When you were a small child, did your parents tell you to go play outside already? Or were you the type that preferred to go outside to play anyway? In either case, going outside is not only good for you, but can even make you smarter, more creative, and happier? Wait, what?
It seems that there's some kinds of bacteria in most soils that can float through the air, and improves your brain's function should you inhale them. You're most likely to encounter them while walking on grass or dirt, and least likely inside, when you breathe mostly filtered air and have little contact with the soil. Mice given an aerosol spray of these bacteria could run a maze in half the usual time, and showed less anxiety to boot.
I'm also jokingly thinking about what these means to Internet addicts, who are stereotyped as shut ins. Could this be one of the reasons why they are so grumpy?
Monday, May 31, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Stress Miscarriage and Gender
The terrorist attack of September 11th, 2001, deeply traumatized America. Even people watching on TV thousands of miles from the actual incident were terrified that such a thing could happen in their town too. And, to everyone's surprise, demographic studies showed that it caused thousands of miscarriages nationwide. Even more curiously: all the miscarriages would have been male had they been born. Wait, what?
Many women speak enviously of some male traits. Men are stronger, having 3 times the muscle density, easier time working out, easier time losing weight, and make more money. But this comes at a cost.
Maleness is, essentially, fragile. We humans are conceived with a male:female ratio at about 1.6:1, and this is down to about 1.2:1 by birth, and is down to 1:1 by the time we're 30. If you're male, you're more likely to abruptly die. Both unexpected incidents, like heart disease, and injuries from unwise events ("Hey guys, I'm going to jump this bike over this set of boxes! Oh crap, not far enough!") disproportionately affect men. Men's life expectancy is 4-7 years less than women's in all but the most misogynist of societies.
Even on a genetic level, maleness is fragile. Women have two X chromosomes, men have one X and one Y. X contains many things that you need to live, and deficiencies in yours can result in conditions from hemophilia to color blindness. X-linked conditions affect men way more than women, because women can use the secondary X chromosome to back up the first, while men only have one to work on. For a woman to be color-blind, she needs 2 X chromosomes with that trait, while a man only has 1 to work with anyway. Also, genetic errors can copy or delete chromosomes, and it's been noted that men who have more Y chromosomes (XYY, XYYY, etc) are more likely to be arrested, men who have X duplications (XXY, XXXY) only have a tendency towards being fat, transsexual, or both. Having only Ys (YY) results in an early miscarriage, as a fetus with that genetic set can't survive. While having even one Y chromosome makes you male, you need at least one X chromosome to live.
Biologists speculate that then in times of stress, this suggests danger to the tribe. The tribe will therefore need more females to repopulate than males (who would primarily just shuffle the genes and compete with each other), and maleness is temporarily selected against.
These biologists unfortunately don't have any advice for women wishing to avoid miscarriages. Not all stress can be avoided.
Many women speak enviously of some male traits. Men are stronger, having 3 times the muscle density, easier time working out, easier time losing weight, and make more money. But this comes at a cost.
Maleness is, essentially, fragile. We humans are conceived with a male:female ratio at about 1.6:1, and this is down to about 1.2:1 by birth, and is down to 1:1 by the time we're 30. If you're male, you're more likely to abruptly die. Both unexpected incidents, like heart disease, and injuries from unwise events ("Hey guys, I'm going to jump this bike over this set of boxes! Oh crap, not far enough!") disproportionately affect men. Men's life expectancy is 4-7 years less than women's in all but the most misogynist of societies.
Even on a genetic level, maleness is fragile. Women have two X chromosomes, men have one X and one Y. X contains many things that you need to live, and deficiencies in yours can result in conditions from hemophilia to color blindness. X-linked conditions affect men way more than women, because women can use the secondary X chromosome to back up the first, while men only have one to work on. For a woman to be color-blind, she needs 2 X chromosomes with that trait, while a man only has 1 to work with anyway. Also, genetic errors can copy or delete chromosomes, and it's been noted that men who have more Y chromosomes (XYY, XYYY, etc) are more likely to be arrested, men who have X duplications (XXY, XXXY) only have a tendency towards being fat, transsexual, or both. Having only Ys (YY) results in an early miscarriage, as a fetus with that genetic set can't survive. While having even one Y chromosome makes you male, you need at least one X chromosome to live.
