in history where a single specie dominated the land to this extent.

More interesting even than the aftermath of the extinction is the debate over what caused it. It's been fairly well decided that an asteroid impact had, at the very least, begun the extinction of the dinosaurs, but the PT extinction occurred a much longer time ago. This causes some problems with finding evidence of what occurred, as the fossil layers for the PT boundary are much harder to find than the KT boundary. In fact, it wasn't until 2000 that the date of the PT extinction was confirmed when fossil layers were discovered in China. However, with what fossil evidence is available, there have been many hypotheses for the cause of this extinction. Among them is the hypothesis of an asteroid, but it is generally believed that an impact alone could not have caused anything close to the extinction levels seen in the PT extinction. Other hypotheses include increased volcanic activity, global cooling and/or warming, methane hydrate release, changes in sea levels, water anoxia (a lack of oxygen), emissions of hydrogen sulfide, and increased competition from the formation of Pangaea, which occurred in the middle of the Permian.

C.R. Scotese: Geography of the Earth in the Late Permian.

Each possible cause has evidence leaning for and against it. For example, a large formation of volcanoes in what is now Russia is called the Siberian Traps. This formation erupted around the same time as the PT extinction and the eruptions lasted about a million years. This eruption is the largest known volcanic eruption in Earth's history and covered over 2,000,000 sq kilometers (about 770,000 sq miles) with lava. That's equivalent to the entire area of Mexico! It is mostly agreed that this eruption had at least some part in the PT extinction, but could only have caused the world-wide extinctions seen if it were closer to the equator. The most plausible idea is that the PT extinction was caused by a domino-effect of extinction-causing phenomenon.

One such domino effect may have been as follows: an asteroid hits the earth near Siberia, setting off the eruption of the Siberian Traps. This eruption, lasting a million years, sends ash into the air, blocking out the sun and causing global cooling. However, the lava that spread from the Traps covers primarily shallow seas, which contain deposits of methane hydrate that now melt and are sent into the atmosphere. When the eruptions begin slowing, the ash falls out of suspension and the CO2, released in the eruption, and methane released from the seas begin to cause global warming. Eventually, the increased temperature of the earth (believed to have increased up to 6 degrees F at the equator) slows the circulation of deep water in the seas, which leads to anoxic conditions. These conditions lead to a massive increase in bacteria that don't need oxygen to survive (anaerobic bacteria), that naturally release hydrogen sulfide, a toxic gas that kills life in the ocean and on land and destroys the ozone layer.

But that's just one theory.

Links: More Space, More Zombies, More Science

2010-08-20T20:26:00.000-05:00

Braaaains! (Arthur Chapman)

While I'm on the topic of zombies, here is some information on another type, ant-zombies. Some of you might know about parasite fungi that infect ants and manipulate their brain, causing the ant to die in a way that benefits the fungi. New fossil evidence shows that this behavior has been going on for tens of millions of years.

Science Daily: Fossil Reveals 48-Million-Year History of Zombie Ants

Next up is something that is probably cooler to me that the average nerd. I watched some Star Trek when I was a kid. If you did too, you remember the ship had these things called "Replicators" - devices which a person could ask for any type of food, and the food would appear out of thin air. As someone who has always liked technology and always like eating, I thought that having one of those would be the coolest thing, no cooking, no needing the right ingredients, just ask for something to eat and it appears. Kids always dream of having some magical toy. Some want a pet dinosaur, some want a big robot, some want a jetpack, I wanted a replicator. OK, and a jetpack. Anyway, it appears I am not alone, as a few scientists and inventors are applying 3-D printing to food. This article is about one design in the concept stages (the pictures are computer generated, this thing has not been built yet).

PhysOrg: Introducing Cornucopia, The Food Printer

Finally, because I am a sucker for pretty pictures from space, here is a best-of-this-summer gallery from the Cassini space probe orbiting Saturn that Wired collected. Enjoy.

Wired: The Summer's Sexiest Images From Saturn

The Tale of ZombieSat

2010-08-18T19:36:00.000-05:00

Braaaains!!! (Galaxy-15, Orbital Sciences)

The Galaxy-15 satellite seemed innocent enough. A simple communication satellite in geostationary orbit, it's only job was to sit in one place, receive signals (mostly for cable TV), amplify them, and beam them back to different places on the ground. It did that job with no trouble for about 5 years.

Then, on April 5, 2010, Galaxy-15 malfunctioned, possibly due to a solar storm. Ground controllers found themselves unable to give the satellite commands. This was not unprecedented, plenty of satellites have been knocked out of commission by solar activity or other problems, to become pieces of space debris. Space debris needs to be monitored, but the risk of collisions with other satellites is small. Generally, a derelict satellite is not a big deal other than for the company that has to pay for a replacement. This event, however, was unique because Galaxy-15 was still functioning fine in most ways. It was receiving and broadcasting like normal, but would not respond to any commands. And this is important.

Satellites in geostationary orbits (always above the same point on earth) need frequent adjustments to stay in the same place, or they wander around, crossing paths with other satellites. And that's what Galaxy-15 started to do. It was at this point that the satellite gained its nickname: Zombiesat! It was wandering casually towards a gravity abnormality where dead satellites end up, cheerily doing what satellites do, relaying signals, but refusing to listen to any directions about how and where to do its job. The danger was (and still is) that its travels might take it past another satellite, where Zombiesat would steal the other's signal, and beam it off to who-knows-where before the correct satellite can receive it.

