We give you many useful information about health

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

We give you many useful information about health

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

We give you many useful information about health

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

We give you many useful information about health

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

We give you many useful information about health

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

Rabu, 09 November 2011

In Scott's Race To The Pole, Science Beat Speed

The formatter threw an exception while trying to deserialize the message: Error in deserializing body of request message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (30720) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 2, position 31626.
The formatter threw an exception while trying to deserialize the message: Error in deserializing body of request message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (30720) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 32501.

Edward Larson, author, "An Empire of Ice: Scott, Shackleton, and the Heroic Age of Antarctic Science" (Yale University Press, 2011), professor, history and law, Pepperdine University, Malibu, Calif.

David Wilson, author, "The Lost Photographs of Captain Scott: Unseen Images from the Legendary Antarctic Expedition" (Little, Brown & Company, 2011), London, England

A hundred years ago, two teams were racing to the South Pole. The Norwegian team led by Roald Amundsen made it first, beating British explorer Robert Scott. But only Scott did pioneering science—and photography—along the way. Ira Flatow and guests discuss the achievements of the first Antarctic expeditions.

Copyright © 2011 National Public Radio®. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.

IRA FLATOW, host: You're listening to SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Ira Flatow. A hundred years ago today, November 1911, two teams of explorers were racing to be the first to the South Pole. Roald Amundsen, a Norwegian explorer, led one party, British explorer and Royal Naval Officer Robert Falcon Scott the other.

Amundsen ultimately won the race; Scott and the other four members of his team died on the way back. But whereas the Norwegian team had one sole motivation, and that is making it to the pole and getting back, Scott's team had a second goal in mind, and that was conducting science along the way.

And indeed, members of his expedition made many pioneering observations in Antarctica, tracking the movement of glaciers, studying ice crystals, collecting fossils, observing seals, penguins, killer whales, and one of my next guests writes about that scientific history in his new book, "An Empire of Ice: Scott, Shackleton and the Heroic Age of Antarctic Science."

But of course you have to document the trip, right? So aside from his other duties, Scott learned the art of photography while down in Antarctica, taking pictures around his home base and part of the way on his fateful trip to the Pole, pictures that were lost for decades, but now they have been found.

My second guest has uncovered those long-forgotten photos in his new book, "The Lost Photographs of Captain Scott: Unseen Images from the Legendary Antarctic Expedition." And you can see a few of them on our science and arts website if you go to sciencefriday.com/arts.

Let me introduce my guests again. Edward Larson is the author of "An Empire of Ice: Scott, Shackleton, and the Heroic Age of Antarctic Science." He's also professor of history and law at Pepperdine in Malibu, California. He joins us from WOSU in Columbus, Ohio. Welcome back to SCIENCE FRIDAY, Dr. Larson.

EDWARD LARSON: Delighted to be back, thank you, Ira.

FLATOW: You're welcome. David Wilson is the author of "The Lost Photographs of Captain Scott: Unseen Images from the Legendary Antarctic Expedition." He joins us from the BBC in London. Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY, Dr. Wilson.

DAVID WILSON: Thank you very much.

FLATOW: Now, you are actually a descendent of the famous Dr. Wilson of that expedition, are you not?

WILSON: I am. He was my grandfather's older brother, so my great-uncle.

FLATOW: Your great-uncle. What kind of science did Scott's Terra Nova Expedition do in Antarctica? Edward Larson, give us a little overview.

LARSON: Actually, it was sort of a predecessor of everything that's being done today. It was really a remarkable achievement. Edward Wilson, David Wilson's great-uncle, was in charge of the overall program, but his specialty was birds. He was studying the penguins especially, took an amazing winter journey.

Shortly before he went on the polar expedition with Scott, he went to Cape Crosier to study the emperor penguins. There were other teams going out to study glaciology, geology. Fossils were very important. They were trying to document the connections between Antarctica and the other southern continents. They were doing oceanography. They were doing regular dredging of the water off the - where their main base was by digging trenches through the ice and then dredging.

They also checked the lakes for small - for algae and different plants growing there. There was seismograph work. They were studying earthquakes, terrestrial magnetism. Basically all the sorts of scientific research, the different types that we continue to do today, they were literally opening a new continent for science.

They were the third in three British expeditions that were funded for that exact purpose, of opening a new continent for science and potentially for empire.

FLATOW: So are you making the case in your book that Scott's secondary mission would be to have been to get to the South Pole?

LARSON: Well, that's how it started. You have a series of three expeditions. The first was Scott's discovery expedition in 1901 that was organized by the Royal Society and the Royal Geographic Society in London, Royal Society being the world's foremost scientific association at that time, funded by the British government for the purpose of doing science.

And they kept their ambition, Scott's ambition to reach the South Pole, quiet. They didn't talk about it. Clements Markham, who was the organizer, president of the Royal Geographic Society, certainly wanted to reach the South Pole. They fell far short. They went south with Edward Wilson, David's great-uncle, and Ernest Shackleton, tried to go toward the Pole, fell, as I said, far short.

But their expedition was billed primarily for science. Then Shackleton came back with his first expedition that he led, the Nimrod Expedition, took along some really superb scientists - Edgeworth David, a member of the Royal Society, other top scientists.

They peeled out, fanned out over the raw(ph) sea area, doing - collecting science. He - with Shackleton, his stated goal was to also reach the pole. He tried, fell 100 miles short, and then Scott came back with his own expedition, again, with this team of scientists who were going off in other directions.

So it's tough to say which came first and which was second. Certainly Scott wanted to reach the pole. That had become actually something of a British obsession. But they wouldn't have considered - it wouldn't have been proper in Edwardian England to not try to do proper science along the way, and it's the science that gave it a measure of respectability that a mere dash to the Pole could never have commanded at that time.

FLATOW: David Wilson, being part of the family, the Wilson family, of that expedition, were these photos that you discovered in somebody's scrapbook, or how did you find them?

WILSON: Well, I came across them over a glass of gin and tonic.

(SOUNDBITE OF LAUGHTER)

WILSON: In a bar, in a bar after a sale in London, I had a gentleman came up to me and said: You'll never guess what I've got in my collection. And I hazarded a couple of guesses, and the result was he said that he'd found the lost photographs of Captain Scott, at which point I nearly choked on the lemon.

But I went round to his flat a couple of days later and looked at the photographs, and there were 109 contact prints, about three inches by four inches. They had the original cataloging numbers visible on them. But they were in something of a muddle.

The original catalog had been lost. There were no identifications, and so beyond saying Scott had taken them, it took some years of work to identify them all and sort them all out.

FLATOW: And somebody had to teach Scott how to take photos, right?

WILSON: Absolutely. Well, it goes along with what Ed was saying. You know, the important job of an explorer is to bring back records, you know, maps and scientific records and images of where you've been so that the unknown becomes known. That's part of - an important part of human progress.

And originally, you know, the navy had conquered the world with cannon fire. It had mastered it with a pencil and paper. And the tradition of exploration art that all royal naval officers were taught to follow was founded by Captain Cook and his taking of a professional artist with him on his second expedition in 1775, '6.

And that was continued right through to Scott's day, and my great-uncle, on his first expedition, was the sort of last practitioner where pencil and paper was more important than the camera as a means of making a scientific record.

But Scott was - you know, he's from that era where science and human progress were taken as goods. You know, it's before our cynical age, after World War I and Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II - you know, human progress was considered an unmitigated good. And he believed that the camera and modern technology could open up the Polar Regions.

He developed the first motorized tracked sledges, and he also invited a professional photographer on his second expedition specifically to improve the use of the camera for scientific exploration. And he invited Herbert Ponting along as that man, and he revolutionized the imaging of the Polar regions.

FLATOW: 1-800-989-8255 is our number. We're talking with Ed Larson, author of "An Empire of Ice: Scott, Shackleton, and the Heroic Age of Antarctic Science"; David Wilson, author of "The Lost Photographs of Captain Scott: Unseen Images from the Legendary Antarctic Expedition."

As I say, our number again, 1-800-989-8255. As someone who was - went to Antarctica and the South Pole back in 1979, all they talked about was the comparison. I remember they talked about the comparison of Scott and Amundsen. And Scott was basically seen as the amateur, the amateur explorer compared to the knowledge that Amundsen brought with him, you know, having come from Norway and studied under (unintelligible) and all these great explorers.

And people seem to be trying to resurrect Scott's reputation of those years. Did you see this? Did you have that in your mind, Ed Larson, when you were writing this book?

LARSON: No, I did not have that particularly in my mind. I know it's happening. You can read it in the different books. I'm - I take nothing away from Amundsen. Giving credit to the science of Scott's expedition actually does take nothing away from Amundsen's achievement. Only the Norwegians reached the pole and returned safely, and they did so over an unknown route in less than 100 days with food to spare.

Further, the pursuit of science doesn't excuse Scott for poor choices that, combined with forgivable misfortune, contributed to suffering and death on his polar journey. But it does give perspective. And it gives meaning to the British endeavor. And the one thing that Roland Huntford(ph) in his famous book about Scott and Amundsen didn't do was talk about the other aspects of Scott.

