SGU Episode 353: Difference between revisions

From SGUTranscripts
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(added this day in skepticism)
(completed life on mars)
Line 223: Line 223:
http://phys.org/news/2012-04-proof-life-mars.html
http://phys.org/news/2012-04-proof-life-mars.html


S: Well, Bob.  Tell us about Life on Mars,  
S: Well, Bob.  Tell us about Life on Mars, is it possible that we've already discovered life on Mars but just didn't notice.


=== Indian Skeptic Charged with Blasphemy ===
B: Well, I didn't see this one coming, and if it's true, it would be both historic and the height of lameness all at the same time.
 
E: (laughs)
 
B: A recent reanalysis of the Mars Viking data seems to point to the existence of microbial life on Mars.  That means that we may have discovered life on another planet 35 or 36 years ago and didn't even notice.  So what the hell, if this is true, I'm going to be really happy and really pissed.  Now, researchers from a plethora of universities including Los Angeles, California, Tempe Arizona and Sienna, Italy have recently published a paper in the International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences (IJASS) in which they discussed their work using NASA's data from the old Viking mission.  Now a little history about Viking, the twin Viking landers landed on Mars in the summer of '76 and their primary goal was to find signs of life, for example by examining the Martian dirt and looking for the hallmarks of biological activity.
 
E: Which is what?
 
B: They don't call Martian dirt regolith do they, is that just specific to the Moon?
 
S: No, I don't think so, it's anything that's not soil that's on the surface of a world.
 
B: Right.
 
S: It's not specific to the Moon.
 
B: OK.  To do this, the probes had three experiments, three or four depending on your source, optimised for that task.  One of these experiments was called the LR or Labelled Release apparatus.  What this device did was it scooped up dirt and mixed it with some water that had nutrients tagged with radioactive carbon atoms.  So if there were microbes in this dirt, they would metabolise the nutrients, and in essence they would breath out the carbon dioxide or methane gas which would then be detected by a radiation detector that was in the probe.  So like all good scientists, of course, they also had a control sample, or multiple control samples in the experiment, and this consisted of isolating some of the samples of soil in the dark for months at a time, which would apparently just kill any photosynthetic bacteria or microbe-bacteria like organisms.  Or, it would kill anything that relied of photosynthetic organisms to survive.  But I also read another source that said that what they did was they just heated the sample to such a temperature that it would be enough to kill anything that was living inside of it.  So, but after they performed these steps, the control samples were then fed the nutrients and examined again.  Now when these active soil samples, the ones that weren't treated and could potentially have live organisms, when they were fed the water the detectors got hit with a pulse of like 10,000 counts of radioactive molecules.  If you compare that to the normal background radiation found on Mars, it's usually about 50 counts or so, so clearly something interesting was happening.  Perhaps it was even biological.  If this were the end of the story then things, obviously I think, would have played out very, very differently.  But unfortunately the other experiments did not agree with these results, including an experiment that used a mass spectrometer that didn't find any organic molecules at all which seems pretty damning to me.  Therefore no discovery of life on Mars was made and the general consensus seems to have been that there was some geo-chemical reaction taking place in these LR experiments, or maybe there was some other fluke occurrence that happened.  And this was kind of interesting, I came across a comment on one of these websites.  Somebody named Richard Hallavese made a comment, he said that I worked on Viking back in the early 70s on the hydrogen flame ionisation detector and other experiments and the entire design team was dismayed when the purely political announcement was made denying our clear findings of microbial life on Mars.  It was finally explained as people weren't ready to accept life on other planets.  So in truth, some of the higher-ups weren't ready to be open minded and accept facts as they were.  So, I mean I don't know who this guy is, I tried to google him and I couldn't find any evidence that he really, that he worked on these projects, so take that for what it's worth, but it's just, his perspective is a little interesting if it's even true, and I do tend to doubt it.  I don't think that NASA's reaction would have been, at that time, oh people aren't ready to accept it.  I mean come on, that would have been the finding, you know, one of the biggest findings in history and they were just going to put a lid on it?  So I doubt that.
 
S: Yeah, that sounds like crap.
 
B: Now jump ahead 36 years and now, a mostly new generation of scientists and computational tools have resurrected this old data, and they disagree with the results that few people seem to have doubted for more than a generation. So what led them to this startling conclusion?  It looks like one of the first things they did was to do away with this idea that the initial results was just this weird geochemical reaction.  And apparently, when the LR experiment was repeated four or five months later, nothing happened.  So if this were merely some chemical reaction with rocks or maybe some other elements in the dirt, then why would it not occur again months later?  So what they did next then was to evaluate the data from a completely different perspective.  They were looking at it in terms of complexity, and specifically how complex was the radioactive gas signal that was emitted by the dirt, and how did it change over time?  And they did this obviously because in general biology is more complex than non-biology.  If you closely examine the complexity then, it could give insight into whether it was caused by some biological process or not.  So that is kind of where they were coming from.  So this mathematical complexity analysis allowed them to compare it to the control sample signals in a way that made the differences kind of like really stand out and kind of put them on two ends of a spectrum.  The interesting thing is though that they did similar analyses against earthly biological data.  They, like for example they took temperature readings from a rat and they also took other clearly non-biological data from Earth and when they compared all this data together, everything from Voyager and everything from Earth sources, what happened was that the live soil samples from Mars clustered together with the rat data on one end and the Mars control data clustered with the Earth non-biological data on the other end.  So to me, this makes their results a little bit more compelling, rather than if they had just looked at the Mars data.  They, comparing it with, you know clear signals from Earth, things that we know are biological or non-biological to me makes it a little bit more compelling.  Joseph Miller is a researcher with the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, he recently said, on the basis of what we've done so far, I'd say I'm 99% sure there's life there.  That's the one quote that really, really stands out and that you kind of read everywhere.  I mean that's a hell of a confidence level.  But still though, there's some scientists, I'm not sure how widespread this belief is, but I'm sure a lot of them are saying that we really need to replicate the technique that they used on more samples from Earth to verify that it really can distinguish biological data from non-biological data.  I'm sure we're going to be hearing more about this in the future.  But as to the immediate future, now you guys now the Curiosity Rover is set to land on Mars in August.  NASA says that it doesn't have the specific tools to detect life, which is really annoying, but it could lend support to this latest experiment, and it would also support the one that was conducted 36 years ago on Viking.  But guys, I mean why can't the Curiosity probe detect life, I mean what would be more powerful than if the Curiosity had just a microscope, just a silly microscope so that you could actually see, yup, look at that, that's some weird alien microbe, it's clearly nothing that, you know, it's clearly biological.  I mean how hard would it be?  I'm sure they've got really good reasons that they couldn't put something as definitive as that on there, and that's not really its goal, but it's still kind of annoying that we're sending these multi-, I don't know what it costs, hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, these probes, and they can't definitively say, yep that's life right there, it's just a little bit annoying.
 
J: But now what do we do, like what's the next step here?
 
B: Well we'll see if the Curiosity rover can support, can lend any support to this new theory, and if it can, then I'm sure that it would warrant even more research and more tests, and just more verification of the specific technique that these guys used, you could do that on Earth, you don't need to do it on Mars.  And then of course the next question would be, is it Earth derived, or is it purely, totally alien?  I mean there could just be cross-seeding between Earth and Mars and back again, so it could be, you know, just like Earth life in terms of DNA and chirality, you know the way the proteins are oriented and all sorts of stuff that would let you think, yup this has go to be from Earth or maybe Earth life came from Mars in some way, but either answer would be fantastic, I don't care.  I mean of course I would prefer completely alien DNA, but I'll take it any way that I can.
 
E: Right, Bob and they're confident it's not contamination from the Viking craft itself?
 
B: It could have been, I mean yeah, they actually talk about that as well.  I think some of the images that they had from Mars showed these dark patches that kind of reminded some of the scientists of lichen and so what I think the Curiosity rover is going to have a really high-res camera that will be able to get a close look at that stuff, and that was just another thing that could be an interesting finding from the Curiosity rover but we'll see.
 