So what were Orbital Sciences, controllers of what was now Zombiesat to do? Well, they first tried to reason with it, politely asking it to listen to their commands…200,000 times. When that didn't work, they did what anyone would logically do with any kind of zombie. They tried to kill it. On May 3, they sent it a strong signal which was supposed to cause the satellite's power system to malfunction and shut down. Zombiesat was unfazed. After that, ground controllers were out of options with Zombiesat as it drifted right into the neighborhood of another satellite, ready to mindlessly gobble up its signals.

What do you do if you are helpless and a zombie is headed your way? You get the hell out of there. So that's what the other satellite did. It moved out of the way as best it could while still relaying its signal. The procedure went well. Since then Zombiesat has drifted past three others without issue, and should pass a few more by the end of this month. At that point the satellite should lose power because its solar panels won't be pointed at the sun anymore. Then engineers may try one more time to get control. Basically they are now waiting for it to fall asleep and hoping to revive it with its memory intact. If that does not work, it will remain just a piece of space garbage, posing its satellite brethren little more danger after its three month drift of terror.

1,340,764,245

2010-08-17T18:00:00.000-05:00

1,340,764,245. Without some type of unit, this number is nonsense. The unit is people, expected population. Of two countries. Each. Based on current trends, on August 18, 2025, the population of India will catch up to the population of China, at 1.34 billion people. China's population growth is slowing, partly due to the one-child policy, and will eventually start to decline. India's population has been growing steadily. The numbers above are my own, from curve fits (see right) to world bank data. They don't quite agree with the numbers from real demographers, who, I'm sure, use better methods than me. Most people who study this predict India to pass China in population. Obviously nobody can predict the exact date or population when that will happen, but sometime in the next three decades we should have a new most populous country in the world.

Issue: The use of dispersants in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

2010-08-15T14:05:00.003-05:00

Writing, as we have been, about science and the environment, we knew we'd be doing some posting about the deepwater-horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. We didn't want to try tackling the whole damn thing, so I'm grabbing a smaller part of the problem about which you might not have had so much information thrown at you. (For an overall summary of the spill and clean-up efforts, go here)

How dispersants work. (NYtimes)

When the spill began, focus immediately went to stopping the gushing oil. When we realized that the spill was not going to stop quickly, focus shifted towards the clean-up. With this came the usage of dispersants. 1.8 million gallons of the stuff, which is more than has ever been used in one location. The primary dispersants used were "Corexit" brand dispersants, though the exact reasons why this brand was used isn't really known. BP claims that these dispersants were the only one available in the quantities needed, but there is much deliberation about that, and the company's connection to Nalco, the producer of Corexit.

Dispersants work on oil exactly the same way in which detergent cuts grease off of dirty dishes, with the use of surfactants. These are molecules with two ends, one is a water-seeking end that finds and attaches to water molecules and the other is an oil-seeking end that grabs onto an oil molecule. This negates the water-repelling properties inherent in oil, resulting in small droplets of oil mixing into the water column, rather than a large sheet of oil spread out on top of the water.

Un-dispersed oil can be collected with booms. (AMSA)

Dispersants are used in a spill situation for a few reasons. The primary one is to increase the surface area available for naturally-occurring bacteria to begin breaking it down, as natural oil is biodegradable. They also keep oil from washing up on shore where it coats plant material and soil. With the delicate wetlands being abundant at the Louisiana coastline, this is the most convincing reason for the high usage of dispersants. Some say that it is likely that BP used the dispersants' properties in order to hide the magnitude of the spill, as less oil is visible, as well as lowering clean-up costs, since dispersed oil is near impossible to clean up with human technology. However, there are some real benefits that come with the use of dispersants, so rushing to judge BP's motivation is a poor way of addressing the situation. But, as with any complex situation such as this, for every benefit, there is also a negative, and all must be considered.

There is, of course, the natural toxicity of dispersants. There are many claims stating that dispersants are too toxic to use in water so close to humans and that the combination of oil and dispersants are much more toxic than either alone, but convincing research is pretty thin. After the use of dispersants in the Gulf, the EPA began doing several tests to discover the true toxicity of these dispersants. Their research can only be described as conflicting. One test done on quite a few different dispersants found Corexit brand dispersants to be more toxic and less effective than other brands, but a more recent test states that Corexit dispersants were no more toxic than other brands of dispersant (to two species of marine life). Overall, it's not really disputed that dispersants are toxic in high concentrations, they are made of hazardous chemicals after all, it's just not really known how toxic they are to sea life and to humans in the long-term. The biggest controversy is over the massive use of chemicals with effects that were and are still largely unknown.

Toxicity aside, the choice of using or not using dispersants comes down to which part of the ecosystem is to be put at risk. If the dispersants aren't used, the oil primarily stays on the surface of the water. This makes it easier to clean using boats and booms, but increases the exposure to shore-lines and coastal wetlands, and could be a huge problem when hurricane season hits. However, when dispersants are used, the oil is spread throughout the water column, allowing it to coat delicate corral systems, plant matter suspended and attached to the bottom, and affect fish and other marine life that would not otherwise encounter the oil. Fish, squid, krill, and other animals swim through the dispersed oil, which coats their gills as they breathe the water, but it does not seem to accumulate in edible portions of the animal. When the Gulf spill occurred, BP chose to protect the coastline. The scientific criticism is that BP did not show evidence proving this was the best course of action for the gulf ecosystem.

The main problem is that there is little evidence for or against dispersants to determine how the situation to should be handled. Dispersants help with some parts of the problem and exacerbate other parts. We can, of course, criticize the decisions the BP made with the use of the dispersants, especially making the decision to use a chemical with largely unknown effects on human health, but it's difficult to say what the best course of action should have been.

