The science of Smaug the Terrible

Source

Earlier this year, when the television show Game of Thrones came back on air, I wrote a blog post about how (if possible) dragons could exist. But, Game of Thrones is not the only medium where dragons dwell.

I am, of course, talking about the second Hobbit film, The Desolation of Smaug (pronounced sm-OWW-gh) which features a gigantic fire-drake with an ego to match who is known by many names: Smaug the Golden, Smaug the Impenetrable, Smaug the Magnificent, Smaug the Tremendous, Smaug the Terrible, Smaug the Stupendous, The Dragon Dread, Trāgu, Lord Smaug.

But could dragons exist? Read on and find out!

**

In fantasy, dragons are practically omnipresent - good guys train them, bad guys abuse their power, they horde gold, kidnap princesses, murder thousands of people ... or are simply a myth in the world's history.

But, that is in a fantasy world – what about on Earth (or an Earth-like planet)? Could dragons exist?

According to Professor John R. Hutchinson of The Royal Veterinary College in London, UK, the discussion all comes down to size and gravity. When a land animal increases in mass, gravity quickly dominates all its activities because of the various pressures it exerts on the animal’s body (but an animal in water is a very different story, just compare an elephant - the largest animal on land - with a blue whale, the largest animal in the ocean).

Now imagine an animal the size of a dragon – one long-dead in Game of Thrones was described as possessing jaws so big that it could swallow a mammoth whole and eclipse whole towns with its shadow. For much an animal to exist, it would need large bones to support its weight and muscles to move it, not to mention huge stores of energy to move and support such a large creature.

“Inevitably, the range of extreme activities that animals can do decreases as they get larger,” says Hutchinson. “So elephants don’t jump or gallop, whereas mice do; and large flying birds don’t whiz around like hummingbirds.”

One of the most identifying characteristics of a dragon is its ability to fly, but the problem of size rears its ugly head once again. As flying animals get bigger, their wing size needs to increase just as much, if not more.

“[A dragon] would need immense wings to support its weight,” said Hutchinson. “A lot of weight is wasted in that heavy tail and hind legs as well as the bulky head, too — those don’t help the dragon fly well at all. So at best such a smallish dragon would be a clumsy flier, and would have a hard time taking off.”

“If we move to a 500, let alone a 5,000 kilogram dragon, flight basically becomes out of the question in Earth’s gravity. So, one needs to invoke magic to explain a flying dragon.”

Source

Therefore, in a world without magic, it looks like a dragon of any size would not be able to grow to such mythic proportions as described in various fantasy stories. But, what about if dragons were built like birds?

The largest bird found today is the California condor, with an average weight of 10 kilograms, a length of just over 4 feet and a wingspan of over 10 feet having been recorded (which is two and a half times its length!).

Conservatively, let us say that a dragon weighs 50 kg, and if it follows the same construction and weight distribution as a condor, than it would clock in at just over 20 feet in length and a wingspan over 50 feet.

Large? Sure. But theoretically possible.

But bigger dragons, like those described in Game of Thrones would be more like 500 kg, which would make their length 200 feet (or about two-thirds of a football field) with a wingspan of 500 feet (or the height of a 50-storey building!)

Suffice to say, even if it could exist, the physics alone would not allow such an animal to move, much less have enough energy to fly.

While dragons would not be able to fly or reach such massive size described across the globe, what about the other impressive characteristic of a dragon – its ability to spew fire?

According to Hutchinson, dragon fans will be disappointed once again.

While some animals, such as bombardier beetles, can excrete a hazardous and incendiary-type of fluid from their bodies on rare occasions for defense, fire-breathing it is not.

“Intensely hot flame takes massive amounts of energy to produce and to be hot enough to damage flesh, it would thus cook the dragon from the inside out anyway,” he adds. “I don’t see a realistic way that a very large animal could breathe some sort of fire-like substance. Tiny animals might get away with something like that on a small scale with chemical cocktails, but a huge animal would neither be able to fuel the energy needed to breathe fire nor avoid scorching itself. Again, magic (or a good imagination) is the only option to allow for such a creature.”

With fire-breathing going up in a puff of smoke along with monstrous size and ability to fly, what are we left with to satiate our need for dragons?

Source

Komodo dragons and Pterosaurs.

Komodo dragons are the largest living reptile on the planet, growing up to 10 feet and 150 kilograms, able to run up to 20 kilometres per hour and dive up to 15 feet. While not able to breathe fire, Komodo dragons do have a bad bite, filled with dangerous bacteria and venom – which they use to incapacitate and even kill prey with a single bite.

Pterosaurs, on the other hand, were flying dinosaurs existing millions of years ago. Hutchinson says that they could weigh 50 to 250 kilograms, have wingspans up to 36 feet and when standing, could be up to 18 feet (thanks to Brian Switek, paleontological guru for help with those numbers). Sadly, as with all dinosaurs, they have long since gone from this world.

Source

“We have had large sort-of-dragon-like animals in the past in the form of pterosaurs or even sort-of-giant eagles and vultures, but a real dragon in the sense of classic or modern fantasy just ain’t going to ever happen.”

Sadly, science tells us that dragons are merely a fantasy, but it doesn’t stop millions of people loving them. Just because dragons are an impossible flight of fancy on Earth, in the lands of Westeros and Middle Earth, anything is possible.

"Man of Steel" shows its rust

Source

This weekend, I saw what is expected to be one of the big "blockbuster" hits of the summer, Man of Steel.

Keep in mind that I will be discussing key plot points and specific moments from the film, so there will be spoilers ahead.

The story of Superman is very well known, and the movie doesn't break any huge new ground in originality - Superman is an exile on Earth and must (literally and figuratively) rise to the occasion when his adopted home is in trouble. But his origin story does get a bit of a buff, as is the director’s (Zack Snyder) and producer’s (Christopher Nolan) right.

What is new to the franchise is in the first 30-ish minutes of the film when you really get a sense of the Kryptonian civilization. And boy is there a lot of talking - and a giant dragonfly/lizard hybrid.

Jor-El, played by Russel Crowe, grabs the MacGuffin (the Kryptonian Codex) and sends young Kal-El to Earth with it imbued within his cells. We are later told that the codex contains the information for the entire Kryptonian civilization within it.

Here is my first gripe - and this is taking for granted that everything you see in the movie is possible, such as interstellar travel, flight, etc.

