All about nuclear meltdowns

All about nuclear meltdowns

I haven't been keeping up with the Japan nuclear power plant situation as much as I want, but I wanted to pass along a few interesting articles. Over at Boing Boing, Maggie Koerth-Baker wrote a widely linked piece about how nuclear power plants work:

For the vast majority of people, nuclear power is a black box technology. Radioactive stuff goes in. Electricity (and nuclear waste) comes out. Somewhere in there, we're aware that explosions and meltdowns can happen. Ninety-nine percent of the time, that set of information is enough to get by on. But, then, an emergency like this happens and, suddenly, keeping up-to-date on the news feels like you've walked in on the middle of a movie. Nobody pauses to catch you up on all the stuff you missed.

As I write this, it's still not clear how bad, or how big, the problems at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant will be. I don't know enough to speculate on that. I'm not sure anyone does. But I can give you a clearer picture of what's inside the black box. That way, whatever happens at Fukushima, you'll understand why it's happening, and what it means.

MrReid, a physics teacher, writes about the situation at Fukushima:

Even with the release of steam, the pressure and temperature inside Unit 1 continued to increase. The high temperatures inside the reactor caused the protective zirconium cladding on the uranium fuel rods to react with steam inside the reactor to form zirconium oxide and hydrogen. This hydrogen leaked into the building that surrounded the reactor and ignited, damaging the surrounding building but without damaging the reactor vessel itself. Because the reactor vessel has not been compromised, the release of radiation should be minimal. It appears that a very similar situation has occurred at Unit 3 and that hydrogen is again responsible for the explosion seen there.

And this piece is a more meta take on the situation, What the Media Doesn't Get About Meltdowns.

Of immediate concern is the prospect of a so-called "meltdown" at one or more of the Japanese reactors. But part of the problem in understanding the potential dangers is continued indiscriminate use, by experts and the media, of this inherently frightening term without explanation or perspective. There are varying degrees of melting or meltdown of the nuclear fuel rods in a given reactor; but there are also multiple safety systems, or containment barriers, in a given plant's design that are intended to keep radioactive materials from escaping into the general environment in the event of a partial or complete meltdown of the reactor core. Finally, there are the steps taken by a plant's operators to try to bring the nuclear emergency under control before these containment barriers are breached.

By Jason Kottke  
  Mar 14, 2011        earthquake   energy  Japan   physics   science

Profiles of the Future

Profiles of the Future by Arthur C Clarke – review

Half a century on, his predictions have proved uncannily accurate. With more imagination and investment, maybe we could make more of Arthur C Clarke's dreams come true


    • This aarticle is copied and pasted coz its great

Early in his writing career Arthur C Clarke foresaw the Apollo moon landings and global telecommunications relayed by geosynchronous satellites. Photograph: Rex

Arthur C Clarke saw the future coming and in a series of magazine essays 50 years ago helped us get ready for it. Then he collected the essays and published them, again and again, by which times some of the predictions had come true, others were as far away as ever, and some were perhaps never going to happen.

He anticipated the ill-fated British Hotol project – financed and then abandoned in the Thatcher years of the 1980s – when he proposed that a space plane could take off, sail through half an orbit and arc down to an airstrip on the far side of the world: England to Australia in 48 minutes. He also foresaw the shortcomings. Passengers might not care for the crushing g-forces during takeoff and landing, and a nauseous 20 minutes in freefall.

"It might not be unfair to say that in round-the-world satellite transportation, half the time the toilet is out of reach, and the other half of the time it is out of order."

He enthused about "ground effect machines" that would carry enormous loads on a cushion of air over land or sea, and lived to buy his own hovercraft (and, seemingly, regret the investment). He fantasised about teleportation as a go-anywhere transport system years before Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek; he foresaw the Apollo moon landings; and in 1945, as Flight Lieutenant Clarke of the RAF, he famously predicted the first telecommunications relays from space. Geosynchronous satellites now circle in what is formally called the Clarke orbit.

It is salutary to remember that as much as 90% of this book dates from 1962, three years before the launch of Intelsat 1, four years before the first Star Trek series and a decade or more before the digital revolution.

Mass teleportation still looks like fantasy but, as Clarke observed in his essay World without Distance, it might never be necessary. Although he believed that one day humans might travel from pole to pole "within the throb of a heartbeat", he thought telecommunications would become ever more astonishing. He recalled that EM Forster, in a 1909 short story The Machine Stops, "pictured our remote descendants as living in isolated cells, scarcely ever leaving them, but being able to establish instant TV contact with anyone, anywhere else on Earth." Are we there yet?

In the future profiled by Clarke, we will mine the sea; exploit asteroids for raw materials; take control of the weather; build elevators all the way to geosynchronous orbit; devise replicators that can make anything we want, including more replicators; and maybe even overcome gravity.

To revisit this book is to be reminded that Clarke was a blooming marvel: his ideas seemed to flower, to colour and scent our lives, to disperse the seeds of invention that would take root and hybridise, but still betray an ancestry traceable to the Magician from Minehead who went on to become the Sage of Sri Lanka. Some of his visions of the future were perhaps intentionally playful; some might have been thinkable 50 years ago but seem increasingly improbable; some now seem downright crazy. But a proportion of as yet unfulfilled predictions may simply have been too optimistic.

He wrote with wit and erudition. His vision of communications in the five decades to come was uncannily accurate. When he turned out not to be right, it isn't clear that he was altogether wrong. Maybe the Clarke future has simply been delayed. Maybe with a bit more imagination and investment, we could make some more of his dreams come true.

And even when he got the big picture wrong, he was often spot on with the details. He mildly observed that the first astronauts would need to be scholar-scientist-engineers as well as courageous pioneer-explorers. He was right about that, but wrong (so far) about settlements on Mars and Venus.

In 1962, Clarke was "fairly certain" that there would be some form of vegetation on the old and dying world of Mars, and if vegetation existed, then it must have animal parasites. "We will know the truth within another 10 or 20 years." He was both right and wrong: the Viking lander in 1976 found no signs of water or life; Pathfinder in 1997 found neither but left the question rather more open; the little rovers Spirit and Opportunity have spent seven years observing increasingly unambiguous evidence of bygone water, and thus the tantalising possibility of bygone life.

The truth remains out there. But Clarke was impatient and he expected humans to have walked on Mars and Venus by 1980. In his "chart of the future" at the end of the book he predicted that we would have translation machines, a key to the languages of whales and dolphins and a form of efficient electrical storage by 1970. All wrong. By 1990 there would be fusion power. Still wrong. By 2000 we were going to have a global library, sea mining and permanent settlements on the other planets. We have made a tentative start on the first two, but the third seems as far away as ever.

This is a thrice recycled book: a series of popular essays gathered between hard covers in 1962, revised in 1983 and updated again in 1999. My only complaint is that it is sometimes hard to work out which passages have been amended and which were in the first edition. If I had been half as good a prophet as Arthur C Clarke, I would not have discarded my original copy when the millennium version came out in 1999.

