Curio Cabinet / Daily Curio

There's a new trend among drone owners: flying themselves around. It's quite a spectacle, but it's not the first time this country has seen one-man hover vehicles. For today's Aeronautics Themed Thursday, we're investigating the U.S. Army's awkward De Lackner HZ-1 Aerocycle (shown above in all its glory). In the '50s and '60s, as America faced the possible threat of nuclear annihilation, the army investigated this contraption as a futuristic reconnaissance tool. If they'd followed through with their research, legions of these flying platforms would've descended on battlefields like giant weed-whackers. The small craft consisted of a platform lifted by rotor blades, with airbags for landing gear. To fly, a soldier simply fed a throttle attached to bicycle handlebars and leaned in whichever direction he wished to go (no training wheels required). And the gangly Aerocycle could reach a top speed of 65 miles per hour. Still, the army terminated the project for multiple reasons. For one, there had been a handful of crashes. Also, generals wanted soldiers to learn how to fly it in 20 minutes, which wasn't feasible. (Novice pilots standing three feet above high-velocity rotor blades without a harness… you get the picture.) Whatever the case, I'm glad these things aren't commercially available. Can you imagine the stupid things people would be doing with them? The drone that dropped into my backyard recently was invasive enough—without a person attached!
 

Below: footage of the De Lackner HZ-1 Aerocycle in action.
 

Image credit & copyright: U.S. Army/army.arch
 

Uh oh. For a few years now, scientists have been sending warning signals that the blue light emitted from our laptops and mobile phones might be unhealthy. The blue spectrum inhibits our bodies' abilities to produce melatonin, disrupting our sleep patterns. It also increases the risk of eyestrain, obesity, and even some cancers. Now a new study, published in Scientific Reports last month, has found that our blue-tinted screens are slowly making us go blind! A team of optical chemists from the University of Toledo conducted the research. They determined that blue light—unlike green, yellow, or red light—causes molecules in our retinas to produce toxic byproducts that permanently damage photoreceptor cells. For some reason, only light in the blue part of the spectrum kills the photoreceptors, effectively causing macular degeneration. That's the number one cause of blindness worldwide. While more research is needed to determine how much exposure to blue light is too much, there is a growing public health movement to limit people's screen time after dark, especially in totally dark rooms. Some are even calling for the tech industry to end their love affair with blue-light screens and switch to the red-orange tinted screens used by the military. Or you can wear sunglasses that filter UV and blue light while you are texting. So sexy!
 

Image credit & copyright: Blue Light Exposed
 

170 years ago this week, the New York Herald ran a small article about the discovery of gold in the mountain streams east of the modest port town of San Francisco. The news had taken over six months to reach the East Coast. Within a few months, gold fever would sweep the entire nation into a frenzy. But dreams of gold riches were nothing new. For centuries, educated men had been trying to turn things into gold. Dubbed alchemy, the mythical science of turning base metals into gold—or a mythical substance called the philosopher's stone—had obsessed great minds like Roger Bacon, Robert Boyle, and Isaac Newton. Many foundational principles of modern chemistry were discovered during the pursuit of alchemy. But no gold. That finally changed in 1980, when a little-known scientist named Glenn Seaborg decided to prove alchemy was possible using a particle accelerator.
 

Seaborg was no dummy. He had led the team that isolated plutonium in 1941; discovered ten elements; won the Nobel Prize in 1951; served as the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission; and isolated over 100 isotopes, including the live-saving iodine-131. He is also the only chemist to have an element named after him while still living: seaborgium (106). At age 68, Seaborg decided to prove he could turn a heavy metal into gold. Most alchemists believed lead (82) could be turned into gold (79), but Seaborg chose lead's neighbor on the periodic table, bismuth (83). The stuff in Pepto-Bismol and shotgun pellets. That's because bismuth only has one stable isotope, making it easier to work with in nature. Seaborg and a team of scientists used Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's particle accelerator to fire beams of carbon and neon nuclei into bismuth foil. As they had theorized, some of the nuclei sheared off exactly four protons from the bismuth atoms, leaving behind atoms with 79 protons, or gold. The gold atoms had atomic weights between 190 and 199—meaning they had lost between six and 15 neutrons. Gold 197 is the stable isotope we put in wedding bands and bank vaults. There were so few gold atoms in the resulting collision that the team couldn't detect them with a mass spectrometer. Instead they had to measure the radioactive decay of the unstable gold atoms. Which took over a year! It also cost lots of money. Before he died, Seaborg estimated that his process would cost one quadrillion dollars per ounce of gold produced. Fool's gold indeed.

