Lucid Dreams and Saturn Skies The Life and Writing of Andrew Kincaid

Tag Archives: Science

I’ve Seen Jesus! …In a Grilled Cheese Sandwich.

The famous ‘Mars face’. This strange formation was first sighted in a photograph taken by the Viking I orbiter and released by NASA in 1976. The apparent face caused quite a stir amongst UFO buffs. Subsequent photos showed the face was nothing more than a mountain.

…well, okay I personally haven’t seen Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich, but there have been those who claim they did. Reports of people seeing religious figures in random, mundane objects are pretty common–there’s even a cottage industry of shilling such objects to believers on EBay. Now the rest of us might snicker and shake our heads, thinking to ourselves that people are nuts and going on about our business. But hold on! This phenomena isn’t confined to a few who let wishful thinking and/or strong religious beliefs cloud what would otherwise be a functional rational capacity. Tell me: did you ever lay on the cool grass as a kid and stare at the clouds? What did you see? Perhaps a cloud that looked like a horse? How about a face? Have you ever been sitting in a doctor’s office, bored, staring at the chintzy wallpaper when all of a sudden you find a face staring back at you?

I know I have. I’ve seen faces in all sorts of random things. It turns out that this phenomena isn’t the result of some sort of mental misfiring, but rather it is part of our wiring. It is a phenomena called pareidolia, which is characterized by people perceiving random stimulus as significant, when really they aren’t. Basically, our brain is a categorizing machine. It despises random crap, and tries to assert order over the deluge of data constantly coming into it. Now this can lead to some odd associations; for example, baseball players are famously superstitious. Many have good luck charms or rituals that they swear by. This is a case of faulty correlation; a player happens to wear pink socks the day he hits five homers, and in his mind he associates the success with the pink socks. Really, we all know the hue of his socks has nothing to do with how well he hit, but the correlation is there nevertheless.

Now we know how the sometimes bizarre superstitions arise, but what does that have to do with an old lady seeing the Virgin Mary in her morning toast? Well, as I said, humans are pattern seeking animals. There is one pattern whose daily discernment is most crucial to our survival, even today–other people. Think about it. You can see a person’s face and instantly know whether they’re angry, happy, sad, or anything in between. Sure there is room for error there, but most people aren’t that great at controlling their facial expressions. Besides, when making a snap decision as to whether someone is going to smack you in the face with a brick and take your wallet, you’re probably not going to stop and ask how they’re feeling. Point being, for the last 2 million years of hominid existence, humans and their ancestors have had to be good at reading others. Which has made us good at picking out faces, even where there may not actually be any.

So, the next time someone sees the Pope in a fried ham and cheese sandwich, don’t be too quick to judge. They’re only being tricked by 2 million years of evolution.

Why I Write Horror and Fantasy

PET image of a brain

Today you get to peek inside my brain! …okay this isn’t a picture of MY brain, just A brain. I don’t have a photo of my brain laying around.

As long time readers of this blog may know, it is a bit of a strange mash up.  I go from writing about spirituality to brutal serial killers to strange psychological diseases.  The genres that chose me might seem no less strange to an outsider looking in.  In college I majored in biology, and I love all the sciences; they  have a huge influence on how I think, and I believe they are very important to our collective welfare as a species.  While I am open to the paranormal, and enjoy writing about it, I do not actively believe in it.  Put short, I’m a very rational person (sometimes too much so!).  On the other side of the coin, I am a very spiritual person.  I am a practicing Buddhist, and I believe in peace, love, and kindness.  While I do have a temper, I have never been in a physical fight and I would never deliberately harm someone with my words or actions.  But yet I turn around and write about gruesome killers and monsters and battles.

Now, all of that might seem contradictory.  And it is, to some extent.  At the very least, it is unconventional.  I was musing over this topic the other day and came to a couple of conclusions.  One reason I write what I do is because I’ve always had morbid fascinations.  Ever since I was a kid I’ve been into this stuff.  A second is that it acts as kind of a release valve, a way to express more negative emotions in a safe way.  But the primary reason I write what I do is the personal quality that led me to both science and Buddhism: curiosity.

I am an avid learner.  I want to know as much as I can about this crazy world before I leave it.  How we got here, why we are here, and why things are the way they are.  Spirituality and science are two ways of knowing that, contrary to popular belief, do not have to be mutually exclusive.  One explains why, the other how.  You can do both at once–I am living proof of that.

