The Planetary News Radio – Episode 13: The Planetary Digest

Welcome to the Planetary News Radio Episode 13. It’s been a while since I recorded because I’ve been finishing up another project for The Planetary News, which is the print version of this news media project. It’s called the Planetary News Digest. The Digest is a [series of] short snippets of science in the news, and the interesting or unique thing about this is that it’s all been ranked by a truth score or a quality score algorithm that I’ve been developing over the last two years. And so I’ll just talk real quick about the algorithm, which does two things. One is it uses some information theory metrics to measure the quality of text and grammar. So, on one hand, it’s saying that this article is well written, or it uses a diverse amount of grammatical structures. So maybe that article has a higher reading level, which is something you want in science. And so this is really geared towards a science ranking algorithm, and then the other half of it is matching against a database of known deceptive statements, which includes positive and negative reviews like Amazon product reviews and hotel reviews. In some cases, the review the reviewer might have been purposely lying, and in other cases, the reviewer has been purposely truthful. So there’s some matching of grammar against known deceptive statements. 

So and the point of that is not to say that someone’s lying or anything like that. But in science, you want to have very clear grammar. And so you want to be able to tell if someone’s mis-stating a fact. And in order to do that, you need to have all of the information in the sentence, and so really grammatically in the English language and writing what deception worked out to be tends to be [the act of] hiding information, and this an be realated to a “truth score”]. But really, it’s  a willingness to write in a way that contains all the information, because then if you say something wrong, it could be fact-checked, and that’s good. And so this ranking isn’t necessarily saying whether an article or a statement is objectively true or false, because that’s almost impossible. That would take an advanced artificial intelligence. But what it’s saying is that this article contains the information and it’s written in a way that it could be fact-checked, and that’s all I could ask for. 

As a scientist, I can’t ask people to agree with my opinion or to always go the way I want to go. All right. All I can ask people to do is provide an objective assessment of what their viewpoint is [so that it can be criticized, critiqued, and fact-checked]. And so that’s what this score is. So I don’t want people to think that I am, you know, calling people liars or things like that. But the reality is there are different writing styles and different sources of news have different levels of this “Truth” score, and a lot of that has to do with the target audience. 

So if you have a very non-technical audience, maybe it’s okay to leave out a lot of facts. People are really just looking for just the gist of something. And maybe most of the articles are just quotes of someone interesting who is being interviewed, and that’s fine for their target audience. But again, for my target audience, I’m going to promote things that contain facts that could be checked and so we can build a better understanding in the community of science.

So [to demonstrate this algorithm], I’ll flip through some of the articles here that I included in this edition. So this is issue number one, July 2019 of the Planetary News Digest. Let’s look, one of the interesting things I didn’t know about was that sea turtles, loggerhead sea turtles, nest in Georgia and South Carolina. I didn’t I didn’t think about that. But in good news, they had record nesting levels. If you combine Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina, it looks like there’s over 12,000 nests in that part of the country. That’s interesting. I didn’t know there was that density of sea turtle turtles on the east coast of United States. 

There’s been flooding in Nepal, India and Bangladesh, which is causing deaths. That’s not good. 

Here’s something from the environment section. Apparently the EPA is rolling back, a rule that would have allowed communities to appeal pollution permits. So if let’s say, a coal factory was granted a permit to produce coal in an area, then the community can no longer go in and appeal that decision with the EPA and try to overturn it. That’s a little scary, because you you think that the final check on something like a coal plant or any industrial plant that produces pollution into the community. You would think that the final decision, it would be the community, the people who live there. And so this is, I think this is a strike against the EPA, [or at least] the traditional role of the EPA. 

So another environmental article. And so the last one is from the Hill, and this article is from the Guardian. And so the interesting thing is you’ll see a lot of British news sources in this in the Digest because it turns out that the BBC and the Guardian use really good or really well-written articles, and they’re very thorough. And so the title of this article is US. “Rollback of protected areas risks emboldening others, scientists warn.” So what you see in the United States is an increase in the rollback of protected areas and us been escalated from Donald Trump’s presidency beginning in 2000. [The protected land reductions began escalating in 2000]. And then it’s continued escalating more recently under Trump. And so the big thing. There was the Bears Ears in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments being reduced, which is the largest reduction of [protected lands] in the history of the United States. And so the concern now is you have other developing countries who, maybe like China or India, who may be have been trying to track the United States in terms of claim it commitments and things like that. And now you say, Well, if the United States is just throwing conservation out the door, well, maybe China is more likely to do that as well, because now the international impact is not as severe because they could just say, “Well, look, the United States is reducing conservation areas. You can’t really criticize us anymore.” And so that’s what this kind of statement here of emboldening others is. Which is why I think you want to have an administration that will take a stance on protected areas, and I believe hopefully these areas are restored immediately as soon as the Trump administration is ended. 

Here’s an article on microplastics, which is probably going to be popping up continually. [Scientists] are finding now with microplastics is that they’ve permeated all the way to the deep ocean, which means that they’ve permeated probably the entire oceanic ecosystem. This is concerning for a couple of reasons. One, you have the bio accumulation problem. So the human exposure of fish becomes a problem there. It’s micro plastics have permeated the entire ecosystem. The higher level, higher traffic levels where we actually eat the fish. We’ll have higher concentrations of microplastics. Um, and then other concern are, if we actually stopped using plastic, how long would it take this to clear out of the ecosystem? So this is going to be a problem that’s going to affect us for probably decades. Even if we come up with a good system for reducing plastic, this is going to be our new reality for the future: dealing with microplastics as a pollutant. 