Last month, the annual Vent Haven International Ventriloquist Convention was held at a Holiday Inn outside of Cincinnati. More than 500 ventriloquists—and their dummies—gathered to perform for each other and share advice about their quirky profession/hobby. But ventriloquism is more than just a clever parlor trick. Scientists believe it explains a lot about how our brain processes sensory information. Most people wrongly believe ventriloquists "throw" their voice to their puppets. In fact, our brains do the throwing. Our senses are constantly sending information to our brains, which must process the data according to what neurologists call an optimal integration model. Normally, the brain gives the most credence to visual stimuli, because 99% of the time our vision is providing the most accurate and rich information. The ventriloquism illusion takes advantage of this phenomenon. When our brains see a dummy's mouth moving, and the operator's mouth to the left not moving, it assumes the speech must be coming from the dummy and "throws" the sound to the right. After a few minutes, our brains are so convinced the dummy is talking that if the dummy does actually produce sound our brains get tricked and throw it further to the right. This is called the ventriloquism aftereffect and it's similar to another neuro-sensory phenomenon known as the waterfall illusion. If you stare at a waterfall long enough, when you quickly turn your head the first rock you see will appear to be moving upwards, opposite the waterfall. Our brain has experienced neural fatigue and stopped processing the signals of the water moving. When we quickly look at something not moving, the neurons still make the same adjustment, making it look like it's moving in the opposite direction. The same applies for the ventriloquism aftereffect. When the sound actually comes from the dummy, our brains shift its source to the left because the brain is moving all sounds to the left. In other words, we're the dummy.

On this day in 1972, the sun exploded. Sort of. A massive solar flare sent a wave of energetic particles cascading into the solar system. The wave consisted mostly of free protons, with some electrons and heavier atoms mixed in. The tsunami of radiation didn't hurt people on Earth because of our planet's powerful magnetic field, called the magnetosphere. But if anybody had been standing on the Moon's surface it would have been a different story. Which is only relevant because it was during the heart of the United States' Apollo space missions. Astronauts from Apollo 16 had returned safely in April of 1972, and the final Apollo 17 mission was scheduled for December of that year. Scientists at the time were aware of the flare, but didn't understand exactly how damaging it would have been if the astronauts had been on the Moon. The Moon has no magnetic field. So the high speed particles would have passed right through the astronauts' skin, depositing energy inside their bodies and damaging their cells—including DNA structures—along the way. Like exposure to an atomic weapon, it would have increased their risk for cancer and possibly caused acute radiation sickness or even death. Even before the 1973 solar flare, Apollo astronauts were aware they were risking dangerous radiation exposure during their missions. I guess it didn't seem so dangerous at the time, especially after they'd already agreed to ride inside an oversized aluminum can that has 7.5 million pounds of thrust and goes 20,000 miles per hour. Let's just say this: thank you, astronauts!
 