But if Clark has every Kryptonian within his cells, he'd have their DNA. And how can billions of people's DNA exist within every single cell of an individual? Wouldn't the cells simply die from too much "stuff" in their cells, even if the DNA were inactive? Or wouldn’t the cellular machinery just destroy the foreign matter?

This is, of course, taking for granted that Kryptonian cells and their DNA behave similarly to that of humans.

And this leads to my biggest issue with the movie - the Kryptonian powers on Earth.

In the movie, we are told that Kryptonian powers on Earth are caused by our sun being younger than the one on Krypton, and that their Kryptonian cells will absorb the radiation from our yellow sun, granting them "Godlike" powers. We are also told that the gravity is weaker on Earth than it is on Krypton, which implies that flight (or super-bounding, as the case may be) and super-strength will be possible.

Now in the comics, Clark is super-strong pretty much from the outset, even as a baby.

But in the movie, Clark grows up on Earth, and we see his powers (X-ray vision, super-hearing and heat vision) develop when he is in elementary school, I guess around grade 5 or so. We *are* told that the other students think he is weird because "his mom won't let him play with anyone." But it is never made clear because he is super-strong, or because he is an alien, and the Kent's don't want anyone to get to close - lest they discover his secret.

He learns, from his parents, how to control them and focus only on one thing at a time. Therefore, based on that information, the solar radiation seems to take around 10 years or so to affect Kryptonian biology and grant super-powers.

Remember that, it becomes important later.

When Zod and his cronies arrive on Earth, they are equipped with airtight battle suits. We know this because they explicitly say that Earth’s atmosphere is dangerous to them. And due to the change in gravity from their home planet of Krypton, each soldier is super-strong. We see them flip trucks into houses and throw Ma Kent like a rag doll.

Zod, in all his glory. Source

 So, this would seem to hint that their prison ship had Krypton-like gravity. Ok, fine. Moving on.

But why didn't the increased gravity affect Clark and Lois when they were brought upon the ship? We do know that Lois needed a breathing apparatus to survive the Kryptonian “atmosphere” and that Clark became weak because of that – so if the ship did have stronger gravity, wouldn't Clark and Lois have to struggle to adapt to it?

And, if this is how they are so strong, how is Clark super-strong?

He wasn't on Krypton long enough to get used to the gravity. He was there for what appears less than a day. And even if the ship that carried him did have artificial gravity, you would think that after 33 years on Earth, his body would have acclimated to the decreased gravity of Earth (like he did with the atmosphere).

So, if the lesser gravity isn’t the cause of the super-strength and flight of Superman, it must be the solar radiation from our yellow sun.

During a battle with Zod, Clark damages Zod’s helmet, causing the Earth air to 'infect' Zod, granting him super hearing and x-ray vision.

But how did the solar radiation affect Zod so quickly? It happened practically instantaneously – his helmet was damaged, he tore it off and voila, sensory overload caused by the sudden onset of super-powers.

His laser vision, however, only appeared at the final battle after much longer exposure to Earth's yellow sun. But only his head was exposed to the sun, except for the last few minutes of the battle, when he tore his battle suit off. How much solar radiation could he possibly absorb through his head in one day?

And how did the sun affect Zod so quickly, but it took Clark about 10 years or so to gain X-ray vision, super-hearing and heat vision? The same thing happened with Faora (the female henchman), so it obviously was not strictly a Zod thing.

And if Zod was super-strong, super-fast, able to withstand super-punches that would make a normal person’s head explode like a watermelon being hit with a hammer, how was Superman able to snap Zod’s solar radiation enhanced bones in his neck?

Wouldn't the enhancements bestowed upon the Earth's yellow sun create super-bones? You can't have Zod have all the super-powers that Superman does, except for that without a reason.

Granted, in the comics, Clark does get bones broken by other super-powered beings, such as Doomsday. But that only happens when he is dramatically out-powered and out-classed, not when someone has the exact same power set.

I am not saying that I disliked the movie in any sense of the word, but when you establish a certain mythology (the same or different than in the comics), there is only a certain amount that can fall under "suspension of disbelief." Things still need to be explained, and the rules of the universe spelled out.

Source

There are other science-light areas of the movie that bothered me – like Clark defeating the gravity beam by sheer force of will, the gravity weapon itself, the gateway to the phantom zone being conveniently close enough to the planet to be damaged by the explosion, etc.

But, during the visually stunning final battle, one thing struck me more than anything else – isn’t Superman supposed to PROTECT people?

Think about the countless battles that occurred in Metropolis. Did Superman save more than a handful of people? Did he seem to care at all about the safety and security of the citizens in the office buildings, the crowds in the street … anything?

The amount of wanton destruction during the final battle was insane. Countless buildings were torn apart by nigh-invincible beings with super powers battling it out with blatant disregard for human life.

How many buildings fell during the battle? How many office floors and infrastructure was damaged?

Superman is supposed to be one of the bravest and selfless superheroes in the galaxy – willing to sacrifice himself for anyone else, to lay down his life if necessary. Sure people die all the time, and he cannot possibly protect everyone.

Wouldn’t Superman try to save at least some people? We do see him save some people on the oil rig, the school bus as a child, and a few others – but after that, Superman does not appear to care about anyone else.

He does care about those four people in the final scene with Zod and Lois Lane, but do those few lives counter-balance the hundreds of thousands that died and the millions that were most likely injured in the battles of Smallville and Metropolis?

And couldn’t Superman have moved the battles to a less densely populated area, like the middle of the ocean or the Arctic? Or destroyed the gravity machine in Metropolis, thereby preventing the damage is causes, instead of the one in the middle of Indian Ocean (which is totally isolated), since they are linked?

No, because it wouldn’t have been as pleasing to the moviegoer.

And that is the whole argument in a nutshell: It is a movie, and is strictly popcorn entertainment. But just because it is, doesn’t mean it cannot make sense and abide by the rules of the universe that has been created – or is that asking too much?

In defense of others

Earlier this week, a friend sent me a short email with a newspaper article attached describing a new branch of scientific research that was quite interesting. The article was well written, easily accessible and extremely interesting – a true joy to read. However, there was one large issue - not with the content or photos within the article, but with what my friend wrote in the email.

In the text of the email, which had the article attached, was one sentence: “I think this girl is too pretty to be a scientist.”

Go back and read that sentence again if you don't mind and let it sink in.

My friend said that the researcher in the photo was “too pretty” to be believed to be a real scientist. What does attractiveness have to do with being a good researcher?