Biologists speculate that then in times of stress, this suggests danger to the tribe. The tribe will therefore need more females to repopulate than males (who would primarily just shuffle the genes and compete with each other), and maleness is temporarily selected against.
These biologists unfortunately don't have any advice for women wishing to avoid miscarriages. Not all stress can be avoided.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Gasoline, Revisited
Gasoline is pretty cheap in America when I think about it. Compare it with other fluids that people buy without blinking. The cheapest wine costs $19.96/gallon. Cola? A better deal, $1.72 per gallon, but only if you buy in bulk. $3/gallon if you buy from a supermarket. Vinegar? A whopping $8.76/gallon.
American consumers pay this without blinking an eye. But when gas hits $3/gallon? The complaints never end. The current price at the closest station to me is $2.69 per gallon. People see this as expensive, but I'm going to convert it to European standards so my European readers give some perspective. This is .53 Euros/liter after I do the math. I can already hear the derisive laughter.
One reason why the gas prices are this low in the US are because we have oil supplies in the country (even though we use far more than we can readily extract), and the refineries are also local. Another reason is the political will to keep it flowing. Our politicians will move heaven and earth to keep gas cheap.
Last time there was a major spike in the gas prices, there were many speeches about gas being essential to our way of life and demanding action. But there were also considerable funds put into research for alternatives, from ethanol to electric. Funds that promptly dried up again when the price fell, supposedly due severe cutbacks in transportation leading to a fall in demand.
I think it is desirable to have alternatives, especially considering the increasing political hostility of many of the major suppliers. The three biggest suppliers of petroleum I can name offhand, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela, all have deteriorating relationships with the United States. There is a security standpoint, which notes that if the US were blockaded, gas prices would rise to extreme prices, and probably would be unavailable to the civilian population entirely. This would affect more than just personal cars -- most businesses in the US are supplied by truck. Shortage would become the norm, shutting down large sectors of the economy.
It would be nice to develop a cheap and abundant alternative, but it may just be wishful thinking. Electricity suffers from storage issues, hydrogen is a carrier, not a source, (and is immensely difficult to keep contained), coal is smoky (and possibly stinky), nuclear is not happening, and solar is totally impractical. Ethanol would require a huge increase in farmland (and would likely drive up food prices from competition), and methane...methane could work. Insert "fart powered car" joke here.
In France's "wine lake," a region in which a large number of amateur wine producers have grown so much wine that the price of wine in the area has pretty much collapsed, it may be practical to have a wine-powered car that would filter the ethanol from the water, and burn the ethanol for fuel.
American consumers pay this without blinking an eye. But when gas hits $3/gallon? The complaints never end. The current price at the closest station to me is $2.69 per gallon. People see this as expensive, but I'm going to convert it to European standards so my European readers give some perspective. This is .53 Euros/liter after I do the math. I can already hear the derisive laughter.
One reason why the gas prices are this low in the US are because we have oil supplies in the country (even though we use far more than we can readily extract), and the refineries are also local. Another reason is the political will to keep it flowing. Our politicians will move heaven and earth to keep gas cheap.
Last time there was a major spike in the gas prices, there were many speeches about gas being essential to our way of life and demanding action. But there were also considerable funds put into research for alternatives, from ethanol to electric. Funds that promptly dried up again when the price fell, supposedly due severe cutbacks in transportation leading to a fall in demand.
I think it is desirable to have alternatives, especially considering the increasing political hostility of many of the major suppliers. The three biggest suppliers of petroleum I can name offhand, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela, all have deteriorating relationships with the United States. There is a security standpoint, which notes that if the US were blockaded, gas prices would rise to extreme prices, and probably would be unavailable to the civilian population entirely. This would affect more than just personal cars -- most businesses in the US are supplied by truck. Shortage would become the norm, shutting down large sectors of the economy.
It would be nice to develop a cheap and abundant alternative, but it may just be wishful thinking. Electricity suffers from storage issues, hydrogen is a carrier, not a source, (and is immensely difficult to keep contained), coal is smoky (and possibly stinky), nuclear is not happening, and solar is totally impractical. Ethanol would require a huge increase in farmland (and would likely drive up food prices from competition), and methane...methane could work. Insert "fart powered car" joke here.