Image credit & copyright: NOAA
 

Dr. Paul Ehrlich, Stanford professor of population studies and friend of Curious, has a different argument against building President Trump's wall: the environment. Ehrlich recently co-authored a paper with his colleague Rodolfo Dirzo that warns of the ecological disaster that will follow if a continuous wall is built between Mexico and the U.S. Nearly 3,000 scientists have already endorsed the paper since it was published last month in the journal BioScience. In their paper, Ehrlich and Dirzo discuss the damage that will likely occur along the 2,000-mile border, which is home to over 1,500 native species of plants and animals—many of which will face extinction. Animals will be endangered because their movements will be cut off, preventing seasonal migration paths to access critical food, water, and mating resources. Plants will be endangered by the loss of animal partners who help them reproduce via pollination or seed disbursement; as well as potential damage from the huge construction efforts. Ehrlich and Dirzo cite examples of previous wall projects, which required massive road construction and earth moving. Which in turn fragmented fragile habitats, eroded soil, changed fire patterns and altered hydrological processes (causing localized droughts and floods). In a recent interview, Dirzo explained that the U.S./Mexico border is an amazing mosaic of ecosystems. It's one of the few places where species from Northern temperate climates and Souther tropical climates co-exist. For example, both the Peninsular bighorn sheep and Sonoran pronghorn antelope would be at risk for extinction without cross-border mobility. Ehrlich says they would likely turn into "zombie" species: smaller populations which would lose genetic variation and the ability to adapt. I kinda wonder if it isn't the humans who are turning into the "zombie" species?
 

Image credit & copyright: Sierra Club
 

You've heard of operating systems for your computer or smartphone. But what about an OS for your neighborhood? A new company—from Silicon Valley, of course—has finally received government approval to break ground on their first "village OS" on the outskirts of Amsterdam. The developer, named ReGen Villages, aims to create sustainable communities from scratch that are customized to the exact environment. Their first project is a 50-acre neighborhood that will be self-sufficient by using collected rainwater, storing energy, processing its own waste, and producing its own food. Solar panels will collect energy and store it in the batteries of the villagers' electric vehicles—parked on the outskirts of the neighborhood since the village will have no roads, only sidewalks and bike lanes. Sewage will be recycled into compost and potable water by a "living machine" of plants, trees, and an anaerobic digester. Food and animal waste will be turned into chicken and fish food thanks to an army of black soldier flies and aquatic worms. Which will feed the chicken and fish farmed by the community. All work on the "agrihood" will be performed by those living there, with credit towards HOA dues being earned for each hour worked. The company has announced those hours will be tracked using blockchain technology. I'm not sure if that is serious—blockchain is the technology behind cryptocurrencies like bitcoin—or if they are trying to make a Silicon Valley joke. Chains of blocks? Get it?
 

Image credit & copyright: ReGen Villages
 

It's Flashback Friday! Enjoy this favorite from the Curio Cabinet archives.
 

The oldest elephant lived 86 years. The oldest human lived 122. But that's nothing compared to the oldest vertebrate ever recorded—a 211-year-old bowhead whale. Until recently. A team from the University of Copenhagen has found a female Greenland shark they believe is around 390 years old, and could be as old as 515. Now that's old—even older than the oldest animal (including invertebrates) ever recorded: a 507-year-old Icelandic clam named Ming. Most impressive is the way the biologists determined the age of this Greenland shark, part of a group of "by-catch" (accidentally caught) sharks. Typically, researchers use growth rings on calcium carbonate stones found in a fish's ear to estimate age. But the Greenland shark has none. So the scientists used radiocarbon dating, measuring the decay of the radioactive isotope carbon-14 that had occurred in the shark's eye lens proteins since their birth. Specifically, they were looking for something called the bomb pulse—a sharp increase of carbon-14 in the oceanic food chain caused by nuclear bomb testing in the 1950s. Marine animals born after that time have elevated levels of carbon-14. First the team found a few sharks with high levels of carbon-14 in their eyes, then plotted a growth curve using the fact that Greenland sharks grow an average of 1 cm per year. The scientists admit that their method really only produces an accurate range. Thus, the oldest specimen they found could actually be as young as 272, or as old as 512. Still, that first places her on the planet somewhere between Columbus sailing the ocean blue and the American Revolution!