Here’s an interesting claim that I wouldn’t have thought about regarding used cooking oil. Some types of used cooking oil can be used to produce diesel fuel, specifically palm oil, which means now there’s an incentive to convert palm oil, previously used for cooking, into bio-diesel. So now you have an incentive to cut down palm trees [beyond the current rate needed for food-production only], and so this would contribute to deforestation. It’s interesting because on the one hand, you would think bio-diesel is better than maybe traditional fossil fuels. And so it’s a reduction of a of a greenhouse gas. But then the other hand, to make that bio-diesel, you would have to contribute to deforestation, which has a lot of chain reactions. Other than just the removal of the plant itself [which acts as a carbon sink], you’re also permanently changing the landscape in a way that reduces that area’s ability to act as a carbon reservoir.

Hong Kong protests. One of the things probably overlooked is the stress and trauma of the people living in Hong Kong. Mental health issues in Hong Kong are going to be a real problem. There’s already a stigma against mental health in Chinese culture and in Hong Kong as well. There’s already not a large capacity for dealing with mental health issues, nd now, with the ongoing protests, people having a fear of being arrested and possibly extradited to China is causing a huge amount of stress on all of these people. Most of them are young people, students, who already are under a lot of stress. And so now you have a breaking point [in terms of mental health]. For example, a 50 minute session with a psychologist costs between 800 and 3000 Hong Kong dollars, which is about 100-300 United States dollars, which is pretty much out of range for most of the population. So Hong Kong sounds like it’s setting itself up for some serious long term problems.

And I do want to make a statement here about my algorithm in the ranking system. And so, in terms of science, what you’ll find is, um, Fox News tends to rank lower and again. Like I said in the beginning, this isn’t necessarily because of, um, you know, the articles are bad and just be lacking information, and that’s just part of that target audience is there. It’s not necessarily looking for an in-depth article, and that’s fine. That’s their audience. On the plus side, in Fox News’ favor, again I’m not excluding Fox News, if I do find a high-rank article, I will report it. And so there’s an article here from Fox News about Venezuela, which is continually under turmoil. And so I looked at this article and it scored really high, so I’d actually go and look at it. And, you know, this is really sad, situation [in Venezuela] because of the childcare and healthcare problems. And that’s really sad. 

And so when I looked up this article I said, “Okay, maybe you know who wrote this article?” And so [I found out] the author is Holly McKay, and I went and I just read her bio briefly. And so this is a good example of where you know it doesn’t necessarily matter who the publisher is or who the editor is. If you have a good reporter, a good journalist, and a good article, I’ll promote it. And so this person (Holly McKay) has reported from war zones including Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Burma, Burma and Latin America. So Holly has been around and she’s been doing this type of reporting for a while, so I have no reason to question the ability of this article [just because it’s from Fox News]. To me, clearly she’s an expert. And so I also I’ve included this article, even though on average, Fox News ranks low, but this is a high-quality aticle from Fox News, and it passes my checks. So I’ve supported it, and so then on that note, I won’t say any more [on the news]. 

If you like to look at all of these articles that I’ve put out or really just the summaries in the score, I would ask that you go over to my patreon and subscribe. I’m going to put out a digital version and a print version, and the digital version is going to be DRM-free. In other words, you’ll be able to read it however you want. It’s not going to be locked into an e-reader or anything like that. You have the pdf forever. You can print it out. Obviously, I ask that you don’t resell it without permission. But, the more people that read this the better. So if someone wants to print a copy of this and give it away to people for free, I’m fine with that. Hopefully, I’ll always be fine with that. 

This is Bryan White with The Planetary News Radio signing out. Thanks for listening.

Join the discussion on Discord at: https://discord.gg/5HQj8eC.

Support on Patreon at: https://www.patreon.com/planetarynews.

The Planetary News Radio – Episode 12: Mars Astrobiology, Gut Microbiome’s Influence on Athleticism, and Soft Robots

Welcome to the Planetary News Radio Episode 12 with your host Bryan White. Today I’m going to do two segments. The first is going to be a quick Science in the News, which is just me looking at recent headlines. I haven’t really looked into the articles or read them yet unless it’s something controversial. Then the 2nd [segment] is going to be a new segment, which is just an in depth review of a few articles. And these will be articles that I have ranked, according to an algorithm that I’m working on to rank science quality in the news. And so we’ll talk more about that later as well. So first up, let’s look at science in the news. 

Here’s a headline NASA’s curiosity. Mars Rover detects unusually high levels of methane and why would that be interesting? Well, methane is an organic gas and so any time you see or find methane, you might think that there are either animals or bacteria giving off methane. One of the most fundamental chemical pathways for chemosynthesis involves using methane as an energy source. So at the bottom of the ocean, if there are methane seeps, which are pockets of methane gas that was either frozen or solid and is now being released as a gas bacteria, then a few specialized types of animals can live along those seeps and process methane. Methane [is not just a] food source, it’s also a byproduct for animals releasing gas after processing food. So any time you find methane, we think that’s something closer to organic processes [might be occurring]. And so it’s It’s a point in the direction of finding life on Mars, whether that’s animal-like or bacteria-like we don’t know, most likely that we would suggest that it’s bacterial-like.

Here’s an interesting one. “Could a microbiome boost athletic performance” and another headline on that same topic, “Performance enhancing bacteria found in the microbiome of elite athletes”. So this is really important because find out more and more how important the human microbiome is. So the microbiome, it’s similar to the concept of a genome, so a genome is the listing or the container of all of our genetic information. The microbiome is the container of all of our microbial life, and so humans have all sorts of bacteria living all inside of our body, and some of that could be in the gut. And so the gut microbiome can have various effects. We’re finding out that gut microbiome can even be related to psychology. So perhaps some types of depression and anxiety are influenced by gut microbiome. And so now perhaps athleticism can be influenced by microbiome. And it looks here if I look into this article from NPR, says the elite runners gut microbiome makes mice more athletic. So maybe they transferred some specialized bacteria from a runner into a mouse, and it changed the metabolism of the mouse so that made them more athletic.

