Hurricane Katrina: Reflections and Suggestions from Alan Dove

Editor,

Excellent issue of TCS. I ended up getting more deeply involved in the Katrina disaster response than I had ever anticipated, and I think my experience hints at some of the things amateur scientists can do without even entering a disaster zone. My personal narrative of this experience is on my Web site
( http://home.earthlink.net/ ~alanwdove/Katrina.html ), and while that essay has a decidedly political message and some PG13-rated language, its inspiration was a sort of amateur intelligence analysis project. For amateur scientists, the take-home message is that they can obtain enormous amounts of information, and formulate and test hypotheses about an ongoing disaster, without ever visiting the scene. As we saw in the Katrina disaster, amateurs may do even better at this game than the "professionals," especially when a collapse of leadership leaves the most important specialists out of the loop.

My background in infectious disease, and the fact that I had friends deployed on the ground in the disaster zone, drove my particular interests in this case. However, there are plenty of other opportunities for amateur science projects in the wake of Katrina. To pick one example, NOAA published a large set of aerial photographs of the New Orleans area right after the levees broke, the EPA posted
much of its water sampling data (including a map of their highly nonrandom sampling pattern), and other agencies also made environmental data public. With pre-storm satellite images, digital maps, and good GIS software, an amateur could start building models of the disaster scene and making predictions about what will happen as the water drains. Subsequent data from NOAA and the EPA should
confirm or falsify those predictions so the models can be refined.

Whether or not amateurs decide to get involved in disaster science, everyone should take this opportunity to review disaster preparedness and personal emergency plans. While quite rightly maligned for its recent operations, FEMA does provide excellent, free online courses in disaster preparedness and response. Do as they say, not as they do. Regardless of how much training you get in disaster response, though, never enter a disaster zone without official permission and a clear purpose. Dead scientists can't publish.

Alan W. Dove, Ph.D.
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanwdove

Another Spin on the Coriolis Force...

Editor,

I've read the article about the Coriolis Force (Kevin T. Kilty, "One More Round with the Coriolis Force: Part 1. Odd and Humorous Beliefs," The Citizen Scientist, 20 May 2005) and would like to know if I'm getting old.

Last week I was in Sydney and did a test in the sink. I filled the sink to the top with water and got the plug out. The water went down the drain CLOCKWISE (southern hemisphere).

Two days later, back in Holland, I did the same test. The result was ANTICLOCKWISE (northern hemisphere).

In you articles you mention that it should go down the drain clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and counter clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere.

WHO IS RIGHT??

Dennis Korthouwer

... Shawn Carlson Replies

Hi, Dennis,

The Coriolis force does not affect things as small as kitchen drains. Storm systems, yes. In order for the effect to be evident, the system must be large, a reasonable fraction of the earth's radius. I invite you to do a controlled experiment to resolve the matter. Secure a plastic a plastic sink. Fill it and wait for the water to become completely still, then extract the plug straight up with a string and see which direction the circulates. Do this 30 times to get a good statistical sample.

Ship the same sink to the opposite hemisphere and repeat the experiment there. Is there a statistically significant difference in the direction of flow?

Do this and write it up, and The Citizen Scientist will publish it and hopefully resolve this issue once and for all.

Take care,

Shawn Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and Executive Director
Society for Amateur Scientists

Readers, please send concise reports about Coriolois force findings to "Backscatter." Include details about how you set up the experiment. Also include your first and last name. Place "Coriolis Force" in the subject line of your e-mail. We will consider publishing major Coriolis force experiments as feature articles. Editor.

Reflections on the Speed of Sight

Editor,

While reading Mark Valentine's feature article "The Speed of Sight: Measuring Differences Between Conscious Visual Response Times of Human Eyesight using LEDs and Simple Electronics" in the 9
September 2005 edition of The Citizen Scientist, a couple of ideas came to mind that might interest some of the readers.