Would you look at that toothy grin? This hulking sweetheart wouldn't hurt anyone… probably. For today's Shark Week Themed Thursday, we're turning the classic Jaws matchup on its head. That's right. In an odd twist of fate, we're the apex predators doggy-paddling to composer John Williams' iconic overture. According to a statistical report assembled by researchers at Dalhousie University in Canada, for every human a shark kills, we kill millions. 100 million a year, to be exact. And that's a conservative estimate, says Dalhousie biologist Boris Worm. The number of sharks killed by humans could be as high as 273 million a year. Why are we killing so many of them, you might ask? Well, it's not to protect ourselves. Fishermen have been engaging in a form of poaching called finning, where they cleave the fins off live sharks before dumping the crippled fish back into the ocean. Shark fin soup fetches a pretty penny, and finning allows fishermen to surpass their shark quotas. It's a truly horrific way to go out—maybe even worse than being devoured alive (RIP, Quinn). But that's not all. Sharks also meet grim fates after inhaling our trash or getting snarled in nets. The researchers concluded that humans kill between 6.4 and 7.9 percent of each shark species annually, and calculated that a rate over 4.9 percent results in dwindling numbers. Without adequate shark populations, ecosystems fall out of balance. Take Australia, for example, where unchecked octopus populations have terrorized spiny lobsters. Sharks groom prey populations, like those of octopuses, so they don't become too numerous and face food shortages. Thankfully, organizations like the Guy Harvey Research Institute and SeaWorld have been tagging and tracking sharks. This allows them to see where shark migration routes overlap with human fisheries, which could affect fishing laws and zoning down the road. As for the finning problem, well, it looks like we're gonna need a bigger fine.
 

Image credit & copyright: Chris Perkins / mediadrumworld.com
 

Cochlear implants have transformed the lives of over half a million people who suffer from severe hearing impairment. The devices work by simulating the function of the cochlea: a spiral structure in our inner ear that vibrates in response to sound frequencies, activating hair cells that in turn stimulate the appropriate auditory nerve. People with sensorineural hearing loss have malfunctioning hair cells, which cochlear implants bypass by using electrodes to stimulate the neurons directly. But they have many limitations. For one, they don't work well in noisy environments. They also can't accurately reproduce melodies, because most cochlear implants are limited to only 22 frequencies. This is to prevent the electrodes from accidentally stimulating the wrong neuron—a phenomenon called "cross-talk" that happens when the electrodes are too close to each other. The result is that, to people with cochlear implants, the whole world sounds like it is being auto-tuned to just 22 pitches. But a promising new technology might change that. Called optogenetics, it genetically modifies the auditory neurons to be light-sensitive. They then can be stimulated by tiny optical fibers which give off light instead of electricity. Since light can be better confined than electrical current, in theory implants using optogenetics could have far more independent frequency channels, creating a much more accurate and acoustic sound representation. So far the technology has been tested in gerbils with promising results—although the scientists admit it's not so easy to tell if a gerbil is hearing every note of a Jimi Hendrix guitar solo. Tests with primates and eventually humans are in the works. Now that's research worth listening to!

It's Flashback Friday! Enjoy this favorite from the Curio Cabinet archives.
 

The dark side of the moon is more than just a great album by Pink Floyd. It's an amazing phenomenon. This beautifully-round rock rotates exactly in lockstep with our planet, its shape and arrival time changing on a precise 27-day schedule. But whether we see a full, gibbous, or crescent moon, we're always seeing the same side. The moon orbits, or revolves around the Earth at the same rate that it rotates around its own axis. So we keep seeing the same half. But it's not really dark. The "dark" side of the moon receives sunlight inversely proportional to the part of the hemisphere we can see—meaning the other side is only dark when our side is full. The moon didn't used to work this way. Initially, it orbited the Earth once every 10 hours. But Earth's gravitational pull was so strong it bent the moon out of shape; the sides closest and farthest from the earth bulged out. The other sides compensated by moving inward, creating a more elliptical shape. This shape allowed the Earth's gravity to exert a torque on the moon as it orbited. After just 1,000 years of this pushing and pulling, the torque effectively synced the rotation of the moon with its orbit. This process is known as tidal locking and has happened to most moons in our solar system. Give it another 50 billion years, and the moon's gravitational pull will eventually tidally lock the Earth. Meaning the earth would also rotate in sync with the moon, and only one half of our planet will ever see it. So in the meantime, make sure to enjoy the cosmic show the moon is still providing us every night (and day if you look carefully).