Links: Disappearing Amphibians, Rabid Vampire Bats, and Plans for Cleaner Energy

2010-08-13T07:47:00.000-05:00

Amphibians have been declining world-wide over the last several decades due to a mixed cocktail of pollution, habitat loss, climate change, and the uncontrolled spread of a devastating infectious fungus. One such amphibian is the elusive Golden Toad, which has not been seen since 1989. Now, scientists have begun a world-wide search for 100 of these frogs that have disappeared, hoping to find residual populations that can be protected.

Global hunt for "extinct" species of frogs.

Peru is battling a vampiric horror! Mainly vampire bats, bats that bite and drink the blood of sleeping mammals, that are infected with a strain of rabies. Four children have died after being infected by these animals, and over 500 people in total have been vaccinated after being bitten.

Peru battles rabid vampire bats after 500 people bitten.

And this week is big news for alternative energy... or at least plans for the next 20-or-so years. Research in nuclear power puts plants around the world by 2030 and a recycling idea that would negate the need for dealing with radioactive wastes! On the other spectrum, research into biodiesels that are made from plant-grown micro-algae claims to be able to produce sustainable and cleaner energy in 10 to 15 years, eventually eliminating the need for fossil fuels! Whether we can afford it is another aspect all together.

Scientists outline a 20-year master plan for the global renaissance of nuclear energy

Industrial production of biodiesel feasible within 15 years, researchers predict.

Atomism – Getting Physics Right Accidentally

2010-08-11T14:54:00.003-05:00

More right than he knew.

Start the Wayback Machine

It's time to drop some straight physics on you all. No, wait. Time to drop some history. Oh, hold on. Get ready for some history of physics! All the way back to 5^th century BC Greece. This story starts with the metaphysical philosopher Leucippus.

Without going too deep into Greek philosophy, which is at the same time interesting and incomprehensible, Leucippus was trying to resolve an argument. One side argued that the universe was static and eternal where motion and changes were just an illusion, while the other spoke of a universe where the concept of change was the only thing that truly existed. Leucippus tried to make peace by hypothesizing that everything is made of some indivisible building block, but that these fundamental pieces could experience motion and constructed and that exists. Leucippus and his student Democritus named these particles atomos, or atoms; literally Greek for "uncuttable." For 2,400 years Leucippus' and Democritus' theory of Atomism was more correct than they probably ever imagined.

It would take thousands of years to figure out what exactly these "Atoms" were, but now we know there are, in fact, tiny particles that make up the entire physical world around us, not counting light and radio waves. Atoms of different types (elements) create the different materials and objects we see.

A Common Idea, Lost

Let me step back for a moment. It would be irresponsible to omit the fact that Leucippus was not the first to propose this idea. Similar theories were included in Jainism of ancient India about a century earlier, though the teachings were not tied as directly to science as Atomism would eventually be. Before that would happen, in the western world the thought was abandoned for centuries. About two hundred years after Leucippus, Aristotle argued, incorrectly, that water, air, and other things were continuous and not made of individual pieces. Eventually, Aristotle's teaching dominated thinking, and Atomism was quiet until it made a magnificent return starting with hypotheses by Galileo and others (1650's), concluding at the turn of the 19^th century with John Dalton's list of atomic weights.

Now, Atomism teachings were not all correct. The same logic dictated that nothing more advanced than atoms existed; that trees and people were just illusions created from atoms and not more complex objects. Also, in the early 20^th century, scientists figured out that atoms were made of smaller pieces, protons, and neutrons, which are in turn are made from quarks. But the concept of a indivisible unit remains. We have no evidence now that quarks can be split, so they gain the status of the indivisible unit Leucippus was talking about, despite a different name.

Leucippus arrived at his ideas without experiments and scientific process, just a challenge in thinking. Whether or not the reasoning was stumbled upon by accident, the basic idea of a fundamental building block, be it atoms or quarks, is a cornerstone of science today, tracing roots back two and a half millennia.

Additional Links

Atomism at Wikipedia

Atomic Theory at Wikipedia

Atom at Wikipedia
Atoms, Compounds, and Minerals at IU

How Stuff Works: Atom

Gold - Heavier Than You Might Expect

2010-08-10T15:54:00.000-05:00

Heavy. (Img: Bullionvault)

A gallon milk jug filled with gold would have a mass of 73 kilograms, or 161 pounds, instead of 3.8 kg (8.35 lbs) for a gallon of milk. A cubic foot of gold is 547 kg or 1205 lbs, and would be worth about 21 million dollars today. All of the gold mined in human history, 165,000 tons, would form a 20 meter (66 foot) cube, about the size of a five story office building.

Iceberg! Straight Ahead! (well, really far North, actually).

2010-08-08T09:22:00.001-05:00


Peterman glacier, the source of the island

On Thursday, August 5th, a massive glacier island cleaved itself off of Greenland, that not-so-green island way up North. It was about 100 square miles in size and is the largest glacier in the Arctic to have come loose since the '60s! It's not really known yet if the glacier will catch on land and freeze back in this Winter, or if currents will push the island through the obstacles in into the main ocean. If it did, it would likely interfere with shipping!

Greenland glacier calves island four times the size of Manhattan

Huge ice sheet breaks from Greenland glacier

Links: Crazy Bus, Regeneration, and the Beauty of Alaska

2010-08-07T08:43:00.002-05:00

Engineers in China have come up with a pretty elegant solution to the problem of overcrowded streets and buses stuck in traffic. They put the bus on stilts and it just drives over the other traffic while only taking up a tiny strip of road on either side.