But while that might explain the content of my blog, you might be asking how curiosity has anything to do with writing horror and fantasy.  That is because curiosity comes hand in hand with another quality: imagination.  The two are inseparable because curiosity inevitably leads you to ask questions about the world around you, and to question in the first place takes imagination.  But eventually it takes you further than that–you begin to ask not about what is, but what could be.  Could there really be a world where humans can fling fireballs and dragons take wing?  If so, what would that be like?  Or, what if ghosts were really real?  What would be the implications?  What if corpses could walk again?

With a head full of questions like that, the next natural progression is to go about answering them.  For me that was a combination of reading stories in the fantasy and horror genres, and of course writing my own stories.  Really, writing fiction is an act of discovery, another way that the human mind strives to understand both the world without and the world within.  Careful though.  This way, there be monsters.

Life in a Lovecraftian Universe

The Father of Modern Horror himself, H.P. Lovecraft, circa 1934.

It occurred to me the other day that, in many ways, H.P. Lovecraft was spot on in his description of the universe.  For those unfamiliar with early 20th century American horror authors, Lovecraft is widely regarded as the father of modern horror.  His stories concerned a vast, unfeeling universe populated by superhuman beings who regarded us much like we regard ants.  Now we know this as cosmic horror, a subgenre characterized by a strange world that lives just out of our normal sight and senses, that only an unfortunate few brush up against.

Now, when I say that Lovecraft’s universe is a lot like ours, I’m not saying that Cthulhu is sleeping under the depths of the Pacific Ocean, waiting for the stars to align right for his awakening.  So far as we know there are no Elder Gods or Great Old Ones.  No, what Lovecraft got right was that the Universe is vaster and stranger than humans could ever conceive of up until now.  Keep in mind that in his day, we were only just discovering that there were other galaxies than the Milky Way.  Up until that point, it was believed that the entire universe was contained just within our galaxy.  Now we know that the distance from our Earth to the edge of the universe is about 13.7 billion light years (as opposed to the width of the Milky Way, about 100,000 light years across).

A light year is the distance it takes light to travel in a year.  For my American readers, that is about 6 trillion miles (10 trillion kilometers for my foreign friends).  To put that in perspective, it takes the light from out sun 8 minutes to travel 93 million miles.  Now, from here to the edge of the visible universe is 13.7 billion light years, approximately.  As for the width of the universe, that is less well defined.  That depends on the shape of the universe, and other factors.  Also, we believe that the universe itself stretches well beyond the visible edge of the universe, as the universe is continually expanding, faster and faster.  One estimate I saw put the width of the universe, including what we can’t see presumably, at about 78 billion light years.  Let that sink in a moment.

…ready?  Okay.  Now astronomers believe that the universe itself is 13.7 billion years old.  The earth is 4.5 billion years old.  Life on Earth is 3.8 billion years old.  Modern humans have existed about 200,000 years.  Human civilization is only about 5,000 years old.  We’ve been shooting things into space about 50 years now.

It’s easy to see how Lovecraft was right.  Science has shown us that the universe and time itself are vast almost beyond the ability for our minds to grasp them.  Earlier I said that humans were ants to the dark gods of Lovecraft’s imagination, but in terms of the sheer scale of our own universe we are smaller still, more like atoms than ants.

But it doesn’t end with size and age.  While so far as we know Earth is the only planet with life, that doesn’t mean there aren’t really bizarre and monstrous non-living things out there.  Black holes come to mind, those infinite wells of gravity from which even light cannot escape (stranger still, some believe they harbor universes within their depths, and that our own universe may lay within a black hole.  Weird huh?).  Then there are neutron stars, which are basically failed black holes that result from stars that didn’t quite have the mass to give birth to a singularity when they died.  Neutron star material is so densely packed that one teaspoon of it would weigh almost 900 times as much as the Great Pyramid.  A neutron star is, on average, approximately the size of New York City.  They are the lighthouses of the universe, beaming light in the form of x-rays and radio waves from their poles.  Astronomers on the hunt for neutron stars look for tell-tale flashing, so regular you could literally use it to keep time.  Stranger still, neutron stars are the universe’s musicians.

There’s all that and more.  Super Earths, twice the mass of our own.  Stars with masses 150 times that of our own sun.  Giant clouds of ethyl alcohol.  Dust particles in nebular clouds that mimic DNA helices.  Rogue stars, shot loose from their orbits by black holes, flying through the cosmos at a million miles an hour.  And, at least in one corner of the universe that we know of, beings with consciousness able to appreciate all the terrible wonder around them.  A Lovecraftian universe indeed.