That’s really interesting, so this is gonna be really important. It’s important because the gut microbiome could be modified almost immediately in a person if we knew how to do it. So if if a disease or a disorder or or some trait is linked to the genome, it’s really difficult to modify that in a living organism, because you’d have to modify the genome of all of the cells in that adult organism. So, for example, if someone has multiple sclerosis or muscular dystrophy, if you wanted to cure muscular dystrophy, you’d have to affect all of the muscle cells that have that are producing the broken protein. So you have to develop a treatment that if you inject this treatment into someone, it travels through the cells and maybe through a virus, modifies the genome and replaces a specific spot on the genome to eradicate that broken protein, for example, in muscular dystrophy. Now, if you have a disorder that’s based on the gut microbiome all you have to do is change the content of microbes in that person’s stomach or gut. And so we think, and by we I mean the scientific community, this could be a really treatable source. So if we can learn more about how to modify the gut microbiome it might be way less invasive, way less risky than types of genetic modifications. So you see some of the early testing for muscular dystrophy via gene therapy has a lot of risks involved with it because any time you go in, you modify the genome. You have the risk of causing cancer in those cells because any time you have a virus or something that makes an insertion into DNA, it could make a mistake, and then you can have a cancer state occur so gene therapy could make things worse. 

Microbiome therapy could also make things worse. Recently, a couple of people died during a clinical trial of a fecal transplant so related to this gut Microbiome think that you could potentially alter the microbiome by transferring fecal matter from a sick person into a healthy person. But if you make a mistake and transfer bacteria antibiotic resistance bacteria through a fecal transplant, then you could inadvertently do more damage to the person receiving the transplant. And so that recently happened. So there’s risks with altering the microbiome as well. But again, it’s less risky than gene therapy. Gene therapy is a high probability of causing cancer, whereas altering the microbiome maybe might just involve taking some probiotics and changing your gut contents slowly over time in a safe way. Now we won’t be able to treat the same diseases, we don’t think that we’ll be able to treat muscular dystrophy by altering the gut microbiome, but for the set of disorders or traits like athleticism or maybe some metabolic traits for the set of traits that are linked to gut microbiome, they should be much more treatable than attempting to do a genetic therapy. And so the more we learn about the gut microbiome, it’s really exciting. 

Here’s a good astrobiology one, another Mars astrobiology topic. When did life have a chance on Mars after a giant meteorite stopped hitting it 4.5 billion years ago? That’s interesting, because and we think, and in this case by we I mean NASA, has published some documents [on astrobiology]. We think that life could have evolved from nothing from chemical synthesis to the first cellular life could have evolved on Earth in as little as 200,000 years. So if Mars had the potential to begin evolving the life 4.5 billion years ago, that would have been much earlier than Earth because Earth didn’t have the potential to start forming life until about over 3 billion years ago. So Mars could have had its entire life phase happened way earlier than Earth. And so it could have had bacteria like organisms growing and living there and then gone extinct because of a major climate change that occurred on Mars. The loss of the magnetosphere, which protects it from solar radiation. So Mars, or really the surface of Mars, at least today, is very inhabitable to even microbial life. But maybe 4.5 billion years ago is much for habitable, and it didn’t have the problem with Earth. Earth was highly geologically active. Nothing could have survived on the surface, whether or not it was getting pummeled with meteorites. The Earth’s surface was highly volcanic, so it wasn’t stable enough for bacteria to grow and form. Maybe, only in either the oceans or in pools of mud and clay and things like that. Maybe Mars had a more stable surface 4.5 billion years ago. So it’s life was ancient but certainly could have existed. So that’s two points for Mars astrobiology. 

All right, let’s shift to the other segment, which are some articles that I have actually read. The 1st up is a Slate article on it’s called Himalayan Ice Melt has doubled since 2000’s a new study finds. So ice melting from the Himalayas, the rate that ice is melting has doubled [from what was] previously thought so. We knew that ice was melting, but that rate has been revised with new data. So why is that important? Because now you have a situation where you have an upstream mountain system that traditionally has served as a repository for water in the form of ice, and so that ice stays frozen and slowly melts throughout the year. That’s a steady stream of fresh water for all of the downstream communities that live in that area. So people are dependent on these this mountain system for having ice. So if we lose that ice, that’s really bad. And so revised projections now with with climate actions taken 1/3 of the ice on the Himalayas will have melted by the year 2100 with no measures taken, 2/3 will melt, so the amount of ice on the Himalayas will be reduced by 2/3 if no extreme climate actions are taken. So that’s that certainly will be significant as that begins to happen, and it will have a direct human impact. And that’s one of the things that I want to focus on with climate change is things that cause human impacts. 

So let’s see, what’s another one? The time article, “More and more countries agree on this climate change goal”. But will it work? So what is that climate change goal? So this goal it’s called net zero emissions. And that would mean that a country is emitting emissions and sequestering emissions at the same rate. So either you could to reach net zero emissions by emitting nothing, and then your net would be zero. Or you could, [for example emit 100 units of carbon, then you could also sequester 100 units of carbon by either building planting a forest or something like that. Some countries that are talking about implementing this policy by the year 2050. Mostly Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom are planning on implementing it, and this is going to require a dramatic shift in the energy production systems. But of course, if you look at somewhere like Germany, they’ve already made significant efforts in solar energy putting them in a better position to achieve the net zero goal. In the United States, [there is some effort at the] state level, you’ll see this, but at the federal level, you’ll see a rejection of this policy, and the same thing with China and India who are the top three producers along with the US. So unfortunately for the top producers of carbon emissions, we don’t see these shifts towards that net zero policy, although in the United States, thankfully, we have some state level policies that are going this direction, which is really good. The nice thing in the United States is you see the state level policy leading the way the federal level and you see, a lot of the European Union member nations also looking at moving this way, but China and India still have unknown decisions on this policy.