China Hush: Straddling Bus

Possibly the holy grail of medical technology is human regeneration. It's the idea that we might coax the human body into growing back a lost limb or heart tissues that has led to all kinds of research. Healing cuts in your skin and broken bones are minor forms of regeneration that happen naturally, but, unlike simpler animals like amphibians, we can't regenerate larger parts of our body, probably because evolution forced us to trade long life and cancer resistance for wildly growing cells that can rebuild parts from nothing. This week plenty of news came out related to regeneration research. Here are a few stories. We are still a long way from regenerating a lost limb, but scientists are working on it.

NY Times: Two New Paths to the Dream – Regeneration

BBC News: Surgeons Rebuild Windpipe with Stem Cells

Nature: Skin Cells Converted to Heart Cells (more technical)

Jim Harris Photography

Last today, an incredible photo-essay of a backpacking trip through Alaskan mountains and glaciers. If you are one for beautiful nature pictures, you probably won't be able to stop scrolling down the page. The picture on the right is just one of many.

33 Days Across Wrangell-St. Elias NP, Alaska: The Southern Spiral

Also, this.

Mauna Kea, Rising From the Sea Floor

2010-08-06T11:25:00.005-05:00


Hawaiian islands from the sea floor.

Mount Everest is regularly called the tallest mountain on Earth, and by one measure that is true. Everest stands 8,850 m (29,035 feet) above sea level, and no other mountain reaches higher. But Everest sits on the Tibetan plateau, 5000 m above sea level, and rises only about 3800 m (13,000 feet) above the surrounding terrain. Big, but if the bulk of the mountain was set next to Denali or Kilimanjaro it would be dwarfed.

But another mountain you may already know is the point of this post. Mauna Kea, on the big island of Hawaii, is 4,205 m (13,796 feet) above sea level at the peak, but it's base actually lies 6,000 m (19,680 ft) below on the sea floor, for a total peak-to-base height of 10,203 m (33,476 ft), the most on Earth, land or sea. Also, check out the observatories on Mauna Kea. I will leave you with this:

Yes, this is Hawaii. (NASA)

Links: Composting Plastics, Venomous Octopuses, and Serenading Sharks.

2010-08-04T14:02:00.001-05:00

Here's another link post, so you don't have to read my silly writings!

Our first link is about biodegradable plastics, the development of which has been going on for several years and there have been some results. These "plastics" are actually made from plant material, such as corn starch or tree-produced sugars, and degrade in a compost environment in 6 months time. I wonder when we'll be seeing these plastics in our grocer.

Compostable Plastics have a Sweet Ending @ ScienceDaily.com

World Centric: Bioplastics, a producer of these decomposable plastics.

Great White Shark

Second is a quite silly continuation of our Ode to Discovery's Shark Week, a man serenading Great White Sharks. He was actually in the water with the sharks and guitar, but I'm guessing they dubbed over the music :).

Seriously, the video's pretty funny.

And our final link also takes place in the ocean, but deals with something with a little less of a backbone. It wasn't until recently that scientists discovered that all octopi, not just the Blue-ringed Octopus, are actually venomous. A study into Antarctic octopi discovered four new species of octopus and two completely new toxins that these octopus carry.

Scientists Tap Into Antarctic Octopus Venom

Iiiiiiit's SHARK WEEK!

2010-08-02T21:36:00.002-05:00

I lieu of Discovery Channel's Shark Week (which I look forward to every year), I give you the ridiculous looking "Goblin Shark" (Scientific name: Mitsukurina owstoni). It was named such because of the front of the shark, which looks much like a goblin's nose. That snout, called a rostrum, isn't just for show! It contains electro-sensitive organs that help it sense when other living things are nearby. It was first discovered in 1897 by a Japanese fisherman and, although many specimens have been recovered since then, there is still relatively little known about the shark. What is known is that it's a deep-water shark that rarely enters shallow water and is widely distributed. It's generally seen when caught accidentally by deep-sea fisherman or trollers, but this minimal harvest doesn't appear to be harmful to their population. Seriously, though, check out this video showing how the goblin shark attacks prey (or this man's arm).

Issues: High Fructose Corn Syrup: Part 2

2010-08-01T11:00:00.002-05:00

What's in Your Diet

Yesterday, I wrote about the current research on high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), how there is an ongoing but unclear debate on whether HFCS is any worse for your health than sugar, and that scientists point to sweeteners and lack of exercise for Americans' trouble with obesity. One thing that comes up is whether HFCS and other sweeteners are becoming more common in our food. So, today I decided to perform an extremely unscientific experiment involving my own diet. After my latest grocery shopping trip, I went through the ingredient list of each item I purchased. I tracked which contained HFCS, sugar, both or neither. Results are below, with notes (S,H,D indicate order of ingredients of Sugar, HFCS, and Dextrose):

High Fructose Corn Syrup	Sugar	Neither	Both
Hot Dog Buns	Bread	Potato Chips	Cookies (D,H,S)
Hot Dogs (less than 2% H, more than 2% D)	Hot Pockets	Milk	Lemonade (H,S)
Pickles	Pasta Sauce	Cheese	Yogurt (S,H)
Stuffing Mix	Flavored Rice Mix	Ground Beef	Ice Cream**
	Tortillas (last ingredient)	Chicken
	Chocolate Bar	Fruits… Assorted
	Brownie Mix	Vegtables…Assorted
	Chicken Helper*

*Within the half dozen varieties of Chicken/Hamburger Helper (they were on sale) some listed sugar as high as the third ingredient, while others had none.