In France's "wine lake," a region in which a large number of amateur wine producers have grown so much wine that the price of wine in the area has pretty much collapsed, it may be practical to have a wine-powered car that would filter the ethanol from the water, and burn the ethanol for fuel.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Drive Train
People in America love driving. But hate paying for gas. Many routes follow identical routes, and the most cost effective way to haul mass is a train, so...
Imagine a large train with many many car-sized platforms. It stops for 3 minutes at every big city, then speeds along at 100+MPH. At the stops, cars can drive on or off.
Every morning, a train goes through the country to the city, and back. There's a 6:00am shift, an 8:00am shift, and a noon shift. Most of the traffic is to the city, so it doesn't stop on the way back. The pattern reverses for trips at 4:00pm, 6pm, and 8pm.
The stops are a platform exactly aligned with the train in height, so cars can drive right across. A ramp from there goes to the nearest road.
For a bonus, the train doesn't have to stop completely if no one is getting on, merely slow down to an acceptable speed.
Drivers would save fuel on the common part of their route. How to pay for the train?
Imagine a large train with many many car-sized platforms. It stops for 3 minutes at every big city, then speeds along at 100+MPH. At the stops, cars can drive on or off.
Every morning, a train goes through the country to the city, and back. There's a 6:00am shift, an 8:00am shift, and a noon shift. Most of the traffic is to the city, so it doesn't stop on the way back. The pattern reverses for trips at 4:00pm, 6pm, and 8pm.
The stops are a platform exactly aligned with the train in height, so cars can drive right across. A ramp from there goes to the nearest road.
For a bonus, the train doesn't have to stop completely if no one is getting on, merely slow down to an acceptable speed.
Drivers would save fuel on the common part of their route. How to pay for the train?
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Anarchy is Bad for the Environment
The New York Times is reporting that in Madagascar, the lack of government authority is leading to devistation of the forests.
See, the rare woods that grow in the rural regions have significant economic value, and the people of Madagascar don't earn very much doing regular work, when it's available. So running off to the forest, and cutting down a few hundred trees is a real serious temptation. When lots of people do this, the forest has difficulty recovering. They wouldn't dare steal, but they don't see the forest as belonging to anybody. Short sighted, maybe, but when you're really hungry, trading your future for a banquet now seems like such a good deal.
A stronger government could send out patrols, ban the trade of the wood, or some other measure, or even assert ownership. But government authority is mostly lost due to a series of coups. The money to do anything significant doesn't exist, and worse for the local government, it's unsure of how long it can survive in its current form.
Madagascar has an interesting history. It went unnoticed for centuries, as the local African powers didn't have enough naval power to go find it, and by the time they were aware that it even existed, Africa was crawling with colonial European powers. Madagascar was mostly colonized by Muslim traders from northern Africa, who used it as a trading post. Eventually the French came rolling in, and there was a lot of exchange between their various colonies until independence came in 1960.
See, the rare woods that grow in the rural regions have significant economic value, and the people of Madagascar don't earn very much doing regular work, when it's available. So running off to the forest, and cutting down a few hundred trees is a real serious temptation. When lots of people do this, the forest has difficulty recovering. They wouldn't dare steal, but they don't see the forest as belonging to anybody. Short sighted, maybe, but when you're really hungry, trading your future for a banquet now seems like such a good deal.
A stronger government could send out patrols, ban the trade of the wood, or some other measure, or even assert ownership. But government authority is mostly lost due to a series of coups. The money to do anything significant doesn't exist, and worse for the local government, it's unsure of how long it can survive in its current form.
Madagascar has an interesting history. It went unnoticed for centuries, as the local African powers didn't have enough naval power to go find it, and by the time they were aware that it even existed, Africa was crawling with colonial European powers. Madagascar was mostly colonized by Muslim traders from northern Africa, who used it as a trading post. Eventually the French came rolling in, and there was a lot of exchange between their various colonies until independence came in 1960.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Computational Chemistry
If I were to somehow explain the rules of chemistry in terms a computer could understand, I could have a computer search for particularly useful configurations of molecules. Allow me to explain.