The Myth of Certainty

I use the word “probably” a lot.  It isn’t an extremely popular word, and I’m pretty sure that it drives my friends and family crazy.  “Probably” isn’t the only word I use a lot–more often than not, I hedge my statements, allowing for some uncertainty (as you probably noticed in that statement….and this one =P).  Is it a lack of confidence that leads me to do this?  A lack of certainty?  Or maybe just an overwhelming pessimism?  No.  Well, yes to some extent for all of them, since they’re all true to a greater or lesser degree.  But what really leads me to speak in uncertain terms is nothing more than simple honesty (that and my background in the sciences).

Like it or not, but uncertainty is a part of life.  It is quite literally built into the fabric of the universe in the form of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.  The principle states (I’m paraphrasing here) that you cannot know both the velocity and the location of an electron at the same time.  The more you know about one, the less you know about the other.  Einstein hated this fact, famously saying in response that “God doesn’t play dice with the universe” but unfortunately for old Einstein that seems to be the case.

The Heisenberg Principle, among other discoveries, revealed that we live in a contingent, probabilistic universe.  Put in plain English, we can never be completely certain of things.  Rather, we understand things within a range of probability.  Let’s say that I dropped a pen on the ground.  I’m certain that, if the rules of physics as we know them hold true, it is going to fall straight to the ground.  It is more accurate to say that I am 99.9% certain the pen will fall straight down.  That might seem a bit pedantic, but with enough tries (i.e. if I dropped the pen a trillion trillion times) it could go up or do some other wonky thing.  Physics is weird like that.

A less esoteric example can be found in your daily commute.  You wake up in the morning (maybe) and go out to start your car.  It could start, but it might not.  Let’s say it does.  There’s no guarantee that you’ll make it to work.  Your car could die.  You could get in an accident and be hospitalized.  A satellite could fall from the sky and flatten you as you sit in your driveway.  Any number of things could intervene to prevent you from getting to work, and yet you set out in the morning with the assumption that you’ll reach your destination.  Ninety-eight to ninety-nine percent of the time, you’ll pull it off with no problem.  That doesn’t mean those things I listed above CAN’T happen, but rather that they’re highly unlikely to happen.

Not a pleasant thought, is it?  Our brains don’t process probabilities well.  That is why so many people prefer driving to flying when, statistically speaking, driving is more dangerous.  That’s why people fork out ridiculous amounts of money gambling, under the mistaken assumption that eventually, their luck has to be in.  Be that as it may, we live in a world of probabilities.  Like it or not, that’s just how it is.  Absolute certainty is a myth that results from human’s need for order in a wild, random world.  It is no more real than Santa or the Easter Bunny.  I’m almost certain of that.

Word Abuse–”Just the Facts, Ma’am.”

A Coprolite, or fossilized dinosaur feces.

Dinosaur poop. We keep things classy here at LDSS =P

There is a four letter word floating around that people throw around without quite knowing what it means.  It’s a dirty, inconvenient little word that blows the rosiest of assumptions out of the water on a fairly regular basis.  What word am I talking about?  Why, I’m talking about the word “fact”.  Now, you may remember that I defined the word “fact” in the first entry in the Word Abuse series as something that has been observed and is generally held to be true.  If it’s the case that I already took the effort to define it, you might be asking, why bother giving fact its own post?  Well, in light of the fact that a member of the Romney campaign said that their campaign wouldn’t be dictated by fact-checkers, and since both sides seem to have their own set of facts, I think it’s important to figure out what exactly the word “fact” means and what it doesn’t.

To that end, I’m going to define the word opposite of fact and give some concrete examples.  An assertion is something stated without evidence, sometimes in the face of evidence, while facts are based on evidence of observation, experimentation, and/or documentation (depending on your field).  By way of example, it is a fact that dinosaurs existed.  We have bones, eggs, and even fecal samples.  I can say with all the confidence in the world, based on the evidence, that dinosaurs existed.  Now, an assertion would be to say that all dinosaurs were fuzzy, purple, and spent their days singing and dancing with children.  Outside of PBS, that just doesn’t happen.  Sorry.  The evidence just is not there.  Unless of course a paleontologist finds the skeleton of a Barneysaurus under a playground.  Then I’d change my view as the facts would have changed.