**Second to the lemonade, ice cream might be the best way to fill up on sweeteners. After cream and milk, the ingredients are, in order: sucrose, corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, sugar.

There are a few things to point out here, but several ways to interpret the results. Remember this experiment is not designed to draw any scientific conclusions.


A surprising source of sugars. (Starbooze)

First and most obvious is that most of the food products I bought contain some kind of sweetener. I bought several types of fruits and vegetables but I think even listing all of them, the "Neither" category would be less than half of the products I purchased.

Most of the items that contain only one sweetener contain a very small amount, which includes all of the items with only HFCS, and all with only sugar except the chocolate bar and brownie mix.

The most surprising to me had to be pickles for containing any sweetener, though HFCS was towards the end of the short list of ingredients, and yogurt, for containing both sweeteners. The brand was Yoplait original, which I think many consider a healthy food choice, yet the second ingredient was sugar, and HFCS was fifth of about ten. Yogurt, of course, has benefits in moderation and a balanced diet, but I was surprised. Yoplait light has no sugar, but HFCS is the second ingredient for most flavors and the source of about 80 of each container's 100 calories.

The most sweetener-packed item has to be the lemonade. After water, the second and third ingredients were HFCS and sugar. The other ingredients are vitamins and flavor.

I would conclude that most of my food contains some kind of sweetener, but the majority has negligible amounts. Of the items on the list, six can be considered to get a large portion of their calories from sweeteners. The cookies, lemonade, and ice cream have both sweeteners but more HFCS. The chocolate, brownies, and yogurt have mainly sugar. In addition, I searched my cupboards for additional sugar filled items and found equal number with HFCS (pop tarts, which need to be carbon dated, and pancake syrup, where HFCS was pretty much the only ingredient) and sugar (granola bars and Gatorade power).

All in all, I would say I get about as many calories from sugar as HFCS, which lines up with the national data from the USDA. Whether our food is packed with sweeteners probably depends on individual dietary choices, as the ones I found crammed with HFCS and sugar could be expected, with perhaps the exception of yogurt and granola bars. And if you want to avoid HFCS yourself, good news is that there are many foods out there without any.

Juice, important vitamins, but also
high in calories.

Liquid Calories

There is one thing that struck me. The lemonade, though tasty, is basically HFCS water. It has 100 calories per 8 ounces, more than coca-cola. But it is not the only drink to look out for. Sodas, sports drinks, sweetened iced tea, and juices of all types are high in calories, which all come from sugars. 100% Apple juice contains about 30% more calories per ounce than soft drinks, and it is predominantly fructose. Some cranberry drinks and "juice cocktails" are even worse (check #2). Juice does provide health benefits that soda does not, but many good nutrients are lost processing the fruit, and juice can add large amounts of calories if not drank in moderation. Eating fruit is healthier than drinking it.

Medical research points to evidence that people have trouble considering the calorie count of drinks in their daily intake as a top factor in increased obesity and diabetes. Add to that concerns that increased fructose consumption, whether from HFCS or sucrose, confuses the mechanism in our body that limits our appetite and speeds our metabolism, and these effects are worse when the fructose is in liquids.

Closing Comments

If the United States, and you personally, want to cut down on the amount of HFCS, sweeteners, and calories we take in, the place to start is with our drinks. You can drink water (not bottled!), tea, diet or "light" beverages. Cut juice with water or make lemon water without sugar. And know that sweetened coffee drinks and fruit smoothies, especially those with peanut butter, are often high in fat and top any of the previously mentioned drinks in calorie count.

It's not all bad news, even with drinks. Knowing that the eating less and promoting exercise will help may make the fight simpler than trying to eliminate an ingredient from our food supply. HFCS is a cause for concern, but so it sugar. There is little evidence to indicate one is much worse than the other, so replacing HFCS with sugar would do little. But there is good evidence that if we reduce our intake of both sweeteners, starting with what we drink, the country will get healthier.

Additional Links

More about HFCS

Obesity in the United States

Info on Sports in the United States

Issue: High Fructose Corn Syrup: Part 1

2010-07-31T11:00:00.006-05:00

Today is the first part of a topic that grew in length as I was writing until I decided to split it into two parts. This is my first try investigating some issue facing people in the world, something that you may have an opinion about. Feel free to share your thoughts and observations in the comments. Come back tomorrow for part 2 which includes an experiment you can do on your own.

A Growing Problem

US Obesity and Overweight Rates

The United States is overweight. Not the land geographically, though it is quite massive, but the people who live there. The level of obesity has been climbing for the last three decades, though it has shown signs of slowing down. Two in three Americans are overweight, and the obvious place to look for answers is in our diet. One ingredient has stood out as a poster child for the growing problem. High Fructose Corn Syrup, or HFCS. I wanted to check out the claims and research, and see if I could clear up what we know about HFCS.

There are two discussions involved here. One is whether HFCS is less healthy than other sweeteners, such as sugar. The other is whether the obesity problem in the United States is tied to increased use of sweeteners in general.

The Unhealthier Sugar?

To tackle the first, it helps to compare HFCS to sugar chemically. HFCS, a thick liquid made from corn, is a mixture of fructose and glucose molecules, usually in a 55%-45% ratio with more fructose. Sugar is sucrose, found in your grocery store as crystals of table sugar. Chemically, sucrose is a fructose molecule joined to a glucose molecule. These are broken apart in the stomach and small intestine and absorbed. So sugar breaks down to nearly the same half-half mix of fructose and glucose that you get from HFCS.