Then at least I could have more accurately tracked the record of a seer who stands comparison with Jules Verne, and HG Wells; who is probably still quoted, somewhere in the world, every day; whose science fiction shaped the perceptions of a generation; and who was always generous about his peers. He passes on a casual aside from CS Lewis: the only people who are worried about escapism are gaolers. He cites Ray Bradbury: "I don't try to predict the future – I try to prevent it!" And he reminds us that when we get the future wrong, it could be because of a failure of nerve, or a failure of imagination. You couldn't pin either of these failures on Clarke himself.

The great reward of reading bygone futurology – a literary form that gathered momentum in the last years of the 19th century – is that it provides a snapshot of the attitudes and preoccupations of the time. That so many got it so wrong is not the point. The rewards from this book are a little more complex: here is a man who foresaw the exploration of the solar system and who lived to see Pioneer and Voyager head beyond Neptune and Pluto and into interstellar space. But Clarke also saw journeys far beyond the solar system to the distant stars (predicting, characteristically, that the greatest cost would be for catering and inflight movies) and his future hasn't happened yet because he was so far ahead of his time, and ours.


Dr Jacob Bronowski. Photograph: David Newell Smith

And since we have just examined two great names from the past – Sagan and Clarke – why not complete the hat trick? BBC Books has reissued The Ascent of Man by Jacob Bronowski, the 1973 text behind a groundbreaking television series. It was a book for then: how does it read now? The discussion starts on 15 April

Tim Radford's geographical reflection, The Address Book: Our Place in the Scheme of Things, will be published in April






Series
More from Science Book Club on
Science
Books
Technology
  • More on this story
Related

Comments in chronological order (Total 41 comments)
  • Staff
  • Contributor

  • GiuseppeH
  • 4 March 2011 1:18PM
  • Fascinating stuff, thank you.
  • The key to the languages of whales and dolphins is what excites me most. I always loved this quote from Douglas Adams...
  • “Man has always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much...the wheel, New York, wars and so on...while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man...for precisely the same reason.”

  • Kweef
  • 4 March 2011 1:25PM
  • Interesting article!<
  • By 2000 we were going to have a global library, sea mining and permanent settlements on the other planets. We have made a tentative start on the first two, but the third and fourth seem as far away as ever.
  • um, I only count three things.


  • thepearl
  • 4 March 2011 1:47PM
  • he foresaw the Apollo moon landings;
  • Not that prescient considering it was 1962

An Orgasmatron

An Orgasmatron won't help female desire. Honesty will

The quest for a Viagra for women is all part of a commodification of sex that is at odds with an intimate human freedom

    • Charletta adjusts the dial on the remote device that controls the electrodes surgically inserted into her spinal column. Her left leg begins to twitch alarmingly. Her inability to climax during sexual intercourse, to remedy which is why she is taking part in the clinical trial of the Orgasmatron, remains unmoved. "But it's useful if I want to kick someone in the ass," she observes.

    Welcome to Orgasm Inc, which has its British premiere next week as part of the Bird's Eye View festival. It is a wry and unsqueamish piece of film-making by the American documentary-maker Liz Canner, who has spent the best part of the last decade charting charted the race to market the first medical cure for female sexual dysfunction (FSD), and attempted to unpick the complex and often confounding ethical dilemmas that have accompanied it.

    The very existence of clinically correctable FSD is contentious: the way drug companies convert disorders into disorders that can be remedied only with the regular purchase of their branded pill is a familiar story. Indeed, the 90s study that identified 43% of American women as suffering from this baggily defined dysfunction was found to have been conducted by psychologists with links to the drugs industry. A 2005 survey that came to similar conclusions about women in Europe and Asia was sponsored by Pfizer, manufacturer of Viagra. And, crucially, the success of treatment for FSD is fairly subjective. It cannot – unlike Viagra - be measured against a map of the Mull of Kintyre.

    The fact is that cases of purely medical sexual dysfunction among women are rare. As Petra Boynton – the British sexual health academic who has nobly exposed the profit motive of the medicaliser – points out, there already exists a variety of means to help women: education, therapy, existing healthcare for related conditions, improving communication skills within intimate relationships. "All of these can be made available now, yet nobody pushes for this when arguing for a medical 'cure' some time in the future." Boynton is similarly dubious about the way pharmaceutical companies appropriated feminist language of empowerment and sexual-satisfaction rights in order to paint critics as prudish or somehow anti-women.

    In Orgasm Inc, Canner traces the coinage of FSD to the Viagra-inspired expectation that the transformation of common female sexual difficulties into a drug-soluble disorder would equal a bonanza for shareholders. But when her subject, Charletta, newly liberated from her Orgasmatron (which, incidentally, has yet to make it to the market) intones with the wonder of the newly sighted, "Maybe sex in the movies is not normal," one becomes aware of a broader cultural displacement. Drug companies can't alone be responsible for a shift in the meaning of sexuality that has seen it commodified, marketised and individualised, measured against a scale so narrowly objective as to be oppressive; where desire is functional and instrumental rather than co-created by two people.

    The latest reporter on the pornification of society is the former home secretary Jacqui Smith, whose investigation for Five Live this week appeared to trade on her naivety as a legislator of hardcore material who had never seen the stuff, and a wife whose spouse was enjoying the milder end of the spectrum. But her anxieties about young people's access to and experience of online pornography are entirely valid. "Porn isn't sex education," she wrote in a pre-publicity piece. "But there are young people today growing up with the idea that it is. (And little wonder, given the woefully inadequate provision in their schools.) This is changing the way young people think about each other and what they expect to have to do in their sex lives."

    Bike-shed anecdotes suggest that many of porn's regularly featured and more objectionable acts are now incorporated as normal in teenage sex lives. And Smith's documentary comes out in the same week as research revealing an accelerating clamour for vaginal cosmetic surgery among young women.

    I'd argue that the genders have always been socialised to experience their sexuality differently, with girls taught from an early age that sex is part of a romantic narrative of love, partnership and children, while boys are told that it is a discrete act underpinning masculinity. But porn deepens and distorts this divide. Boys learn to be consumers, viewing women as disposable and catering to their needs only. The concurrent lesson is that girls should value their sexuality only according to how it is perceived by men, denying their own needs in the process.

    But as Zoe Margolis – the sex blogger and author of Girl with a One-Track Mind – argues, porn doesn't become mainstream in a vacuum. "[This] requires a much wider commodification … female sexuality packaged up as a product geared to generate profit: capitalism with tits, basically." The irony is that the apparent "anything goes" democratisation of desire in reality constrains men and women more than ever.