That’s one big difference between facts and assertions.  Facts change.  A new discovery can blow a set of “facts” people thought were set in stone completely out of the water.  Once, it was a “fact” that mouse babies spontaneously arose from bundles of rags, and that maggots arose from meat.  So-called “spontaneous generation” was overturned as a viable hypothesis when people realized that cells were the basic unit of life, and that cells only arose from other cells.  Once Cell Theory was discovered, new facts replaced the old ones.  Or, to state it more accurately, we discovered the actual facts, rather than believing an assertion based on limited knowledge.

So why is this important?  First, let me paraphrase a quotation from Finding Nemo: “Facts are friends, NOT foes.”  Discovering facts helps us to see the world as it is, not merely as we think it is or think it should be.  Facts are like candles–one might not throw a lot of light, but if you get a ton of them together they can drive back the dark.  A good, factual knowledge base can help us, both as individuals and as a larger society, make the best possible decisions.  Facts are not to be feared, but embraced.  If your beliefs run counter to the facts, it’s time to sit down and reevaluate those beliefs.  To do anything else is to do yourself a disservice.

Comic Book Science is Right for Once! (Sort of)–A Quasi Review of The Amazing Spider-Man

The Amazing Spider-Man theatrical posterAfter watching Prometheus, I couldn’t resist rambling about some of the scientific failings of the movie.  Since I enjoyed putting the “biology” part of my Bachelors of Science to use, I decided to do the same for The Amazing Spider-Man.

But before the science, it’s time for a mini-review.  The Amazing Spider-Man is a reboot of the Spider-Man trilogy, which ended on a weak note with Spider-Man 3.  Unlike the reboot of the Batman or James Bond series, Spider-Man wasn’t exactly gritty.  Certainly it was darker thematically than its predecessors, but not quite so dark as to qualify for the term “gritty”.  On a similar note, The Amazing Spider-Man didn’t bring anything new to the table in terms of plot either.  Minus the mention of Peter’s parents, the focus on cross-species genetics as the cause of Spidey’s, and the Lizard’s mutations (and that the Lizard is the antagonist rather than the Green Goblin), it doesn’t differ a ton from Tobey McGuire’s Spider-Man.  The differences are more superficial, rather than what you’d expect from an ground up reboot.  For a more thorough (and spoiler-free!) review, check out my friend Amanda Rudd’s post “They Finally Got It Right: A Review of the Amazing Spider-Man”.

That being said, I found this an entertaining movie and I am looking forward to future sequels.  What I especially thought was interesting was how cross-species genetics was cited as the cause for Spidey’s powers.  It certainly makes more sense that a bite from a genetically modified spider would result in profound mutations in its victim, rather than the bite of a radioactive spider from the original comics.  That doesn’t answer the question of exactly how those unique properties were transferred to Parker, but hey it’s a movie, right?

You might be surprised to learn that cross-species genetics is not merely the stuff of comic books, but it’s a very real and very vital part of modern biology and modern pharmaceuticals.  While we can’t make giant lizard men or man-spiders, we can make glow in the dark kittens.

On a more practical note, cross species genetics have been saving lives for decades now.  Known as recombinant DNA technology, these are a set of techniques that allow scientists to manipulate DNA, the code containing the recipe for all life.  DNA is a funny thing–it can make all of the weird and wonderful shapes we see in nature, but on a basic level it’s all the same thing.  My DNA is the same chemically speaking as yours, and both of ours are the same as a spiders.  What differs is the DNA sequence–it is the sequence that determines what goes where at what time, be it in a spider, lizard, or a human.

Heeere kitty, kitty, kitty! From Gawker.com

Since DNA is universal across all (Earth) life, and it’s only the sequence that matters in terms of what is expressed, it stands to reason you could mix DNA sequences from one species into the DNA of another and potentially get the foreign DNA expressed.  Really, that’s what they were talking about in a basic sense in The Amazing Spider-Man.  People have been doing just that sort of thing for decades now, although with less city destroying and more life saving results.

That’s twice now that I’ve said that s0-called cross-species genetics can save lives.  You might be wondering what I mean by that, since in the movie that was the whole rationale behind their research as well.  We haven’t progressed to the point where we can use these technologies to jab you with a needle and force your arm to grow back, but we can use recombinant DNA technology to produce a variety of life saving chemicals, most famously insulin.

It used to be that insulin was taken from animals like cows and pigs, but this wasn’t a very efficient means of harvesting the stuff in sufficient quantities.  In the 1970′s, using recombinant DNA technology, researchers were able to splice the gene for human insulin production into E. Coli bacteria (yes, that E. Coli…it’s a useful lab organism, what can I say?).  These new strains of bacteria happily did what bacteria do, all the while pumping out live-saving insulin for the diabetics of the world.  Similar techniques are used to make everything from Hepatitis B vaccines to blood clotting factors.