Interestingly, HFCS is chemically nearly identical to honey, which has small amounts of additional sugars, but the same fructose-glucose ratio. Honey is so chemically similar to HFCS that they are often mixed to increase the amount of product to sell as pure honey (look for "raw, natural honey" or "baker's honey" to avoid HFCS). Also note that corn syrup is a completely different product than HFCS. Also called dextrose, corn syrup is another name for glucose. It is not as sweet as the others but is added to things like baked goods to get a medium level of sweetness and to improve color, as it turns brown when heated.

After sugar or HFCS are absorbed your body gets the same nutrition from each substance and processes them the same way. Studies (frustratingly few) have compared the effects of the two sweeteners on metabolism and weight gain. They generally say that, given equal amounts of sugar or HFCS, there is no significant difference in your body's reaction and weight gain, though some newer evidence is very mixed, and may adjust the conclusions on this debate(the research paper's results are much less conclusive than this article makes them out to be).

If viewing the research yourself, I warn you to be very careful about the distinction between HFCS and pure fructose, a nuance that even some research papers (and many blogs or new websites) seem to miss. Fructose is the more damaging component of sugar, and 100% fructose has been shown to be much worse than the 50-50 mix with glucose in sugar, but there is little to suggest that the extra 5% fructose in HFCS over sugar is enough to make a difference. The American Medical Association has come out to say that there is no evidence that HFCS is worse for you than equal calories of sugar.

But there is a small problem in the words above. Equal calories. One way fructose is harmful is that it causes a crash after eating large amounts, making you feel hungry sooner and eating more calories. It is possible that this effect is stronger with HFCS than sucrose because of the extra 5% fructose, or differences in the ways the intestines absorb free fructose or fructose from sucrose. Evidence of a significant difference is scarce, but the idea leads into the second argument, where one thing is clear.

Moderation and Exercise

US Sweetener Consumption

Americans have been eating more sweeteners, especially since the mid-eighties, when HFCS became popular. One reason may be that HFCS is about 40% cheaper than sugar, which may cause food companies to use it more frequently and in greater amounts. And while I prefer to present the evidence and let you decide what to make of it, the research and scientists converge on one conclusion. Americans' increased calorie intake, mostly from sweeteners in drinks, combined with lack of exercise, is making America fat.

But wait. I decided to muddy the waters by adding in the part about exercise. We know obesity has skyrocketed, and the two changes in lifestyle that are the most likely causes are increased calories and less exercise. Because of the complexity of factors involved, pinning it on one problem or the other is impossible. Most likely it is some combination of the two.

Further frustrating the matter is that adult physical activity data from anything other than the last twenty years seems nonexistent. Without knowing how much our activity levels have declined, it's difficult to figure out which is a bigger factor. I get the feeling that scientists think that the physical activity aspect is the real elephant.

Thankfully, the exercise trend is reversing, slightly. The CDC's recommendations on keeping a healthy weight focus on getting exercise and keeping in control of calories, especially fats and sweeteners of all kinds. Good advice. And finally, please understand that the factors in keeping a healthy weight for individual people are much more complex and varied than for the entire population. I am not saying that every overweight person just needs to cut calories and exercise, it is much more complicated than that, and a completely different discussion (Check out Healthy at any Size for a start).

Closing comment for today: There are many claims out there, but I could not find any solid research evidence that HFCS will cause other health issues than the same obesity and diabetes problems that sugar will cause. Those are important reasons to evaluate how we consume both substances. And research should be done to check other claims. Plus, there is a mercury problem that needs to be monitored. But beyond these there is nothing with evidence for concern that I could find.

Check out part 2 here.

Liquid... Metal... Moving Art?

2010-07-30T15:11:00.003-05:00

Swiss Science Center

There is a substance out there called a ferrofluid. It is quite possibly one of the coolest things ever. Ferrofluids are metals that exist in a liquid form, but when a magnetic field is applied, they solidify into neat shapes and patterns. They're generally composed of tiny particles of compounds that contain some amount of iron, such as hematite or magnetite. The particles are tiny enough to be suspended in a liquid. They were developed by N.A.S.A. in the 1960's and are now being used in a variety of applications, including engineering, electronics, medicine, the military, and art.

Also, you can make your own.

Revelations about Revolutions

2010-07-29T18:31:00.002-05:00

Copernicus (Img: Welcome)

Nicolaus Copernicus published his work claiming that the Earth revolved around the Sun in 1543, immediately before his death. He was not the first to make that claim, but his work and that of followers led to global acceptance of the theory and is considered the origin of modern astronomy. Copernicus delayed publication for fear of skepticism, mainly within the scientific community. But unlike Galileo later, he was not persecuted by the church. In fact, some in the Catholic Church urged him to publish and spread his ideas.

Links: Smart Tortoises, Distant Planets, AIDS Research

2010-07-28T11:19:00.002-05:00

Once a week, eventually every Saturday, we will find a few news stories so you can learn about the newest in science from the source without having to deal with our writing. Well… much of it.

First up, is one of the blogs from scienceblogs.com, which inspired some of what we are doing. It is a long read, but if you wonder how tortoises learn, it's worth a look.