Chemistry is pretty much deterministic. When you mix this chemical with this other chemical, there's an X% chance of reaction Y that swaps around their atoms to produce chemicals W and Z. Only some reactions are possible. 2O2 + H2 => H2O is a likely reaction. 9O2 + 9H2 => H9O7 + O2 can't happen.
The biggest variables in reactions are valiance electrons and reactivity. Valiance electrons depends on atom type and charge. Hydrogen has one, Chlorine has seven, and an atom's "goal" in reactions is to fill their outmost layer, which is two for hydrogen and 8 for most other atoms. I can represent this with pointers.
For reactivity, certain atoms are most likely to replace other atoms, based on a property that chemists call Electronegativity. Wikipedia can offer a quick primer on that subject.
This together strongly suggests an object oriented approach. Atoms are Objects, with valiance pointers for data, (the valiance pointers would point to other atoms to suggest chemical bonds, and a null value meaning that this electron is unbonded) and methods that describe their probability for combining with other atoms. Another data item describes their electronegativity situation. If they encounter the chance to change theirs for one further down the series, they take it.
We could then spawn a number of atoms, and start randomly combining them. We would need some way of checking for certain properties that we find useful, which a chemist understands and I do not. Chemical reactions with high energy properties might make good battery material, while chemicals that have certain effects on biological life are likely of interest to pharmaceutical companies.
Chemists could describe fitness functions for their particular goals, and I could have the computer then "evolve" the right molecule to solve that problem.
Hopefully helpful.
Chemistry is pretty much deterministic. When you mix this chemical with this other chemical, there's an X% chance of reaction Y that swaps around their atoms to produce chemicals W and Z. Only some reactions are possible. 2O2 + H2 => H2O is a likely reaction. 9O2 + 9H2 => H9O7 + O2 can't happen.
The biggest variables in reactions are valiance electrons and reactivity. Valiance electrons depends on atom type and charge. Hydrogen has one, Chlorine has seven, and an atom's "goal" in reactions is to fill their outmost layer, which is two for hydrogen and 8 for most other atoms. I can represent this with pointers.
For reactivity, certain atoms are most likely to replace other atoms, based on a property that chemists call Electronegativity. Wikipedia can offer a quick primer on that subject.
This together strongly suggests an object oriented approach. Atoms are Objects, with valiance pointers for data, (the valiance pointers would point to other atoms to suggest chemical bonds, and a null value meaning that this electron is unbonded) and methods that describe their probability for combining with other atoms. Another data item describes their electronegativity situation. If they encounter the chance to change theirs for one further down the series, they take it.
We could then spawn a number of atoms, and start randomly combining them. We would need some way of checking for certain properties that we find useful, which a chemist understands and I do not. Chemical reactions with high energy properties might make good battery material, while chemicals that have certain effects on biological life are likely of interest to pharmaceutical companies.
Chemists could describe fitness functions for their particular goals, and I could have the computer then "evolve" the right molecule to solve that problem.
Hopefully helpful.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Cheap Solar Cells
Via Lady Ada, I have learned that a new technique has been pioneered to make inexpensive and powerful solar cells by depositing more effective chemicals on top of the traditional silicon.
Silicon solar cells are about 10% efficient. That is, of all the solar energy that hits them, 10% becomes electricity, and the other 90% is turned to heat. With the chemical additive, the cells are now 40% efficient. The main problem in the past was that the expensive additive was very fragile, and tended to break while being put in place, when ruined the cell.
With the depositing trick, the fragile layer builds up on top of the silicon, which tends to hold its shape. The best of both worlds is thereby achieved. This should make solar power cheaper.
Anything that helps us get more energy with less pollution, I'm all for it.
Silicon solar cells are about 10% efficient. That is, of all the solar energy that hits them, 10% becomes electricity, and the other 90% is turned to heat. With the chemical additive, the cells are now 40% efficient. The main problem in the past was that the expensive additive was very fragile, and tended to break while being put in place, when ruined the cell.
With the depositing trick, the fragile layer builds up on top of the silicon, which tends to hold its shape. The best of both worlds is thereby achieved. This should make solar power cheaper.
Anything that helps us get more energy with less pollution, I'm all for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