    Just as Orgasm Inc argues that treating sexual problems is more complex than finding the female equivalent of a chemically sustained erection, challenging the wider commodification of sexuality is not zero-sum. This is not about a reactionary attempt to replace one stereotyped version (male, porny, penetrative) with another (female, cuddly, politically correct). But sex embodies a human freedom the market denies. To desire and be desired can be many things: funny, awkward, transforming, sacred and profane. To be honest about what turns you on, for a moment or a lifetime, demands a particularly intimate bravery that is threatened with extinction by the megaphone of cultural sexism

    All the volcano webcams of the world !!

    All the volcano webcams of the world

    Erik Klemetti on January 24, 2011, 8:37 AM

    Like

    306 people like this. Be the first of your friends.

    Tweet
    165

    Share http://bigthink.com/ideas/26619/ on Twitter

    The URL http://bigthink.com/ideas/26619/ has been shared 165 times.View these Tweets.



    So, I finally got this project done! We all do a lot of webcam watching here on Eruptions. A lot of the time when a new eruption occurs, the first question posted is “is there a webcam?”, so I thought I’d try to come up with a definitive list of extant volcano webcam, organized by region of the world. These webcams are a mixed of government/agency-installed webcams using for scientific purposes, private webcams posted for tourism purposes and random webcams with no other purposes than to watch the volcano. The country name is linked to the main monitoring agency (special thanks to the Volcanism Blog for helping me find many of these links).

    Now, I know I missed some, especially for volcanoes that have multiple eyes trained on it like Etna, so if you notice something missing, post a comment with the link and I will update the list. Hopefully, this can stay up to date and I will try to get this added as a link on the front page of the blog. Until then, feel free to bookmark the page and use it to find the webcam of your choice.

    Last updated January 29, 2011: JMA webcam page added; Beerenburg webcam added.

    Pacific

    Hawai’i (United States)  

    Haleakala - info - webcam    

    Kilauea - info - webcams: Pu’u O’o | Thanksgiving Eve Breakout | Halema`uma`u Crater from HVO | Halema`uma`u Crater overlook

    Mauna Keainfo - webcam 

    Mauna Loa - info - webcam 

    Mariana Islands (United States)

    Anatahan - info - webcam 

    Western/Southern Pacific

    Japan - The Japanese Meteorological Agency has a page of 40+ webcams, but the names are all in Japanese - and they can't be directly linked. I will try to add a key in the near future.

    Asama - info - webcams: one | two | three

    Aso - info - webcams: one | two | three | four - multiple views | five

    Bandai - info - one | two

    Chokai - info - webcam

    Daisetsu - info - webcam

    Fuji - info - webcams: one | two | Shimiza port | Fujinomiya City | Lake Tanuki | Lake Saiko | Lake Kawaguchi | Mt. Mitsutoge | Fujiyoshida City | Oshino | Gotemba

    Hiuchi - info - webcam

    Iwate - info - webcams: one | two

    Kirishima - info - webcams: one (sixth and seventh from bottom on right menu) | two | three

    Myoko - info - webcam

    Nikko-Shirane - info - webcam

    Niseko - info - webcam

    Norikura - info - webcam

    Ontake - info - webcam

    Rausu - info - webcam

    Rishiri - info - webcams: one | two

    Sakurajima - info - two webcams: one | two | three (fourth and fifth from bottom).

    Shitoksu - info - webcam

    Unzen - info - webcam

    Usu - info - webcam 

    Yake - info - webcams: one | two

    Yotei - info - webcams: one | two

    New Zealand 

    Lake Taupo - info - webcam

    Ngauruhoe (Tongariro) - info - webcam

    Ruapehu - info - webcam 

    Ruapehu and Ngauruhoe (Tongariro) - webcam

    Taranaki - info - webcams: one | two

    White Island - info - webcams: Crater | Coast (from Whakatane)

    Kermadec Islands (monitoring administered by GNS New Zealand)

    Raoul Island  - info - webcam

    Philippines 

    Taal - info - webcam

    Northern Pacific

    Russia 

    Bezymianny - info - webcam 

    Gorely - info - webcam

    Kliuchevskoi - info - webcams: one | two 

    Koryaksky - info - webcam

    Koryaksky and Avachinsky - info Avachinsky - webcam

    Shiveluch - info - webcam  

    Alaska (United States) 

    AVO has a multitude of webcams – and the ability to watch multiple webcams simultaneously. 

    Akutaninfo - webcam  

    Augustine - info - webcams: Island | Lagoon | Low light | from Homer 

    Cleveland - info - webcam

    Fourpeaked - info - webcam    

    Katmai - info - webcam

    Pavlof - info - webcam 

    Redoubt - info - webcams: Hut | DFR | Rig

    Shishaldin - info - webcam 

    Spurrinfo - webcams: Unocal | CKT

    Ugashik-Peulik - info - webcam 

    Veniaminof - info - webcam 

    Indian Ocean

    Indonesia 

    Anak Krakatau - info - webcam (tends to be down)

    Merapi - info - webcams: one | two | three 

    Sinabung - info - webcam 

    Reunion Island (France)

    Piton de la Fournaise - info - webcams: four different views | Piton Partage 

    Europe

    Azores (Portugal)

    Pico - info - webcams: one | two | three

    Italy 

    Etna - info - multiple INGV webcams | Hotel Corsaro: links to many Etna webcams

    Stromboli and Vulcano - info Stromboli - info Vulcano - multiple webcams

    Vesuvius - info - multiple webcams 

    Greece 

    Santorini - info - webcams: one | two (summer only)

    Turkey

    Ararat - info - webcam

    Canary Islands (Spain)

    Tenerife/Teideinfo - webcams: one | two 

    Iceland

    *Many of the Icelandic webcams hosted by ruv.is require Windows Media.

    Eyjafjallajökull - info - webcams: from Þórólfsfell | two | three

    Hekla - info - webcams: one* | two

    Katla* - info - webcam 

    Öræfajökull - info - webcam

    Surtsey (Vestmannaeyjar) - info - webcam

    Why Nobody Can Match the iPad

    Why Nobody Can Match the iPad’s Price

    A customer carries a new iPad from one of Apple's 300-plus retail locations. Photo: Bryan Derballa/Wired.com

    When Steve Jobs introduced the iPad last January, the biggest surprise wasn’t the actual product. (Many shrugged and called the iPad a “bigger iPhone.”) It was the price: Just $500.

    Nobody expected that number, perhaps because Apple has traditionally aimed at the high end of the mobile computer market with MacBooks marked $1,000 and up. And perhaps we were also thrown off because Apple execs repeatedly told investors they couldn’t produce a $500 computer that wasn’t a piece of junk.

    But Apple did meet that price, and the iPad isn’t junk. The iPad is still the first, and best-selling, product of its kind. Competitors, meanwhile, are having trouble hitting that $500 sweet spot.

    Motorola’s Xoom tablet is debuting in the United States with an $800 price tag. (To be fair, the most comparable iPad is $730 — but there’s no $500 Xoom planned, and the lack of a low-end entry point will hurt Motorola.) Samsung’s Galaxy Tab, with a relatively puny 7-inch screen, costs $600 without a contract.