The Thoughtful Animal at Scienceblogs.com

Next is something extra interesting for me. I have been keeping an eye on the Kepler Mission since it launched a year and a half ago. It is a telescope used to look for planets around other stars. Way back in high school I wrote my senior thesis on finding extraterrestrial life. I think I will use a post to write about that topic pretty soon. The Kepler Mission is the biggest leap in that area in 30 years, so I have been waiting for the results. The first batch of data was collected in January, and was scheduled to be made public next January, but apparently someone couldn't wait and "leaked" some of the results during a talk in the UK. They are very interesting and look like the first step in proving what astronomers have suspected for years. Planets like Earth may be very common in the galaxy.

Discovery News: Kepler Scientist: "Galaxy is rich in Earth-like planets"

Finally, quite a bit of news on AIDS research in the past couple days. The first link looks like an early step to a breakthrough, but is still some time off. The second link is something more immediate, but the article is largely focused on the controversial aspects. Take a look.

Singularity Hub: Antibody Neutralizes 91% of HIV Strains
New York Times: Advance in AIDS Raises Questions as Well as Joy

Deer Cross Here

2010-07-27T13:42:00.000-05:00

Why did the chicken cross the road?

One of the largest problems with wildlife habitat is the problem of fragmentation. This is where a block of forest or plains or marsh is split into smaller pieces. This fragmentation can be caused by farmland, housing, or forestry, but most often occurs due to roads and is even a large problem in natural reserves. Roads represent an extremely dangerous crossing for most wildlife, as well as drivers, primarily due to collisions with vehicles. They also cause problems by splitting up wildlife populations (small groups of animals are more vulnerable to being wiped out than large groups), degrading habitat close to roads due to maintenance and pollution, and preventing access to resources on the other side.

Because there wasn't a bridge!

(Joel Sartore)

This problem has been tackled a few different ways. Underpasses that allow wildlife to cross beneath roads have been created for creatures who don't mind dusty, dark, enclosed spaces, such as turtles and raccoons. Large enough underpasses have even been used by deer and moose! However, large carnivores such as wolves, cougars, and bears generally don't like them. So if you can't go under, let's go over! Many wildlife-conscious areas, such as Banff National Park in Alberta, have begun installing wildlife crossing bridges or "green bridges" as they are often called. First installed in France in the 1950's, these are usually wide bridges planted with grasses and small shrubs with fences along the edges.

Success?

Green bridges have been shown to help lessen the effects of fragmentation and to decrease the number of vehicle collisions with large mammals by an average of 86% close to where the bridge is in place (sec. 4.4). They are currently being used in many areas with a high rate of success. In Florida, several underpasses have distinctly lowered the casualties of florida panthers on highways where they have been installed. Not just for roads, overpasses over a deep irrigation canal in Arizona have decreased the number of deer and other animals from getting stuck and drowning in the canal. Researchers have picked out tons of road kill "hot spots" that could benefit from crossings, but it's still a matter of time and money until they're considered everywhere.

Moscow, the New Skyscraper Capital of Europe

2010-07-26T15:09:00.001-05:00

Moscow's newly built skyscraper garden (Img:Bradmoscu)

Completed in 2010, the taller of the two City of Capitals skyscrapers, located in Moscow, is the new tallest building in Europe. Moscow is also home of the second and third tallest buildings in Europe, all completed in the last decade. Maybe the Russians feel that ground level is not cold enough in the Moscow winter and would rather be 1000 feet in the air. At 306 meters tall, about the height of US Bank tower, the tallest building in Los Angeles (the ~~Sears Tower~~ Willis Tower is 442 meters; damn it, I just can't get used to that.), City of Capitals is located in Moscow's International Business Center district. The same district contains four of the five tallest buildings under construction in Europe, all of which will be taller than City of Capitals, though at least two are on hold due to the economic downturn, and an additional, even taller, project has been canceled outright. The other of the five tallest buildings under construction in Europe is in London.

Pluto, Not Quite a Planet

2010-07-25T14:14:00.001-05:00

Poor, poor Pluto. The heavenly object that once stood tall with the eight planets that orbit our sun is now just another anomalous piece of rock, demoted, soon to be left off those colorful solar system diagrams that filled the walls of our grade school classrooms. Pluto may not be a planet, but it is still interesting.

Sort of Like a Planet, but not Really

Pluto was discovered in 1930, and named after the Roman god of the underworld for its expected cold, dark nature so far from the sun. The name also referenced the initials of Percival Lowell, who spent the final 20 years of his life searching, unsuccessfully, for a planet outside Neptune. Pluto orbits at 40 times the Earth's distance from the Sun, orbiting every 248 Earth years. There the sunlight is less than one thousandth as strong as on Earth. Pluto is so cold its surface is covered in frozen nitrogen. For about 20 year of every orbit, it crosses Neptune's path and is closer to the Sun than the eighth planet, though they cannot collide. This last happened between 1979 and 1999.


Sizes to scale (NASA)

Pluto is about two-thirds the size of the moon, with a radius of 1153 km. A large object, but small compared to planets. There are seven moons in our solar system larger than Pluto, as are all of the planets. Pluto was demoted to the status of "Dwarf Planet" in 2006, ending its 76 year run as the little planet that could. Sadly, it does not even get to be the king of its new classification, being smaller than the dwarf planet Eris, discovered in 2005. Dwarf planets are objects orbiting the Sun, large enough that their gravity makes them round, but not large enough to vacuum up all of the other objects near their orbit. Pluto has a rocky core making up about half its mass with a thick layer of ice and a thin layer of frozen nitrogen on top. This is similar to many moons of Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune as well as other objects floating in the far reaches of our solar system and comets. If Pluto were moved to Earth's location, it would develop a comet tail.

That's No Moon!