Oh, he criticized Scott for Scott's mistakes, and Scott did make mistakes. Amundsen was certainly - planned a better trip to the Pole. But what Scott was also planning was a multifaceted, complex expedition. He had 32 men on the ice. He had teams going all over, where Amundsen had 30 and they were focused on one end. They did that one end better. But if you look at the overall expedition, actually, the British Terra Nova Expedition, Scott's expedition, was actually more modern and a marvel of planning, if not execution.

FLATOW: Here's a tweet, came in from James Healey(ph), who says: Didn't hauling rocks and things helped contribute to the team's death?

LARSON: Well, you can certainly say that might have. I mean, their death was - you could have a lot of but for excuses they might not have died. But for the weather being colder. They might not have died, but for the fact that they stopped and collected geological specimens, very important geological specimens, on the way back at the Beardmore Glacier, when they were already highly stressed. But, on the other hand, if you take those things away, it wouldn't be Scott. It wouldn't be a British expedition.

British, when they traveled - and they David mentioned Captain Cook. You can also - James Clark Ross going - discovering this region, they took along artists, they took along geographers, they took along scientists, natural historians making collections. It wouldn't be a British expedition without those. And so while certainly they were stressed - just think of Edward Wilson, David's great uncle. Before going on the polar journey, he had made this death-defying midwinter journey to Cape Crozier to collect penguin eggs and studying the evolutionary development of penguins.

Scott himself had gone in an opposite direction from the Pole, just a month before leaving for the Pole, to check movements of stakes that have been placed on a glacier to see how much a glacier had moved. Certainly, all these activities made it much less likely for Scott to succeed. Still, he thought he had a margin of safety, that he could do all this science, and with the margin of safety provided by the enormous amount of resources he brought down, that he could still make it back safely. And the surprising thing was that there was a combination of mistakes and chance, with the fuel leaking from the containers in the stores that they didn't expect so they ran out of fuel, and the extraordinary cold that - I know it's always cold in Antarctica - but it was even colder than it - than normal. And it was that combination of taking risks, trying to do science, making mistakes and misfortune. And it took them all combined, because they came so close to getting back, only 11 miles from their supply depot.

FLATOW: Mm-hmm. I'm Ira Flatow. This is SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR. Talking with Ed Larson and David Wilson. David, Ponting, the photographer, I think maybe that Ed talked – was touching on this, had an extraordinary bad luck, where there's one incident, in particular, with killer whales almost getting him. Tell us about that?

WILSON: I'm not so sure if it was bad luck as what goes with the territory in those days, you know, where they had big, heavy, cumbersome camera equipment and sort. And yes, he used to get people to pose on icebergs and they fell off icebergs. And he was trying to film for killer whales, and then they decided that they try and eat him and came up under the ice, bumping it in the technique that they have, and decided they'd quite like him for lunch, so he knew he got eaten by killer whales. And on another occasion, he licked his lips whilst taking a photograph and it - his tongue stuck to a little part of the metal work on the camera, and it froze to the camera and he had to jerk his head away and left the tip of his tongue stuck to the camera. So...

FLATOW: Wow.

WILSON: They were hazardous times for explorers.

FLATOW: I did that with a stenography pad (unintelligible). I got it off pretty fast, so – those little curly cue, you know, on the top of the pad. 1-800-989-8255. Let's go to the phones, to Kirsten in Berkeley. Hi, Kirsten.

KIRSTEN: Hi. I was calling to say that I have a lot of undocumented photographs from Amundsen's expedition because my grandfather, Magnus Eriksson(ph), was there from Spitsbergen all the way through. And I heard great stories about polar bears and fires, and all kinds of things that had happened. I don't have anything to add to the (unintelligible). I think it's really great what you're doing. I...

FLATOW: Let me just - allow me to interrupt, because you say you have photographs no one has seen from Amundsen's expedition.

KIRSTEN: Yes, that I inherited from my grandfather. I have...

FLATOW: Anybody interested?

(SOUNDBITE OF LAUGHTER)

WILSON: Oh, I think everyone will be interested in seeing those if you put them into a museum.

KIRSTEN: Yes, I have lots of photographs. I have maps and some things from my grandfather.

FLATOW: Wow.

KIRSTEN: And I think even pictures of Mussolini and all kinds of stuff.

LARSON: Well, David and I were together just last week in Ireland at the Shackleton - Major Shackleton conference, and the people from the Fram Museum in Norway over there. I'm sure - and David's book is beautiful, by the way. The - I'm sure there - lots of museums would be very - right here at Ohio State, Byrd Polar would be very interested in those, but so were the Fram Museum, so were the Scott Archives in - Scott Institute in Cambridge.

FLATOW: Take them out of the attic, Kirsten, bring them out so we can (unintelligible).

KIRSTEN: They're in a box. I pull them out and I look at them all the time because I grew up with the childhood stories of the expedition. So I would be - if anybody would like my contact information - I won't give it over to this phone, but I will give it to somebody and they can contact me.

FLATOW: All right. We'll take - we'll put you on hold and we'll take your contact information. You're in Berkeley. There's got to be a lot of people in Berkeley who can help you out with...

KIRSTEN: Yes. If somebody can just put me in touch, that would be great.

FLATOW: OK. We're going to put you...

LARSON: I'll actually be there next semester at Stanford, and I'd be delighted to come over and look at those photographs. It'd be an honor.

KIRSTEN: OK.

FLATOW: Don't hang up, Kirsten. I'm going to put you on hold.

KIRSTEN: I'm not hanging up.

FLATOW: All right. Good luck with that. That was very interesting. One other thing is that, you know, she talked about Shackleton. Shackleton had his own photographer. He had a guy with a movie camera, didn't he, on his trip?

LARSON: Mm hmm.

FLATOW: Gorgeous.

WILSON: Yup. He did. Frank Hurley went south, first, with Douglas Mawson at about the same time as Scott went south, taking Ponting. But his photographs weren't particularly better than the average for the period. It was only when he started Ponting's film and Ponting's photograph from Scott's expedition that he learned the techniques that really worked in the Antarctic. And that was what enabled him to produce those amazing photographs and the astonishing film for Shackleton's second expedition. So the key is Herbert Ponting's work. And, you know, all photography, up to this day, is a footnote to Ponting's effort. Even David Attenborough's programs find their roots in Herbert Ponting.

FLATOW: We're going to get more into that, talk more about "The Lost Photographs of Captain Scott: Unseen Images from the Legendary Antarctic Expedition," and "An Empire of Ice: Scott, Shackleton, and the Heroic Age of Antarctic Science." Stay with us. We'll be right back after this break. I'm Ira Flatow. This is SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

FLATOW: This is SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Ira Flatow.

We're talking this hour about the heroic age of Antarctic exploration - a hundred years ago today - and some of the scientific observations that were made on those early trips and some gorgeous photographs that came back that were made by Robert Falcon Scott.

Ed Larson is the author of "An Empire of Ice: Scott, Shackleton, and the Heroic Age of Antarctic Science." And David Wilson is the author of "The Lost Photographs of Captain Scott: Unseen Images from the Legendary Antarctic Expedition."

And I wanted to - David, I'll talk to you about those photographs. But before you do, let me just set the stage. A hundred years ago today, at - where were they at this point?

LARSON: Well, a hundred years ago today, Scott had just left. He had left. He left his base on November 1st. So he was still traveling with the entire contingent of forces that he was bear - bringing to bear on getting south. So he had his tractors that Dave has already told you about, developed these new tractors. They hadn't yet broken down. They would break down very soon. He had ponies pulling sledges. That was an innovation that Shackleton had worked on. He had dogs pulling sledges, and he had himself and others on foot. And they were heading down very slowly. They weren't far past the beginning.

And the idea was that these different teams, this vast number of people, what they do is they would fall back in stages. It would be like Apollo rocket. They would go away, and then they'd drop off supplies, and the tractors stopped, and then the horses would fall back and then the dogs.

Now, Amundsen was much further along. He originally left in September, found out it was too cold, went back and then left in mid-October. Now, he was traveling very rapidly, only with men that would go the entire way. They were dog-sledged, these sleds being pulled, 52 dogs he was starting with in these large teams of 13, 14 dogs pulling a sled, and the cross-country skiers, expert Alpine cross-country skiers. Amundsen had learned how to mush dogs when he took his northwest passage. He was the first person to make the northwest passage. And they were speeding along. At this point, they were speeding along what's now known as the Ross Ice Shelf, and then heading up the glacier toward the pole.

FLATOW: And Amundsen would mush his dogs all the way up there and actually eat them as part of their food. And - but Scott just had man-hauled those sledges. There were no animals involved during the last pushes up there.

LARSON: Right. The idea was that - he had pretty well determined that the ponies could make it across the Ross Ice Shelf, which is at sea level. But because Shackleton had - the ponies had failed by falling into the huge crevasses going up the Beardmore Glacier, that ponies couldn't make it up that. So the idea was to man-haul.

Now, they had used dogs on the first Discovery Expedition. But the trick was - they had used dogs to pull their sleds, but it hadn't worked very well. The trouble is, it's very hard to mush dogs, as anybody who's ever done it knows, and the British hadn't mastered that skill.

And so if the dog - if you're not mushing the dogs right, it's just a mess. They're pulling in different directions. The British even tried to man-haul and use dogs at the same time, and dogs won't pull with humans. And that combination of events, coupled with the fact that Shackleton almost made it to the pole, within a hundred miles of the pole, by man-hauling up the glacier and across, led Scott to believe that was the way to go.