And this is a divergence from climate change to robotics real quick. So the title of this article is “Engineers built a robotic lionfish with an energetic bloodstream”, and I thought this was interesting because I’ve seen a lot of work that’s being done right now on soft robots. So these are robots that are really cool because a lot of this research being done with how animals move and function in terms of mechanics, it’s gonna help society in a lot of ways. So one of those ways is rescue robots. So if you want to send in a robot into a building that collapsed or some chemical hazard has spilled and it’s too dangerous for humans or a bomb threat or something like that, where the environment is unknown, so we don’t know what we’re sending the robot into. We need some type of functional form for a robot that’s adaptable to the environment, and a bipedal robot isn’t necessarily the best thing. Something that can crawl and sneak around through really tight spaces. Maybe something more like a snake or lizard or something like that is more useful. And if you want to have maybe something patrolling the ocean, maybe a marine observation robot, some type of scientific robot swimming around gathering data we could have a fish, a really highly energy efficient fish robot. That would be cool. And so that’s what this article was about. 

It was about a fish robot that they’ve developed a battery that is both hydraulic fluid and energetic fluid, so it’s almost like a blood system for a robot. So as the robot is moving its fins and compressing the fluid, it’s moving the fluid around. And the nice thing about that is, since the hydraulic fluid is the battery fluid, you don’t need to have a battery pack. And in the significant part about that is the weight. So you don’t need the weight of the battery pack. And maybe it makes recharging the robot easier or more difficult. I’m not sure if they have to change out the fluid, but it’s a step in the right direction. It means also that the construction, the shape of the robot, is no longer confined by the structure of the battery system, which is probably one of the biggest and heaviest components of any type of robotic system. So this is a really cool advancement. And so then I mentioned the rescue robots and chemical spills and things like that, the other application of soft robotics, of course, being human interface. So if humans were interfacing with the robot, we don’t necessarily want a really cold metallic structure. Maybe we want, you know, soft robotics, say, in a clinical setting where a robot is involved somehow in patient care. You want to have a soft human like touch. And so we need these soft robotics to mimic a human [form] and human nature. A human mechanical system that isn’t going to hurt a human either by pressure or the components causing damage to a human. So that was a cool side track from climate change, the usual climate science. But that’s all I had today. 

And so this is Bryan White with the Planetary News Radio signing out.

Join the discussion on Discord at: https://discord.gg/5HQj8eC.

Support on Patreon at: https://www.patreon.com/planetarynews.


The Planetary News Radio – Episode 11: Is the Moon part of Mars?

Welcome to the Planetary News Radio Episode 11 with your host Bryan White. Today I’m going to do a Science in the News segment, and then I’ll talk briefly about some of the other projects going on with the Planetary News and a little bit about how to help support this podcast to keep it advertising free. Well, let’s get into the Science in the News segment. So again, just briefly, I’m looking at trending articles and science from various sources, and I haven’t really researched them a lot. I’m mostly just looking at the headlines and trying to understand what’s going on in the world and kind of get a sense for the pulse of science news.

And so let’s look here, Number one, “Trump prompts state of confusion over space policy with tweet”. So this is kind of funny, but it makes sense to me. I see where the confusion is. Trump actually tweeted, [paraphrasing], “That the moon is a priority. We shouldn’t be wasting time on Mars”, or something like that. But then he said, “the Moon is part of Mars” and as out of context as silly that sounds, I actually see where the confusion is from that tweet, and it’s actually not that wrong. What Trump should have said is that the development of technology and systems for travelling to Mars are also part of the development of the systems and technology for traveling to the Moon. So if we develop systems for traveling to the moon, we’re also developing systems to travelling to Mars. And that’s an important point because NASA had to make a decision on what to focus their resources on. As much as everyone would love to colonize Mars and the Moon, we have to choose one [first] because resources are limited. And so NASA’s made the decision that we will return humans to the moon first. That will be the priority.

But at the same time, this is going to help with future missions to Mars. And why So one of the things is is that NASA’s gonna be creating a new space station. So an orbital platform for sending astronauts to the moon. So now you have the Apollo missions. Historically, astronauts are restricted to launching on a rocket one way rocket, now breaching orbit, going straight to the moon. Now, with an orbital stop point, you could have a one rocket designed to exit the earth’s gravity, which is a very different process from actually just traveling across space to the moon. And so you can have the second stage of the Moon plan waiting in orbit or the second stage can be refueled. So if you can send fuel to orbit in multiple stages, you can accumulate more fuel in orbit. And then you don’t have to have everything packed on one trip on one rocket, because exiting your gravity is extremely challenging, extremely expensive, so every pound could cost thousands of dollars to get into orbit.

Having a stop point in low earth orbit on the way to the moon, it is a really good idea. And since the International space station is going to be decommissioned, it doesn’t make sense to continue adapting that. And so hopefully this new effort to build a Moon station will continue on to the building of another space station and that station will be used for future Mars missions. So, as silly as it is, what Trump said sounds silly, it’s actually fairly accurate. The mission to the Moon is part of the mission to Mars.