While recombinant DNA technology has saved thousands and thousands of lives over the years, there is a dark side.  Similar techniques can be used to produce genetically modified organisms (GMOs) which include those adorable kittens up there, but they’re more famous for their role in agriculture.  There is a lot of worry about GMO crops out there these days, that somehow they could be harmful to consumers.  I’m not certain about that, but their income on the environment when they begin to spread on their own is certainly a cause for concern.  The jury is still out.

What we can be certain of is that movie and comic book science have both gotten better over the years.  I don’t expect my movies to be scientifically accurate in any way shape or form, but it is always nice when it happens.  In this case, the writers took a very real and very beneficial technology and used it to drive the plot behind an entertaining piece of cinema.  You can’t go wrong with that :)

Word Abuse–”It’s just a theory!”

A jumble of words.

Words words, everywhere! …I have no way to end that.

For the next several weeks (and from time to time after) I intend to devote Wednesdays to word abuse.  Words play an integral role in our society – indeed, they’re quite literally the glue that holds civilization together.  After all, if people couldn’t communicate there would have been no way they could have built society as we know it!  Unfortunately, despite their vital role, many words are bandied about willy nilly, without a thought for their correct use.  Worse are the words that are overused to the point where they basically have no meaning anymore.  These are just two forms of word abuse – there can be several iterations of the phenomena, which I intend to cover over the course of this series as I make them up [this is hard science, guys!  And you can believe that because I hold a science degree ;)]

Speaking of science, lets talk theory.  Not any specific theory, but the word “theory” itself.  Every time I hear lay people or television pundits utter the word, I think ofThe Princess Bride.  I’m sure you all remember this exchange:

[Vizzini has just cut the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up]
Vizzini: HE DIDN’T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride

“Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.”

Theory does not mean what you think it means (unless you’re a scientist, then it probably does mean what you think it means and you can pat yourself on the back).  That’s okay though, because “theory” has been a victim of abuse for a long time.  Once the media got a hold of it sometime during the cable news era, it was all down hill from there.  But now it’s time to recover the word and restore it to its former glory!

You see, in its conventional, every day use the word “theory” means little more than an educated guess based on observations (or arm chair logic in the case of political pundits, but that’s not a road we’re going to go down).

However, in scientific circles the word has quite  a different meaning.  You see, the everyday usage of “theory” has an equivalent in science: the word “hypothesis”.  Theory, however, is a much more robust term.  In order to understand what it means, we must first look at another word, one that is often used as the polar opposite of a theory: fact.

To illustrate the point, I’m going to discuss a real world example – the theory of evolution.  Folks who dislike the theory (usually because they misunderstand or don’t want to understand it) will often say: “It’s a theory, not a fact!”  In reality, these people are both wrong and right.  The theory of evolution is indeed a theory (it’s in the name, after all), but it is also a fact.

Charles Darwin, the man who formulated the Theory of Evolution

Poor guy is probably spinning in his grave, what with all the people misusing the word “theory” in reference to his theory and all.

“But how could this be?!” You may exclaim, shaking your fist at the computer screen, cursing the gods of vocabulary as you do so.  Before you punch a hole in your monitor (boy words get you pretty excited don’t they?), let me explain.  A fact is something that has been observed and is, in general, held to be true.  Gravity is a fact – you could test it by jumping off your roof, although I wouldn’t recommend it.  Evolution is a fact – it has been observed and verified many times, through many independent lines of evidence.  It is a fact the the Earth is round (technically an oblong spheroid, but let’s not be too picky) and that the Sun is the center of the solar system.

In short, facts describe what is; they are generally held truths about the world.  A theory, on the other hand, explains a the facts.  It’s rather like what police do when they come to a crime scene – they gather facts about the crime, better known as evidence, and then try to construct a coherent explanation (a theory) as to what occurred and how.  In scientific terms, a theory is based upon robust evidence and is peer reviewed by experts in the field.  A theory must be falsifiable.  In other words, new evidence can overturn a theory if it is robust enough.  Such an event does not often happen these days, as most theories are flexible enough to incorporate new data that may seem on the surface to be a devastating blow, but when deeper insight is obtained from further study often a slight modification of an existing theory is all that is needed to explain an apparent inconsistency.