I asked my friend what was meant, and I was told the reasons why. I had a slight hope that the comment was meant as a joke initially, but based on their explanation, it was clear that they genuinely meant it!

So, I wrote an email reply, which I have pasted here, in full.

NOTE: I have elected to keep out the name of my friend, as well as their gender 

______

Hi,

Honestly, I do not even know where to begin with that comment you sent me.

Firstly, I want to thank you for sending me that article, it was really interesting. But my issue is not with that, but the comment you sent along with the article, that the woman in the photo was “too pretty” to be a scientist.

This is a huge issue to me, and has really surprised me that you genuinely think that way. Why would a woman’s physical appearance have anything to do with her intelligence or ability to perform really cool and interesting research?

Are you implying that only “ugly” people can do science? Or that attractive people have better options in life than to explore the mysteries that surround us?

Why does someone’s appearance dictate his or her level of intelligence?

I ask these questions not to attack you, but to illuminate the problems associated with such a bizarre comment. You may have meant the comment innocuously, but even so, even saying such a thing concerns me.

See, this type of discussion is one that has been brought up numerous times, and has been a large talking point in the Science Online conferences that I have attended. Female researchers and scientists (both using their real names and pseudonyms) have shared their stories about comments on their blogs/articles discrediting them because of their gender, their perceived “attractiveness,” their relationship status and more  – all of which is total B.S.

I have had the distinct pleasure to know and befriend dozens upon dozens of female scientists and/or researchers of every background you can imagine from countless nationalities, demographic backgrounds and expertise. But one thing stays the same – they are all incredible. Every single one deserves countless praise and support for doing what they do and dealing with this type of bias.

I admit that this type of discussion has never cropped up in my comments in my blog or any of the other writings I have done, but I do have some idea how it feels. I think most people have been singled out at one point in their lives by something: a personality quirk, a passion, an outfit, a hairstyle, the people you choose to associate with, and countless others.

Singling someone out for his or her gender, attractiveness, sexual orientation or the like is just silly. If you don’t like someone personally, that’s one thing. But, to spit venom at them simply because of who they are or whom they choose to be is cowardice in my book.

How would you feel if you had people commenting on your writing saying that you cannot be trusted because of your gender, sprouting insulting words at you, saying that you are crazy, incompetent or worse.

Would you be able to handle it?

Judging someone by his or her perceived attractiveness (which is subjective and varies from person to person anyway) is ridiculous. If you’re going to comment on a researcher, comment on their work, methodology and the like, not if you’d like to get them into bed or not.

That kind of attitude is disgusting, inappropriate, old fashioned and sexist. I thought you were better than to fall into such petty traps as those.

Cheers,

David

______

Originally, I held off on posting this, until I got a response from my friend that convinced me otherwise.

This is what my friend wrote:

David,

I am sorry - I did not mean anything by that comment. But I can see how it came off that way, and that was wrong of me.

Did I judge that girl by her appearance? Yes I did, as we all do when we see someone walking down the street. It is wrong, silly and juvenile, but I will not shy away from something we all do.

What I will try to do is think of what others would think of my comments made to myself before making them heard.

It is a small step in trying to change, but I hope that is enough.

______

I leave this question to you - Is pointing out the problem enough, or should I (and everyone) make people realize the problem and be the better for it?

If my friend does what he/she said, that's one small step in the right direction.

But is it enough?

Just a little quiz

Source

 As regular readers of this blog are aware - I am a very big proponent of science education.

Not only because it is a subject I enjoy learning about, but also because it helps me understand the world around me and taught me how to think analytically. My education in science has dictated much of my career path, from me pursuing it in university with the idea to become a zoology professor to getting my Masters of Journalism degree so I could learn to share my enthusiasm for the subject with others.

Not that I know everything there is to know about science - that is one of the beauties of the subject. Every day more experiments are published, theories explored and ideas thought up. Every day more knowledge gets added to the fields of science, and it constantly changes - you could even say it evolves.

I try to keep on top of most of it, and I usually succeed in my major fields of interest: biology, zoology, ecology and the like.

Earlier this week, I stumbled upon an online quiz from the Pew Research Center, in co-operation with Smithsonian Magazine. The Pew center define themselves as "a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world."

Their online quiz was designed to test scientific knowledge for a random samples of Americans.  While the main study is completed, you can still take the test and see how well you did comparatively.

While the test was designed for the U.S., it is a good way to gauge your knowledge on various fields of science - from nanotechnology to climatology.

You can take the quiz here: http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/science-knowledge/

And once you do, please let me know how you did! Either in the comment section below, Facebook, Twitter, Google +, email, etc...

Here be dragons!



Source

On Sunday March 31, 2013, the epic series Game of Thrones returns to HBO, with a rabid fan base already behind it. Full disclosure – I am a huge fan of the show and books in which they are based, and the show is probably one of the best on television, in my opinion.

The show takes place in Westeros, an Earth-like analogue with a wide array of people living, loving, fighting and killing to achieve what everyone wants – power. Some want it, while others are afraid to lose it and others are content just to stir the pot and see what happens. The show is equal parts political drama, medieval period piece and fantasy. In fact, the fantasy part is fairly muted at the beginning, but only increases in occurrence after one notable event at the end of the first season/book.

**Beware, very mild spoilers ahead for season and book one of Game of Thrones**

The event in question involves one of the most prevalent fantasy creatures – dragons.

In Westeros, dragons have been dead for hundreds of years, along with the magic that accompanied them. However, once the dragons come back, magic awakens as well.

But, that is in a fantasy world – what about on Earth (or an Earth-like planet)? Could dragons exist?

According to Professor John R. Hutchinson of The Royal Veterinary College in London, UK, the discussion all comes down to size and gravity. When a land animal increases in mass, gravity quickly dominates all its activities because of the various pressures it exerts on the animal’s body (but an animal in water is a very different story, just compare an elephant - the largest animal on land - with a blue whale, the largest animal in the ocean).

Now imagine an animal the size of a dragon – one long-dead in Game of Thrones was described as possessing jaws so big that it could swallow a mammoth whole and eclipse whole towns with its shadow. For much an animal to exist, it would need large bones to support its weight and muscles to move it, not to mention huge stores of energy to move and support such a large creature.

“Inevitably, the range of extreme activities that animals can do decreases as they get larger,” says Hutchinson. “So elephants don’t jump or gallop, whereas mice do; and large flying birds don’t whiz around like hummingbirds.”