One other fact has to be remembered, and that is Scott didn't know he would be in a race. He thought that he was the only one going. So he - sounds ironic today he had planned his trip for safety, where Amundsen, from the get-go, knew it was a race. He hadn't announced he was going to the South Pole. He had publicly announced he was going to the North Pole, and then turned on a dime and went south.

And so while, by the time Scott left he knew that Amundsen had come south. When he planned his trip, when he planned his trip with the ponies and the horses and the - I mean, ponies and the dogs and the tractors, he wasn't anticipating a race. He was planning for safety. So it turned out that it was a very unequal race if you're just talking about speed.

FLATOW: Yeah. David Wilson, from an artistic point of view, in - these photos of yours in your book are just fantastic. Do they serve as mere documentation of the trip, or do they aspire to something more? Because there are some beautiful photographs of the snow there, just...

WILSON: Mmm.

FLATOW: You know? Not...

WILSON: They - yeah, they aspire to considerably more than just document it - just documentation. Scott and Ponting were about replacing the tradition of exploration art with the camera. So they wanted to replace the use of sketchpad and pencil with cameras for scientific purposes. So - but I don't think that even Scott or Ponting realized quite how radical the photographic program was going to turn out to be. Ponting was one of the finest landscape photographers of his time, and he took with him the tradition of Victorian photography. So he produced the most beautiful landscapes, very carefully posed.

He would wait for hours for the penguins to get into exactly the right shape to echo the shapes of the mountains behind. All the images were carefully composed, and he produced the most astonishing photographs taken certainly to that date. He also produced pictures in the Victorian tradition of the sublime, you know, small human figures set in vast, icy landscapes. But he was also starting to produce - to sort of push the aesthetic tastes of the time and was taking him - he got interested, when he was down there, in the form and the texture and the shape of ice.

And so he started to take photographs which are really a form of proto-modernism. They foreshadow modernism by about 20 years, so they're very, very 20th century photographs. And they weren't particularly popular with the Edwardians when they were sent home, so they tend to forget - get forgotten about. But Scott was taught by Ponting in all those traditions, and it shows in his photographs.

But Scott went one further than Ponting. He also - there was little bit of reportage in his methods, but he also wanted to take action photographs. I think that's a reflection of the man and his character, you know? And so he started taking some action photographs, which are absolutely stunning. I mean, some of the scenes taken on their way to the polar are absolutely amazing. But the primary purpose was scientific, and most of Ponting's images are actually of the life cycles of the birds and the seals and the penguins and all sorts of, you know, different aspects of Antarctic wildlife.

They don't often get shown these days, but they were for use in the scientific reports when they got home. And he used, even with his - those sorts of photographs, they're all very carefully taken, very carefully composed, you know, the skewer chicks are put up against rulers so everyone can see what size they are, that sort of thing. But he also had a film camera with him. And with that, he pioneered the modern wildlife documentary and paved the way, as I say, for, well, Walt Disney and David Attenborough, really, and their sort of sequences of wildlife films over the 20th century.

And he started to use film as a method of recording life cycles, but he also started making scientific breakthroughs with film. So he was the first to record the Weddell seal making its hole in the ice with its teeth with his film, and he was very proud about that because it disproved the theory of my great uncle as to how they kept their holes open through the winter. And so, you know, that's the breakthrough. Prior to that, there had been filming the Antarctic, but it was always sort of entertainment, you know? There's a famous sequence of film from the Scottish expedition where they play bagpipes at emperor penguins and that sort of thing.

But this is the first time filmmaking got serious with science in the Antarctic. And it transformed cinema, and people forget that. People tend to dismiss Ponting as Scott's photographer, but he actually pushed, you know, 19th century photography into 20th century photography. And he pioneered film. His was the first film to receive a royal command performance, which meant it was shown to the king. And every year ever since there's been a royal command film for the monarch of the period. And prior to that, that was an honor that was only given to the high arts, to opera and ballet and so on. So it was the birth of cinema in some ways, in this country anyway.

FLATOW: Hmm. This is a quite interesting book. It's quite beautiful with those photos that were brought back. Ed Larson, I always thought it was unusual that following Scott's and his party's death and then - and after the winter was over and they went back and found the bodies, they didn't bring the bodies back with them. Why is that?

LARSON: Well, there were various reasons for that, but that's, I mean, look where they all ended? Shackleton and Amundsen also ended up in polar realms, and that's where their bodies lie. They had - first, it would have been awkward and difficult because then they'd have to - once they got them back, they'd have to bring them back on the ship. But here, they found them in the tent where they died. In a dramatic pose, actually, Wilson and Bowers are at the side in the attitude of sleep, and Scott is open with his arm flung out.

His sleeping bag half open, arms flung out across Wilson. They had with them the rocks, the geological specimens that they had collected. They had brought those all the way back to where they died. They had their diaries. They had their journals, which were written up, almost ready for publication. And it seemed fitting that at that place, they build a large cairn of ice.

Because what would happen would be then it would be covered over the years and sink down into the glacier, into the Ross Ice Shelf and then move gradually out to sea so that the best anybody can tell about this time, the chunk of ice that entombs Wilson, Bowers and Scott will break loose and float into the sea. And to the people on that expedition, that seemed to be the appropriate way to commemorate what they had achieved.

FLATOW: 1-800-989-8255. Let's see if we can get a phone call or two in here. Let's go to John(ph) in San Rafael, California. Hi, John.

JOHN: Hi, Ira. Thanks for taking my call. I'm a biologist who studies whales. And a lot of the historical information that we have about whales and whale biology comes from the pioneering works that the British did in the Antarctic, the British Antarctic survey folks. And also one of the tools that we use as whale biologists now is photography to document individuals and follow individuals over time. So it struck me how important the books that your two guests have are to the field of marine biology and studying whales specifically. So I'm looking forward to reading both books, and all that work in the Antarctic was so critical to what we know about whales today.

FLATOW: Let me just remind everybody that I'm Ira Flatow and this is SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR. Go ahead. Did you want to react to that?

LARSON: Well, reaching his point, he's absolutely correct. I want to thank the caller for his observations. The Discovery expedition, which was Scott's first, was designed to follow up on the great Challenger expedition, the expedition of the British of the 1880s, which went around into the Southern Ocean. And that was designed in part to follow up on Ross's expedition and on before that on Cook's. So it was a series of British expeditions, and many of these were designed with a part in mind whales.

Whales were important part of the economy then. They were monitoring the whales. Scott was very interested in the whales. They did take the photographs. David has beautifully described the type of photographic work they did, and I agree with him. I studied it closely. They viewed this as an integral part of the scientific research they were doing. That was also part of the reason why they moved to filming, to catch movies, to make movies of the whales and especially the penguins.

They'd come back from the Discovery expedition, says, no one can capture these penguins unless you do it with a movie. And so Shackleton, Amundsen, Scott came back, in part, to capture these penguins and the way they moved in movies, partly for entertainment to be sure, and certainly they are entertaining and they become a rage in Edwardian England, but also as a part of - as a critical part of scientific research. So the penguins, the whales, the seals, this was a central part of what all these expeditions were about.

FLATOW: David, did they actually have a darkroom down there in Antarctica?

WILSON: They did have a darkroom. Ponting had his own dark room in the hut in which he developed a lot of the film. He actually had the only private space in the expedition hut. So they certainly took it seriously. On the precise question of whales, the Terra Nova expedition was equipped to sample whales in the Antarctic. They took with them some harpoons and things. My great uncle at the time was involved in one of the great illustrative projects illustrating the standard work of British mammals. And the third volume of which was never published because he died was on the Cetacea. And he wasn't terribly happy with the paintings and illustrations he'd made, and he wanted to study whales in more depth.

But they'd also spotted species on the Discovery expedition, they though were new species and they wanted to see if they could collect samples, which is why they took the harpoons with them and so on. So they were certainly very, very interested in studying the whales, and the Natural History Museum was interested in them bringing specimens home.

FLATOW: Ed...

WILSON: But...

FLATOW: Oh, I'm sorry, I just want to interrupt because we only got a minute left. I want to touch on one thing that was quite interesting to learn about, Ed, and that was about that they were also studying global warming at that time here.

LARSON: Oh, they were tremendously interested in global warming because they had - by this time, during the 1800s, they discovered that Europe had once been covered by glaciers and that the shape of Europe was shaped by these glacial retreats. And they very much - it was very much part of the itinerary for the Discovery expedition and then the Nimrod and the Terra Nova was that this is one place where they could study the glaciers that are still of the size that were in Europe.

They noted the retreat, and they documented the retreat of the glaciers in Antarctica. They were talking about - they were trying to study how much it retreated, how it moved out of dry valleys. Scott had discovered the first dry valleys in the Antarctic during his Discovery expedition. They were documenting global warming, climate change over time.

FLATOW: Quite interesting. And let me just repeat the names of the books. They're terrific books. "An Empire of Ice: Scott, Shackleton, and the Heroic Age of Antarctic Science" by Edward Larson. And David Wilson is author of "The Lost Photographs of Captain Scott: Unseen Images from the Legendary Antarctic Expedition." David, are there any other photos left? Do you think you have them all?

WILSON: Oh, I don't know. I know we don't have them all, and I'm rather hoping that, like your lady caller earlier, somebody's got them hiding in their attic. And if they have, perhaps they'd call you and tell me.

