Moon Crater Contains Usable Water, NASA Says

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/science/space/22moon.html?ref=space

            After the second stage of a satellite that was mapping out the moon fell to the surface of the moon, it created a huge splash of about 26 gallons of water. This greatly surprised many scientists because they had no clue that there was water on the south pole of the moon. This crater that the second stage of the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (Lcross) crash-landed into seems to be wetter than a few places on Earth including the Sahara Desert. Even though it is really dry in our terms, it is an oasis on the moon and it is surprisingly wet for a place that was thought to be utterly dry by scientists. The water in the crater is just like the water on Earth and can be purified for drinking or split into hydrogen and oxygen for fuel to get home or to travel to Mars. While the Sahara Desert contains 2 to 5 percent water, this crater on the south pole of the moon contains 8.5 percent water. The second stage of the Lcross fell off when astronomers were testing it for future visits to the moon. It was later discovered that the crater, called the Cabeus crater, contains about 40 gallons of water. It is also one of the coldest places on the moon because it reaches -370 degrees Fahrenheit there because it is on the dark side of the moon. Scientists also found other elements such as sodium, silver, calcium, magnesium, and mercury in the freezing water. This discovery is huge for the astronomy society in many ways.

             

          The fact that a lot of water was found on the moon brings up a lot of possibilities about what can be done with it and how this discovery affects humanity. One way that this discovery effects humanity is if people on Earth ever need to go to the moon for some reason their will be water that is fine for drinking on the moon. Scientists say that there are probably a lot of other craters like the Cabeus crater that contain water. A more practical use for the water is that it can be split up into hydrogen and oxygen and be used as fuel for spaceships. With water on the moon, the moon can act a stepping stone into space where spaceships can get more fuel to travel to Mars or to get back to Earth. With this discovery scientists are more excited about getting back to the moon to study the moon and the possibilities of space travel to other planets. But, President Obama is holding these astronomers back because he passed a bill saying that there will be no funding for moon travel because he thinks it is a waste of money. This discovery also affects humanity because it allows scientists to determine what type of minerals the moon is composed of. By finding the percentages of each mineral in the water sample from the moon, scientists can get a feeling for how much of each element makes up the moon’s surface. The biggest way that this discovery affects humanity is that it should gain the public’s interest and convince them that space travel is very interesting and beneficial to the Earth. The scientists hope that the study of the moon will continue until we have a new president that is in favor of space travel.

          
          This article was a very interesting and well-written article. It clearly described what the discovery was on the moon, how the discovery happened, and what can be done with the information gained from the discovery. The author also uses many quotes from scientists that were involved with the discovery. These quotes greatly added to the flow of the article. This article had only a few weaknesses, one being that it was confusing when it explained how the Lcross created the discovery. The article could have been improved by adding a paragraph that talks about the previous discoveries of water on the moon so that the reader could compare the previous discoveries with this one. The author could have also expanded on what scientists are doing to today in relation to the moon and eventually bringing people back there again. Overall, this article was well-written and its flaws did not affect the interesting information talked about in the article.

Posted for R. Faselt

Glucosamine Causes The Death Of Pancreatic Cells

           An experiment, conducted by a team of researchers at Université Laval's Faculty of Pharmacy, tested that high doses or overuse of glucosamine can result in death of pancreatic cells as well as raise one’s chances of developing diabetes. Glucosamine, which is produced naturally in the body, plays an important role in building cartilage, the tough connective tissue that cushions the joints. Glucosamine is used in supplements and medicines for people with bone related injuries. Osteoarthritis is a type of arthritis that occurs when cartilage breaks down and is lost, either due to injury or to normal wear and tear. It commonly occurs as people age. In some studies, glucosamine supplements have decreased the joint pain of Osteoarthritis. Studies suggest that glucosamine reduces Osteoarthritis pain, improves function in people with hip or knee Osteoarthritis, reduces joint swelling and stiffness, and provides relief from Osteoarthritis symptoms for up to three months after treatment is stopped. However the dangers of this supplement may weigh out its benefits. Professor Frederic Picard and his team used doses five to ten times higher than recommended by manufacturers on the cells in the experiment. Demonstrated by Picard and his team, glucosamine triggers a mechanism, which lowered very high blood sugar levels. Nevertheless, this reaction damages SIRT1, a protein that is “critical to cell survival.” This large concentration of glucosamine lessens the amount of SIRT1, resulting in the cell’s death in tissues where protein is necessary, for example the pancreas. Thus, people with these large levels of glucosamine and with little SIRT1 are believed to be at a greater risk for diabetes. And age is a factor as well, the elderly are more likely to use this supplement and they are more vulnerable to its effects. Professor Picard concluded, “The key point of our work is that glucosamine can have effects that are far from harmless and should be used with great caution.”

I thought this article was very easy to understand and it was well written. However, I felt that is did not fully explain the experiment that was conducted for these results and that it should have been a bit longer and detailed.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101027111349.htm

Review by P. Gordon

Seeing the Natural World With a Physicist's Lens

Recent scientific discovery indicates that certain body parts of animals may have evolved to their full potential in several body parts. The human eye has photoreceptor cells that can respond to light, which have evolved as far as is actually possible. They are each designed to respond to single photons of light, the smallest possible package light can come in. Sharks ability to find its prey by measuring micro-fluxes of electricity in water a millionth of a volt strong is now proven to be the most sensitive and efficient this system could get by the outermost laws of physics. Dr. Biack, a biophysicist, works on theories such as this for other animals. Currently he is studying the dynamics of a signaling system in fruit fly embryos called bicoids. Muscles are as close to being optimized as possible, all containing the same actin, myosin, and tropin that latch onto each other and create force. Dr. Todorov and his coworkers model different motions and determine the best approach to each, then comparing it with what is in effect, in actuality, in animals currently.

This article relates to all life in that it analyzes a broad range of current animal life on the planet, including human. Often we do not think of how we have the ability to turn on a light switch with our eyes closed, or while moving, or at all even in normal, stationary circumstances. However, it is actually a evolutionary miracle that we can, and it begs the questions what point are we evolving to? Obviously evolution may never bring everything to complete perfection, but the fact that things like photoreceptors in the human eye have evolved as far as they possibly can in a positive direction is astounding. The article asks and proposes a possible partial solution to the question: where is evolution ultimately going to take us?

I thought the article was well written, as a whole, and attracted my interest. However, the organization of the information could have been more clear. I felt the paragraph often jumped from one animal to an experiment to another experiment to another animal to a scientific concept and it was hard to keep track of the central hypothesis of the article at several points. Had the writer had a more clear sense of where he was going at the beginning of the article, the article probably would have been more straightforward and easier to read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/science/02angier.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=seeing%20the%20natural%20world&st=cse