One of the most identifying characteristics of a dragon is its ability to fly, but the problem of size rears its ugly head once again. As flying animals get bigger, their wing size needs to increase just as much, if not more.

“[A dragon] would need immense wings to support its weight,” said Hutchinson. “A lot of weight is wasted in that heavy tail and hind legs as well as the bulky head, too — those don’t help the dragon fly well at all. So at best such a smallish dragon would be a clumsy flier, and would have a hard time taking off.”

“If we move to a 500, let alone a 5,000 kilogram dragon, flight basically becomes out of the question in Earth’s gravity. So, one needs to invoke magic to explain a flying dragon.”

Source

Therefore, in a world without magic, it looks like a dragon of any size would not be able to grow to such mythic proportions as described in various fantasy stories. But, what about if dragons were built like birds?

The largest bird found today is the California condor, with an average weight of 10 kilograms, a length of just over 4 feet and a wingspan of over 10 feet having been recorded (which is two and a half times its length!).

Conservatively, let us say that a dragon weighs 50 kg, and if it follows the same construction and weight distribution as a condor, than it would clock in at just over 20 feet in length and a wingspan over 50 feet.

Large? Sure. But theoretically possible.

But bigger dragons, like those described in Game of Thrones would be more like 500 kg, which would make their length 200 feet (or about two-thirds of a football field) with a wingspan of 500 feet (or the height of a 50-storey building!)

Suffice to say, even if it could exist, the physics alone would not allow such an animal to move, much less have enough energy to fly.

While dragons would not be able to fly or reach such massive size described across the globe, what about the other impressive characteristic of a dragon – its ability to spew fire?

According to Hutchinson, dragon fans will be disappointed once again.

While some animals, such as bombardier beetles, can excrete a hazardous and incendiary-type of fluid from their bodies on rare occasions for defense, fire-breathing it is not.

“Intensely hot flame takes massive amounts of energy to produce and to be hot enough to damage flesh, it would thus cook the dragon from the inside out anyway,” he adds. “I don’t see a realistic way that a very large animal could breathe some sort of fire-like substance. Tiny animals might get away with something like that on a small scale with chemical cocktails, but a huge animal would neither be able to fuel the energy needed to breathe fire nor avoid scorching itself. Again, magic (or a good imagination) is the only option to allow for such a creature.”

With fire-breathing going up in a puff of smoke along with monstrous size and ability to fly, what are we left with to satiate our need for dragons?

Source

Komodo dragons and Pterosaurs.

Komodo dragons are the largest living reptile on the planet, growing up to 10 feet and 150 kilograms, able to run up to 20 kilometres per hour and dive up to 15 feet. While not able to breathe fire, Komodo dragons do have a bad bite, filled with dangerous bacteria and venom – which they use to incapacitate and even kill prey with a single bite.

Pterosaurs, on the other hand, were flying dinosaurs existing millions of years ago. Hutchinson says that they could weigh 50 to 250 kilograms, have wingspans up to 36 feet and when standing, could be up to 18 feet (thanks to Brian Switek, paleontological guru for help with those numbers). Sadly, as with all dinosaurs, they have long since gone from this world.

Source

“We have had large sort-of-dragon-like animals in the past in the form of pterosaurs or even sort-of-giant eagles and vultures, but a real dragon in the sense of classic or modern fantasy just ain’t going to ever happen.”

Sadly, science tells us that dragons are merely a fantasy, but it doesn’t stop millions of people loving them. Just because dragons are an impossible flight of fancy on Earth, in the land of Westeros, anything is possible.

Short and sweet

Every since Science Online 2013 ended, I have been very busy with a variety of things including work, developing some super-secret side-projects and more. But being busy is often a double-edged sword.

While these projects are developing and turning into some fantastic stuff that I am sure you all will enjoy - it has left me with little time to read the ever-increasing amount of books I endlessly accumulate and post on this blog.

But, take heed loyal reader, as I have not forsaken you.

Over the past week and a half, I've been communicating with experts in various fields, and asking them questions that can come up in normal conversation - for example: How can black holes exist if we cannot see them? Or, how hot is magma locked in the Earth's core?

The process is simple - I ask an expert in a field four questions. They pick two and answer each in four sentences of less so that anyone can understand.

I hope to continue this series going, so if you have any ideas for experts or questions to ask, please do so in the comments!


Man, that's heavy
 
The first expert is David Shiffman, a shark conservationist and ecologist graduate student in Florida. He blogs regularly at Southern Fried Science and tweets at @WhySharksMatter.

Question 1: Since it is right there in your Twitter handle, I must ask - Why do shark matter?

Answer: Many species of sharks are top predators in their food chains. Top predators can influence their ecosystem both by regulating populations of prey, and by influencing the behavior of prey. In short, they help keep ocean ecosystems healthy.

Question 2: How can whales grow so big in the water, but the biggest animal on land (the elephant) is only a fraction of that?

Answer: The answer to this is simple- gravity. There's a limit to how big things can get on land because after a certain point they get too heavy. Water provides increased buoyancy. Blue whales are bigger than the biggest land dinosaurs ever were.


Short, stocky and strong

This leads perfectly into our next expert, Brian Switek, a freelance science writer who spends his life getting to know anything and everything he can about dinosaurs. He blogs at National Geographic and is on Twitter as @Laelaps.

Question 1: Who would win in an arm wrestle, an average man or a T. rex?

Answer: There would be no question. Tyrannosaurus rex would win. Estimates based on bio-mechanics indicate that the arm of T. rex was about three and a half times more powerful than that of the average person. The arms of T. rex were short and stocky, but very powerful.

Question 2: How did mammals survive the extinction event 65 million years ago and the dinosaurs didn't?

Answer: Actually, dinosaurs did survive. Avian dinosaurs - birds - escaped extinction and carry on the dinosaur legacy today. And even though mammals also survived, many mammal lineages died out in the catastrophe. Exactly why birds, mammals, and other creatures persisted while the non-avian dinosaurs died out, however, is a mystery that hinges on how climate change, volcanic activity, and asteroid impact translated into pressures that changed the world.


Invisible doesn't mean it's not there

The final expert is Matthew R. Francis, a physicist and science writer who writes at Bowler Hat Science and tweets at @DrMRFrancis.

Question 1: How do we know black holes exist if we cannot see them?

