Cool Science

...I've had that I'd like to share. First is that cable tv is awful. I spent two nights in a hotel and thought cable would be great to have again. No. It's flooded with commercials (how is it that you *pay* for cable and yet they subject you to an onslaught of ads?). The content is inane (thank you to the 'scientific' documentary that hyped up extrasensory perception - I was physically cringing when these guys tried to explain their theories- 'it's like the force in Star Wars' says one dude trying to sound really authoritative and sciency) Would the free HBO save me? No, they were harping on about some boxing match and showing '27 dresses' in between. So cable was really disappointing.

Second is that conferences are exhausting. When I was a student watching my bosses go off to fancy conferences I thought that must be really great. But while it's nice to put your work out there, the conference experience is always draining. Trying to focus on the umpteenth talk, visiting all the vendors, glancing at all the posters, and so on... Like broccoli and carrots and such, all of this is technically very good for you but that doesn't make it any easier. Every night, you just collapse on your bed and wish for it to be over. Back home now, throwing down fresh baked cookies and sipping wine after taking the dog out for a spin - couldn't be happier.

Some random science mixed in with anime: the other day I watched Patlabor WXIII. I'd give it a 3 out of 5. It had standard themes of anti-imperialism and cautionary warnings about technology that are staples of anime; but it didn't bring much new to the table or have the kind of character complexity that anime can achieve when it is at its best. But the best part was a surprisingly good exposition on telomeric DNA, apoptosis and on the enzyme telomerase, and the importance of this biochemistry to the plot. I kept waiting for them to get silly with the science, but with the exception of a gigantic mutant monster (don't worry, not a spoiler) they stuck to surprisingly conventional science and in fact got it right. It was refreshing.

Posted by Dave at 10:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

An article last week (on yahoo I think?) listed the top 5 'most scientifically plausible sci-fi movies'. Kudos to yahoo for mentioning Gattaca and 2001. We are definitely in the genetic engineering age and the advent of commercial space tourism is a more than symbolic step towards the future Clarke envisioned. Special commendations for mentioning the Truman Show. But I have to ding them for not mentioning Star Trek. Come on, have you SEEN the iPhone? Makes a tricorder look like one of Henry's plastic toys.

But the surreal one was none other than....Iron Man. The author of this article gravely and with much authority proclaims that 'many of the underlying principles are sound' after giving disclaimers about the boots and the force fields and all that (btw - what the heck IS a force field anyway?); but what is left then? That cool glowing power generator on Iron Man's chest that generates colossal quantities of energy with no discernable fuel source is pure fantasy. Is the underlying principle cold fusion? My inner nerd is just dying to burst out and proclaim that Batman is a heck of a lot more plausible than Iron Man. There - I've said it. I feel better already.

Posted by Dave at 11:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

To some chemists it drives them up the wall, it's a cause celebre that may induce some to rant in poorly controlled anger and others to stew in silence. To others it's simply a pet peeve that deserves a softer touch. To many it's something in between. I'm pretty low key about it, but I think it's important to discuss it and it can be a real learning experience to think about it. But all chemists are aware of it. What is 'it'?

Best to explain by example. Very recently 20 or so sailors and civilians died aboard a Russian submarine when a fire suppression system activated accidentally and suffocated the aforementioned individuals with what was reported to be (and likely was) a gas called freon. This at least, is the information that the major networks are reporting. I think we tend to suspect that causes of Russian sub accidents are rarely accurately identified to the outside press, but this one has the ring of truth so I'll run with it.

Yahoo had the reasonable headline:"Accident on Russian nuclear sub suffocates 20.". Sure, they're playing the 'nuclear' card in this headline to draw you in, but they include the crucial piece of information on suffocation, namely that this had nothing to do with the nuclear reactor inside the sub.

CNN on the other hand, went with a number of headlines. The one that I wanted to call out here interestingly no longer exists, but read "Chemicals kill 20 aboard Russian sub". This article spells out CNN's recent reporting on it which is still highly misguided.

With lively phrases like "chemicals spewed out" and "poisoning from freon gas", the CNN article is engaging in the practice that tweaks the sensibilities of chemists everywhere: villainizing 'chemicals' not to mention drastically stretching the truth (a.k.a. lying - we'll get to that). You and I are all made of chemicals. We eat, drink and excrete chemicals. Everything we touch is a chemical. The plants we grow, harvest and eat are all chemicals. Everything is a chemical. But we sometimes see in the presses instances like this that engage in the villainizing of the word 'chemical'. Yes, it's very upsetting when chemicals like DDT or thalidomide come along and ruin lives. But chemicals like aspirin, penicillin and lipitor(TM) to name a few also work modern marvels for the human condition. The word chemical should simply be a neutrally connotative word IMHO.

To see how CNN's article reads in the eyes of this chemist, one would have to report that every victim of drowning was "killed by chemicals" and "poisoned by water". In drowning, the victim suffers a loss of oxygen and everybody knows and understands this. So what about freon? Freon (like water) is not highly reactive. That makes it desirable as a fire suppressor since (like water) it will be somewhat unreactive at the higher temperatures. It is also significantly denser than air so that (like water) it displaces air very effectively. In a sub, they could flood any compartment that was on fire with water and do a great job putting out the fire. But this doesn't sound like a good idea in a sub... Importantly, freon has negligible toxicity (like water) according to the MSDS (material safety data sheet). So that by any reasonable layperson's definition, the allegation of "poisoning" is incorrect since the tragedy was due to a loss of oxygen, which would have happened whether water or freon filled the compartment.

CNN's reporting is regrettable, but I don't want to villainize them. They made a good effort to present freon in a lively way that would engage their readers (aside: and CNN was extremely cautious on election reporting which I admired) and even though it ended up perpetuating misperceptions about the word 'chemical', we can now talk about it and think about it and learn from it. So, to the great void out there, what does the word 'chemical' mean to you?

Posted by Dave at 12:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

So I did something I almost never do. I returned something.

About two weeks ago, I made an impulse buy of a blu ray player (Sony S300) because it was on sale. They were clearing it out for the new models and it was dirt cheap. We have the kind of t.v. that should look gooooood on blu ray. Brought it home - surprised Jenn - gave her Nightmare Before Christmas on blu ray, and then we settled in for a good movie.

We agonized for several minutes just for the blu ray player to 'boot up'. A comical circus of hitting the eject button too many times ensued. After several minutes, the tray opened and closed and opened and closed and opened and closed and... When this was done we proudly plopped our very first blu ray in and tucked under a blanket in eager anticipation. We waited. And waited as the dvd 'loaded'. At one point it went to a funny screen that made us think the unit froze. We waited some more and then a very nice menu finally appeared. Clicking through this was a Nightmare Before BluRay. 'Click' - wait for the menu selection to highlight -'Click' - wait for the next selection to highlight - 'Click' - .....

OK, you get the point. Finally we watched the movie. It looked good, but not great. We threw in some of Henry's beloved dvd's and realized that the upconversion of regular dvd's looked as good as the native blu ray format. Isn't that interesting.

Here's an aside: Jenn thinks I'm nuts (but loves me anyway, what a doll!) but the Sony did a better job of upconversion than our budget Samsung upconverter. Also interesting.

And the menus were slow and annoying on the other dvd's too. So - after thinking about how much I would enjoy blu ray, how cool it would be to start putting blu ray discs on our netflix queue, how life in hi def would be a better life indeed, I marched it right back to the store for a full refund.

Posted by Dave at 06:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)