    Why is it so hard to get to a lower starting price? And how was Apple able to get there?

    Jason Hiner of Tech Republic suggests it largely has to do with Apple’s retail strategy. Apple now has 300 retail stores worldwide selling iPads directly to customers. That’s advantageous, because if the iPad were primarily sold at third-party retail stores, a big chunk of profit would go to those retailers, Hiner reasons.

    Apple has partnered with a few retail chains such as Best Buy and Walmart, but those stores always seem to get a small number of units in stock. Hiner rationalizes that the true purpose of these partnerships is probably to help spread the marketing message, not so much to sell iPads.

    The company can swallow the bitter pill of hardly making any money from iPad sales through its retail partners because it can feast off the fat profits it makes when customers buy directly through its retail outlets and the web store,” Hiner says. “However, companies like Motorola, HP, and Samsung have to make all of their profit by selling their tablets wholesale to retailer partners.”

    The retail advantage is a reasonable theory, but Hiner neglects to mention the high overhead costs that Apple must pay handsomely for each of its 300 stores. To Hiner’s credit, Apple running its own stores does present clear benefits: the customer outreach is enormous, and of course, in Apple stores, Apple products don’t have to compete with gadgets sold by rivals on other shelves.

    But when we try to decipher why the iPad costs $500, we have to consider the sum of all parts, not just the retail strategy.


    Apple is the most vertically integrated company in the world. In addition to operating its own retail chains, all Apple hardware and software are designed in-house, and Apple also runs its own digital content store, iTunes.

    Designing in-house means Apple doesn’t have to pay licensing fees to third parties to use their intellectual property. For instance, the A4 chip inside the iPad is based on technology developed and owned by Apple (not Intel, AMD or Nvidia). The operating system is Apple’s own, not something licensed from Microsoft or Google.

    Why do you think Hewlett-Packard bought Palm to make the TouchPad? HP wanted ownership of a mobile operating system in-house to take control of its own mobile destiny and stop being so reliant on Microsoft (which, to this day, doesn’t have a credible tablet strategy).

    On the iTunes media platform, Apple takes a cut of each sale made through each of its digital storefronts: the App Store, iBooks and iTunes music and video. iBooks still has a long way to go before it’s anywhere near as big as Amazon, but the App Store and iTunes are the most successful digital media stores of their kind.

    At the end of the day, the iPad might be worth well above $500 for all we know. (Part estimates made by component analysts such as iSuppli aren’t very useful because they fail to measure costs of R&D and other factors.) It’s most likely that Apple can afford to absorb the costs of producing and selling the iPad because of the tenacious ecosystem backing it, and also because it has such tight oversight over every aspect of the company to control price.

    That’s what it all boils down to: ecosystems and control. Competitors are struggling to match the $500 price point because they aren’t as fully integrated as Apple, in terms of retail strategy, a digital content market, hardware and software engineering — everything.

    As Steve Jobs famously put it one day, “Apple is the last company in our industry that creates the whole widget.” Competitors are having trouble beating the iPad widget.

    Flotilla of spacecraft planned to provide space weather forecasts

    Flotilla of spacecraft planned to provide space weather forecasts
    A swarm of spacecraft could be sent into orbit around the sun to provide an early warning system for the huge solar explosions that can interfere with electronic equipment on Earth and even influence our planet's weather.

    An image taken on Nasa's Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory mission Photo: NASA



    By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent 9:00PM GMT 12 Feb 2011

    Space scientists from the UK are hoping to send up a flotilla of spacecraft to provide round-the-clock three dimensional images of the material thrown out by the sun towards the Earth.
    They are hoping to build on the success of a recent Nasa mission, called Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO), which was launched to provide three dimensional images of coronal mass ejections from the sun.
    These huge explosions throw millions of tonnes of superheated particles and radiation out into the solar system, which can disrupt radio communications, interfere with electrical equipment, cause power outages and knock out satellites.
    They are also thought to bring about changes in the Earth's upper atmosphere that can influence the weather.
    UK scientists, who developed the cameras for the Nasa mission, are now in discussions with the European Space Agency, the UK Government and Nasa to develop a new system that will monitor these eruptions.
    RELATED ARTICLES
    Professor Richard Harrison, principal investigator on STEREO mission at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in the UK who is now among the scientists planning the new forecasting system, said: "We have proved that we can use the information we were getting from STEREO to make predictions.
    "We can see these clouds leaving the sun, travelling through space and make predictions about whether they are going to hit the earth and the impact they may have.
    "The impacts can be quite significant and more so as we become more dependent on technology that is based in space where the material from these ejections can interfere and knock out satellites altogether.
    "We are talking about relatively cheap spacecraft, but the orbit is awkward, so one of the things we are considering is build a lot of little spacecraft, send them out one at a time so that they are drifting around the Earth's orbit of the Sun so that at any time two of these will be able to send back images of the space between the Earth and sun."
    Nasa's Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory mission, or STEREO, was launched in 2006 to provide three dimensional images of the sun by using two probes to take stereoscopic images of the sun and the material it throws out into space.
    The STEREO spacecraft have now drifted so that they are on opposite sides of the sun now and they are no longer able to provide those three dimensional images needed to provide predictions of incoming space weather.
    Nasa this week released images taken by the two spacecraft that showed for the first time what the sun looks like from two sides at the same time.
    Professor Harrison along with Professor Mike Hapgood, head of space environment group at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, are now working with scientists and engineers from around the world to develop the next generation of space probes to replace STEREO.
    One of the options they are considering is launching a flotilla of spacecraft that will orbit the sun just inside the Earth's own orbit where they could work in pairs to send back three dimensional images as they pass between the Earth and the sun.
    This will allow experts to predict the threats from the coronal mass injections from the sun while it could also help terrestrial weather forecasters make more accurate predictions.
    Coronal mass ejections are massive bursts of solar wind and radiation that throw millions of tonnes of particles into space from the surface of the sun at speeds of up to a million miles per hour.
    Scientists have predicted that the activity of the sun, and so the number of these explosions will increase over the next decade.
    There are currently spacecraft that can provide just one hours warning of large coronal mass ejections from the sun, but the new spacecraft could provide twelve to fifteen hours worth of warning for the biggest ejections.
    Smaller explosions that throw out material at slower speeds could allow scientists to provide warnings days in advance before they travel the 93 million miles between the sun and the Earth.
    Professor Harrison said: "There is a lot of work to be done in deciding how this will work, but there is now a realisation that we need this kind of capability.
    "We are trying to get an operational space weather tool up and running so we are talking to government and the space agencies to develop the system."
    Professor Mike Lockwood, head of the solar terrestrial physics group at Reading University, said such spacecraft could also provide valuable data for helping to predict weather and other phenomenon, including the aurora, on Earth.
    He said another option being considered was a series of disposable spacecraft that could be held in orbit around the Earth before being dispatched at regular intervals.
    He said: "This would mean we always have a pair of spacecraft looking at the sun from either side of the Earth to provide a stereo view that can help up predict when ejections are going to hit us and the impact they will have."

    art of series: What Evolution Can Teach Us About Ourselves Question: Why do humans engage in so many impractical activities? Richard Dawkins: There are many things that humans do that have nothing to do with contributing to the survival of the individual,

    Questionart of series: What Evolution Can Teach Us About Ourselves

    QuestionWhy do humans engage in so many impractical activities?