(SOUNDBITE OF LAUGHTER)

FLATOW: Well, we have the number. We'll get you in touch with her and see. She did mention something about polar bears, so we're not quite sure that's the south - Antarctica or not. So maybe he went some other places and had some other photos also. So thank you both for taking time to be with us today. And great...

LARSON: You're welcome.

WILSON: Thank you so much.

FLATOW: ...great books. Thank you for writing them.

Have a great weekend. Don't forget to turn that clock. We'll see you next week. I'm Ira Flatow in New York.

Copyright © 2011 National Public Radio®. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to National Public Radio. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only, pursuant to our Terms of Use. Any other use requires NPR's prior permission. Visit our permissions page for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio.



Health Management



Education Information

Restaurant Grease As Good As Gold To Biofuel Thieves

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
A worker with cooking oil in a holding barrel behind an Ashton, Maryland restaurant. Enlarge TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images

A worker with cooking oil in a holding barrel behind an Ashton, Maryland restaurant.

A worker with cooking oil in a holding barrel behind an Ashton, Maryland restaurant. TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images A worker with cooking oil in a holding barrel behind an Ashton, Maryland restaurant.

Used restaurant grease has become a hot item for thieves, who siphon it from barrels behind restaurants to sell on the booming biofuels market.

Late last month, the California Department of Food and Agriculture said it would pay local police target the alleys and parking lots where restaurants typically park their barrels of used grease.

Restaurants and grease recyclers have been forced to move barrels inside, lock them up, or install surveillance cameras, according to Tom Cook, president of the National Renderers Association in Alexandria, Va. "It's become the new copper," a commodity that also attracts thieves, Cook tells The Salt.

 

Yellow grease, the proper name for cooking oil that's had the food and trash filtered out of it, is selling for about 40 cents a pound, almost five times what it was a decade ago. That means a gallon of yellow grease today sells for more than $3 a gallon — on par with a gallon of milk.

Used restaurant grease has long been used in animal feed, but it's also now in demand as a fuel for vehicles. Thieves sell it to a renderer or recycler because the stuff needs to be processed before it can be used as fuel or feed.

After the grease has been processed, brokers buy it from renderers and sell it on the commodities market, where it can eventually end up in the transportation sector.

New standards published earlier this year by the Environmental Protection Agency expanded requirements for use of renewable fuels in the transportation industry. So when crude oil prices rise, yellow grease prices rise, too.

Still, grease rustling isn't a brand new: NPR's Bryant Park Project reported on the problem in 2008. And the 1998 season of "The Simpsons" opened with the episode "The Lard of the Dance", with Homer and Bart hatching a scheme to steal grease from the school cafeteria. Needless to say, their plot failed spectacularly.

Most contemporary grease thieves aren't prosecuted, Cook says. "It's difficult to get law enforcement people to spend a lot of time on somebody who's stealing grease." One man who was convicted in Los Angeles paid his misdeanor fine left the courthouse, and "got right back in his truck, stealing grease," says Cook.

(Here's one example where police did act; the arrest of two alleged grease thieves last month in Alexandria, Va.)

And though grease recyclers may now have to put more effort into outwitting criminals, there's an unexpected benefit of the business: knowing which restaurants take pains to cook with fresh grease. "We've learned where to eat fried food, and sometimes where not to eat," says Aaron Perry, CEO of RecycOil, an oil recycling business in Boulder, Co.

For those of us not in the biz, Perry says the key signs to a quality fried dish are fresh smell and light color. "You might sit down to a plate of fries and say 'Hmm, that tastes a little funny.' Or you might go to a sushi restaurant, and have some tempura that's really dynamite."



Health Management



Education Information

Psoriasis, RA drugs don't raise infection risk

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
TNF inhibitors, which include Humira and Enbrel, pose no additional infection risk is a TNF inhibitors, which include Humira and Enbrel, pose no additional infection risk is a "very new and heretical idea."The research contradicts numerous earlier studies that did find an increased risk Felson, however, says the new findings aren't sufficient to quell the concernsPrevious studies have found that TNF inhibitors as much as double the risk

(Health.com) -- A class of injectable drugs used to treat autoimmune disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis doesn't raise the risk of serious infection when compared with more conventional treatments, according to a new analysis in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The research, which was funded by the Food and Drug Administration and other federal health agencies, contradicts numerous earlier studies that did find an increased risk of infection associated with the drugs, known as tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.

The possibility that TNF inhibitors -- which include popular drugs such as Humira and Enbrel -- pose no additional infection risk is a "very new and heretical idea," says David T. Felson, M.D., a professor of medicine and epidemiology at the Boston University School of Medicine, who cowrote an editorial accompanying the study. "Up until now there has been considerable evidence that anti-TNFs heightened the risk of serious infection compared to other treatments."

Health.com: Signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis

The lead author of the study, Carlos G. Grijalva, M.D., a professor of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University, in Nashville, Tennessee, says the findings "should be reassuring for patients and providers."

Felson, however, says the new findings aren't sufficient to quell the concerns raised by previous studies. "We still need to be concerned about serious infection risk among patients starting these medicines," he says.

Autoimmune conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease, arise when the body's immune system goes awry and begins attacking healthy cells and tissue. TNF inhibitors -- known as biologic drugs, because they're derived from substances that occur naturally in humans and animals -- work by blocking the action of TNF, an important immune-system molecule.

Health.com: 10 risk factors for inflammatory bowel disease

This class of drugs drastically improved the treatment of these conditions when first introduced in the late 1990s, but because they suppress the immune system they are believed to open the door to opportunistic infections. Some patients taking the drugs have died from these infections, and the FDA has been closely watching the drugs' safety profile as more and more people use them.

Previous studies have found that TNF inhibitors as much as double the risk of serious infection compared with other treatment options. Those trials tended to be relatively small, however. The new study, which was presented this weekend at an annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, sought to address that weakness.

Grijalva and his colleagues combined data on more than 32,000 mostly low-income people from four large health-care databases, including those for Medicaid and Medicare. About half of the people took TNF-inhibitors for their conditions, and the other half took older, non-biologic drugs -- such as leflunomide, hydroxychloroquine, and sulfasalazine.

Health.com: Got psoriasis? 7 signs you may have arthritis too

The authors identified 1,172 infections requiring hospitalization during the study period. (The most common infections were pneumonia and skin and soft-tissue infections.) After one year of treatment, people taking TNF inhibitors had no higher risk of serious infections than those taking other types of drugs.

The researchers did find, however, that among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the TNF inhibitor Remicade carried an approximately 25% higher risk of infection than Enbrel or Humira.

How well are you managing your rheumatoid arthritis? Take a health test

It's not clear why Remicade might be riskier than other TNF inhibitors, but it's possible that the higher initial doses the drug requires might be partly responsible, Grijalva says. The mechanism of action may also be slightly different than that of other TNF inhibitors, he adds.

The study does have an important limitation that detracts from the findings, Felson says. As he notes in his editorial, some 40% of participants taking TNF inhibitors dropped out within the first month, compared with only 15% in the comparison group.

In previous trials and in clinical practice, people who stop taking TNF blockers "tend to be older and at a higher risk of serious infections," Felson says. That pattern, he adds, may have skewed the study results and made TNF inhibitors look safer than they perhaps really are.

Copyright Health Magazine 2011



Education Information



Technology

Restless sleep? Maybe you're lonely

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
"It's the space between what you want and what you have that can turn into loneliness," Lianne Kurina said.People who feel lonely tend to experience more nighttime restlessnessThe amount of loneliness depends on how people perceive their social situationBegin to rebuild social connections in an emotionally safe way

(Health.com) -- Feeling isolated and disconnected from the people around you may keep you from getting a good night's sleep, even if you're not aware of it, a small new study suggests.

People who feel lonely tend to experience more nighttime restlessness and disruptions than their better-adjusted peers, the study found, which may partly explain why loneliness has been associated with health problems such as high blood pressure, heart disease, and depression, says lead researcher Lianne Kurina, Ph.D., an assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of Chicago.

"In lab experiments, when people are intentionally woken up repeatedly, it seems to have effects on [their] metabolism," she says. "Their insulin sensitivity goes down, almost suggesting that poor sleep could put them at higher risk of type 2 diabetes, for example."

Health.com: 7 tips for the best sleep ever

In the new study, published today in the journal Sleep, the link between loneliness and sleep disruptions persisted even after the researchers took into account marital status and family size. This finding underscores an important distinction between loneliness and social isolation, Kurina says: The amount of loneliness people feel ultimately depends on how they perceive their social situation, not the situation per se.

"There can be people with lots of social connections that feel terribly alone, and conversely there are people with relatively small social networks who do just fine," Kurina says. "Different people have different needs in terms of relationships -- and it's the space between what you want and what you have that can turn into loneliness."

The 95 participants in the study all had strong social connections, as they were part of a close-knit, rural community in South Dakota. Yet even small differences in their degrees of loneliness had an impact on their sleep.

Health.com: 28 days to a healthier relationship

Kurina and her colleagues asked the participants how often they felt a lack of companionship, left out, or isolated from others, and they used these responses to rate the men and women on a standard loneliness scale. Then, for one week, the participants wore a wrist device to bed each night that records body movement and sleep disruption (known as an actigraph).