All right, so next up, speaking of the International Space Station (ISS), NASA and its international partners have been struggling to figure out what to do with it. What they’re saying is that NASA will open up the space station [to private tourism], and this has been talked about for a while. This is the first official announcement that NASA will open up the station to private visitors, and so they can pay cash to go visit the International Space Station. That’s great, because then if you could have enough visitors going to the International Space Station, it could support itself. NASA could afford to maintain it and then that station and another space station. The plan is to decommission the ISS by 2025 or something like that. But if it were to become profitable or break even in terms of funding and that funding came from private individuals or institutions, then I don’t see why the station would be decommissioned. And so then we’ll have NASA itself funding a Moon station in orbit, and then we’ll have the International Space Station still hanging around, so maybe we’ll have to space stations in the next 10 years, so that’s good.

A real quick astronomy note is that Jupiter will be the closest to earth it has been in some time, and so this week is a great week to see Jupiter and its Moons, or at least four of its Moons will be visible. Not necessarily to the naked eye but visible, using low magnification like binoculars or something like that. So I’m excited about that. Hopefully there is clear weather.

Here’s a headline from NBC News. Three islands disappeared in the past year. Is climate change to blame? Well, I don’t know because I didn’t read the article, but let’s think about Could that be the case? Could climate change cause an island to disappear? And the answer is yes. That is entirely possible. For a couple reasons, one would be raising water levels so the water gets hired. But there’s a lot of other forces, too, that cause islands to disappear. So erosion forces and things like that changing can suddenly transform an island that might have been growing, adding sand, actor and soil. So all of a sudden, fading away losing sand and all of these things can be influenced by climate. So again, I’m not looking into that. Too much more of us. Looking at the headline saying that sounds plausible. [In this case, it looks like sea-level rise is the most likely culprit].

There’s an exciting headline: “Incredible Pictures of NASA approved 3D homes to be built on Mars before humans arrived”. So again, back to the Moon/Mars controversy. One of the problems with getting to Mars is resource is resource transfer. Mars is a lot farther away so it’s a lot more expensive to carry materials with you. If colonists arriving on Mars could fabricate their own living structures from natural resource obtained on Mars, then that would free up a lot of space on the spaceship to bring them to Mars. In other words, if you can build your home when you get there, you don’t need to bring your home with you. And so that’s why a lot of colonization research is going into 3D printing. So if we could build homes or any type of structure, a greenhouse [for example], the ability to fabricate structures on Mars would be great, and I’m assuming that this will be tested on the Moon first. So as part of NASA’s “Moon first” plan hopefully we’ll see a 3D printer on the Moon.

Like I said, [in the Science in the News segment], I’m just looking at headlines. The reason why I do this is because here is a trending article that appears to be fake news. “Alien life search bombshell exo-moons may be home to extraterrestrial life”. So first of all, I wouldn’t call that a bombshell because the idea that any exo-planet or exo-moon could house life has been a major component of astrobiology for 30 or 40 years, since the first exo-planets were discovered. Scientists have always thought it possible that if there is alien life, either microbial or other, that it could possibly exist in a planet that is in the habitable zone.

In other words, if the planet is not too close to its star, has the right temperature for organic synthesis to occur, and has some solvents like water or ammonia, then it’s entirely plausible that life could exist. Now, that’s my criticism here: [the wording of the headline]. This headline is “Alien life search bombshell”. Not really a bombshell. The problem with exo-moons and exo-planets is that even if they did have life on it, how would we know? So we’d have to find a way to detect the signature of life on a planet only from its atmosphere, because that’s all we can really see from a telescope. So these planets are many light years away, typically so we can’t visit them and see if there are living organisms there. So we need a system to detect the signature of life from a telescope.

And there’s some work that’s been done on that because we know if we were to point a telescope at earth, what would we look for? Could we determine that Earth had life if we were pointing to telescope at Earth from a light year away? And so, yes, we do know there is some signatures we can look for, like really high oxygen content in the atmosphere would be a suggestion, but again, we won’t be able to confirm that [with physical data]. In our lifetimes, we’ll never be able to confirm that [because of the extreme distance of even the closest exoplanet, which is over 4 light years away]. So that’s why this title, I think, is a little disingenuous and so I’m calling out this article. I’m not naming it, just calling out the headline as [potential fake news].

And so that’s it today for the Science and the News segment. I’ll just talk real quick about one of the other projects I’m starting, which is the Planetary Information Engine (PIE), which is sort of like a three stage process. It’s beginning as a wiki, and so the wiki is going to be constructed to gather scientific knowledge, kind of like an encyclopedia, but a more directed encyclopedia – a little less free-form than Wikipedia. [It will have] more structure towards natural language processing (NLP). And so the idea is that an information engine is something that could be used by an artificial intelligence system to augment your own intelligence or a person’s own intelligence. And so that’s the [new] project I’m starting as well, the Planetary Information Engine, and I’ll have more about that as I get further along.

Hope you enjoyed this podcast. That’s Bryan White with the Planetary News signing out.

Join the discussion on Discord at: https://discord.gg/5HQj8eC.

Support on Patreon at: https://www.patreon.com/planetarynews.

The Planetary News Radio – Episode 10: Ancient North Siberians, Octopuses as Lab Rats, and Microplastics Invade Deep Sea

Hello. Welcome to the Planetary News Radio Episode Number 10 with your host, Bryan White. I’m going to be doing a Science in the News segment today, which is a brief summary of trending science news articles. I haven’t reed or researched most of these articles unless it was something controversial. So I’m just giving background information based on the headline. So depending how good the headlines are kind of influences how much information I can give about the article.

First up, I have here “DNA from 31,000 year old milk teeth leads to the discovery of a new group of ancient Siberians”. Ancient humans. This is a really exciting area of research because we found out that pretty much anything say, around the last 50,000 years, we can get DNA from now if we can find bones and the bones haven’t been completely fossilized. There’s still organic material in the bones. We can extract DNA and do genetic and genomic analysis on these bones and teeth are a great example of that. [There is] lots of organic material inside of teeth. And so we’ve discovered there’s several species of ancient humans in Eastern Europe, across through Russia, and Siberia, and in Asia. And so while there were radiations of humans out of Africa multiple times, some of those radiations included ancient humans that migrated into Siberia and Asia. In Europe, some of those became Neanderthals. [In Russia and Asia,] some of those became Denisovans, and I don’t know if this new species has been named yet [(Ancient North Siberians)]. This is really considered a subspecies of [ancient human, which are still considered Homo sapiens sp.].

Most of these species would have been able to interbreed with each other. So a good rule of thumb for mammals is if the divergence time for two groups is less than 200,000 years, then hybridization was most likely possible. So modern humans and Neanderthals were [able to hybridize, which] we know it’s proven for a fact that they hybridized because we have genomic data. Using [just] the rule of thumb, we know that Neanderthals and modern humans diverged about 300,000 years ago, and when they met again in Europe, they were only separated by about 200,000 years of evolution, and so they were able to hybridize. So the same thing with this [newly discovered group whose] teeth are only 31,000 years, so certainly these would have been able to hybridize and interbreed with modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens.

So [this is] just more evidence of new, different groups of ancient humans. And why is that important? Well, it helps paint the picture of the migration and really the prolific amount of adaptation that modern humans underwent in terms of evolutionary change over the last 200,000 years. We really had our own adaptive radiation, just like birds and reptiles and dinosaurs. Humans are one of our own great adaptive radiation stories in terms of evolutionary history, so it’s always cool when we find new human species or unique genetic groups.

So let’s see, we [have] another StarLink article. “Astronomers call for urgent action on you on SpaceX’s StarLink satellites”. Apparently, astronomers are still concerned over the magnitude of the number of satellites that Elon Musk is going to be putting out into orbit around. [It will be] 12,000 satellites [in total], and this is now still a trending story every week for the last couple weeks since the initial launch has occurred. Like I said last time, I think it’s a fair criticism, but it also forces us to think about space junk in general, which is good. So Maybe Elon Musk is doing us a favor by forcing the conversation, and hopefully there’s some resolution with these satellites and [policies towards “space junk”].

Here’s another interesting evolution biology topic or medical two. The newest lab rat has eight arms octopuses, big brains and unique behaviour spur basic research. Why would octopuses be a really good animal to use in the lab as a research subject? Well, let’s think about rats. Rats are intelligent. They’re small. They’re relatively easy to cultivate. You could have a colony [colony of rats]. They reproduce in the lab. They have a short lifespan, and that life span is about the time that it takes most experiments to perform. But what are the problems with rats? There’s a lot of problems with rats. One of them is that rats get cancer very easily, [upwards of 80% in some cases]. At least in lab stocks of rats, as opposed to wild rats. We’ve been cultivating rats for so long in the lab in a lab setting that they’re very, very likely to get cancer over the course of a two year life span. And so, if you want to do a cancer study on rats, that’s a problem because most of these rats will inevitably get cancer no matter what, whether they’re being exposed to something that is actually increasing their cancer risk or if they’re just living over the course of a normal life span.

[What are some reasons octopuses might make good lab animals?] Octopuses are less cultivated in the lab, [or at least were used in lab experiments more recently], so we probably don’t have very many generations worth of octopus evolution happening in a lab. It would be easier to collect them from the wild and generate a new stock [to improve and maintain lab-strain genetics]. Since lab rats are so domesticated compared to their wild counterparts, it would be problematic to intermix lab rats with wild rats, especially because you have the problem of aggression. So you don’t want to create really aggressive lab rats. It might improve their genetic stock, but then again, you have a problem of having more wild, aggressive rats.

Octopus can be aggressive, but it’s different. They’re a very different animal in terms of behavior. They’re contained in a marine environment. They’re probably not really being handled by the researchers. In other words, an octopus is less likely to reach around and bite a researcher because the environment that the octopus is being stored in isn’t going to be one where the researchers are routinely handling them with their hands. I imagine you can create these lab complexes for octopus to live in, where the researchers don’t really have to interact with them, and they don’t have to worry about getting bit. Octopuses do have a beak that could hurt a human. It could draw blood. But again, they’re not really aggressive, they’re mostly defensive animals, so octopus is not really threatened. Even a wild octopus shouldn’t be a problem. Now they will try to escape, but that’s part of their intelligence. So you have this animal that has a really fast generation time, it has a genetic stock could be easily replenished from the wild, it’s highly intelligent, it’s probably smarter than rats. It’s not really aggressive [compared to rats]. On the negative side, it’s probably more expensive to cultivate because you need all the marine equipment. But stuff like that is coming down in terms of pricing because of advances in material science. So as material science advances, it becomes easier to cultivate an animal like an octopus and then for sets of experiments that will work on an octopus. In other words, if you’re not trying to test a [mammal-specific] hormone, obviously that won’t work. Or it might if you could genetically engineer octopus to do something like a mammal. So maybe we can even test human medicine on octopuses if it’s easy to genetically modify them.

The great dying nearly erased life on Earth. Scientists see similarities today, the great dying, of course, being the Permian extinction, where 90 percent of marine life went extinct at the end of the Permian period around 300,000,000 years ago. And I think maybe 70% of all land life went extinct. And so we see Similar is of that today because of the rapid extinction rates that were seen on the Earth. And so we know that the Permian extinction was accompanied by rapid changes in climate, and a lot of those changes would have been recorded in the geological history in the fossils in the rocks around that time. So we’re probably seen similar patterns of a very rapid global climate change too rapid for animals to adapt, especially marine animals that tend to be more sensitive.