    Richard Dawkins: There are many things that humans do that have nothing to do with contributing to the survival of the individual, at least nothing obvious to do with it. So when we do mathematics and when we do poetry and when we do ballet dancing and all the things that make life worth living, it's very hard to make the case that this contributes to individual survival; it clearly doesn't. What you can make a case for is that the possession of the kind of brain that's capable of doing those things contributed to individual survival in our ancestral past. So it's not the mathematics itself; it's not that doing algebra helps anybody to survive. But having the kind of big brain that incidentally proves itself capable of doing algebra -- having that kind of big brain probably did improve our survival, whether because it literally made us better at -- I don't know -- catching prey or finding nuts or something of that sort. Or whether, in accordance with the sexual selection theory you just mentioned, it's attractive to the opposite sex. 

    QuestionCan you elaborate on the theory of sexual selection?

    Richard Dawkins: This is a theory of a man called Geoffrey Miller, who is a very interesting evolutionary psychologist. And he -- we do have a bit of a puzzle as to why the human brain did get so big, really rather suddenly; it's actually one of the more rapid pieces of evolution that we know. Over the last three million years or so the human brain has swelled up enormously. And there are various theories as to why this should be. Geoffrey Miller's theory is that, as you say, the mind is a kind of human peacock's tail, and "being clever is sexy" would be one way to put it. But it would manifest itself in the ability to -- I don't know -- remember epic poetry or something of that sort. I mean, there are all sorts of different ways in which, in particular cultures, it might manifest itself.

    Recorded on: October 21, 2009

     


    You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register

    ERICH R. THOMPSON on January 11, 2011, 2:10 PM

    But why did the human brain take off so suddenly and then stop? Why did nature, so bent on taking baby steps, excuse the analogy, jump so far ahead and give us so much potential that we have yet to master this potential and evolve from it? Why was nature, determined on providing a slight upgrade for survivial, suddenly so gracious as to give us far more than we needed?

    JAMES B on January 12, 2011, 11:55 AM

    ERICH, I don’t believe evolution stops, the changes are happening but slow enough that we hardly notice!

    STEVE CASSELMAN on January 12, 2011, 7:39 PM

    Human DNA manipulation by Aliens. We now have the compute power (in the way of FPGA based reconfigurable computer) to search for such manipulations. I would like to work with someone to compare the DNA of the Iceman against current DNA. It was interesting to listen to Craig Venter talk about his synthetic life form he created. He encoded website URLs and other information in DNA he built from scratch.

    SHAWN DISNEY on January 12, 2011, 11:50 PM

    Erich: “nature…give(s) us far more (intelligence) than we needed”?! LOL! What an outrageously smug assertion! I remember a biology prof who said there was some speculation that Intelligence “is a LETHAL MUtation”! I don’t see any certainty at all that humans have enough intelligence to even conclude , after 100 years of vicious warfare about essentially nothing important, that killing people should be made universally illegal. So far, we have not achieved even that much concensus, about a simple minded matter.

    SEIG ANKURT MENS on January 16, 2011, 10:09 AM

    @ Richard Dawkins et al

    There are obvious problems with evolution that the general public doesn’t know about and that are being glossed over here:

    1. Big brain (capable of what human brain’s do)
    Actually, there is no correlation between brain size and intelligence yet proven. This should be an obvious connection and yet it has not been made, not with millions of dollars and thousands and thousands of hours of research. This is something that should be relatively easy to discover and yet it has not been established at all. The only area that lends to this thought is the area dealing with speech.

    It has been over 150 years since the theory was generally introduced and so much energy has been spent on trying to establish the general precepts that life came about through chance.

    Look into the relatively new area of biomimetics, there is no need to search into the origin of the thing that we are studying in order to benefit from it. Theorizing the origin has proven to be one of the biggest wastes of time for scientists in the modern age.

    Quantum theory describes and predicts what it should with a about a 3% variance. We’ve come up with nothing that so neatly does this job. AND YET the general public STILL doesn’t think that it is Quantum FACT. Yet evolution is barely called a theory anymore and when it is it is in name only. Get this, it doesn’t describe anything that cannot be described BETTER another way, simply by saying that it was purposefully designed.

    The reason no one wants to do that is because of the religious rebellion. Fine. There has been a big rebellion. You’ve all stamped your feet and run around the room for a while…like 150 years.

    Science has no need of describing the origin of life in order to develop technologies and understanding of behavior of living systems. NONE WHATSOEVER!

    If they wish to continue using this money hole the money should be taken away and given to someone getting something done.

    @Erich

    You are so right. By subtracting the idea of evolution and working for there a person can develop there reading ability to over a page a second with only a few hours of practice. Seriously. Mental math skills are also not hard to develop and very quickly. After working with a lot of people with emotional issues with the techniques I use I’ve developed the ability to intuitive know things that take the session in the direction that it best should go. Taking almost total control of memory (being able to encode, recall and overwrite data with precision and lightening speed) is a skill that takes all of six months to develop with dedication.

    Evolution is such a drag. None of these learned people even tap into these things because most cannot conceive that they exist. Why would they? They are busy trying to figure out why they are even capable of asking the question.

    Sorry if I sounds really angry. I can to this website looking for intelligence. Even Professor Kaku goes on about evolution. Its so sad.

    @ James B

    If the length of time that the fossil record covers was a soccer field you would have to travel 2/3’s of it before seeing most of the life. And then suddenly IN A SINGLE STEP there is an explosion of life. The amount of life popping into the record is staggering. And yet people don’t know this. You are still talking about something that evolutionists have SILENTLY moved on from. Because it is found not true. There are no slow moving changes. None. And in fact, there are no fast and sudden connections proven either. Species pop in and out of the fossil record suddenly.

    <shawn disney on January 12, 2011, 11:50 PM

    Erich: “nature…give(s) us far more (intelligence) than we needed”?! LOL! What an outrageously smug assertion! I remember a biology prof who said there was some speculation that Intelligence “is a LETHAL MUtation”! I don’t see any certainty at all that humans have enough intelligence to even conclude , after 100 years of vicious warfare about essentially nothing important, that killing people should be made universally illegal. So far, we have not achieved even that much concensus, about a simple minded matter.>

    This has nothing to do with rational intelligence. The following is proven AND widely accepted. Humans have the ability to understand such concepts as time (past, present, future), mathematics and have a sense of spirituality. With these skills they are able to make decisions based on a sense of right and wrong. This sense of right and wrong is developed based on the data that is collected through the senses and through analysis of that data. Genetically, there is no right-wrong gene. A baby doesn’t know right-wrong. It develops its own unique understanding.