Each one-point increase in the loneliness scale was associated with about an 8% increase in sleep disruptions and restlessness, the researchers found, even when they controlled for age, sex, body mass index, the breathing disorder known as sleep apnea, and negative emotions such as depression, anxiety, and stress.

Loneliness did not appear to influence sleep quality or daytime sleepiness, however, which suggests that the sleep disruptions were minor. More research will be needed to determine if these low-level disruptions can have effects on health similar to those seen in experiments when volunteers are woken up, but it seems plausible that comparable health consequences could occur, Kurina says.

Health.com: Loneliness hurts the heart

It makes sense that someone who feels alone and vulnerable may wake more easily throughout the night, since early humans may have evolved this tendency to protect against potential threats, the study notes. Even now, Kurina says, short-term feelings of loneliness can be healthy because they can encourage humans to make social connections. Problems can arise, however, if loneliness becomes chronic.

"People who have been very lonely for a while start to expect rejection, to the point where it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy," Kurina says. For this reason, she adds, it isn't always helpful to tell someone who feels isolated and insecure to just make friends, get a pet, or go on more dates.

So what's a lonely heart to do? Begin to rebuild social connections in an emotionally safe way, Kurina suggests. "Engage in situations where you're not necessarily expecting people to give to you, but where you're the one giving -- like volunteering, or common-interest meetings like book groups," she says. "Slowly you'll begin to see the world -- and see your relationships -- in a more positive way."

Copyright Health Magazine 2011



Education Information



Technology

How An Elegant Moth Stays Aloft

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

To feed, the hawk moth unrolls a long proboscis, sticks it in a flower like a straw, and slurps up nectar. It looks like a hummingbird feeding. Like the hummingbird, the moth has to be stable in the air to get a drink. Biologist Ty Hedrick filmed the moths with high-speed video to try to understand how they hold steady.

Copyright © 2011 National Public Radio®. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.

IRA FLATOW, host: Joining us now is Flora Lichtman, one of the, with...

(SOUNDBITE OF LAUGHTER)

FLATOW: How are you, Flora?

FLORA LICHTMAN: I'm pretty good. How are you?

FLATOW: I'm getting the mouth to work better. What do we got this week?

LICHTMAN: This week is pretty neat. We have footage, really beautiful, high-speed footage of a moth. And believe me, this is a moth like you have never seen it before. When I think of moths, I think of them bumping into lights and bumping into my screen door - clumsy.

FLATOW: Right, right.

LICHTMAN: Clumsy flyers.

FLATOW: Fly in circles, going around places. Yeah.

This is the most graceful creature. And, in fact, it's a hawk moth, and it's also called a hummingbird moth. And that's because it feeds in a very similar way to a hummingbird. So these moths approach a flower, and they unroll this long proboscis, which is basically like a tube. It's a straw. It's a straw...

It looks like a hummingbird's big - go ahead.

LICHTMAN: They have a beak, but anyway...

FLATOW: Yeah. Yeah. A long straw.

LICHTMAN: Then they use a tongue, apparently, which is weird. But - so these moths use a proboscis. And Ty Hedrick, who's the researcher who studies them, say they approach and they have to kind of hover in front of the flower. And this is - he describes the problem they have.

(SOUNDBITE OF VIDEO)

TY HEDRICK: Just holding position in front of a flower and trying to drink out of a straw, now that's as long as you're on body, means you have to be able to hold position extraordinarily precisely. It's really treading water in the air with its wings.

LICHTMAN: And that's exactly what it looks like...

FLATOW: Right.

LICHTMAN: ...when you see them in this video. And so the question that Hedrick wanted to understand is: How do they do that? I mean, they're these really lightweight creatures. There's wind blowing. There are other moths around. How do they stay so still? And what he did to figure this out was, basically, to try to knock them down, to destabilize them. And this where the video gets crazy.

(SOUNDBITE OF LAUGHTER)

FLATOW: Unlike your other videos, this is like...

LICHTMAN: No. This one really takes the cake. I couldn't believe it when I saw this footage. So basically, they took a cannonball shooter from a pirate, like, toy ship and modified it in a 3D printer. So it didn't shoot - it used to shoot darts, and now it shoots these tiny, little modeling clay cannonballs. And they shoot the moths as they lure them in to take a drink of this fake flower. They nailed them with this cannonball. It's a little - it's painful to watch.

FLATOW: But no moth was hurt in the production of this...

LICHTMAN: So they say. I mean, I gave Hendrick a hard time about this.

FLATOW: You can watch the video.

(SOUNDBITE OF LAUGHTER)

FLATOW: And he was like, they have an exoskeleton. They keep going back. They're fine. Don't worry.

And it's...

LICHTMAN: But you can decide for yourself.

FLATOW: Yeah. You look at the video, and you see these little - these moths, which are beautiful. They look just like hummingbirds, and you think they are hummingbirds.

LICHTMAN: Yeah.

FLATOW: And they're able to maneuver with this giant straw coming out of their nose, it looks like...

LICHTMAN: Yeah.

FLATOW: ...and stay in position while they're flapping their wings in slow motion. It's very pretty.

LICHTMAN: It's very pretty. He said, actually, if you want to imagine the problem that they have, think about taking a straw that's your body length, and then trying to take a drink out of a 7-Eleven cup. You are standing on the ground, and that would be tricky. Now imagine if you're treading water or you're flying in the air, it's kind of amazing. So that's what they're studying.

FLATOW: And this - and so they're studying how this - how the moth is able to stabilize itself. And you can see in the slow motion, its body is moving, but the head is - like ballerina, and it's beautiful.

LICHTMAN: This is the kind of amazing thing that they found, the flapping. The way that these moths fly actually is what keeps them aloft. They don't have to do much thinking, in other words. So they sort of invest in this flapping strategy that makes them way more stable than they would be if they were flapping in a different way, or they had a helicopter or something.

FLATOW: Right. Right.

LICHTMAN: And that's how they, you know, kind of survive the swatting and these other things.

FLATOW: It's our Video Pick of the Week. It's called...

LICHTMAN: It's called "When a Moth" - "How is a Moth like a Hummingbird?"

FLATOW: "How is a Moth like a Hummingbird?"

LICHTMAN: See for yourself.

FLATOW: Yeah. You can see for yourself how a moth is like a hummingbird. It's our Video Pick of the Week. It's up there in our website at sciencefriday.com. And...

LICHTMAN: Let me sneak in one more thing. Our egg contest...

FLATOW: Oh, yes.

LICHTMAN: If you entered the egg contest, the results are coming next week. Thank you to the hundreds of people who replied. And to the dozens of people who got it right - which was amazing to me. I mean, I had no idea. So...

FLATOW: That was the egg up in the weightlessness of...

LICHTMAN: Egg in space.

FLATOW: Egg in space contest. Thank you, Flora.

LICHTMAN: Thanks, Ira.

FLATOW: It's up there in our Video Pick of the Week. You can go to our website at sciencefriday.com and have a look.

Copyright © 2011 National Public Radio®. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to National Public Radio. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only, pursuant to our Terms of Use. Any other use requires NPR's prior permission. Visit our permissions page for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio.



Health Management



Education Information

A Researcher Asks: Are Dolphins Self-Aware?

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Like chimpanzees, dolphins are large-brained and highly social animals, but can they recognize themselves in a mirror? Psychologist and dolphin researcher Diana Reiss discusses her work with dolphin communication and cognition.

Copyright © 2011 National Public Radio®. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.

IRA FLATOW, host: Moving from our brains, talking cerebrally now about the brains of dolphins. Humans and dolphins are separated by 95 million years of evolution, and in that time these mammals' hands and feet turned into fins. They developed more sophisticated features.

Did you know they have sonar, like bats? They can play complex games of Capture the Flag. We call it a piece of seaweed. And if you ever watch "Flipper," you know that they can make a wide array of clicks and whistles. But can that be language?

My next guest has been looking at these big-brained mammals much like others have looked at chimps and gorillas and studying them, figuring out what they can do. And she's written a new book. Diana Reiss is author of the new book "The Dolphin in the Mirror," and she's professor in the psychology department of Hunter College. She's also the biopsychology and behavioral neuroscience program at the graduate center at City University in New York. Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY.

DIANA REISS: Hi, Ira, I'm thrilled to be here.

FLATOW: Tell us: How smart are these dolphins? What have they shown you over the years?

REISS: Well, they're really smart, and of course the challenge is always to try to understand intelligence of another species, particularly when they're so different, like a dolphin is. What is the nature of their intelligence? That's what I'm trying to find out.

FLATOW: And "The Dolphin in the Mirror," you named it that because of your research with them?

REISS: Correct. We - several years ago, my colleague and I put a mirror in front of a dolphin and wanted to know what would they do with it. What would they - would they know it's themselves? And again, this is a really - this is a rare cognitive ability in other animals. And they actually showed that, like us, they can recognize themselves in mirrors.

FLATOW: And you did research at the National Aquarium in Baltimore. Is that where you studied your dolphins?

REISS: No, actually, my first lab was in California at a place called Marine World, when I...

FLATOW: Ah, Marine World.

REISS: Marine World, and what else? And then I was research director, director of marine mammal research at the New York Aquarium, the Osborn Labs for Marine Studies. And now I'm doing - I'm directing a program of dolphin research at the National Aquarium.

FLATOW: You know, we always say that people are different than other animals because they're self-aware, right?

