by Christopher Paul on January 4, 2013 Boing Boing has a nice summary of the risks associated with radiation found in space and its impact on missions to the ISS or potential travels to Mars. A little background:
Galactic cosmic radiation – also called galactic cosmic rays – is the kind of radiation that researchers are most worried about. It’s made up particles, bits and pieces of atoms that were probably flung off from the aftermath of supernovas. The majority of this radiation, roughly 90%, is made up protons ripped from atoms of hydrogen. These particles travel around the galaxy at almost the speed of light.
…
These particles are very heavy and very fast and we don’t experience them here on the ground. They’re the kind of things that get filtered out and broken down by Earth’s defense systems. But HZE ions can cause more damage, and different kinds of damage, than the radiation scientists are really familiar with. We know this because scientists actually compare samples of astronauts’ blood before and after a spaceflight.
According to Maggie Koerth-Baker, we know historical data shows there are increase risks of cataracts in astronauts. There is also good chance of increased risk of cancer but not much is conclusively known. However, the study that started her post suggests there is an increased risk in Alzheimer’s, as well. All of this becomes relevant as we seek to grow beyond our planet. If humanity is so fortunate, it will be yet another complication in it’s next migration.
by Christopher Paul on January 4, 2013 Is it me or are everyone else’s memory fickle?
Today, my Twitter feed exploded (well, streamed very fast is more likely) with news from Mother Jones linking reduction of lead (and leaded gasoline) to a steady decrease in crime rates. When I saw this, I thought this was familiar news. Then I saw Jason Kottke post something about the article and I knew I had read about this before.
And I did.
As I searched around, I realized I read it from Wired way back in 2011 which cites the same data as the MJ article. Granted, the Wired piece is shorter so you can say that the Mother Jones article is certainly more longform and goes into greater detail. But detail or not, the headline is the same: lead (and lead gas) and crime rates have a correlation. And because scientists know children with higher lead exposures are more aggressive, it’s easy to say it’s pretty close to causation (though I wouldn’t go that far just yet).
But as interesting as this concept is, I can’t help but wonder how no one seemed to pick up on this when Wired published their post. I was sent to it from somewhere; I don’t read Wired’s website regularly so it’s not something I would have discovered on my own.
It makes me wonder why something like this is news today. It was news in June 2011. Hell, you could argue it was news in 2007 when much of this data was first published. Why do we have such short memories?
Maybe it’s the lead.
by Christopher Paul on January 4, 2013 Fred Wilson on privacy arguing its a feature. He also feels as if its a part of the mobile space and not the only “feature” of that market. His short post talks about a friend who uses different apps for specific type of content targeted for a given audience based on how sensitive that content is.
But just mentioning privacy as a feature is a great way to look at things. It would be great if other apps besides Snapchat came up with a privacy as a feature.
by Christopher Paul on January 4, 2013 Something tells me I’ve seen other people share this but I hadn’t watched it until I checked Vimeo’s Staff Picks channel. While I’ve probably posted similar time-lapse-like videos to the site before, I’m not usually a big fan of them. But I gave this one a chance and liked how it turned out. The guy who made this, Jonathan Britnell, has a series of these for each week which made up the final video.
It’s videos like this that make me wish I was more creative and inspire me to try harder.
If you’re interested in the music, you can get it here.
by Christopher Paul on January 3, 2013 Matt Alexander on New Year’s Resolutions:
It’s vaguely interesting (in a strangely voyeuristic way) to see what people intend to do with their year, but, more often than not, these intentions tend to dissipate by the closing days of January. And, regardless of any promises otherwise, we all simply read and watch so that we can collectively fail together. We make declarative pronouncements of change and self-improvement for the strange purpose of being self-deprecating in public, each of us fully aware of the fact that these loose commitments are not binding, meaningful, or of any real consequence to our day-to-day lives.
I like his approach:
For what it’s worth, my innocuous resolution is to continue loving and appreciating my day-to-day life. There’s nothing more than that. No specific intention to change, improve, iterate, or re-schedule. Nor is there any specificity toward what it is that I love in my day-to-day. It could be as simple as sleeping with the curtains open so I can be woken up by natural light or going for a walk whenever the weather permits. It’s just a simple and uncomplicated psychological check to ensure I’m happy with my life.
I was going to write a ‘Resolution’ post to say what I’m doing but I decided against that – because I’m not doing anything other than continue to do what I’ve always done which, if when I stop to think about it, is live a pretty damn good life of my own making.