Pluto has three moons: Charon, Nix, and Hydra. Nix and Hydra are small, less than 100 km across and are fairly boring little chunks of rock. But Charon is special. In addition to sharing a name with this kick ass heavy metal band, Charon is big enough (603 km radius) that is does not simply orbit Pluto. They both orbit a point somewhere in between them, known as the barycenter. This is true of all bodies in space. If the Moon was the same size as Earth, they would revolve together around a point halfway in between the two. The Earth is so much more massive than the moon that their barycenter lies deep within the Earth's core, so it is easily said that the Moon orbits the Earth. But Charon and Pluto orbit a point well above either's surface, though it is much closer to Pluto. This has led to some astronomers labeling Charon not a moon, but a second dwarf planet in the binary Pluto-Charon system.

The Unexplored

Perhaps it is fitting that Pluto is not considered a planet. Humankind, in our quest for knowledge, has reached into space and sent a spacecraft to each planet in our solar system, but we have not arrived at Pluto. At least not yet. So far the best picture we have of Pluto's surface is this:

Pluto is just too far away and too small to be seen more clearly, or be studied in depth. But in 2015 the New Horizons probe will fly by Pluto and its moons. It will give us a better idea of what Pluto is made of and what the surface is like. Many similar objects are floating past Neptune, and studying Pluto will tell us what we may find on the thousands of object further away. After that, New Horizons will search for other objects to explore at the edge of our solar system, and eventually cross into and study the heliosphere, leaving our solar system like the Voyager probes before it.

Additional Links

Pluto at Wikipedia

Pluto at NASA

Latex In Your Lettuce

2010-07-24T21:09:00.000-05:00

Guayule (USDA)

Natural rubber comes from latex produced by plants. The para rubber tree is the current source of natural rubber because of the rate at which it produces latex, but rubber fig trees, lettuce, dandelions, and guayule, a shrub native to Mexico, Texas, and New Mexico, all produce latex that can be made into rubber. Latex is what gives the thicker parts of the lettuce their bitter taste, and when you break a dandelion stem, the white fluid that oozes out is latex. That was a considerable part of my childhood right there.

Human Fish: Neither Human, Nor a Fish.

2010-07-24T08:44:00.007-05:00

The inaptly named human fish (which I recommend NOT google image searching) is actually a salamander that, due to new research, is believed to be able to live up to 100 years! Studying this creature might give us some more insight into aging and, well, how to stop it.

Alternate Link:

"Human Fish" Breaks Lifespan Record

No More Needles? Awesome.

2010-07-24T08:33:00.006-05:00

Vaccinations have just gotten simpler. A patch is being developed that has hundreds of tiny micro-needles that dissolve into the skin, taking the vaccine with it into the blood stream. Simple, pain-free, and, if studies on mice have any indication, more effective at immunizing. Hopefully, this becomes available before the next swine/bird/insertanimalhere flu epidemic comes around.

Additional Links:

BBC News: Vaccine Patch may Replace Needles

Hate Needles? Flu Patch May Take Sting Out of Your Fears

Macroflux® Microprojection Array Patch Technology: A New and Efficient Approach for Intracutaneous Immunization (Scientific Article)

Welcome. We come in peace.

2010-07-23T17:30:00.001-05:00

Welcome. Thank you already, just for making it to our little blip on the internet radar. This is the blog of siblings Justin (Engineer) and Kristina (Biologist) Lapp. We are both graduate students in our respective fields, and very interested in all types of science.

Our goal is to provide an entertaining place for everyone to learn something new relating to science, whether you are a physics professor, or have never seen a science textbook. We will bring you the most interesting information we can find about science and engineering from skyscrapers to mountains to dinosaurs to galaxies. And we will try to find and share the scientific truth that deals with the current world, from animals and the environment to human health to use of technology to science's role in public policy.

We'll try to keep things pretty light. Our hope is that everyone (including us) learns something and enjoys coming to the blog. We don't want to lecture or tell anyone what to think. But we do want to show as many people as possible what it's like to view everything from a scientific perspective. Comments, suggestions, and questions are always more than welcome.

Our skills are not massive amounts of knowledge; surely many other out there beat us in that category. Instead our education paths and interests have taught us something about searching for information, discerning the good from bad, and conveying it. This will be a place for you to come and quickly find out something cool that you could find on your own, but never thought to look. Or to get all of the relevant information on a topic because we already scoured the internet and broke it down.

If you like what you find here, all we ask is that you come back again and tell your friends about us, especially if they are not scientists or engineers but have an interest in science. The more people who end up here, the harder we will work, and the better this place will be for everyone.

Thanks for coming, however you made it here. Now let's see how this little experiment goes. Scroll down for the first bit of science.

Tiny Dinos!

2010-07-23T16:49:00.006-05:00

What's the smallest dinosaur ever? Well, it's kind of hard to tell, because the fossils that are found aren't always full adults. However, a couple of dinosaurs vie for the position: The smallest well known dinosaur is Microraptor, which is essentially a tiny version of the already small velociraptor we know and love (not anything like Jurassic Park led us to believe). It was about 16 inches long and 2.2 lbs (~1 kg). As small as that is, it doesn't compare to the tiny Epidexipteryx (shown here), which is known only from a single partial fossil and was described in 2008. It is only about 10 inches long and is estimated to weigh 164 g (that's 0.36 lb). Yes, that's about the size of your average hamster, and yes, I want a herd of them as well.

Additional Links:

BBC News: New Feathered Dinosaurs Discovered

The Hairy Museum of Natural History: Epidexipteryx hui

Dino-Bird from China Gives Clues to Bird Evolution