This is a "game", if you will, that a post-doc in my lab found today. FAS gives it the catchy name Bomb-A-City. Basically, you input your city, method of delivery, and tonnage of nuclear weapon, and the Bomb-A-City calculator shows you a map of what the destruction would be. Useful for, you know, all those arguments you get into at parties about what the total incineration radius would be of a 2 megaton nuclear weapon detonated one mile above Reno. Note the odd inclusion and exclusion of certain cities from the pop-up menu...
This is fucking weird.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Sunday, June 24, 2007
telekinesis for real
Ever wanted to move things...with your mind? Soon you can: Hitachi has devised a "brain-machine interface" that measures small changes in blood flow in various parts of the brain. These changes can be translated into electric signals, such as ones that cause your TV to turn on or off, or that cause an electric train to start or stop.
Widespread applicability? I'm skeptical - but it's pretty damn cool in any case.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Adults aren't the only crazy ones!
In typical fashion, like Erin with her podcasts, Dave and Christina with their blogs, and Cressida with her, uh, ear to the ground, I read the following in the newspaper. (I love print media.)
"We need to treat these children. They are in a desperate state," Biederman said in an interview, producing a video clip of a tearful mother describing the way her preschool daughter assaulted her before the child began treatment for bipolar disorder. The chief of pediatric psychopharmacology at Mass. General, he compares his work to scientific break throughs of the past such as the first vaccinations against disease.
In the past, bipolar disorder was reserved for only those who made it through the unpleasantries of puberty, but recent research has suggested that children as young as 2 (!) can require treatment for the agreesive behavior. However, in December a child died from an overdose of drugs used to treat her bipolar disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. These drugs were NOT approved for use in small children.
We take a step back: Aren't kids that age wildly agressive one moment and giggling the next? I thought that was expected of your infant child. While I have seen the diagnoses of ADD and ADHD increase dramatically over the last 10 years, this seems to be the latest increase in pre-pubescent behavior disorders.
I would never say that people with behavior disorders shouldn't be treated with appropriate drugs, obviously. But I am more conservative when it comes to children.
How conservative should we be? There is significant debate on whether such young children should ever be diagnosed as bipolar. How do we draw the line? Should children be protected/prevented from the sometimes agressive treatments that adults receive?
I would argue that the standard for aberrant behavior in children must be significantly higher. There is an increasing culture of The Average, originating from the educational system that has leaked into medicine. My child doesn't perform as well on exams. They must not be below average, there must be something clinically wrong - and treatable - with them. Let's medically fix that lower performance and reach the level of The Average. Yes, some people benefit from it. But medical treatments have led to less of a focus on educational treatments. I say this with my limited experience with teaching students with dyslexia and ADD last year, my mother's work with SpEd children, and working with Melissa's teachers to design her curriculum. The difference between the attitude and energy applied to the educational program of children with medically treatable disorders vs non-treatable is amazing. Melissa's teachers were forced to design entirely new curricula for her, whereas my mother's and my hands were tied working with kids with ADD, as they were expected to be drugged and perform like their peers. It is not effective for everyone, despite it certainly working for some.
Good, I think I've managed to complain about both medicine and education.
"We need to treat these children. They are in a desperate state," Biederman said in an interview, producing a video clip of a tearful mother describing the way her preschool daughter assaulted her before the child began treatment for bipolar disorder. The chief of pediatric psychopharmacology at Mass. General, he compares his work to scientific break throughs of the past such as the first vaccinations against disease.
In the past, bipolar disorder was reserved for only those who made it through the unpleasantries of puberty, but recent research has suggested that children as young as 2 (!) can require treatment for the agreesive behavior. However, in December a child died from an overdose of drugs used to treat her bipolar disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. These drugs were NOT approved for use in small children.
We take a step back: Aren't kids that age wildly agressive one moment and giggling the next? I thought that was expected of your infant child. While I have seen the diagnoses of ADD and ADHD increase dramatically over the last 10 years, this seems to be the latest increase in pre-pubescent behavior disorders.
I would never say that people with behavior disorders shouldn't be treated with appropriate drugs, obviously. But I am more conservative when it comes to children.
How conservative should we be? There is significant debate on whether such young children should ever be diagnosed as bipolar. How do we draw the line? Should children be protected/prevented from the sometimes agressive treatments that adults receive?