    This right-wrong or MORAL sense that we all have is a different operating system than any other known species. Totally different. They operate according to genetic drives. We operate on genetic drives to a very small extent. Mostly what makes us think and act differently is now proved to be our unique database.

    This database is programmed though relationships. In other words, our parents and peers program us in our pre-conscious state (first 6 years of life). Then we begin to take more of a hand in the process. What this means is that the war and the other stupid stuff that we have done is not a result of the hardware. IT IS A RESULT OF THE SOFTWARE!

    So the case is even weaker for evolution there. Because one could say that our lack of a relationship with an ultimate Creator/Programmer has left us to grow up as a trouble youth-race.

    Yet, again, why the whole evolution-creation thing? It doesn’t aid progress one bit. It is simply a rebellion against the religious order who used to have a death grip on people’s minds.

    No progress can be discovered by staying in the reaction mode.

    Also, look around. Life doesn’t make mistakes. Our subconscious NEVER makes mistakes. Only our conscious mind does. That which operates based on right-wrong. That is because it has been programmed incorrectly.


    HAIZI CHEN CHEN on January 17, 2011, 8:11 AM

    http://www.online-nike-sneakers.com
    Online Nike Shoes
    Cheap nike
    Cheap Nike Shoes
    Nike Shoes
    Nike Sneakers
    Cheap Nike Sneakers
    Cheap Jordan Shoes
    Cheap Jordan
    Jordan Shoes
    Cheap Jordans
    Air Jordans
    cheap shoes
    nike max shoes
    nike shox shoes
    nike dunk shoes
    nike dunk
    nike air force one shoes
    nike basketball shoes
    kobe bryant shoes
    LeBron james shoes
    Nike air yeezy shoes
    Nike yeezy shoes


    AQK on January 18, 2011, 7:10 AM

    @Erich R. Thompson – Just thought I’d weigh in here and point out to you something that is (probably) completely useless-
    The human brain – or -eyeball – hasn’t stopped.
    Natural selection of it is still currently working, but just not very quickly. When perhaps in a few decades, or a few centuries, another creature, made either meat, silicon or graphene challenges it, the changes i.e. a selected few brains will perhaps be strong enough to fight back.
    Perhaps.
    Until then, the brain selector is running in slow motion; too slow for you to see.
    Well! THIS has been a perfectly useless reply here. But it kept me occupied for 5 minutes or so. Already I feel increased synapse activity! Thank you, Prof. Dawkins.


    ANDREW TARVIN on January 20, 2011, 5:20 PM

    There are some theories that our use of humor has also helped our evolution and has contributed to our growing intelligence. Cool stuff.

    RICHARD FELDMANN on January 26, 2011, 9:20 PM

    @ Seig: Can you provide some links to the techniques or methodologies used for what you mention here:

    “You are so right. By subtracting the idea of evolution and working for there a person can develop there reading ability to over a page a second with only a few hours of practice. Seriously. Mental math skills are also not hard to develop and very quickly. After working with a lot of people with emotional issues with the techniques I use I’ve developed the ability to intuitive know things that take the session in the direction that it best should go. Taking almost total control of memory (being able to encode, recall and overwrite data with precision and lightening speed) is a skill that takes all of six months to develop with dedication.”

    I have always had a very high reading level and retention of information, but I read at a very slow speed and any techniques that I can use to increase this would be most welcome. Same goes with mathematics, which has always been a problem area for me ever since I was a child.


    ORR SHOMRONI on January 29, 2011, 9:32 AM

    Being clever – today, survival is not only about brawls, but about brains; people with brains can get better jobs, get married and support a family properly.

    Poetry – part of the cultural element of wooing; sexual selection.

    Ballet – physical fitness, keeping fit; also part of the sexual selection.

    Maths – many, many applications in engineering, computer science and almost all fields of life.

    In other words, all those activities that seem unrelated to survival are simply part of a complex, modern survival mechanism. Almost any activity nowadays can be attributed to some need for survival. What I am wondering about, though, is what is the survival potential of sitcoms? Maybe they are used to filter out the people with lower survival capabilities :-P


    GRAVITY BOY on January 31, 2011, 8:34 AM

    Nope… the easy answer is the brain has of course evolved and is still evolving.

    It does supposed useless things because it is capable of anything. It is something like why people climb mountains… because they are there.

    Also, if you can do a lot of useless things and you are good at them it means you are talented. You are either talented or not, if you are choosing a mate which would you rather have?

    The brain already has a way of extracting every available piece of information from the environment…
    We can hear movement in the air molecules.
    We can see the electromagnetic spectrum.
    We can taste and smell different molecules of atoms (food)
    We also have tactile ability and there might be more we are becoming aware of now?

    If you are evolving shouldn’t you be ready for anything?
    And since it (the brain) doesn’t know what “anything” might be, it has to cover every base.

    We are all using a spoken language of words. That didn’t necessarily have to happen. We might have had a language based on musical notes. That would absolutely change the importance of musical ability.

    NOLI DIKASTRO on February 2, 2011, 4:37 AM

    I really agree with James B. Evolution is everywhere. We may not feel it or even see it that much but the change is constant. Everything changes. Even people have certain changes in their own little ways. We simply evolve in a matter of time.

    F. FELIX on February 5, 2011, 7:43 PM

    “…when we do mathematics and when we do poetry and when we do ballet dancing and all the things that make life worth living, it’s very hard to make the case that this contributes to individual survival; it clearly doesn’t.”

    Wow. I’d expect a little more thoughtful answer from a shining light like Dawkins.

    Dissanayake has been leading the development of Darwinian aesthetics since the 1950’s. There’s a lot more meat here than Dawkins suggests.

    PETER KINNON on February 6, 2011, 2:57 PM

    The evolutionary significance of such aspects of human behavior is examined at greater length in chapters 15 – 19 of my latest book “The Goldilocks Effect” ,which is a free download from the “Unusual Perspectives” website.
    Unfortunately, in these later times, Dawkins has become seriously “paradigm bound” and fails to appreciate the on-going evolutionary implications of these phenomena.
    The comments by AQK, Gravity Boy and others show a growing realization of what is happening, As, I am sure, would have Dawkins as his younger self.

    ERICH R. THOMPSON on February 7, 2011, 2:46 PM

    James B, I’m not sure if you are correcting a presumption that you believe I believe evolution “stopped” or if you are adding to the comment, but I agree. “Evolution” is probably the long term adaptation that happens generation from generation. If generation after generation of humans crammed physics and mathematics in their heads, even the people not good at it, then there, one day, may be a genetic mutation in favor of this life choice. In psychology, plasticity is the ability of the human mind to adapt and learn even when the brain is damaged or it is old. OUR thoughts throughout our lifetime mold our brain. Think about something often, those synapses strengthen. Leave an idea to oblivion, those synapses fade away. With every generation of man, the choices of life effect the heriditary coding of the DNA. Exempli Gratia, I would put all my money on it, a multi-generation family of physicists will yield a better physicist down the road. Mankind is evolving at a pace so quickly that evolutionary biologists haven’t even noticed. Unfortunately, people lead their own lives so without life and death situations to forces us to do something for survival, we will never see a 20th generational physicist unless someone forced each and every generation to be that profession. Consequently, if our brains adapt to our choices, then this may be the key to evolution and it may be a matter of time until we have this key to unlock the door to control OUR evolution.