REISS: Right.

FLATOW: Are dolphins self-aware?

REISS: Well, you know, it's interesting because when you think about self-awareness, most animals would have to have some form of awareness or they'd be bumping into each other and the walls and their environment. So we're talking about a particular kind of self-awareness, the sense of you can recognize that you are in that mirror, that that's an external representation of yourself. That's pretty sophisticated when you think about it. And most animals don't do it.

Most animals if they do pay attention to a mirror, which many don't, like dogs and cats generally don't, if they do, they think it's another of their own kind, and they'll show social behavior. With the dolphins, not only are they aware that it's themselves, and they show it to us behaviorally.

FLATOW: How? What do they do that they know that...

REISS: Yeah. So there are three stages. Should I break it down more simply?

FLATOW: Yeah.

REISS: The three stages are if they've never seen a mirror before, they try to look around it, look over it, figure out what this thing is, who's behind it, then they - if they've never seen a mirror, they start showing social behavior. So for dolphins, they might echolocate or whistle at it or squawk at it. I'm going to hold myself back from doing imitations, but they...

FLATOW: Feel free.

REISS: Oh, I will...

FLATOW: It's radio.

REISS: ...soon, soon.

(SOUNDBITE OF LAUGHTER)

REISS: But they'll do - and they'll show typical social behaviors. And for scientists who study them, we have to know what those social behaviors look like. So the second stage is what we call contingency testing. Now, for any of you out there listening to the station who know the old - the Harpo Marx, Lucille Ball or Groucho skit in front of the mirror. This is what...

FLATOW: The mirror image of each other.

REISS: This is what you see. I mean, it's pretty much highly repetitive behaviors, really unusual behaviors in front of the mirror. Now, it may look odd and funny to us, but in reality, this is where the light bulb goes on. This is where the animal figures out that something that it's doing, that the behaviors it's doing are related to the behaviors they're seeing in the mirror. And they start realizing there's this one-to-one correspondence. And that's a really important stage.

So you - when you see this stage, you generally will see animals go on to use the mirror to look at themselves, and that's that third stage we call self-directed behavior. And this is so interesting because not only have my colleagues and I studied dolphins and shown dolphins can show mirror self-recognition, but we've done this with elephants. We did this with elephants at the Bronx Zoo.

FLATOW: OK.

REISS: France Duvall(ph), who I know has been here, and his graduate student Josh Plotnick(ph) and I collaborated, so we showed this in Asian elephants as well. What's amazing is that the elephants, dolphins, chimps and humans show the same kinds of behaviors often at the mirror.

FLATOW: Wow.

REISS: Wow. Yeah.

FLATOW: 1-800-989-8255 is our number. I'm Ira Flatow, and this is SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR. They don't start straitening their hair out, do they?

(SOUNDBITE OF LAUGHTER)

REISS: No. But I'll tell you something...

FLATOW: So (unintelligible). Go ahead.

REISS: Oh, we're on?

FLATOW: Yeah, yeah.

REISS: Sorry. So what they do is they'll look inside their mouths, and they'll open their mouths really wide. Dolphins will often wiggle their tongues. And it's clear they're opening and holding and looking inside their mouths. They all put their eyes up against the mirror and look at their eyes very closely. So they may look at one eye and then turn and look at the other eye. They look at their genitals often. We didn't see this in elephants, but we certainly see this in humans, chimps and dolphins.

And again, they watch themselves doing different things in front of the mirror. When we look at children and they're playing in front of the mirror, you watch yourself doing that fancy new dance step, dolphins do all sorts of things like blowing varieties of bubbles, doing different kinds of play at the mirror.

FLATOW: Wow. Talking with Diana Reiss, author of the new book "The Dolphin in the Mirror." You know, people are always saying, well, this is not really intelligent animals like we are. They're just trained to do things. You don't agree with that.

REISS: Not at all. In fact, you know, you can train pigeons to do all sorts of complex things. Rats can be trained to do all sorts of complex things, and even insects and goldfish. It's not - it's what they do in their own behavior. These are highly complex mammals with complex social lives, complex cognitive lives. And we have - we know enough now to know that they are highly intelligent. And it's not just what you're seeing in the training. That's the minimal stuff.

FLATOW: Why do they need such big brains like that?

REISS: That's a really interesting question. And one of the ideas is that their brains are getting bigger and - as they're dealing with more complexity. I mean, imagine being a mammal out in the ocean without a cell phone, for example. They have these highly complex social networks. They have to remember who's there, who they interacted with, who they collaborated with in the past. And also, you know, they coordinate, collaborate with each other, and they have to - again, they have to have memory for what worked, who they interacted with. And then, there are challenges in the environment, you know? And they have to survive.

FLATOW: They come from the same family as whales, right?

REISS: Right.

FLATOW: Why aren't whales as smart?

REISS: Well, we don't know that whales aren't as smart. We just haven't had the opportunity to study them. In general, we have – we've had dolphins in aquaria for many, many years, and that's afforded us the opportunity to understand the minds of these amazing animals. With whales, there really haven't been many cognitive studies done with killer whales, with orcas. I don't know why that is. But most other whales, you - it's very hard to do cognitive work in the wild.

FLATOW: 1-800-989-8255. You know, you see them in the wild acting as teams.

REISS: Right.

FLATOW: It's really amazing.

REISS: It is. And it's, you know, this idea of cooperation care-giving, you see that - you see it in whales. You see it in dolphins. And it makes you think, you know, do they really know what they're doing when they save a human? It's a whole other area.

FLATOW: Do they actually save humans? Yeah?

REISS: Oh, there has been - I talk about this in the book. I talk about the myths of dolphins saving humans, and then, there are historical accounts, records, historical records of dolphins saving humans and statues being built, you know, in honoring dolphins. And the question is, well, did they know what they were doing? Are these just myths? Are they stories? But we know now. We have new accounts, contemporary accounts of dolphins doing the same.

FLATOW: You were into Greek mythology as a kid.

REISS: Yeah.

FLATOW: Is that what got you thinking about dolphins?

REISS: Not at all.

FLATOW: No?

(SOUNDBITE OF LAUGHTER)

REISS: No. That would be...

FLATOW: There was a movie about dolphin - a Greek guy - I can't remember what it is at the moment but...

REISS: Yeah.

FLATOW: ...a boy and his dolphin or something.

REISS: Right. No. I was always interested in Greek mythology, but I was never interested in dolphins. I really didn't - I wasn't a "Flipper" fan. I like "Lassie" better than I liked "Flipper." It wasn't until I got older. My background was actually in theater. So I was a stage designer. And I always had a science background and an interest in science, and I left the theater to go into science to study animal communication. And it was one day when I was reading a story in The New York Times about whaling that I - it struck me: we hardly know anything about these magnificent animals. We need to learn more, so.

FLATOW: All right. We're going to learn a little bit more. 1-800-989-8255 is our number. Talking with Diana Reiss. She's the author of the new book "The Dolphin in the Mirror." She runs a dolphin research program at the National Aquarium. And we'll take your calls. 1-800-989-8255. You can tweet us, @scifri, @-S-C-I-F-R-I. We'll be right back after this break.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

FLATOW: I'm Ira Flatow. This is SCIENCE FRIDAY from NPR.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

FLATOW: You're listening to SCIENCE FRIDAY. I'm Ira Flatow, talking with Dr. Diana Reiss, author of the new book "The Dolphin in the Mirror." She's professor in the psychology department at Hunter College here in New York. Let's see if we can get a phone call in before we have to go. Sam in Des Moines. Hi, Sam.

SAM: Hey, Ira. Thanks for taking my call. Your prefaced this show by asking whether or not dolphins have language, and I'm actually an English professor. And one of the essays that I begin my composition semester with is by Susanne Langer, a philosopher who says that what makes us human, separates us from all other animals, is the fact that we have symbolic language, whereas all other animals understand signs. They have significant language. They can react to signs, but we're the only animal that has a concept - that can see that it has a concept of a past and the future because we have language. We have symbolic thought.

And I was just wondering if, Dr. Reiss, if that's something that your research is looking at in terms of whether it's chimps or dolphins or other language or other animals that they have a sense of history, a sense of symbolism.

FLATOW: All right. Thanks for the call.

REISS: They have memory in the sense of, you know, they have memory. I don't know - we don't know very much about the sense of history other than that. But in terms of symbolic behaviors, it's something I'm very involved in, and I've been very interested in decoding dolphins own forms of communication. We haven't found the Rosetta Stone to crack that code yet, although they do use complex sounds and behaviors in communication. Years ago, I did a study giving dolphins an underwater keyboard to ask the question, how would they use this - a symbolic board?

They had visual forms on the keyboard. If they had a key, they would hear a particular whistle that was different from their own and get an object. So it was a simple touch key, hear whistle, get object. What we found was the dolphins showed us that they - on their own, they learned associations between the symbols, the sounds, the objects. And they have been symbolic, and they started using it amongst themselves. But we couldn't confirm that. So we don't really know, and that's exactly what I'm looking at now. We're doing a more a high-tech key - touch screen. We're trying to get funding for that right now.

FLATOW: All right. Fascinating book, it's called "The Dolphin in the Mirror" by Dr. Diana Reiss, professor in psychology at the department of Hunter College. Thank you for taking time to be with us today.

REISS: Thank you so much for having me. Thanks.

FLATOW: Good luck to you.

Copyright © 2011 National Public Radio®. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to National Public Radio. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only, pursuant to our Terms of Use. Any other use requires NPR's prior permission. Visit our permissions page for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio.



Health Management



Education Information

Pondering the Possibility of Non-constant 'Constants'

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

What if the laws of physics aren't the same all over the universe, but vary from place to place? Michael Murphy of the Swinburne University of Technology discusses research published in the journal Physical Review Letters indicating that the value of one basic physical property, the fine structure constant, may vary with location in interstellar space.

Copyright © 2011 National Public Radio®. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.

IRA FLATOW, host: In physics, there are certain numbers that just are. They're numbers like the speed of light. We can't explain why it has that value, what it does. There are those constants like pi and Planck. And we take for granted that these numbers would be the same all over the universe. But now, researchers are reporting that their measurements, another of those physical constants and those measurements known as alpha, the fine-structure constant, well, that constant may not be constant after all.

It's a surprising finding and definitely falls into the extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence category. But the team says that it's having trouble finding other explanations for their work, published this week in the journal Physical Review Letters. Joining me now is Michael Murphy. He is the QEII research fellow in the Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing at Swinburne University of Technology. That's in Melbourne, Australia. He's one of the authors of the paper. Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY, Dr. Murphy.

DR. MICHAEL MURPHY: Hi there, Ira. How are you?

FLATOW: Tell us what's wrong with the universe here? What did you find?

MURPHY: Well, we found, I guess, this alpha constant, that you've referred to, measures really the strength of electromagnetism that we're all familiar with. Electromagnetism is probably one of the four forces of nature that most people are most familiar with, maybe apart from gravity. But the strength of electromagnetism as measured by alpha seems to be different on one side of the sky and into deep space compared to the other side of the sky. So when we look in one direction, we find that it's stronger electromagnetism there, just a little bit. And then, when we look in the other direction, we see that it's weaker. And so we have this kind of dipolar universe when it comes to electromagnetism, we think.

FLATOW: We think you think.

MURPHY: Yeah. Well, that's what the measurements say. And as you say, we've been trying to find reasons why those measurements could be wrong. They're obviously pushing the limits of what we can do in astronomy. We're making very precise measurements using distant quasars. And as I said, we're pushing the measurements to their limit, and it's possible that some things are wrong. We haven't found any of those things, and we're opening now up - by publishing these results, we're opening that debate up and - up to other astronomers and other scientists.

FLATOW: Well, what would that mean if you're correct and the constant changes?

MURPHY: Well, the find – well, the constants of nature are assumed to be constant. We don't actually know for sure that they are constant - that they are actually constant throughout the universe. And that's why we're going and doing these measurements. We actually want to test that assumption. But if they're not constant throughout the universe, then it really means that - well, our current understanding of physics, our entire understanding of physics is really relying on those constants being constant, and that means that understanding is wrong.

There's, probably, therefore, a more fundamental set of laws that we have to discover, and that's exciting. That's a great opportunity. It means that our conceptual idea of the universe will completely change. And it might be that there's something like string theory or M-theory or one of these what we call unification theories, something that unifies the four different forces of nature into just one theory or concept. Maybe one of those theories is correct. We don't know at this point. But they're the sort of implications we're - that we're talking about, here.

FLATOW: How different, how - your measurements, how far off are they from what you would think they are, they should be?

MURPHY: Well, so when we look in one part of the sky, let's say we see a stronger value of alpha characterizing the strength of electromagnetism, and that's greater by about one - about 10 parts in a millionth on one side of the sky. And when we look to the other side of the sky, we see that it's weaker by about the same amount. And so we're not talking about large differences, here. But it doesn't matter how small the change is. If there's any change at all, it really means a revolution in physics is required and our understanding of physics is required.

FLATOW: You know, we've heard, in the last couple of weeks, two different revolutions in physics, possibly, first with the neutrino, right, going faster than the speed of light.

MURPHY: That's right. Yes.

FLATOW: And now your work that shows that the measuring of magnetism. Electromagnetism is different in different parts of the sky. If this is true, I mean, are there any practical applications? Of course, would people like to know.

MURPHY: Well, I think the main practical, you know, result of this is that our concept of the universe would completely change. So, for example, electromagnetism is what holds you together. It's what holds atoms together. And so everything around you is really governed by electromagnetism and also subject to gravity. But if you start playing around with the strength of electromagnetism, even just by a few percent, it would turn out that, for example, carbon atoms might become unstable and water molecules might fall apart. These are the sorts of consequences of changing the strength of that electromagnetic force.

And so, for example, our life, obviously, depends - life as we know it depends on carbon and water. And so if you move into a universe, into a region of the universe where electromagnetism has a significantly different strength to here on Earth, then you might cease to exist. It might also mean that these parts of the universe where life cannot exist - life, at least as we know it.

So, if you like, we're in a Goldilocks zone of the universe, a Goldilocks - a very, very large Goldilocks zone, where the values of the fine-structure constant is just about right for us. Of course, we're probably tuned for the fine-structure constant rather than the fine-structure constant being tuned for us. Of course, we're going to find ourselves in a part of the universe where things are just right. But it might also mean that there's other regions of the universe where our sort of life just cannot exist.

FLATOW: You know, it's more fascinating is that the more we're learning, the less we know, you know. Instead of thinking we're getting to know more about the universe, we're finding this dark energy that we don't know what it is. We're finding that maybe electromagnetism is not the same everywhere. It seems to be more - a more exciting, interesting place than just...

MURPHY: I'd say it's more exciting and interesting. I don't know we're - I don't know if we're learning that we don't know as much as we did, or we thought we did. But the - it's certainly an exciting time in astronomy. One of the main reasons for that is that we can do these sorts of precise measurements. So we couldn't have done these with, you know, photographic detectors and things like that. The technology in astronomy and the size of our telescopes these days really enables us to do fundamental physics that we would otherwise do in a laboratory here on Earth. We can do that sort of physics in distant galaxies, and that's how we've done these measurements.

We've looked with the - two of the largest telescopes in the world, the Keck telescope in Hawaii and the very large telescope, European telescope in Chile, all over the sky at different quasars and investigate galaxies along the lines of sight to those quasars. And that's what actually allows us to probe the fundamental physics into deep space.

FLATOW: And so you've - so other people will need to recheck this, and you'll probably be rechecking this yourself.

MURPHY: Well, we're certainly rechecking ourselves and...

FLATOW: Is it possible to come up with more accurate checks or other equipment, something like that?

MURPHY: Well, equipment's always advancing and technology's always advancing. We're certainly cross-checking this result in as many ways as we can find time to do by looking at - using the same method and using the same sort of instruments. Those instruments are getting better. There's also new instruments being designed and starting to be built now for existing telescopes. And, of course, we all look forward to the new era of the extremely large telescope - not very large telescopes, but extreme large telescopes, 30-meter and 40-meter telescopes that will be able to really nail this question with very highly stable spectrographs that can look at these distinct galaxies in a lot more detail.

But I think if you're to believe these results, finally, if what we find in further experiments confirms what we've already found, then I think that the endgame of this is that you've really have to confirm this somehow in the laboratory. And there are hopes for that, using very, very precise atomic clock experiments. And these things might be able to detect different values of alpha just in our solar system. As we go around the sun, we might experience a different strength of electromagnetism in the laboratory. And we just have to have precise enough measurement to find that. But we don't know yet.

FLATOW: But you'd then need an explanation for it, too.

MURPHY: Oh, you absolutely would, and that's the exciting part. You know, the explanations have to meet the observations, and currently, our current theories cannot explain this. Actually, our current theories can't even explain why the values of the - the value of the fine-structure constant is what it is. We have no idea where this number comes from. Richard Feynman was, you know, famously said that this is one of the greatest damn mysteries in the universe, and it is that. We just don't know where this number comes from. And if it started to vary, we wouldn't have an explanation for that, either. But it would point the way, I think, to a new understanding, or the start of a new understanding of more fundamental laws of physics that we just don't have any idea about right now.

FLATOW: That's exciting. A lot of - thank you.

(SOUNDBITE OF LAUGHTER)

MURPHY: No problem.

FLATOW: You must hate your job, I'm sure.

MURPHY: Oh, it's terrible.

(SOUNDBITE OF LAUGHTER)

FLATOW: Thank you very much for joining us, Michael Murphy.

MURPHY: Thanks, Ira.

FLATOW: Dr. Murphy is the QEII research fellow in the Center for Astrophysics & Supercomputing at the Swinburne University of Technology - that's in Melbourne, Australia - and one of the authors of the paper that appears in Physical Review Letters. I'm Ira Flatow. This is SCIENCE FRIDAY, from NPR.

Copyright © 2011 National Public Radio®. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to National Public Radio. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only, pursuant to our Terms of Use. Any other use requires NPR's prior permission. Visit our permissions page for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio.



Health Management



Education Information

For Copernicus, A 'Perfect Heaven' Put Sun At Center

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
November 8, 2011

Audio for this story from Morning Edition will be available at approx. 9:00 a.m. ET

Dava Sobel, who has written a new book about Copernicus, pages through a first edition copy of the astronomer's 1543 work On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres at Dibner Library of the History of Science and Technology at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C. Enlarge Meslissa Forsyth/NPR

Dava Sobel, who has written a new book about Copernicus, pages through a first edition copy of the astronomer's 1543 work On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres at Dibner Library of the History of Science and Technology at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C.

Dava Sobel, who has written a new book about Copernicus, pages through a first edition copy of the astronomer's 1543 work On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres at Dibner Library of the History of Science and Technology at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C. Meslissa Forsyth/NPR Dava Sobel, who has written a new book about Copernicus, pages through a first edition copy of the astronomer's 1543 work On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres at Dibner Library of the History of Science and Technology at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C.

It doesn't happen often, but there are times when a single book turns the world on its head. Isaac Newton's Principia unraveled the mystery of gravity. Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species explained how evolution worked.

Nicolaus Copernicus made the astounding claim that the Earth revolved around the Sun, not the other way around. He's seen here circa 1515. Enlarge Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Nicolaus Copernicus made the astounding claim that the Earth revolved around the Sun, not the other way around. He's seen here circa 1515.

Nicolaus Copernicus made the astounding claim that the Earth revolved around the Sun, not the other way around. He's seen here circa 1515. Hulton Archive/Getty Images Nicolaus Copernicus made the astounding claim that the Earth revolved around the Sun, not the other way around. He's seen here circa 1515.

But before either of these there was On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres by Nicolaus Copernicus. It was published in 1543. In it, Copernicus made the astounding claim that the Earth revolved around the Sun, not the other way around.

In the year 1500, every learned person in Europe knew one thing for absolutely certain: the sun and the planets travelled around the Earth. All astronomy texts said so. The Bible said so. There was no doubt.

Oh sure, there were a few bits of conflicting evidence. For example, the planets seem to move first one way and then the other in the sky. But never mind that. The Earth was at the center of the universe. Period.

And then came Copernicus.

"He put the Earth, which had forever been considered the immobile center of the universe, he spun it on an axis, and had it moving around the sun," says Dava Sobel, author of A More Perfect Heaven: How Copernicus Revolutionized the Cosmos. Although the idea that the sun, not the Earth, was at the center of things was outrageous, it did solve the problem of the planets appearing to move backwards.

"If you have the Earth in motion, then you can show that that strange backwards drift of some of the planets is a result of the Earth moving faster and overtaking them on an inside track so that they look like they're stopping and moving backwards," she says.

Today, every kid in school learns that the Earth goes around the sun. In 1510, it was a hard concept to grasp.

It went against everything that your senses tell you. It went against common sense, it went against your feeling that feel certainly the ground underneath you is not moving, is not spinning around.

- Dava Sobel, author, 'A More Perfect Heaven: How Copernicus Revolutionized the Cosmos'

"It went against everything that your senses tell you. It went against common sense, it went against your feeling that feel certainly the ground underneath you is not moving, is not spinning around," says Sobel.

Violating common sense wasn't the only problem in the 16th century with a theory that called for the Earth to move. "There was a biblical prejudice against the earth's motion. And Copernicus really worried about that," says Sobel.

It might have been that worry that caused Copernicus to delay publication for three decades. It might have been fear of ridicule for his crazy ideas. But apart from some correspondence with other astronomers, Copernicus kept his theories to himself.

That changed when he received a visit from a young German mathematician named Rheticus. He had heard of Copernicus' theories and was inspired to make the arduous and risky journey to Poland to meet the aging astronomer. Sobel's book contains a play imagining how Rheticus convinced Copernicus to share his theories with the world.

On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres was finally published in 1543, and nobody seemed too upset. "Copernicus' ideas were already being taught in the universities in the 16th century," says Robert Westman. a historian of science at the University of California, San Diego and a visiting fellow at the Huntington Library. "But they were taught, and immediately dismissed as absurd."

Enlarge Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Copernicus' heliocentric theory, which said the Earth and other planets orbited around the Sun, ran counter to the Bible and Astronomy texts of the day. Published in 1543, his ideas were taught in the 16th century, but were "immediately dismissed as absurd," says science historian Robert Westman.

Hulton Archive/Getty Images Copernicus' heliocentric theory, which said the Earth and other planets orbited around the Sun, ran counter to the Bible and Astronomy texts of the day. Published in 1543, his ideas were taught in the 16th century, but were "immediately dismissed as absurd," says science historian Robert Westman.

Westman, author of The Copernican Question: Prognostication, Skepticism, and Celestial Order, says it took a while for scholars to accept Copernicus's ideas. "I venture to say there's nobody around who accepts Copernicus' theory today because they've read his book. It's a very unfriendly book. And even in the 16th century it was seen to be difficult to read."

Galileo, not Copernicus took the heat for insisting the Earth was in motion, not fixed at the center of the solar system.

Westman says any sophisticated scientific argument that seems to defy common sense will be hard for non-scientists to accept.

Take the strange weather patterns we're beginning to see around the world. How does a non-scientist decide if that's related at all to climate change?

"It depends on which authorities you trust," says Westman. "If you trust the scientific community, then you might be willing to say it has something to do with global warming. But it's not because you go to your laboratory and do experiments."

While the public debate over global warming continues, the debate over Copernicus' theories is long over. In fact, his book is regarded as a global treasure. If you want to buy a first edition for your home library, it will cost you about $2 million.



Health Management



Education Information

How The World's Tallest Skyscrapers Work

AppId is over the quota
The underlying connection was closed: A connection that was expected to be kept alive was closed by the server.
The Heights

When the Empire State Building was constructed in 1931, it stood 1,250 feet tall. The famous skyscraper was the world's tallest building — and held that title for more than 40 years.

Today the world's tallest building is the Burj Khalifa in Dubai. It stretches more than 1,000 feet above the Empire State Building — 2,717 feet into the air. The Burj Khalifa smashed the record held by Taiwan's Taipei 101, a landmark skyscraper with 101 floors. And at 1,666-feet, Taipei 101 tops the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur by 183 feet.

Designing these massive skyscrapers is a huge challenge for structural engineers. Builders must account for potential natural disasters like earthquakes and hurricanes. They also must take everyday weather occurrences into consideration. Even on a normal day, wind forces can reach more than 100 mph at the very top of very tall buildings.

"There are wind currents that when we're down below [on the ground] we don't even notice," says Kate Ascher. "That building, as it rises, interrupts those flows. The larger the building, the greater the wind flows."

Ascher, the former executive vice president of the New York City Economic Development Corp., explores the inner workings of skyscrapers in her new book, The Heights: Anatomy of a Skyscraper. She tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross that engineers purposefully design buildings to sway back and forth in order to alleviate the pressure caused by these high wind flows.

"If a building weren't able to move at the top, then various structural elements might be damaged because of the wind pressure," she says. "And some, in earthquake zones, will be designed to move a little bit on their foundations as well — so they don't take as much pressure as they would if they were absolutely static."

Ascher explains that the same principle that allows a building to get taller also accounts for its ability to sway. Joints at the corner of steel beams can expand and contract because of changes in the weather or wind, which allows for slight movements at the very top of buildings.

"There's not a precise formula for how much sway a building has, but there is a maximum [amount], which is 1/500 of the building's height," she says. "The minute you get more than that, it's not like the building's going to sway or fall over, but people who are in the buildings themselves will start feeling a little bit queasy."

Some buildings, like the Comcast Center in Philadelphia, are equipped with liquid-filled dampers, which help counteract the sway. The 300,000 gallons of liquid act as a counterweight. China's Shanghai World Financial Center, meanwhile, was built with a hole at the very top of its structure. The aperture is designed to reduce wind pressure by allowing wind to flow freely through it.

Kate Ascher is the former executive vice president of the New York City Economic Development Corp. Enlarge Vornado Realty Trust/Courtesy of the author

Kate Ascher is the former executive vice president of the New York City Economic Development Corp.

Kate Ascher is the former executive vice president of the New York City Economic Development Corp. Vornado Realty Trust/Courtesy of the author Kate Ascher is the former executive vice president of the New York City Economic Development Corp.

In addition to structural concerns, engineers have to worry about the inside of skyscrapers. In a 100-plus story building, circulating clean air and water is not an easy task — particularly when windows don't open. Mechanical areas exist solely to swap inside air with circulating air outside, says Ascher, so you don't have to worry that you're breathing stale air.

"It's a constant process," she says, "and it happens around the clock."

And don't worry about flushing a toilet on the 100th floor, either. Engineers have accounted for that, too, she says.

"There are very sophisticated bends in the pipes to slow the water as it's moving through," she says. "You don't want to hear it as it's moving through the building, so you need to make sure its sound-proofed as well."

Author Interviews

Subscribe to Author Interviews podcast via:

iTunesZune

Or use this URL:

This podcast

close

Fresh Air from WHYY

Subscribe to Fresh Air from WHYY podcast via:

iTunesZune

Or use this URL:

This podcast

close

Catherine McKinley is the author of Indigo: In Search of the Color that Seduced the World.</em>

Catherine McKinley is the author of Indigo: In Search of the Color that Seduced the World.

Saturday Night Live</em>'s master of impressions opens up about his drug use after years of child abuse.

Saturday Night Live's master of impressions opens up about his drug use after years of child abuse.

High winds outside, stuffy air inside — The Heights </em>explores these skyscraper issues and more.

High winds outside, stuffy air inside — The Heights explores these skyscraper issues and more.



Health Management



Education Information