Answer: We can't see black holes directly, but many of them are surrounded by matter - mostly gas stripped off stars or from other sources. When that gas falls toward the black hole, it forms a fast-rotating disk, that heats up and emits a lot of light in the form of X-rays and radio waves. So, even though black holes don't emit any light of their own, they can be some of the brightest objects in the Universe.

Question 2: What does E=mc^2 actually mean in terms of everyday life?

Answer: "E= mc^2" literally tells us that mass is a form of energy, and anything with mass will have that energy even if it's not moving. Most of the mass of your body is in the protons and neutrons in its atoms, but those are made up of the smaller particles known as quarks. The mass of a proton is a lot greater than the mass of the quarks that make it up; the rest of the mass comes from the energy that binds the quarks together. In other words, "E=mc^2" is responsible for most of the mass of your body!

Thank you very much to Brian, Matthew and David for all their help, time and effort - and remember, if you have any ideas for experts or questions to ask, please let me know in the comments.

Science-ish

Over the past week, I have seen two movies about “science,” but in reality, discuss much bigger topics.

The first one I saw was a movies from a few years ago, “Splice,” starring Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley. The plot is simple mad scientists gone rogue kind of tale – make a discovery, make something freaky, try to keep it a secret and live to regret that decision.


**WARNING – THERE BE SPOILERS AHEAD!**

The science in the movie is kind of iffy – Brody and Polley, as genetic engineers, splice DNA from a variety of species to create a new life-form and harvest precious chemicals for the pharmaceutical industry. But, when they perish, they go Frankenstein and decide to add something else into the DNA melting pot – MAN.

Moving away from the ethical implications, the animals they splice together would never truly be compatible. According to the X-Rays in the credits, there are reptiles, amphibians, mammals, birds, fish, etc… all in the mix.

Just … no.

And then, they create a new creature that looks like a bird mixed with a lamprey with human-esque eyes, which then gradually turns into something resembling a little girl with a cranial fissure bisecting her head and a very long tail with a stinger at the end. The creature, named “Dren” (get it? Nerd backwards) almost dies before they realize she has TWO sets of lungs, one of which is amphibious.

After a series of events, Dren quickly matures into a woman that Adrien Brody has sex with after learning that Sarah Polley used her DNA to make the hybrid.

Oh, and Dren sprouts wings like an archeopteryx.

Then, as if to make things worse, Dren then scampers off, kills Brody, switches gender, rapes Sarah Polley and dies. And then, surprise surprise, Sarah Polley ends up pregnant and ‘sells her soul’ and unborn child to the same pharmaceutical company that she was originally working for.

The movie ends with her saying, “What’s the worst that could happen?”

Normally, I can shut my brain off for stupid movies and just enjoy it, but I became more and more upset by this film as it slowly pranced along. It got to a point where I was yelling at the TV, “NO! Bad science!”

I believe what bugged me the most was that there are two types of science fiction movies: those based in a close-facsimile to our world (whether in the future or present-esque time) or one based in a different universe with superheroes, aliens, etc.

Splice was visibly in a world quite similar to ours, but pushed the boundaries of science and imagination into the other territory. It required too many intuitive leaps to make it believable.

Take another sci-fi movie based in a world similar to our own – The Fly, by David Cronnenberg and Jeff Goldblum.

You take one premise, that Goldblum’s character invents teleportation, and the rest of the movie builds upon that one premise. You learn all the “rules” of the experiment quickly and, when his DNA merges with that of a fly, it’s a believable. And his disgusting transformation needs no other scientific explanation.

The other movie I saw was Ridley Scott’s “Prometheus.”

A lot has been written on the movie from two very different perspectives – that it is a prequel to the Alien movies, and that it is its own movie. And, I don’t think either of those is quite right. I believe it is more of a hybrid of the two, since it has connections to the Alien series, but not quite a straight line.

The science in the movie is a bit more believable because it takes place in such a dystopian future on an alien world with bizarre beings. So, because of that, you’re able to distance yourself from the reality of our world and focus on the mysterious new one displayed on the silver screen.

You do get a bit of DNA/human evolution/creationism/evolution in the movie that muddies the waters, as well as so many hidden meanings regarding empowerment and the merits of life that could make your head spin.

But then there’s the xenomorph.

From all the blogs and commentaries I’ve read, it appears that we are witnessing the evolution of the xenomorph – the spot in the bottle that David finds, the “face lampreys,” the squid baby, giant face hugger and finally an early xenomorph.

And if you take a close look at creature that emerges from the Engineer at the end of the movie, it is similar to the alien we all know and move, but a bit more rudimentary. It is lacking some of the specific traits of the xenomorph that we all know and love.

I enjoyed the movie as a separate entity from Scott's Alien franchise, but as a prequel lead-in, I can see why people are disappointed. It answers a few bigger questions from that universe, but adds so many more.

Two movies: One that deals with a human/multi-species hybrid that kills scientists and blurs the lines of acceptable science, while the other deals humankind’s search for answers about life, the universe and xenomorphs on an alien world in the far future.

But at least science is IN the movies, right?

Confessions of a science clown

In the weeks since Science Online 2012 ended, there has been a lot of discussion over different social media platforms about the experience, what could be done differently, the highs and lows and most importantly, what could be discussed next year.

I’ve made a lot of new friends since the conference, and have already started discussing topics for next year.

But, this post isn’t going to be about that. This will be about something that was mentioned during the conference at the banquet.

At the banquet, a number of attendees got up and shared stories under the theme of “connections,” and they were all fantastic.

One spoke about their career, another recounted a bizarre story involving pubic lice, and another told a personal story about their battle with depression. A fellow Canadian, however, spoke about teaching science to children and how it profoundly changed her perspective.

This tale of mine takes place a number of years ago, before I came to the decision to pursue my Masters of Journalism and was still set on becoming a professor of zoology, but I will refrain from mentioning the business by name.

When I was a kid and went to summer camp, every now and then, we’d have a special activity where a “scientist” (named so because he or she would be wearing a lab coat) would teach us something about science in a fun way. We’d learn about water pressure by making water rockets and about geometry by building bridges.

So, when I was looking for a part-time job, working for them seemed like a natural fit.

I applied, being ridiculously over-qualified, and I was quickly hired.

The first step was to be trained in their various experiments and how to explain them to children. Coming from science, I never once looked at the instruction booklet. I already knew the three pillars a fire needs, or why dry ice turns from solid to gas and did not need to re-learn it. In fact, I helped teach others why certain reactions or experiments worked, where the booklet did not explain it correctly (and there were more than a few instances of that).