S: OK, thanks Bob.
 
=== Indian Skeptic Charged with Blasphemy (15:42) ===
http://boingboing.net/2012/04/13/indian-skeptic-charged-with.html
http://boingboing.net/2012/04/13/indian-skeptic-charged-with.html



Revision as of 05:15, 25 April 2012

Links

Skeptical Rogues

  • S: Steven Novella
  • B: Bob Novella
  • R: Rebecca Watson
  • J: Jay Novella
  • E: Evan Bernstein

Guests

Introduction (0:00)

You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.

S: Hello, and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Monday April 16th 2012 and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella.

B: Hey everybody.

S: Rebecca Watson.

R: Hello everyone.

S: Jay Novella.

J: Hey guys.

S: And Evan Bernstein.

E: Carpe dium.

S: To you too, Evan.

R: So I'm just going to quit the podcast now and go out for a bike ride.

S: Yeah, (inaudible) your life.

E: Should I have said Carpe Podcast?

R: Yeah, that's probably a little better.

E: I'm not sure that was a popular phrase back when, but.

S: Carpe diem tomorrow.

E: (laughs)

J: Carpe manyana.

E: Crape diem.

S: Carpe manyana.

This Day in Skepticism

The Surgeons Photo (0:48)

(April 21, 1934 - Surgeon's Photo of the Loch Ness Monster published)

R: Hey so, happy Loch Ness Monster Day, everybody.

S: Yeah, cool.

J: Thanks.

E: Oh, thanks, what did I win?

R: Uh huh, I bet you didn't know that was a national holiday.

E: What!?

R: It's not.

J: What do people do on that holiday?

R: It's not.

J: Oh.

R: Uh, they take photographs, blurry photographs of toys floating in water. Yes, it's not a national holiday but I'm campaigning to make it one.

J: (laughs)

R: Today is the day in 1934 the famous photograph of quote, unquote "The Loch Ness Monster" was published in a newspaper. Does anybody know what newspaper?

All: uuuh.

J: It was in Scotland wasn't it?

R: I'll give you a hint, the newspaper still exists today and is quite popular in the UK and has also published other similar, maybe hoxes and unbelievable claims.

E: The Sun, the Sun.

R: (laughs) Close, the Daily Mail.

J: Of course!

R: Our good friends, the Daily Mail were the first to publish this particular photo, supposedly taken by a gynaecologist named Robert Kenneth Wilson. Wilson didn't want his name attached to the photo originally and so that's why it is well known as the surgeon's photograph. And it's the famous one, the one you think of when you think of Nessie. It looks like, you know maybe the neck of the monster rising out of the water, however there's absolutely nothing in the photo to give it any sense of scale except for the suspiciously small size of the ripples.

S: Yeah.

E: Oh yeah.

S: I've always thought that it looked like a hand. You know, the head, if you make that shape with your hand it kind of looks exactly like that.

E: Yeah.

R: Yeah I agree.

E: It does.

R: There have been a number of debunkings. I think the one that gained the most traction was published in as early as 1975 or so but it was claimed that this was a plot by the son in law of a big game hunter who was ridiculed by the Daily Mail and so this guy attempted to get revenge on the Daily mail by creating this hoax and by getting the surgeon to offer the pictures to the Daily Mail.

S: Was this Marmaduke Wetherell?

R: Marmaduke is correct, yes.

S: Marmaduke, I love it.

R: Such a great name, Marmaduke Wetherell.

S: Marmaduke!

B: My god, if he had any idea what he was creating with this one little hoax.

E: Quite amazing what, yeah.

B: An entire sub-genre of bullshit.

E: It's iconic.

R: Mmhmm.

E: This photograph.

S: Mmhmm.

R: I should say, Marmaduke Wetherell is the name of the aforementioned big game hunter.

S: Yeah, right.

R: And Christian Spurling is the son-in-law who supposedly built, it was apparently a toy submarine that had a head and neck attached with wood. That had been built by the son-in-law, Christian Spurling. And then the two of them got a few other people involved to get the photos to the Daily Mail.

J: Did you guys ever see the picture and think that it was like an elephant's trunk coming out of the water?

B: (laughs)

R: That was a common claim, mmhmm.

B: How'd an elephant get in there though?

J: Well that kind of thing, it doesn't have to be an elephant, it could be some type of sea creature sticking a tentacle out or whatever. When I look at the picture thinking that it's a dinosaur like they describe, it looks a lot more fake to me. It looks small to me then, it doesn't look... but when I think of it as an elephant's trunk type of appendage then it looks more real.

S: Well have you guys seen the original photo, not the cropped one that we're all familiar with?

J: Sure.

E: Yes, that's right.

B: Oh, I yeah but I forget, what was...

S: You could see how small it is in the loch.

E: Much better scale.

S: Yeah, the scale is much more apparent and you could see that it's a very tiny thing but then you zoom in on it and, I mean there were still anomalies that make you think that it's not a huge thing but you lose the ability to really see the scale.

J: This was one of those topics that we saw on that TV show "In Search Of" in the 70s.

S: Yeah.

E: Hmm.

B: That Spock was the host for.

J: Yeah, Leonard Nimoy hosted it, it's burned into my mind, like when I see that picture I hear his voice talking about it.

E: (laughs) I head that Bilbo Baggins song when I...

S: (laughs)

J: Oh god. I feel so bad for him because of that. Those of you who don't know, Leonard Nimoy recorded this song about Bilbo Baggins and he made a video, it had to be in 70s right? Some point in the 70s.

E: Oh yeah.

J: It's more embarassing than watching William Shatner sing about Mr Tambourine Man. That's how bad it is.

E: Yeah, or Rocket Man, yeah.

B: That's saying something, oh my god.

E: It is that bad, you cringe.

S: That's when Nimoy was trying way too hard to be not-Spock.

R: Yeah.

E: Right.

S: Yeah.

R: He kind of went in the wrong direction there.

E: His artsy phase, yeah. But eventually directed Three Men and a Little Lady, so.

R: Leonard Nimoy directed Three Men and a Little... and a Baby or whatever?

E: Yep. Yeah, Three Men and a Little Lady, is that what it was?

B: Yeah.

R: Wait, that was the second one. Did he do the first one or the second one?

J: Yes, no he did the first one I'm not sure if he did the second.

News Items

Life on Mars (6:03)

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-proof-life-mars.html

S: Well, Bob. Tell us about Life on Mars, is it possible that we've already discovered life on Mars but just didn't notice.

B: Well, I didn't see this one coming, and if it's true, it would be both historic and the height of lameness all at the same time.

E: (laughs)

B: A recent reanalysis of the Mars Viking data seems to point to the existence of microbial life on Mars. That means that we may have discovered life on another planet 35 or 36 years ago and didn't even notice. So what the hell, if this is true, I'm going to be really happy and really pissed. Now, researchers from a plethora of universities including Los Angeles, California, Tempe Arizona and Sienna, Italy have recently published a paper in the International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences (IJASS) in which they discussed their work using NASA's data from the old Viking mission. Now a little history about Viking, the twin Viking landers landed on Mars in the summer of '76 and their primary goal was to find signs of life, for example by examining the Martian dirt and looking for the hallmarks of biological activity.

E: Which is what?

B: They don't call Martian dirt regolith do they, is that just specific to the Moon?

S: No, I don't think so, it's anything that's not soil that's on the surface of a world.

B: Right.

S: It's not specific to the Moon.

B: OK. To do this, the probes had three experiments, three or four depending on your source, optimised for that task. One of these experiments was called the LR or Labelled Release apparatus. What this device did was it scooped up dirt and mixed it with some water that had nutrients tagged with radioactive carbon atoms. So if there were microbes in this dirt, they would metabolise the nutrients, and in essence they would breath out the carbon dioxide or methane gas which would then be detected by a radiation detector that was in the probe. So like all good scientists, of course, they also had a control sample, or multiple control samples in the experiment, and this consisted of isolating some of the samples of soil in the dark for months at a time, which would apparently just kill any photosynthetic bacteria or microbe-bacteria like organisms. Or, it would kill anything that relied of photosynthetic organisms to survive. But I also read another source that said that what they did was they just heated the sample to such a temperature that it would be enough to kill anything that was living inside of it. So, but after they performed these steps, the control samples were then fed the nutrients and examined again. Now when these active soil samples, the ones that weren't treated and could potentially have live organisms, when they were fed the water the detectors got hit with a pulse of like 10,000 counts of radioactive molecules. If you compare that to the normal background radiation found on Mars, it's usually about 50 counts or so, so clearly something interesting was happening. Perhaps it was even biological. If this were the end of the story then things, obviously I think, would have played out very, very differently. But unfortunately the other experiments did not agree with these results, including an experiment that used a mass spectrometer that didn't find any organic molecules at all which seems pretty damning to me. Therefore no discovery of life on Mars was made and the general consensus seems to have been that there was some geo-chemical reaction taking place in these LR experiments, or maybe there was some other fluke occurrence that happened. And this was kind of interesting, I came across a comment on one of these websites. Somebody named Richard Hallavese made a comment, he said that I worked on Viking back in the early 70s on the hydrogen flame ionisation detector and other experiments and the entire design team was dismayed when the purely political announcement was made denying our clear findings of microbial life on Mars. It was finally explained as people weren't ready to accept life on other planets. So in truth, some of the higher-ups weren't ready to be open minded and accept facts as they were. So, I mean I don't know who this guy is, I tried to google him and I couldn't find any evidence that he really, that he worked on these projects, so take that for what it's worth, but it's just, his perspective is a little interesting if it's even true, and I do tend to doubt it. I don't think that NASA's reaction would have been, at that time, oh people aren't ready to accept it. I mean come on, that would have been the finding, you know, one of the biggest findings in history and they were just going to put a lid on it? So I doubt that.

S: Yeah, that sounds like crap.

B: Now jump ahead 36 years and now, a mostly new generation of scientists and computational tools have resurrected this old data, and they disagree with the results that few people seem to have doubted for more than a generation. So what led them to this startling conclusion? It looks like one of the first things they did was to do away with this idea that the initial results was just this weird geochemical reaction. And apparently, when the LR experiment was repeated four or five months later, nothing happened. So if this were merely some chemical reaction with rocks or maybe some other elements in the dirt, then why would it not occur again months later? So what they did next then was to evaluate the data from a completely different perspective. They were looking at it in terms of complexity, and specifically how complex was the radioactive gas signal that was emitted by the dirt, and how did it change over time? And they did this obviously because in general biology is more complex than non-biology. If you closely examine the complexity then, it could give insight into whether it was caused by some biological process or not. So that is kind of where they were coming from. So this mathematical complexity analysis allowed them to compare it to the control sample signals in a way that made the differences kind of like really stand out and kind of put them on two ends of a spectrum. The interesting thing is though that they did similar analyses against earthly biological data. They, like for example they took temperature readings from a rat and they also took other clearly non-biological data from Earth and when they compared all this data together, everything from Voyager and everything from Earth sources, what happened was that the live soil samples from Mars clustered together with the rat data on one end and the Mars control data clustered with the Earth non-biological data on the other end. So to me, this makes their results a little bit more compelling, rather than if they had just looked at the Mars data. They, comparing it with, you know clear signals from Earth, things that we know are biological or non-biological to me makes it a little bit more compelling. Joseph Miller is a researcher with the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, he recently said, on the basis of what we've done so far, I'd say I'm 99% sure there's life there. That's the one quote that really, really stands out and that you kind of read everywhere. I mean that's a hell of a confidence level. But still though, there's some scientists, I'm not sure how widespread this belief is, but I'm sure a lot of them are saying that we really need to replicate the technique that they used on more samples from Earth to verify that it really can distinguish biological data from non-biological data. I'm sure we're going to be hearing more about this in the future. But as to the immediate future, now you guys now the Curiosity Rover is set to land on Mars in August. NASA says that it doesn't have the specific tools to detect life, which is really annoying, but it could lend support to this latest experiment, and it would also support the one that was conducted 36 years ago on Viking. But guys, I mean why can't the Curiosity probe detect life, I mean what would be more powerful than if the Curiosity had just a microscope, just a silly microscope so that you could actually see, yup, look at that, that's some weird alien microbe, it's clearly nothing that, you know, it's clearly biological. I mean how hard would it be? I'm sure they've got really good reasons that they couldn't put something as definitive as that on there, and that's not really its goal, but it's still kind of annoying that we're sending these multi-, I don't know what it costs, hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, these probes, and they can't definitively say, yep that's life right there, it's just a little bit annoying.

J: But now what do we do, like what's the next step here?

B: Well we'll see if the Curiosity rover can support, can lend any support to this new theory, and if it can, then I'm sure that it would warrant even more research and more tests, and just more verification of the specific technique that these guys used, you could do that on Earth, you don't need to do it on Mars. And then of course the next question would be, is it Earth derived, or is it purely, totally alien? I mean there could just be cross-seeding between Earth and Mars and back again, so it could be, you know, just like Earth life in terms of DNA and chirality, you know the way the proteins are oriented and all sorts of stuff that would let you think, yup this has go to be from Earth or maybe Earth life came from Mars in some way, but either answer would be fantastic, I don't care. I mean of course I would prefer completely alien DNA, but I'll take it any way that I can.

E: Right, Bob and they're confident it's not contamination from the Viking craft itself?

B: It could have been, I mean yeah, they actually talk about that as well. I think some of the images that they had from Mars showed these dark patches that kind of reminded some of the scientists of lichen and so what I think the Curiosity rover is going to have a really high-res camera that will be able to get a close look at that stuff, and that was just another thing that could be an interesting finding from the Curiosity rover but we'll see.

S: OK, thanks Bob.

Indian Skeptic Charged with Blasphemy (15:42)

http://boingboing.net/2012/04/13/indian-skeptic-charged-with.html

Multitasking

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17693737

Monkey's Recognize Words

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/17676129

Cosmic Superwind

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/04/11/Mystery-of-cosmic-superwinds-solved/UPI-21491334185002/

Who's That Noisy?

Answer to last week: Ice chimes

Questions and Emails

Titanic Correction

Need to be careful believing the official position of white star lines. The Issue relates to PR using language to convey a message to the public that was generally believed before the event.: From snopes: Claim: The Titanic was never advertised using the word "unsinkable." : FALSE ...However, claiming (as White Star did) that although others may have used the word, White Star itself did not describe the Titanicas "unsinkable" in its advertising is a bit disingenuous. The February 1993 issue of The Titanic Commutator unearthed a White Star promotional flyer for the Olympic and Titanic that claimed "as far as it is possible to do, these two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable." I never trust advertising to be fact ;) Nigel Underhill

Advanced Dinosaurs

Just wondering if you guys had stumbled upon this little gem http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/04/weekend-feature-intelligent-advanced-versions-of-earths-dinosaurs-may-have-evolved-elsewhere-in-univ.html Good example of horrendous journalism. Eric Rosinski Arkansas

Science or Fiction

Item #1 Medical researchers have demonstrated that a form of carbon nanotubes can function as an effective chemotherapeutic agent again several types of solid tumors. http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=24842.php Item #2 Researchers have developed a form of carbon nanotubes that form into durable sponges that can float on water and soak up 100 times their weight in oil. http://news.rice.edu/2012/04/13/nanosponges-soak-up-oil-again-and-again/ Item #3 Scientists have successfully created a form of graphene that can act as a semiconductor - previously known forms are either conductors or insulators. http://www..uwm.edu/news/2012/04/13/uwm-discovery-advances-graphene-based-electronics/ Item #4 Researchers have discovered that carbon nanotubes more than double the growth rate of plant cells in culture. http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/04/04/carbon.nanotubes.can.double.growth.cell.cultures.important.industry

Skeptical Quote

"Everyone, in some small sacred sanctuary of the self, is nuts." --Leo Rosten

Announcements

Template:Outro1