I would argue that the standard for aberrant behavior in children must be significantly higher. There is an increasing culture of The Average, originating from the educational system that has leaked into medicine. My child doesn't perform as well on exams. They must not be below average, there must be something clinically wrong - and treatable - with them. Let's medically fix that lower performance and reach the level of The Average. Yes, some people benefit from it. But medical treatments have led to less of a focus on educational treatments. I say this with my limited experience with teaching students with dyslexia and ADD last year, my mother's work with SpEd children, and working with Melissa's teachers to design her curriculum. The difference between the attitude and energy applied to the educational program of children with medically treatable disorders vs non-treatable is amazing. Melissa's teachers were forced to design entirely new curricula for her, whereas my mother's and my hands were tied working with kids with ADD, as they were expected to be drugged and perform like their peers. It is not effective for everyone, despite it certainly working for some.
Good, I think I've managed to complain about both medicine and education.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Do men fear the end of patriarchy? Apparently!
Are you familiar with Mandrama? It's this super-embarrassing thing dudes do when trying to pretend not to be agitated. And then - oops! Out it comes! Comments like "You made me cry you evil bitch!" This website documents such outbursts. Fu-nny. I almost peed myself. Can someone put it in "stuff to look at"? I'm website illiterate and can't figure it out...
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Moon Dust Saves Us From Global Warming
Wow this is the dumbest idea I've heard in a long time.
Curtis Struck at Iowa State University in Ames published an article in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society (vol 60, p 1) suggesting we mine the moon for dust to generate a gigantic cloud to shield us from the sun. Lunar dust particles are the right size to scatter sunlight. If we put dust at two precise positions along the Moon's orbit, they will form a pair of stable clouds that would each pass in front of the Sun once a month, blocking sunlight for about 20 hours each month. This would reduce the amount of heat reaching the earth and thereby help alleviate the affects of global warming. I should say that I have not read the article because I can't get my hands on it but here is what I think from what I have read and heard on a podcast.
Not only is this ridiculous in its extremity but I'm pretty sure blocking out the sun will hinder plan growth, which help reduce CO2 levels, and potentially insulate the Earth from radiating heat back out into space (not to mention the logistics of mine on the F-ing moon). And what happens when we don't want the dust cloud anymore, do we build a gigantic vacuum cleaner? Other criticisms have included that the clouds may act as mirrors when not directly blocking the sun thus adding heat, and at night will act like massive full moons increasing the amount of light reaching the earth at night, which may also have deleterious effects on plant and animal life. This would also devastate ground and earth-orbit based astronomy. In the end this is only a band-aid, if we don't stop living in an unsustainable manner, no cloud will be big enough to save us from self-destruction. (Ok, that was a little dooms-day-ish, but you get my point.)
Gigantic dust clouds...I mean really!
Curtis Struck at Iowa State University in Ames published an article in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society (vol 60, p 1) suggesting we mine the moon for dust to generate a gigantic cloud to shield us from the sun. Lunar dust particles are the right size to scatter sunlight. If we put dust at two precise positions along the Moon's orbit, they will form a pair of stable clouds that would each pass in front of the Sun once a month, blocking sunlight for about 20 hours each month. This would reduce the amount of heat reaching the earth and thereby help alleviate the affects of global warming. I should say that I have not read the article because I can't get my hands on it but here is what I think from what I have read and heard on a podcast.
Not only is this ridiculous in its extremity but I'm pretty sure blocking out the sun will hinder plan growth, which help reduce CO2 levels, and potentially insulate the Earth from radiating heat back out into space (not to mention the logistics of mine on the F-ing moon). And what happens when we don't want the dust cloud anymore, do we build a gigantic vacuum cleaner? Other criticisms have included that the clouds may act as mirrors when not directly blocking the sun thus adding heat, and at night will act like massive full moons increasing the amount of light reaching the earth at night, which may also have deleterious effects on plant and animal life. This would also devastate ground and earth-orbit based astronomy. In the end this is only a band-aid, if we don't stop living in an unsustainable manner, no cloud will be big enough to save us from self-destruction. (Ok, that was a little dooms-day-ish, but you get my point.)
Gigantic dust clouds...I mean really!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)