A theory also has a range of validity.  When Einstein formulated his Theory of Relativity, that didn’t mean that physicists simply tossed out Newton’s Laws of Motion (they’re called laws for a reason!).  Newtonian physics is useful for large objects moving at relatively slow speeds (i.e. not a significant fraction of light speed).  As an object approaches light speed, Newton’s equations basically become too difficult to use, and Einstein’s theory kicks in.  As objects become super small, both Einstein and Newton step aside and Quantum Theory comes into play.

Whew!  Take a deep breath…the science is done.  Should have given better warning. My bad.

An image of the sun taken by NASA.

We orbit this, not the other way around. Facts make learning fun! =D

Let me give a brief recap.  Theory as it is conventionally used corresponds to the scientific usage of the word hypothesis.  A hypothesis is, in a basic sense, an educated guess based upon observations.  A theory, on the other hand, is a robust explanation of a natural phenomena, based on established facts.  A theory explains these facts.  In order to be a theory, an idea has to have certain characteristics.  It must be supported by independent lines of evidence, that is to say, by the facts.  A theory must be falsifiable – it must be able to be overturned or modified to explain new evidence.  A theory has a range of validity – it only explains a certain set of facts, and outside of those facts it may have little explanatory power.

As you can see, the actual meaning of the word “theory” is much more complex than its conventional usage.  Given that it was originally a science term, that shouldn’t surprise anyone.  Now that you know the correct, science-y usage of the word, you t00 can feel that vein in your forehead throb in pure rage when someone dares abuse it!

Stay tuned.  I’ll be rehabilitating more words in the coming weeks.  I’m thinking I’ll tackle love and hate next week.  Or maybe love next week and hate the following.  I tend to blog by the seat of my pants, so we will see.

Until then, what are some instances of word abuse that you’ve encountered?  If I like it your word just may appear later in the series =D


The Big One – The Tsar Bomba

The Tsar Bomba was the largest thermonuclear device ever detonated.  The weapon was tested in the USSR in 1961 as a show of force.

A replica casing of the Tsar Bomba, on display in a Russian museum.

Naturally, since I often write about supernatural horror in my fiction, I write a fair bit about paranormal subject matter on this blog.  I find it interesting to look at all the strange stories people tell each other in order to elicit a scare. These stories, in my mind at least, reveal a fair bit about people, more than they reveal about the natural world at any rate.

Today, however, we will be discussing horrors of a different sort, horrors that today may seem distant but only twenty or thirty years ago were all too real.  While today the threat of terrorism preoccupies the minds of those in the halls of power, not so long ago an even larger threat loomed larger over the lives of all Americans.

You see, before the 1990′s, the world was at war.  Certainly, it was a cold war, but that did not make the terror any less real.  Today’s generation laughs at the old “duck and cover” PSA’s, but fifty odd years ago that cutesy little song gave voice to very real fears of nuclear annihilation.  The world’s only two super powers built nuclear weapons at a feverish pace, constantly attempting to one up one another in terms of technology and the power of their weaponry. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) kept the powers in check, but it also demanded that the rivals build up their weaponry almost in step with one another.  Even as the stockpiles of both conventional and nuclear weapons increased, both the USSR and the United States had their fingers on that big red button that, if pushed, would end the world as we know it.

The circumstances were ripe for one power or the other to build a weapon so stupendously powerful that, even today, it is a source of terrified awe.  The dubious distinction of having produced the most powerful weapon in history went to the USSR, in the form of the bomb widely nicknamed the Tsar Bomba.  Now, the Russians (and subsequently the USSR, which was comprised of 15 countries including Russia) had an obsession for big things.  Russians produced the Tsar Kolkol (Tsar Bell), the largest bell in the world, and the Tsar Pushka (Tsar Cannon), the largest cannon in the world.  It seems only fitting that the world’s largest country would have a propensity for making big things, and that said country would produce the largest nuclear weapon in history.

The fire ball resulting from the Tsar Bomba detonation, visible from hundreds of miles away.

A photograph of the fireball resulting from the Tsar Bomba detonation.

The Tsar Bomba was meant to be a show of force by the Soviet Union, and boy did it ever deliver.  The device was a three stage thermonuclear weapon.  An initial fission reaction involving Uranium-238 (the fissile material used in the bomb dropped on Hiroshima) would kick start the fusion of hydrogen, which would then result in further fusion reactions that would release immense amounts of energy.  The bomb weighed in at approximately 60,000 pounds (27 metric tons), measuring 26 feet (8 meters) long and 6.9 feet (2.1 meters) in diameter.  The weapon was so large that the plane carrying it, a Tu-95 heavy bomber, had to be modified in order to carry the bomb to its test site, a remote spit of land on the northern fringe of Russia.  Designers initially intended the bomb to have a yield of 100 megatons, but fears of excessive fall out led them to halve the yield to 50 megatons.