Apparently, the Mars lander Insight is having a problem with its instruments. So “NASA finally has a plan to free Insight’s extremely stuck probe”. So it sounds like the heat probe on Insight os stuck. Insight is an interesting probe on Mars because it’s not a robotic rover like Opportunity [and Spirit were]. It is a It is a stationary probe whose primary mission is to study the geology and geologic activity of Mars. So it has a seismometer that is actually measuring earthquakes on Mars and some other types of thermal instruments. So the fact that one of its probes are stuck is not good, but maybe this can be resolved.

Here’s another controversial topic. “Microplastics have invaded the deep ocean and the food chain”. That’s not good. So micro plastics real problem, because we’re finding out now that it’s permeated our entire water system, including the ocean and freshwater. These are microscopic bits of plastic that now we know we’re drinking and eating, and not just us [(humans)]. All life on earth now potentially being exposed to this. We don’t know the cumulative effects or long term effects of this because it’s just recently happened [the article says we are] finding out that microplastics have permeated all the way down to the deep sea, which means the entire oceanic ecosystem can be impacted from this all the way from the bottom up. So [some of] the primary producers in the ocean are phytoplankton or very tiny, tiny animals [(zooplankton)]. Phytoplankton are photosynthesizing organisms that float up and down in the water. And so now it sounds like, they’re saying, is that microplastics have permeated the entire oceanic column, which means primary producers will be affected as well as secondary producers and secondary consumers.

So if the oceanic ecosystem has been permeated to this degree with microplastic suggests that there could be a cumulative effect and this could lead to an ecosystem collapse. And so I think that’s kind of what we’re waiting for right now. In terms of conservation biology, we’re waiting to start seeing signs of these major ecosystem crashes. We already see signs of top level consumers [being harmed, such as] whales, sea turtles, things like that that are eating fish all the way up the food chain. We already see that they’re being impacted because they’re getting the worst degree of bio-accumulation because they’re eating fish and crustaceans that even in phytoplankton have been absorbing microplastics. So, you know, at the highest level we already get an impact. We get birds stomachs filled with plastic, things like that. So this microplastic problem is really scary. And hopefully my guess is that there will be some extreme measures taken, probably in the next five years to alleviate this. That’s my hope. But I think that it will happen because I think we’ll start seeing more direct [negative] impacts of it that will drive some of those changes.

All right, and that’s all I had today for this Science in the News segment. That’s Bryan White signing out the Planetary News Radio. Thanks for listening. If you’d like to support this podcast that had a patreon going, the link for that is in the feed. The transcripts for all of these podcasts are also on the website, so there’s a link to the website in the feed, and if you would like to join a discord chat, that link is also there. Hopefully, we get people asking questions and things like that in the discord, so thanks for listening. Have a great day.

Join the discussion on Discord at: https://discord.gg/5HQj8eC.

Support on Patreon at: https://www.patreon.com/planetarynews.

The Planetary News Radio – Episode 9: Artemis Moon Mission, Video Games and Gun Behavior, and Sabertooth Cat Fights

Hello and welcome to the Planetary News Show Episode 9 with your host Bryan White. Today I’m going to do another “Science in the News Segment”. Just to explain really brief, this [segment] is me talking about  recent trending science news articles that I haven’t necessarily read the article, but I might have looked up some of the background or some of this controversial checked in on it. I it sounds like I’m next to a family of ducks, that’s because I am so they’re just chilling. We’re all just chilling here by the river in Corvallis, Oregon, talking about science. These are probably some of those friendliest ducks I have ever happened to cross. All right, let’s get started.

NASA has chosen its first 3 partners for its Artemus Moon return mission. This is really popular right now. NASA’s making some major headway on its goal to return to the moon. NASA’s goal to return to the moon is picking up, so they’re going to send a robotic lander and a robotic orbiter by 2020, and humans on the moon by 2024. It’s chosen it’s private partners, and they’re starting to contract this out. So we’ll have boots on the ground on the moon by 2024. That’s exciting.

Let’s see what else? SpaceX Starlink satellite again in the news for concern over the idea that it might block out [the view of] stars [once they are] in orbit. Since the total fleet of this Starlink

satellite orbit is supposedly something like 12,000 satellites, it’s a legitimate concern. I don’t know how valid it is because there’s already thousands of pieces of space junk orbiting the Earth, and people haven’t really been complaining about that. So I think people should think about this and apply logical consistency. And so if you’re going to criticize Elon Musk for polluting orbit, then I think you should also criticize all of the other institutions that have been doing that for the last 50 years. But again, I see a logical inconsistency here with people complaining about it [because] I don’t see a real push for removing space junk anywhere, [just a recent focus on Starlink].

Here’s an interesting one, its potentially controversial so I did actually go look at the research article. [The title of the article is,] “Study considers length between violent video games and behavior with guns”, and this was published in one of the JAMA Network journals. Now what this study concluded was that a group of children who played video games that had guns in the video game we’re more likely to pick up and use a disabled gun, pull the trigger, and point it at their peers than children who had played games that only had swords or children that did not play violent video games. What this says [to me] is you had kids who went and they played a game with guns in it, so now they know what a gun is in the game. Presumably, they can see the trigger that and see how to hold a gun. So you taught them how to hold and use a gun. The result of this study is children play a game that teaches them how to use an object and they see the object in real life, they pick it up and play with it. That makes total sense. But I would like to see is if they’d put out swords and see if kids who played the sword game also were likely to play with swords. [This was included with the study but with Nerf/foam swords]. And so really, they’ve just confirmed the fact that kids emulate what they see in video games.