    Seig, I saw your comment on big brains and intelligence and was thinking on the article I read today. In it, it was shown that the average human brain of 30,000 years ago was slightly larger than the one today. I’m a pretty firm believer that, on average, humans are smarter than then. And so are most of the evolutionary biologists that were in this article. According to one of the good doctors, our brains have compacted down to increase efficacy of our minds.

    Richard Dawkins: There are many things that humans do that have nothing to do with contributing to the survival of the individual, at least nothing obvious to do with it. So when we do mathematics and when we do poetry and when we do ballet dancing and all the things that make life worth living, it's very hard to make the case that this contributes to individual survival; it clearly doesn't. What you can make a case for is that the possession of the kind of brain that's capable of doing those things contributed to individual survival in our ancestral past. So it's not the mathematics itself; it's not that doing algebra helps anybody to survive. But having the kind of big brain that incidentally proves itself capable of doing algebra -- having that kind of big brain probably did improve our survival, whether because it literally made us better at -- I don't know -- catching prey or finding nuts or something of that sort. Or whether, in accordance with the sexual selection theory you just mentioned, it's attractive to the opposite sex. 

    QuestionCan you elaborate on the theory of sexual selection?

    Richard Dawkins: This is a theory of a man called Geoffrey Miller, who is a very interesting evolutionary psychologist. And he -- we do have a bit of a puzzle as to why the human brain did get so big, really rather suddenly; it's actually one of the more rapid pieces of evolution that we know. Over the last three million years or so the human brain has swelled up enormously. And there are various theories as to why this should be. Geoffrey Miller's theory is that, as you say, the mind is a kind of human peacock's tail, and "being clever is sexy" would be one way to put it. But it would manifest itself in the ability to -- I don't know -- remember epic poetry or something of that sort. I mean, there are all sorts of different ways in which, in particular cultures, it might manifest itself.

    Recorded on: October 21, 2009

     


    You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register

    ERICH R. THOMPSON on January 11, 2011, 2:10 PM

    But why did the human brain take off so suddenly and then stop? Why did nature, so bent on taking baby steps, excuse the analogy, jump so far ahead and give us so much potential that we have yet to master this potential and evolve from it? Why was nature, determined on providing a slight upgrade for survivial, suddenly so gracious as to give us far more than we needed?

    JAMES B on January 12, 2011, 11:55 AM

    ERICH, I don’t believe evolution stops, the changes are happening but slow enough that we hardly notice!

    STEVE CASSELMAN on January 12, 2011, 7:39 PM

    Human DNA manipulation by Aliens. We now have the compute power (in the way of FPGA based reconfigurable computer) to search for such manipulations. I would like to work with someone to compare the DNA of the Iceman against current DNA. It was interesting to listen to Craig Venter talk about his synthetic life form he created. He encoded website URLs and other information in DNA he built from scratch.

    SHAWN DISNEY on January 12, 2011, 11:50 PM

    Erich: “nature…give(s) us far more (intelligence) than we needed”?! LOL! What an outrageously smug assertion! I remember a biology prof who said there was some speculation that Intelligence “is a LETHAL MUtation”! I don’t see any certainty at all that humans have enough intelligence to even conclude , after 100 years of vicious warfare about essentially nothing important, that killing people should be made universally illegal. So far, we have not achieved even that much concensus, about a simple minded matter.

    SEIG ANKURT MENS on January 16, 2011, 10:09 AM

    @ Richard Dawkins et al

    There are obvious problems with evolution that the general public doesn’t know about and that are being glossed over here:

    1. Big brain (capable of what human brain’s do)
    Actually, there is no correlation between brain size and intelligence yet proven. This should be an obvious connection and yet it has not been made, not with millions of dollars and thousands and thousands of hours of research. This is something that should be relatively easy to discover and yet it has not been established at all. The only area that lends to this thought is the area dealing with speech.

    It has been over 150 years since the theory was generally introduced and so much energy has been spent on trying to establish the general precepts that life came about through chance.

    Look into the relatively new area of biomimetics, there is no need to search into the origin of the thing that we are studying in order to benefit from it. Theorizing the origin has proven to be one of the biggest wastes of time for scientists in the modern age.

    Quantum theory describes and predicts what it should with a about a 3% variance. We’ve come up with nothing that so neatly does this job. AND YET the general public STILL doesn’t think that it is Quantum FACT. Yet evolution is barely called a theory anymore and when it is it is in name only. Get this, it doesn’t describe an

    The science of kissing explain




    Some consider it humanity’s most intimate exchange.  Yes, even more intimate than sex.

    Most of us have done it, and will do it many more times in our lifetimes: It’s kissing.

    Sheril Kirshenbaum, a research scientist at the University of Texas, decided to take the kiss and put it under a microscope, in a way. She wanted to take the universal act and examine it from various scientific angles. The result of her research is her new book, “The Science of Kissing: What Our Lips Are Telling” (Grand Central Publishing, 2011).

    Kirshenbaum recently spoke with The Times about why a kiss really is more than just a kiss:

    “Scientists are not exactly sure why we kiss.” Explain. You reference Darwin’s take in “The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals.”
    Kissing as a behavior hasn’t been studied the way other behaviors have. How do you classify or quantify different types of kisses? I dug into the evolutionary biology and anthropology texts. Some of these deal with our earliest feeding experiences as toddlers, such as nursing. In terms of individual experiences, neural pathways are probably laid down early in our lives and then reinforced by similar experiences later in life. 

    Darwin talked about kissing and kissing-like behaviors (licking, blowing) and he surmised that it’s probably a universal experience. Because it is so important for social bonding.
     
    Were we born knowing how to kiss, or is it learned behavior?
    Kissing is a great example of a balance between the nature and nurture we always talk about. We see similar behaviors across the animal kingdom. So there is something innate.
     
    It’s also something we pick up, not just from family and friends but it’s also exported by Hollywood. It is part of the community you’re in and what you’ve been exposed to.
     
    Decades ago, anthropologists estimated that 90% of cultures across the world kiss. That was before the rise of the Internet and the frequency with which so many people travel around the world, so I suspect that percentage is even higher today.
     
    Do men and women experience a kiss differently?
    Men and women have different motivations when it comes to kissing.
     
    Gordon Gallup did a study of more than 1,000 subjects. He found that men often describe a kiss as “a means to an end.”

    Women place more significance on a kiss -– imagining a future together, thinking about whether it’s the right match. I don’t like gender stereotypes, so I called Gallup, and we talked about reproduction strategies. Women have to be very particular about who they choose, biologically speaking. Women are much more sensitive to scent and taste -– keen as to whether this is someone who is a well-suited match from a reproductive standpoint. Men can be less picky because they have far more opportunities to pass on their genes throughout their lives.
     
    You went into the lab and enlisted NYU-based neuroscientists to examine the brain’s reaction to kissing. What did you find?
    David Poeppel,  a neuroscientist at NYU,  has a brain scanning magnetoencephalography (MEG) machine. I thought it would be interesting to look at how the brain responds to kissing, especially with regard to gender, given that much of the primary literature highlighted differences between men and women. Our first obstacle was how to get kissing in the machine. You can’t fit a couple inside and ask them to make out. Two heads won’t fit.
     
    Instead, we realized we could show subjects pictures of kissing and figure out if they had notable responses to different styles of the behavior. Since men are more likely to be aroused though visual imagery, I guessed that male subjects would show a stronger response to the kissing photos than the women.  I created three different categories of kisses: Erotic, Committed, and Friendship.  But I also acknowledge that a kiss that looks erotic to one person might be a friendship kiss to someone else. So I surveyed the readers of my DISCOVER blog to find images with the most universally agreed upon classification.
     
    I ended up with nine photos of different kisses (they included opposite-sex kisses and same-sex kisses). We ran the experiment at NYU. The results were not at all what I expected.  To our surprise, the images of same-sex couples evoked the strongest response in all subjects.

    This likely has to do with a phenomenon in neuroscience known as the “frequency effect.” When we encounter something often, our brain’s response is not as strong as when we encounter it infrequently. The volunteers in our kissing study likely observed opposite-sex pairs kissing more often than same-sex pairs.
     
    Explain “red equals reward” in the evolution of humans and lips.
    V.S. Ramachandran of UC San Diego suggests that we are probably wired to recognize red -– to draw our attention. Our primate ancestors needed to detect ripe fruit among the brush -– recognizing the color red resulted in a reward -- to get food, to live long enough to pass on your genes.
     
    Over time red likely served as an important sexual signal, and became enhanced on the posteriors of females when they were ready to mate. After our ancestors evolved and stood upright, these sexual signals shifted. Zoologist Desmond Morris describes our lips as a “genital echo.” For this reason, they became intensely alluring to the opposite sex.

    Morris actually tested male volunteers, showing them photos of women wearing various lipstick shades. The men consistently chose red as the most attractive.
     
    What about the chemistry?
    A good kiss is associated with a rise in a chemical called oxytocin (popularly known as the "love hormone") that leads to strong feelings of attachment as we form a special bond with someone else. Meanwhile, dopamine rises, resulting in feelings of craving and desire. It can also seem impossible to stop thinking about the other person because of a serotonin, which causes obsessive feelings and thoughts. A kiss acts like a natural drug, making it a very powerful experience.

    -- Lori Kozlowski
    twitter.com/loriko

    A short history of the Earth

    A short history of the Earth

    From physicist John Baez, a history of the major disasters that happened to the Earth: the Big Splat, the Late Heavy Bombardment, the Oxygen Catastrophe, and the Snowball Earth. The Big Splat is believed to have formed the Moon:

    In 2004, the astrophysicist Robin Canup, at the Southwest Research Institute in Texas, published some remarkable computer simulations of the Big Splat. To get a moon like ours to form -- instead of one too rich in iron, or too small, or wrong in other respects -- she had to choose the right initial conditions. She found it best to assume Theia is slightly more massive than Mars: between 10% and 15% of the Earth's mass. It should also start out moving slowly towards the Earth, and strike the Earth at a glancing angle.

    The result is a very bad day. Theia hits the Earth and shears off a large chunk, forming a trail of shattered, molten or vaporized rock that arcs off into space. Within an hour, half the Earth's surface is red-hot, and the trail of debris stretches almost 4 Earth radii into space. After 3 to 5 hours, the iron core of Theia and most of the the debris comes crashing back down. The Earth's entire crust and outer mantle melts. At this point, a quarter of Theia has actually vaporized!

    After a day, the material that has not fallen back down has formed a ring of debris orbiting the Earth. But such a ring would not be stable: within a century, it would collect to form the Moon we know and love. Meanwhile, Theia's iron core would sink down to the center of the Earth.

    Nasa scientists discover planetary system

    Nasa scientists discover planetary system

    Astronomers identify six planets orbiting a sun – the most similar system to our own yet discovered – 2,000 light-years away


    An artist's impression of the Kepler-11 planetary system. Photograph: NASA/Ames/JPL-Caltech/T Pyle/Nature Magazine

    Astronomers have discovered a planetary system made up of six planets orbiting a Sun-like star that is more than 2,000 light years from Earth. It is the largest number of planets found so far around a single star.

    More than 100 planets have been seen outside our solar system, but most are Jupiter-like gas giants, and almost all are in single-planet systems.

    Jack Lissauer, a scientist at Nasa's Ames research centre in California and a lead author on a paper published tomorrow in the journal Nature, said that the Kepler-11 finding was "the biggest thing in exoplanets since the discovery of 51 Pegasi B, the first exoplanet, back in 1995".

    The five inner planets of the Kepler-11 system are between 2.3 and 13.5 times the mass of the Earth, and make their orbits in less than 50 days. All of them are so close to their star that their orbits would fit within that of Mercury in our solar system. The sixth planet has an orbital period of 118 days and sits at a distance from its star that is half the Sun-Earth distance. Lissauer said it was unexpected to find a system where planets could be so close to one another and there could be so many of them on such a flat plane. "The Kepler-11 system is flatter than a CD," he said. "If placed within our solar system, Kepler-11's six planets would lie between those of the sun's innermost planets, Mercury and Venus."

    Astronomers found the planets by analysing data from the Kepler space telescope. Every time a planet passes between its star and an observer, it is said to be transiting; by measuring how often and how much the star dimmed in brightness as planets crossed in front of it, they were able to measure the size and density of the planets.

    To calculate masses, astronomers measured the slight variations in the orbital periods of the planets caused by gravitational interactions among them.

    Most of the volume of the Kepler-11 plenats is made of light elements, according to Jonathan Fortey of the University of California, Santa Cruz. "It looks like the inner two could be mostly water, with possibly a thin skin of hydrogen-helium gas on top, like mini-Neptunes. The ones farther out have densities less than water, which seems to indicate significant hydrogen-helium atmospheres."


    Though none of the six planets found resemble Earth, Lissauer did not discount the idea that there could be more planets orbiting the star, one of which could be more Earth-like. The sixth planet, for example, is at a temperature of around 120C-170C, so any planets further out could be cooler. "It's possible there could be an Earth-sized planet in the habitable zone, because we're not seeing any of these big planets out there," he said.