Whew.  Those are a lot of numbers.  Let’s put some things in perspective.  A megaton, when used in reference to explosive yield, refers to the explosive force of 1 million tons of TNT.  The Tsar Bomba, then, exploded forces equivalent to 50 million tons of TNT.  These numbers are very difficult for anyone to wrap their mind around, even a science guy who’s fairly accustomed to huge numbers.  So, I poked around a bit and found a few references that put just how ridiculously powerful this thing was.  I’m certain all of you recall that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the first (and thank God, only) cities to suffer nuclear attack.  Both cities suffered unparalleled destruction within seconds of detonation, and tens of thousands were killed.  Well, the Tsar Bomba was 1400 times more powerful than the bombs dropped over both those cities COMBINED.

…holy crap.  I think that just blew my mind.

…anyway.  To say that the Tsar Bomba’s detonation was massive would be an understatement.  The bomb exploded 2.5 miles (4km) above the surface of the Earth.  Everything within about 22 miles (35km) of the blast was annihilated.  A fire ball about 2.5 miles (3.5km) seared the sky, resulting in a mushroom cloud 25 miles (40km)  wide at its base that  stretched 40 miles (64km) into the atmosphere.

Mushroom cloud resulting from a nuclear detonation

The mushroom cloud resulting from the test. It stretched miles into the upper atmosphere and had a 25 mile wide base.

Buildings for hundreds of miles around were destroyed or severely damaged in the resulting shock wave.  The blast wave shattered windows as far away as 560 miles (900 km) away.  The heat generated by the blast was enough to cause 3rd degree burns 62 miles (100km) from the blast site, and the fireball was visible 620 miles (1000km) away.  The shock wave circled the globe three times before finally dissipating.

If such a weapon were dropped over a populated area, the results would be unthinkable.  The Tsar Bomba would not be a city destroyer, but a region destroyer.  A weapon of such magnitude could disrupt the function of an entire country, rendering a huge swath of land uninhabited within seconds.  The fact that the Tsar Bomba was the cleanest nuclear weapon ever detonated (the fission phase was limited to cut the production of radioactive fallout) would be of little comfort for those caught within its huge destructive radius.  With only a few modifications (and a huge increase in weight), the Tsar Bomba could have been made to yield 100 megatons, which would have resulted in a much “dirtier” explosion.

Luckily, such a weapon was not feasible.  The Tsar Bomba was simply too large and too powerful to be a usable weapon.  A great deal of the energy of the explosion was released into the atmosphere, and the weapon was so heavy that there was no feasible way to deliver it.

Of course, that shouldn’t leave you feeling too relaxed.  While no weapon is as massive as the test device detonated in 1962, warheads with half that yield have been successfully mounted to intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM’s) that can be launched to any point in the world within a few moments.  As if that is not terrifying enough, there are ICBM’s mounted with multiple, targeted warheads that can essentially carpet bomb a region with nuclear death.  If anything, nuclear technology has become more deadly since the most powerful weapon in history was detonated.

Check out a video of the test here.


Henrietta Lacks and the Immortal Cell Line

Henrietta Lacks died of cervical cancer at the age of 31.  Samples of the cancer cells that killed her eventually became the HeLa cell line, an immortal cell line integral to modern biological research.

Henrietta Lacks

In these days of anti-aging treatments and plastic surgery, people are desperate to maintain their youthful appearance despite the inevitable actions of time and gravity.  What they long for is immortality, a refuge against the ultimate night of Death.

Whether Henrietta Lacks had any thought of immortality during her short life is unknown – likely she didn’t concern herself with such lofty ideals, given that she had five children and a husband to keep her busy.  And certainly when she was diagnosed with cervical cancer, such notions were far from her mind.  Within one year, the cancer would kill her.  Henrietta was only 31 years old.

However, Henrietta did achieve a kind of immortality, but in a way that she never could have predicted.  You see, during her treatment for cervical cancer, her doctor removed parts of the cancerous tissue from her cervix and sent it off to a fellow named Dr. George Otto Gey.  Dr. Gey soon discovered something remarkable about the cells – they could live and grow outside of a human body.

Dr. Gey isolated the cells that grew best and cultivated them, which resulted in the cell line nicknamed HeLa.  The mutant cells became a boon for research in all areas of biology and medicine – everything from cancer research to AIDS to genome sequencing.