The first comment that springs to mind is that the human eye has a rather strange characteristic when it comes to responding to periodic light variations in the form of flicker. Such a circuit as described by
Mr. Valentine seems rather well suited to making some comparisons among the public, especially if accompanied by a frequency counter to determine the flicker frequency. Flicker is extremely important,
since most computer monitors, televisions, and even movie screens display images which are periodically refreshed, and, thus, may present flicker. And, since flicker can induce headaches [1], it's an important subject to understand. Some of the known characteristics of flicker are that some people are more susceptible than others. Additionally, even with the same person, their susceptibility varies
depending upon ambient illumination level, direction of the light (peripheral vision seems to be more sensitive than direct vision.), colour of the light, and even the "tiredness" of the eye. However, there are also unknown factors that may influence flicker susceptibility, possibly including blood pressure, blood glucose levels, etc. There's even a question as to whether both eyes respond the same to flicker, or if the effect may be stronger in one eye than another. Thus, this is a field which may be wide open for amateur scientists to assist with better understanding of the phenomenon.[1]

Another interesting subject with regard to human vision is whether both eyes of an individual respond the same to different colours. It is a known fact that human eyes (and the eyes of a very few certain other animals) include both rods and cones in the retina. Since the rods are only sensitive to the overall illumination level without regard to colour, it is up to the cones to sense the colour of illumination. This is one reason why night vision is primarily black and while, since the rods respond better to low illumination levels, while the cones require more total light in order to distinguish colours. However, like all biological systems, the distribution of the particular rods and cones in an individual's eyes may differ in their geometric arrangement, thus possibly affecting the colour sensitivity of the eyes with regards
to each other. At least, it may be an interesting field for experimentation.

Since reference was made to LED optical sources as well as cadmium sulfide photo sensors, this brings up the subject of the efficiency of LEDs and the photo sensors. Since these are both based on
semiconducting materials, and since semiconducting materials are highly temperature dependent, the question arises as to the effects on temperature on the light production and detection capabilities
of LEDs and photo sensors. Do they put out the same amount of light when cooled in a freezer, or warmed up in an oven? Do they detect light as well when cooled or heated? Are the effects linear?

Do "white" LEDs, which achieve their "whiteness" via the excitation of a phosphor mix from a ultraviolet [or blue] emitting LED, change their optical output when heated or cooled? Does their response time change, due to changes in the persistence of the phosphors? When excited by a time-varying excitation, does the relative chromatic output become time varying? For an interesting application of such a device, consult US patent 4,715,687.

Are there other applications?

David W. Glass

Reader Glass is correct about the many experimental possibilities suggested by Mark Valentine's article. Readers are encouraged to pursue such experiments and to consider reporting their findings to The Citizen Scientist. Editor.

A Repulsive Question...

Editor,

I was reading through the write up on the Van de Graaff generator and I am curious as to what really makes the hair of the people who touch the generator stand. Is it the high voltage? I read in one of the sites about repulsion causing the hair to stand? Does our body repel the generator thus causing the hair to stand? I hope you can help me understand the rationale behind the hair standing when the person touches the Van de Graaff generator.

Juris Lallana

... Shawn Carlson Replies

Hi Juris,

Normally, you body is electrically neutral, having as many positive charges as negative. When you put your hand on a Van de Graaff generator, it pumps excess negative charges out of your body. This
causes the surface of your body to have a net positive charge. The hair on your head is so light weight, that this excess charge causes the individual strands to repel each other.

That's why they stand on end.

I hope this helps you,

Shawn Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and Executive Director
Society for Amateur Scientists

Hummingbird Nests

Editor,

Bird nest pictures are a refreshing and unique idea. The natural setting photos are wonderful. Thank you.

I feel sure the responsibility for building the nest (and caring for the young) is the sole responsibility of the female hummingbird (ruby-throated or black-chinned), as opposed to the parents as suggested by your article. In general, male hummingbirds contribute in no way to the building of nests or the care of young. There are a few rare reports of male ruby-throated and male rufous hummingbirds incubating eggs. There is one report of a male Anna's hummingbird feeding young. See: http://portalproductions.com/h/

Jo Swann

Discovery of a New Element: Governmentium

A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element has been named Governmentium. Governmentium has 1 neutron, 12 deputy neutrons, 75 assistant neutrons, and 224 deputy assistant neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. A minute amount of Governmentium causes a reaction to take 4 days to complete, when it would normally take less than a second. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, governmentium's mass will actually increase over time since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as Critical Morass. When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

This anonymous report was found floating on the web after Hurricane Katrina, and two readers have suggested that it be included in "Backscatter," While ordinarily we avoid web chatter and do not publish anonymous contributions Shawn Carlson and I decided that this particular discovery seems especially appropriate in light of Dr. Joan Messer's letter in this issue's news department and Dr. Alan Dove's letter above. Editor.

Letters to "Backscatter" are welcome. Letters are subject to light editing to correct punctuation, spelling and grammar. By placing "Backscatter" in the subject line, you give us permission to consider publishing your letter. Send your letter to Backscatter.