Two things on science and scientists respectively

Thing one (the science part): Business Insider’s report on the methods used to mine oil sands in Canada. So it is from Business Insider, but I found it a rather informative slideshow on the process. Granted, the fact that the reporting team were refused entry into the compound is enough to warrant a pique in interest, and one might question the decision to hire a plane to take aerial pictures instead, but it is not unfair. Contents include things for environmentalists (or words to that effect), chemists, engineers, and fans of large machinery.

Thing two (the scientist part): The Oatmeal’s tribute to Tesla (and dissing of Edison). So it is the Oatmeal, but it is good fun, and reminded me of an old secondary school teacher. The teacher used to keep a book on the private lives of famous scientists among his personal stash of reference books in the classroom, and would read a section or two as a break during an afternoon session and students’ attention was waning.

Social media truths

I wandered past an episode of the Garfield show on television, and then spent a full ten minutes shamelessly scrolling through the online archives.

As a science communicator, this one reinforced my belief in my cause…

Garfield on edutainment.

…although that is not saying I would not watch “Mr. Pituitary Gland’s clubhouse” – the pituitary gland does control all kinds of important functions of the body, from growth to kidney operation, and is amusingly not part of the brain, despite its location. Also, imagine the costumes.

This next one is particularly true, as far as I’m concerned.

Blogosphere on its bad days.

Obligatory disclaimer: Garfield is created by, and belongs to, the esteemed Jim Davis, and both above comic strips come from the official site. No infringement intended whatsoever.

I am out of town today, and wish you all a good day.

How fast can you read?

 Universities often offer additional training for its postgraduates, and last year, I had to opportunity to attend a speed reading practice session. Unfortunately, I went for a different, simultaneously timed, option (improving my writing – I hope you can see some sense in this), and remain a “slow-poke”. Staples now offers a funky little test to measure your reading speed, which then shows your result against some general yardsticks. I cannot vouch for how scientific or accurate this is, but it certainly is a bit of fun for your coffee break.

Source: Staples eReader Department

Science Communication Conference 2012…

… is happening right now! This year’s theme is “Impact”. Follow #scicom12 if you’re not there. If there, follow anyway.

Terminology

Television programme is on – title “The Assassinators”.

Brother: “(Ulterior motive of getting to watch his preferred kiddies channel) This is definitely not suitable for children, it is a bad example of a television programme… It has assassinations in it! ASSASSINATIONS! People get assassinated in it! … What does assassination mean?”

Easing back in…

Right. There are excuses for the absence, but who cares now that I am back? (Permission to use smiley in text: .) Thank you dearly for being so understanding. Part of the excuse is that something very exciting and science-communication-related may be happening in my quarters very soon, and if everything goes to plan, I will be more than happy to share the bounty. In the meantime, please consider this:

Blood cancer. Nice and succinct.

The poster does feature the words leukaemia and lymphoma  in the corner, but the BIG LETTERS say blood cancer. Of course, that is what leukaemia is (lymphoma tumours target the immune system too, but not through the blood stream **disclaimer** this is not my field, so if I am wrong, please correct me), so it makes perfect sense. If the reader however does not know what leukaemia is, might the fact that it says “blood cancer” help them understand what the fund-raising is for? Is this wording helpful or patronising?

I rather like it the way it is, hence the caption on the image.

On an almost completely tangential note, this reminded me of another discussion revolving around fancy names. A friend was once asked his favourite artist. He said Rachmaninov, and got called a posh git. I once made a comment about Lapsang Souchong, and got teased for it. I will endlessly defend the favourite-artist-Rachmaninov, because ‘why not’? And on the Lapsang Souchong, I suppose I went asking for the mickey taken out of me, so I accept that. However, sometimes, I think it is perfectly acceptable to use a simpler descriptor if it helps reach a wider audience.

That said, maybe I am a posh git. You don’t know my life. (Although I will try to get the update rate back up again.)

Cheerio!

Three things to prove that one should not be overly selective regarding sources of science reading

Three different sources, all entertaining.

Thing one: Three British universities are about to start a project that looks to harvest re-usable material from human faecal matter. The “material” will include water, methane, electrolytes, etc. and the machine to do that harvesting – a lattice-like filter – should be portable when finished. (The Engineer)

Thing two: Britain and Belgium counts the largest population percentages who suffer from hay fever. Birch trees are earliest out to produce pollen during the hay fever season, and sufferers should also avoid “trigger-foods” like celery. (Daily Mail)

Thing three: “Sexual deprivation increases ethanol intake”… in fruit flies. This can apparently be mapped to humans. What gives? (Science)

Seen anything interesting? Let me know!