The next step was creating a unique nickname that the kids could call you, such as Atomic Allison or Rocket Rose. Sadly, Dynamite David was taken, as was Dinosaur Dave.

So, I ended up being, after a process of elimination, “Dynamo Dave.”
I cannot tell you how many times kids asked what a dynamo was.

Dynamo Dave in all his glory at a Halloween party (blood is fake, just fyi)

Very quickly, I was being sent out to children’s birthday parties and running after-school activities. It was actually a lot of fun … at first.

However, there was no variation. You either did kit A, B or C. You could not vary and could not deviate from their approved lesson plans. But, where’s the fun in that, right?

So, I went Frankenstein on the lesson plans for birthday parties.

Taking the specifics that the parents ordered (such as rocketry, the take-home, cotton candy, etc…), I began to cobble together the most interesting and cool experiments that would entertain as well as educate.

I’d start off with a magic trick on the birthday boy or girl that always amazed. Following that, it was time for the cooler stuff – fire.

Being mindful of safety, I would use alcohol to set some paper money afire, as well as have a candle re-light after blowing it out.

The most important thing, to me, was to make sure they kids being entertained were also learning about how fire works, why something happens and what makes it that way.

Following that, if the parents ordered it, I’d move on to dry ice. If not, then I’d do more experiments with fire and chemicals, explaining as I went. I would make beakers and flasks bubble and boil, change colour and spurt out soap … all the while explaining the science behind it as I did.

The next step was always my favourite: rockets. If the parents paid the premium, I would talk about space flight, how rockets work, thrust and good old gravity. Then, we’d go outside, prepare mission control and count down to launch.

The birthday boy or girl would press the launch button, of course.

The final step would be to make the take-home activity, which varied from super-bouncy balls, to gooey slime or silly putty. It was messy and aggravating work, but I learned a valuable lesson – sometimes they don’t work, so you better have made some beforehand, or the kids will riot.

And that would be the end, after a short experiment that left them in awe and singing happy birthday. Once the kids left, I would pack up, collect my fee and drive to my next engagement.

It was the perfect job, except the transportation became an issue.

They would have me drive all over the city and surrounding townships with only a one-hour buffer (which was actually 30 minutes, since there was a 15 minute start-up and pack-up time needed).

So, after one disastrous Saturday where I crisscrossed the city and broke the speed limit multiple times in fear of missing the party, I had enough. While the job was fun and management loved me and wanted me to go full-time, I had to call it quits.

I had to make a decision between school and the job, and I chose school, and it was a decision I do not regret to this day.

I did pick up a few “valuable life skills” from working birthday parties and after-school programs, such as making balloon animals.

And, I am not ashamed to admit, that the job was not being a mad scientist or a science entertainer – no, I was a science clown ... and proud of it!!

For those who just want a little bit more science nerdy-ness in their lives, check out the video below - shot by my good friend, Carin Bondar, at the Science Online 2012 conference!
Can you spot my cameo?

My name is David, and I Am Science (AKA my origin story)

In the week since Science Online 2012 ended, there has been a lot of discussion over different social media platforms about the experience, what could be done differently, the highs and lows and most importantly, what could be discussed next year.

I’ve made a lot of new friends since the conference, and have already started discussing topics for next year.

But, this post isn’t going to be about that. This will be about something that came up after the conference by Kevin Zelnio.

Kevin wrote a post on his blog here about how he ended up in science and called it #IAmScience. In the post, he outlined how he ended up where he is today, and that not everyone takes the standard A – B path to end up involved in science. This one post spawned a whole host of other people online to share their stories, and this is mine.

I’ve talked on my blog before about how, as a child, I was obsessed with dinosaurs. That was my first real exposure to science and that there were cool jobs involved in the study of living (or extinct) things.

I was always a smart kid, and this gave me an outlet to channel my love of information and learning. I would consume books about dinosaurs by the bucket-load, and would beg my parents to take me to the museum again and again, just on the off-chance I’d see something new or learn a cool tidbit.

My parents obliged more often than not, and bought me books, videos, wooden fossil duplicates and more.

This passion for paleontology sustained me for many years, but it eventually gave way to something else: acting.

All the world’s a stage

My family, especially my dad and older sister, are movie buffs. We have seen just as many classics as current movies, and I grew up with this love of film and theatre. So, it really came as no surprise that I eventually stumbled into acting.

And boy, did I love it, especially acting in musicals.

My first role ever was in a summer camp production of Beauty and the Beast, where I played Belle’s horse, Phillipe. Those of you who know your Disney movies know that it was not a major role, but it was enough.

The following few years, I acted in a bunch of musicals in school, camp and beyond, even landing the main roles in a few of them. For more on my acting, you can see my post on LabSpaces here.

But science was always there.

Throughout middle school and high school, I continued to be fascinated by science. I’d do experiments, learn whatever I could, absorb knowledge like a sponge and tell everyone I met about all the cool things I learned. My aptitude was in biology, specifically, animal biology.

I loved learning everything I could about animals, from weird facts to behaviors to ecology and diet.

However, like all things, my love for biology was almost extinguished.

In grade 10 Biology, my teacher was horrible and sucked all the fun out of science. He gave the class so many problems that parents complained, but nothing ever changed.

Once, during a group lab, one of my friend’s aunts passed away, so he went to Vancouver for the funeral. Unbeknownst to us, he took all the lab material with him, so we could not hand it in.

We all got a zero.

After much hubbub and calls by all of our parents, the teacher eventually relented and gave us all what we deserved. But, the whole experience with that class made me realize that science just wasn’t fun anymore.

My parents, however, convinced me to take grade 11, just to “keep my options open,” and I am glad they did.

The teacher, Mr. T, was fantastic. He was funny, energetic, passionate and not afraid to answer complex questions. And my marks skyrocketed along with my interest.

I still remember, after getting 100% on our genetic test, I asked him about variation in sex chromosomes from sex-linked disorders. And, after class, using nothing but a pencil and paper, he explained to me about “crossing over” (where chromosomes occasionally touch and exchange whole portions of their genomes with each other).

That one explanation opened my eyes to a world of science that I never even thought about.

It was then my future was decided: I was going to be a vet, combining my love of animals and passion for science.

The times, they are a changin'

Veterinary school was never really an option, though, after a visit to the allergist.

My sister was allergic to fish, so we never had any in the house. But, when she went backpacking through Europe, my parents thought it was the ideal time.
And, let’s just say it didn’t go well.

The allergist said I was allergic to fish and needed to carry an Epi-Pen, as well as dropped the bomb that I had a mild allergy to dogs and cats. It was nothing serious, but enough that could warrant medication and potentially wear off.

“And I don’t know about you,” he said in a somber tone, “but I wouldn’t want someone operating on my dog or cat who had watery eyes and was sniffling.”

So, as quickly as the dream popped into my head, it was gone.
But then, my dad mentioned pursing a PhD, becoming an expert in a field and working in that area.

“And what do you love?” he said.
“Animals!” I responded enthusiastically.
“Well, that would be zoology then, wouldn’t it?”

Animal obsessed

So, that was my goal.

I went to university for biology and zoology, and loved it (even when I said I didn’t, which was often).

In my second year, I took the “Animals” course, and met a new professor called Dr. K. He was bright, engaging and really funny, so he was perfect for such a dense subject.

As the semester went on we got talking about our likes, dislikes, the course, my future, etc… and he became a mentor of sorts. He introduced me to different professors, encouraged me to take a variety of courses and helped steer my education in the way I wanted.

I even took his fish biology class in fourth year (luckily, there was no lab component).

To boost my resume, also in second year, I also started writing for the school newspaper. Nothing permanent, but I would write on occasion about cool research at the university, interesting things that were happening in biology around the world, and more. My favourite piece I ever wrote was an In Memorium piece to a hero of mine, Steve “Crocodile Hunter” Irwin, who perished in an accident with a stingray.

But the writing was always secondary to biology.

Then, during my fourth year, Dr. K approached me about doing research work in his lab.
But how, I asked, since he worked in a fish lab and I was deathly allergic?
As it turned out, he was looking to branch out to other animals, and would start up a whole area of the lab, just for me, using frogs as test animals.

How could I say no?

So, for a year, I worked there, adapting fish procedures for frogs, under the guise of an amazing grad student named H, and I loved it.

THIS was what I was meant to do, I said.

But once the experiment was over and the analysis began, I became listless. I didn’t like the sedentary being I was slowly becoming, by being attached to the lab bench every day performing the same chemical tests on tissues again and again. I loved the science and what I was doing, but I felt that what I was doing was not what I wanted.

A subtle shift

I realized this, as fate would have it, around Christmas of that year, when my grandfather passed away.

There was a moment, sitting in a chair at the retirement home where he had been living, where I asked myself “if I don’t want this, what else can I do?”

And then my sister did something.

She pulled out the latest article I had written for the school paper, and said that I’ve greatly improved as a writer.

“Huh, a writer,” I said to myself. “No one ever called me a writer before.”

Sure, English teachers and professors had complimented me on my writing, and my lab reports were always well done, but I figured that was because I read a lot.

So I thought about it while I continued to work at the lab.

Writing was something I never considered before, so I spoke to some professors, relatives and parents about it, and “journalism” kept popping up.

I could still learn about science, which I loved with a passion, and share it with others, which I had been doing ever since I was a little kid in the museum – science journalism seemed like a good fit.

So, crossing my fingers, I applied to some journalism schools in Canada for the Masters program, and got accepted by the most reputable one in the country.

It was a struggle going from science writing to writing about science, but I learned a lot and never strayed from my love of science.

Even though I am no longer attached to a lab bench, I am still tethered to science. I read copious amount of material, I blog and I share my love of science with an enthusiasm that knows no bounds.

I Am Science.


I Am Science from Mindy Weisberger on Vimeo.

Science Online 2012: A Post-Mortem

For those of you unaware, last Wednesday I travelled to the mystical land of Raleigh, North Carolina and attended a really unique conference entitled Science Online 2012. It is what is known as an “unconference,” where there are no lectures or presentations, but sessions that encourage and are built on discussion.

I could talk about all the fun that was had over there, the people I met for the first time in person (but have been talking to for years online) or the exciting times that were had. But, people have already written marvelous posts on that already (such as Ed Yong, Sarah Chow and more). Therefore, I will focus on a few things at the conference that really surprised me.

On the first day of the conference, after meeting countless people I’ve been talking to on Twitter for years, I decided to attend a variety of sessions. Most surprisingly, practically right out of the gate, one immediately blew me away.

The session, entitled “Sex, gender and controversy: writing to educate, writing to titillate” was moderated by the amazing @KateClancy and the incredible @scicurious about a blogger’s identity, comment moderation and the difficulty of being outspoken and passionate about science.

Prior to the conference, both Kate and Sci had posted blogs that received a lot of flack. And not constructive criticism, mind you, but a variety of hateful and mean-spirited comments that insulted their intelligence, status and even gender.

Now, I’ve been lucky, the readers of my blog have been quite kind. And some have criticized me about mistakes or called me out on a few things, but it was always done with tact. But never like those two ladies described, and while others recounted their experiences with similar situations, I was struck by the courage writers have.

Yes, we get criticized a lot, that is just a fact of nature.

It is one thing to get in a discussion about a fact or opinion, but another to discredit a the thoroughly researched and hard-worked piece simply because of gender. That is not right, that is not appropriate and that is not the age I thought we lived in.

But then Kate said something.

“You just need to keep going. Wipe yourself off, make your next one better and show them you are better than they are.”

Now that takes balls for anyone for anyone to do.

Even after attending numerous different sessions throughout the conference that one sticks in my mind as a clear standout.

Another surprising element from the conference was that notable bloggers/writers were happy to talk to everyone. While some people knew who I was (and that was fantastic), I was really surprised just how nice everyone was, whether they were “famous” or not.

But the greatest thing about the conference was how easily the friendships cultivated online, through Twitter, Facebook or whatever other social media platforms, seamlessly moved into meeting in person.

There are a few shout outs I must make, to those who made my time at the conference just that much more memorable. I have already thanked some of them via Twitter, but it is still an incomplete list. However, I am pasting those I have done here for all to see.

Favourite #scio12 moments:

My session with @DrRubidium, where we made people laugh (and think) using Mel Brooks movie clips
Talking at great length with @sciencecomedian and actually making him laugh more than once!

Holding court with the almost too amazing for words @jeannegarb in the #DSN suite (and later during the endnote)

Helping out @DrBondar and @sciencegoddess with the film festival (technical glitches and all)

Spending time with the fascinating @astvintagespace and bonding over space, university and telling stories

Getting my armpits swabbed for microbes by @DrHolly ... FOR SCIENCE

Meeting @experrinment and watching her draw & sketch fabulous works of art

@arikia and @hannahjwaters using very different "methods" to open my locked from the inside hotel room door

@scicurious #NuffSaid

There are more wonderful people who I met that I’ve forgotten and others who aren’t on the list but deserve to be.

See you all next year!

Aliens and Arsenic: A Love Story

NOTE: THIS POST IS TAKEN FROM MY NEWEST LABSPACES POST WHICH CAN BE FOUND HERE

Are there aliens among us?

Short answer – No, at least not yet.

Despite the journalistic frenzy that was the NASA press conference held a few days ago, the paper published in the journal Science about a rather unique organism that was hailed as “extraterrestrial” by the news media fell short of its promise.

Sadly, the organism they discuss is clearly terrestrial, albeit an odd one.

In the paper, the author’s discuss a bacterium that was able to use the element arsenic instead of phosphorus, but I’m getting ahead of myself. First, a little information is needed regarding DNA.

DNA possesses a backbone of a phosphate bound to a sugar molecule. The phosphate is a phosphorous atom bound to four oxygen atoms. Now remember this, it is important.

Arsenic, which is directly below phosphorus on the periodic table, shares many of the same properties with phosphorous. In fact, arsenic can bind with four oxygen atoms to create arsenate, which behaves in a very similar way to phosphate.

Now, what the researchers did in the science paper was go to Mono Lake in California and find an “extremophile” bacteria, which is a bacteria that can survive in extremely harsh conditions (such as very high salt, temperature, high concentrations of acid, etc…). The scientists then isolated a strain of the bacteria in the lab and began to examine it.

In the lab, the researchers fed the bacteria essential nutrients, including phosphate, with little arsenic. Then, they gradually removed phosphate and replaced it with increasing concentrations of arsenic.
Over time, there was no phosphate left in the nutrients and only arsenic. By probing the DNA and proteins of the bacteria, they found that the organisms were using arsenate instead of phosphate.

Basically, they had created arsenic-based life. They did not find arsenic-based life, but had experimentally created it.
 
This is where the news media got it wrong.

It’s just like my mom when she got me to eat spinach. She would place a few leaves of spinach into a salad, saying it was a different type of lettuce, and I would eat it all together and not be able to tell the difference. Gradually, the salads became more and more spinach and less lettuce, until there was no lettuce left.

When asked if I liked the ‘salad’ and I replied with a big yes, did my mother admit that there was no lettuce in the salad - just spinach. From then on, I began to eat spinach.

See, the bacteria uses phosphate just like us. They prefer it!

But, they are adapted to live in Mono Lake, which has high concentrations of arsenic (the ability to survive there is amazing in and of itself), and can incorporate it into their biological mechanisms when absolutely necessary.

Also, by taking a look at a diagram from the paper below, you can see that all was not well with the arsenate bacteria. In fact, the arsenic bacteria (D) took longer to grow than their phosphate counterparts (C), despite their increased size.

As well, the arsenic-reared bacteria had huge vacuoles (fluid filled sacs) within them. What those sacs mean is up to interpretation, as arsenic-based compounds are not very durable in water. Perhaps it was to segregate water from the fragile compounds?

Suffice to say, the discovery was cool, but it is not extraterrestrial life. It was alien, but not unlike a genetically altered E. coli or Drosophila.

Other questions also rise up regarding a phosphate-free existence:
-       What about ATP/ADP/AMP?
-       Were there traces amounts of phosphorous used in such low amounts that they were undetectable?
-       What about all other DNA replication, translation and transcription?

This research is interesting, and has some great potential, but is lightyears away from proof of extraterrestrial life.

Here is the paper from Science:
Wolfe-Simon, F., Blum, J., Kulp, T., Gordon, G., Hoeft, S., Pett-Ridge, J., Stolz, J., Webb, S., Weber, P., Davies, P., Anbar, A., & Oremland, R. (2010). A Bacterium That Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1197258

Also, here is a great article written by Carl Zimmer about the discovery, where he actually interviewed the lead author and researcher in the paper:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/

Welcome to Blog 2.0!

Welcome, welcome, welcome!

As you have most likely noticed, there are a few things different about my blog, so let me walk you through the changes.

1) The colour scheme has been slightly altered. Nothing dramatic, just a few tweeks here and there

2) I have a rather large picture at the top of my blog from my undergraduate thesis. It is an immuno-histochemical stain of a cross section of a frog kidney, with different colours representing different components within.
Blue shows DNA, red is for tight junction proteins (which holds cells together), and lastly, green stands for the sodium-potassium ATPase pump (which controls the levels of sodium and potassium within the blood).

3) The title has dramatically been changed.

My blog is no longer entitled, "Musings of a Manly."

It served me well in the two and a half years I have had this blog, but as Bob Dylan says, "The times, they are a changin'."

Let me explain.

I started this blog when I was finishing up my undergraduate degree in Biology, and was simply looking for an outlet for my writing. I wrote about anything that came to mind, but since my life focused around school, that was one of the prevalent topics.

However, since I will be receiving a Master's degree in Journalism in a few short weeks, it was time to change this blog to something more akin to what I want to do as a career. For anyone who has met me, you all know what that is - science journalism.

Therefore, I wanted a title that had a scientific meaning to it, but that a normal person could say and understand in some way, shape or form.

Numerous ideas came up, and were seriously considered. Some of the options were: Blog-ology, View from the lab bench, and Occam's Razor.

And then, while thinking about parasites (which I do quite often), I came up with the current title of my blog - The definitive host.

The title, even if you have not studied science, still makes sense. However, if you know anything about epidemiology, the study of diseases, then it has added meaning.

4) And lastly, the most significant change will be the content.

While it will still be my blog, the focus will shift from my life to a more focused view on science and that which I find interesting. While I will primarily write about all aspects of science that peak my interest, I will also discuss movies, video games, technology, comics, etc...

I do not expect all of you to continue reading my blog because of these changes, especially those of you who have no interest in reading about science or technology, but I urge you to give it a chance.

Thank you, and I hope you enjoy what I write!

Signed,

David
The definitive host

P.S. And yes, I pick up the pen and start writing "The Black" again, as I know some of you have been anxiously waiting to see what I have in store for you. Have no fear, the next part is coming!!!