Now they do have a valid point, because now the sword is one thing, but in the instance of the gun, you have truly taught the kid how to play with a gun. And so if you are a family and you have guns and you leave your gun sitting out and your child has played video games that have guns in it, that child is more likely to pick up and play with a gun in an unsafe way. So if anything that stresses families who do have guns to be protective of the gun if they have children that are exposed two video games but also in general if they have children. People who have guns should be locking them up and preventing children from accessing them, unless for some reason that child is specifically being trained to use a gun (e.g., sport shooting), then that’s a different story. In other words, accidental play behavior is what should be avoided. So that’s an accurate headline because all the headline says is that there’s a link between violent video games and behavior with guns, presumably all the games that have guns or violent because you’re shooting people.

Let’s see what else. “Juno Space probe identifies changes in Jupiter’s magnetic field.” That’s interesting. So the Juno space probe is really cool because it spent many years [(2011 launch year)] traveling to Jupiter and arrived there in 2016 and begin photographing its moons which gave us a much clearer pictures of Jupiter’s atmosphere. And the nice thing about Juno is that at the end of its mission, which should be in 2021, it will descend into the atmosphere of Jupiter. And if you remember in the movie 2001 a Space Odyssey, they descend in the atmosphere of Jupiter. And, of course, all sorts of weird, strange things happen in that movie. And so we’ll find out what types of weird, strange things might happen to Juno as it descends into the atmosphere of Jupiter, a fitting end for a probe.

Let’s see, invasive flowering species might overpower native ones because of warming climate. Well that’s makes sense. That’s likely true. I wouldn’t call that a new new result, maybe a “new to you” result.

Let’s see what else flipping my pages here, “Physicists create a stable, strongly magnetized plasma jet in the laboratory”. That’s interesting, because plasma is a stable, sustained stream of ionized gas. This is only charged gas particles that are being expelled from some creation point. And this is what large parts of stars are made of. This is saying that they’ve created a stable stream of plasma that’s magnetized and at supersonic speeds. So it’s a supersonic stream of plasma that’s magnetized. This is closer to the surface of what a star might be putting out, so it’s a better system to study what types of electromagnetic effects are happening on the surface of a star. So that’s kind of cool.

Astrocytes protect neurons from toxic buildup. I mean, that’s a true statement, and maybe I’ll take a minute here to. Critique that statement. That’s something you might read out of a textbook, so this doesn’t really tell me anything new [or draw my interest in to read the article]. Astrocytes are [nerve] cells that surround neurons along with [types of] glial cells and support those neurons. And part of that support presumably would be toxin removal. So it’s an entire system around neurons involved in actual neural networks and synaptic processing that supports them and astrocytes are part of that. So this doesn’t seem terribly interesting to me, I’m just actually criticizing this title as being boring.

“Climate change is already affecting global food production unequally”. That it is also true or something I would expect again. It doesn’t tell me anything new, though, just from the headline

Eruption of ice volcanoes through liquid water over the frozen surface of Pluto. That’s a good title that tells me something new, because last time we talked about Pluto having water, and now we’re talking about an eruption. So there was an eruption on the surface of Pluto, and maybe that’s how we know that there was water underneath it. So that’s it. A good title.

See what else? This was an interesting one, “Punctured school suggest saber-toothed cats fought amongst themselves”, and then it’s a picture of a sabre-toothed cat skull impaling another sabre-toothed cat skull. And I kind of think this is a little funny because I don’t know what else they would be doing other than fighting, because they used the word “suggest” [in the title]. But I suppose since we weren’t actually there, all we have are the fossils. It is a suggestion. It’s a very strong suggestion based on this picture. Definitely looks like these sabre-toothed cats were fighting. Now, the interesting thing is that this would confirm that the tooth of a sabre-toothed cat was actually strong enough to break through bone and could be used in fighting. A lot of times in mammals or large vertebrates you find, or in in general, in the animal kingdom, you find lots of structures that aren’t actually used in fighting that look like they might be. A good example might be horns on a chameleon or rhinoceros beetle. [They’re used for locking/grappling during a fight, but not necessarily for actually impaling during a fight]. [So a lot of structures that look they are for fighting might just be] for show or for sizing up other members of the same species, but not necessarily for actually damaging another member of the species. And it looks like here now they’ve confirmed at least that sabre-toothed cats could indeed use their teeth for fighting. So that’s cool.

Last one for this episode, “Black hole created in the lab confirmed Stephen Hawking’s radiation theory”. That’s interesting, because that makes me want to read the article, because there was a big controversy with black holes when Stephen Hawking first proposed them that they would infinitely gain mass. And so the question was, “Do you or infinitely continue to gain mass? Do black holes ever lose mass?” And the answer was later hypothesized to be, yes, they do lose mass – they bleed out energy in the form of radiation, and this radiation is named Hawking Radiation. And so this is black Hole created in a lab. That’s really cool. I want to read that because I want to see how they did that. And so maybe this is something in a particle accelerator that mimicked some properties of a black hole for a split second. I don’t think they actually created a black hole. [These are actually sonic black holes that are made using water, but that mimic the relativistic properties of a black hole.] I think this is a sensationalist title, but maybe they mimic some property of a black hole that would suggest that hawking radiation exists, some curious how they did that, and that’s all that I highlighted today to look at, so I will sign out.

And that’s Bryan White signing off with The Planetary News Radio. Thanks for listening and have a good day.

Join the discussion on Discord at: https://discord.gg/5HQj8eC.

Support on Patreon at: https://www.patreon.com/planetarynews.