No, there was no way that Henrietta could have known that she would become immortalized through the cancer that killed her.  Unfortunately, it wasn’t until twenty-five years after her death that her family became aware of the HeLa line and its link to their deceased loved one.  The family never saw any money from the cell line – the material taken from Henrietta was taken without her knowledge or consent and the family had no right to it.  That may sound sleazy, but it is perfectly legal – the products of surgery and other procedures were and are property of the medical institution where the procedure was done.

An image of HeLa Cells.  These immortal cells are cancer cells that replicate indefinitely in the presence of proper nutrition, due to mutations in their genetic code that prevent them from undergoing programmed cell death or apoptosis.

HeLa cells, under a scanning election microscope

At least now the family knows about the great contribution their loss has given to the world – without the HeLa line, much of the progress in medicine and biology in general that has occurred in the last fifty or sixty years would not have been possible.  The medicines, treatments, and insights derived from the HeLa line have been responsible for saving thousands upon thousands of lives.  For example, the first polio vaccines were tested on HeLa line cells, and many cancer treatments have been tested on them as well.

Henrietta Lacks passed from this world well before her time.  She never could have known that the illness that killed her would eventually be used in research that would result treatments that would save countless others and that would expand our knowledge of how life works on a fundamental level.

Even as you read this, the descendents of those cells taken from her body so many decades ago are growing in a lab somewhere, dividing endlessly.  To date, some 20 tons worth of HeLa cells have come and gone, and so long as they are given basic conditions necessary for life they will keep on growing.  Truly, the HeLa line is immortal.


Surreality

The sun over clouds This is a strange world that we live in.  The thought struck me yesterday as I was sitting in my car.  A wasp kept buzzing around me.  It would disappear for a bit but then reappear every few minutes.  I’m not sure what kept drawing it back to my car: it might have been something as simple as the wind kept blowing it back.  But when I climbed out of my car and started walking across campus to go to class, I started to notice some of the other of our arthropod neighbors.  Flying things and crawling things alike, all going on busily about the business of living.  I thought about how just below the surface there was a world teeming with strange life: earthworms and beetles and ants.

Besides the creepy crawlies I noted more familiar wildlife.  Squirrels skittering about on squirrel errands, and our distant avian cousins wheeling through the skies.  And of course since animal life is stirring from its long winter’s nap the vegetable world was also springing to life.  Dandelions, bane of allergy sufferers everywhere, blossomed and carpeted grassy fields with their yellow hue.  Trees are budding, including some white flowering tree whose name I don’t know but whose beauty I appreciate.

Yes we live in a strange world.  Why is it strange you ask?  Think on the wasp.  It lives a life so alien to ours it might well be from another world!  It sees the world through compound eyes and ‘smells’ with antennae.  And it can fly to boot!  Think on the earthworm, tunneling through the cold wet earth.  Think on the sharp eyed bird wheeling through the skies on thermals.   And the humble squirrel, rooting for nuts.

Think about the plants, who have no brain nor nervous system, yet can always stretch themselves towards the sunlight they crave.  They don’t move, nor do they react, yet they seem to be able thrive wherever they wind up.  Life, in all of its bizarre and wonderful forms, is a very strange thing when you start to really look at it.

While I was musing on these things I heard footsteps approaching me from behind.  It was a girl who I see every day, we park in the same lot, yet whose name I don’t know.  She strode by me with ear buds in her ears as she usually does.  The thought struck me that as alien as the lives of other species might be, how is it much different than the alien lives of our fellow humans?  Certainly as human beings we share similar biology and the same evolutionary history.  We can share experiences through common culture and languages.  But how much of that is illusion?  After all, I can never see through your eyes, hear with your ears, smell through your nose, touch with your skin, or taste with your tongue.  I can never hear your thoughts, see your dreams, or feel your emotions.

We only catch a glimpse, just the barest glimpse, of each other’s inner lives.  Through talk or touch or via electronic means: all of these things are glimpses into the person’s soul in that moment.  But just that.  A glimpse, a whisper, a mere murmur.  Filtered through the lenses of language, perception, and social norm.

Is this a bad thing?  Perhaps.  I like to think it simply is.  I can relate to you and your experiences through this wonderful facet of humanity called empathy.  So while I can never directly experience the world as you do, I can try to approximate it.

This piece rambled and meandered.  And there really isn’t much point.  I just thought I would point out, in my own little way, that this is indeed a strange world.

 

%d bloggers like this: