Just A Theory

A British company has developed a new type of cement that can suck up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Its use could transform the cement production from a harmful emitter of CO₂ into an environmentally beneficial process.

Traditionally, cement requires intense heat to burn the raw material used in production - typically limestone. A large amount of energy is needed to generate this heat, and so CO₂ is released. The effect is further compounded by the release of CO₂ from the burning limestone itself.

Novacem, based in London, have created a new mixture of cement based on magnesium silicates. It requires much lower temperatures during production, and as it sets it actually absorbs CO₂ from the atmosphere, making the material actually carbon negative.

The company claims that in a normal lifecycle their cement can absorb 0.6 tonnes of CO₂ per tonne of cement. This is a dramatic improvement over the regular stuff, which emits about 0.4 tonnes of CO₂ per tonne of cement.

There are doubts over the suitability of the new cement, however. A spokesperson for the British Cement Association said that although much work is done in laboratories on new types of cement, they aren’t yet ready for the market:

“The reality is that the geological availability, and global distribution, of suitable natural resources, coupled with the extensive validation needed to confirm fitness-for-purpose, make it highly unlikely that these cements will a be realistic alternative for volume building.”

Chief scientist of Novacem, Nikolaos Vlasopoulos, countered such claims, as an estimated 10,000 billion tonnes of magnesium silicates are available worldwide. He acknowledges that the cement requires further testing until it is safe for use in buildings, but is confident that Novacem is the way forward.

For myself, I have to applaud Novacem for their efforts. Cement might not be glamorous, but it’s scientific developments such as these that will help us tackle climate change. No one is really going to get excited about a new type of cement, but adapting our existing industrial methods will certainly make a difference.

With the year wrapping up, science news is thinning out and the last weekly roundup is looking a bit lean. Still, here we go!

It might not be an iPhone, but it can help save lives

Using only a cheap camera phone and some light sensors, scientists at UCLA’s California NanoSystems Institute have developed a portable blood tester that could monitor HIV, malaria and leukaemia, as well as detecting other diseases.

Super-phone to the rescue!

The work of Dr. Aydogan Ozcan at UCLA will cut out the more traditional method of sending blood to a lab and waiting weeks for a result, allowing accurate analysis in mere minutes. Not only will it cutting waiting time, but the phone scanner is a fraction of a cost of the massive machines used by lab technicians.

The phone is the perfect tool for developing countries, with use already widespread in areas without a landline network. Phones that come with both a camera and the ability to run the analysis software provide everything needed to save lives in one tidy package.

Nano-nano vroom-vroom

With oil supplies dwindling, car companies are increasingly developing smaller and smaller vehicles for everyday use. None of them can compare to the latest development of one Prof. James Tour however, who recently picked up the Foresight Institute Feynman Prize for the development of a car just four nanometres across.

Pimp my nano-ride.

It consists of a chassis and working engine, a suspension system and rotating wheels made from a special form of carbon known as the buckyball, which forms a sphere-like shape from 60 carbon atoms. Tour hopes that inventions like his nanocar and an accompanying nanotruck, capable of carrying a payload, could one day be used to build large scale objects such as buildings by shunting around atoms.

He’s not expecting such developments any time soon however - he says that such applications are so far off that it isn’t even worth patenting the technology, because by the time it could be used to make money the patents would have expired!

…and if anything, I’m feeling worse! Hopefully that means I’m actually getting better, but we shall see. Untill I’m feeling up to it I’m afraid posts are going to be pretty short, but perhaps some amusing links might make up for it. May I present to you the Table of Condiments That Periodically Go Bad and the Periodic Table of Awesoments.

It’s a tough choice over which I prefer, with the Table of Condiments actually providing (somewhat) useful information, but ultimately I think Awesoments has to win out, simply because the first element is “bacon”, and it only goes up from there.

A couple of months ago I wondered whether we were seeing a new development in science communication; namely scientific rapping. First there was the Large Hadron Collider Rap, which was then followed by the Astrobiology Rap. Alas, it seems that no further offerings have emerged.

All is not lost, however, as it seems we have a new form of communication: dance. A while ago, the journal Science put out a call for scientists around the world to share their Ph.D research in the form of interpretive dance - an unusual request, I grant you, but one that has resulted in some interesting compositions.

Prizes were awarded in four categories: Graduate Students, Postdocs, Professors, and Popular Choice. I’ve embedded the videos for you below; see what you make of them and then click through to the article to find out what they’re all about. Warning: I may have purposely miss-categorised this post to confuse you!

Graduate Students

Postdocs

Professors

Popular Choice

I’ve been pretty hard on the Royal Society of Chemistry recently. The RSC’s seminal work on Yorkshire puddings and the Italian Job did little to impress me. Luckily for them, a recent report has got me back on the RSC’s side. In June 2008 the society ran a competition entitled The Five Decade Challenge, in which GCSE pupils from across the country were invited to tackle chemistry questions from the 1960’s to the present. How did they fair?

Pupils found modern questions much easier. (Graph from the RSC report)

Well, it seems there is definitely weight to the argument that exams are getting easier. The average score on questions from the 1960s was just 15%, rising steadily to 35% for questions from the past decade. It is possible that is due to changes in the language used in questions in the past 50 years pupils struggled with the comprehension of older questions, rather than their content - I certainly remember GCSE papers having a particularly idiosyncratic nature. It is unlikely that this provides a full explanation for the differences, however.

Pupils found questions requiring a single mathematical step (one multiplication, for example) to be the easiest, but multi-step, unprompted mathematical questions - common in older papers - were much harder. The RSC see this as evidence that mathematical education needs to be beefed up in order to further science education. As they say in their report, science teachers should not have to be teaching fundamental numerical techniques.

They Society also call for new grading standards. Although the majority of pupils taking the challenge were of A or A* standard, many failed to score well. There were exceptions however, with the top scoring pupil gaining a total of 93.8%. The report calls for the meaningful differentiation between pupils of this level - though thankfully they don’t seem to suggest the introduction of an A** grade!

So, are exams getting easier, as this report suggests? I think that a combination of factors are at play here. The science syllabus has changed greatly over the years, as one might expect. Much more importance is placed on “science-in-society” - applying science to pupils everyday lives and the world around them. I would argue that this is no bad thing. Not everyone who takes GCSE chemistry will study chemistry at university, and a sound knowledge of chemistry in the wider world will serve pupils much more than memorisation of the periodic table.

On the other hand, we must not fail the highest achieving pupils who will go on to be the future chemists of the nation. Teaching to the test means that these pupils gain high marks with ease, but leaves them ill-equipped for undergraduate chemistry. Somehow, a balance between these two interests much be struck.

I’m not suggesting that these problems apply only to chemistry - far from it. I’m sure physics, biology and other scientific subjects would show similar results. I do however applaud the Royal Society of Chemistry for this useful report, and hope that they stick more to education reform and less to silly competitions!

As a footnote, if you want to have a go at the challenge it is included in the report linked above, but the Guardian have handily stripped out both the questions and answers. Ironically, I think I found some of the 60’s questions easiest due to their highly mathematical nature, allowing me to ignore the chemistry all together!

We are well into autumn now, and when it comes to weather there’s one thing you can be certain of in Britain (besides the cold) - rain. Woe betides those who leave home without waterproofs and umbrellas. Even with such paraphernalia you might still get wet if the downpour is heavy enough - there’s only so much water a brolly can take.

Not so with a new waterproof material developed in Switzerland. Researchers at the University of Zurich have come up with a new type of fabric made from fibres of polyester that are coated in millions of minuscule silicone fragments. It’s the most water-repellent material suitable for making clothes ever produced.

Water droplets form perfect spheres on the new material.

Lead researcher Stefan Seeger took their inspiration from examples in nature, such as the surface of Lotus leaves. These biological water-repellents have a particular nanostructure that the new material emulates. Silicone nanofilaments, just 40 nanometres wide, coat the polyester and stop water seeping through.

A stream of water bounces right off.

They also trap a small layer of air that means water never even comes into contact with the underlying polyester. In a demonstration of hydrophobic power, the material was submerged underwater. When it was removed two months later, it was still dry to the touch. Seeger spoke to New Scientist about his creation:

“The combination of the hydrophobic surface chemistry and the nanostructure of the coating results in the super-hydrophobic effect,

“The water comes to rest on the top of the nanofilaments like a fakir sitting on a bed of nails,” he says.

It’s not just polyester that can be protected in this way, although it currently gives the best results. The silicone coating can also be applied to other materials such as wool and cotton. It could even lead to the invention of self-cleaning clothes!

The RSC are at it again

The Royal Society of Chemistry are clearly not reading Just A Theory. Not one week after I pointed out the bizarre competitions they have been running, they announce a recipe for Yorkshire pudding.

The Society was replying to the inquiry of one Ian Lyness, who wanted to know why his Yorkshires had failed to rise in the mountainousness Colorado, despite previous success elsewhere in the US. Though they haven’t answered Ian’s question, the RSC have decreed that the perfect Yorkshire should be at least 10 cm tall.

Chemical scientist Dr John Emsley of Yorkshire claimed that only his fellow Yorkshire men and women could produce “worthy” puds. All extremely unscientific conclusions, you might agree. Emsley also provided the “chemical formula” for a pudding, namely carbohydrate + H2O + protein + NaCl + lipids.

I know they’re just trying to appeal to a wider audience (and it worked, the story was run by many papers), but the RSC really should give up on this kind of thing.

A robot that’s uncanny

The uncanny valley is a commonly held belief that as robots and animations become more humanlike, there is a point before they reach perfection at which they become abhorrent. It’s not been scientifically proven, but I’ve certainly experience the phenomenon for myself.

The latest example is Jules, a creation of the Bristol Robotics Lab. Jules is designed to mimic the facial expressions of other human beings, thanks to the motors embedded beneath its “skin”.

Jules: he's watching you.

Robotic engineers Chris Melhuish, Neill Campbell and Peter Jaeckel spent three-and-a-half years creating the software that powers Jules’ interactions. You can see their results, and Jules’ slightly creepy monologue, in the following video:

This cannot be said enough: science and religion can live happily ever after

The Guardian have an article by Micheal Poole on that old chestnut, science and religion. He’s a visiting research fellow in science and religion at the department of education and professional studies at King’s College London, so unsurprisingly he has a thing or two to say on the matter.

He makes the point that whilst ideas intelligent design and young Earth creationism are nonsense, they do not discredit the concept of creation, or rather Creation as preformed by a Creator. I’ve said similar in the past, but Poole’s argument is very nicely laid out, and worth a read.

He reminds us that creation is a religious concept, not a scientific one, however, it can also not be disproved by science. Science can answer questions about the processes of the natural world; it cannot determine if these are the results of actions by God. In other word, it’s a matter for religious philosophers to fret over, not scientists. Region and science are not enemies, and they should cease to be portrayed as such.

Cash for codebreakers

Bletchley Park, home to the Allied codebreakers of World War II, has secured a grant of £330,000 to restore the roof of the historic site. The Grade II-listed mansion is at risk due to previous neglect.

Codebreakers who were at Bletchley include Alan Turing, arguably the founder of computer science. The need to crack the German Enigma machine lead to great developments in cryptoanalysis and other sciences. It’s a fascinating place that I’d love to visit one day, so hopefully this new money will help preserve the site.

China plans their own Moon buggy

The Chinese media has reported the nation’s ambitions to put an unmanned buggy on the moon by 2012 as a step along the road to a full-on manned mission.

The news follows on from China’s previous space efforts at the end of September, in which they broadcast footage of a first space-walk back to those watching on Earth. It could also be seen as an answer to the American’s testing their latest moon buggy prototype.

China says that its lunar mission will include three steps of “orbiting, landing and returning”, but has not yet set any dates for manned moon mission yet.

Not lead into gold, but tequila into diamonds

Mexican scientists have discovered a way to turn tequila into diamonds. It turns out that the chemical makeup of the drink has a ratio of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon atoms which places it within the “diamond growth region.”

The scientists turned to tequila not for its intoxicating quality, but because previous efforts to create diamonds from organic solutions such as acetone, ethanol, and methanol had proved unsuccessful. They then realised that their ideal compound of 40% ethanol and 60% water was remarkably close to tequila.

Luis Miguel Apátiga was one of the researches from the National Autonomous University of Mexico:

“To dissipate any doubts, one morning on the way to the lab I bought a pocket-size bottle of cheap white tequila and we did some tests,” Apátiga said. “We were in doubt over whether the great amount of chemicals present in tequila, other than water and ethanol, would contaminate or obstruct the process, it turned out to be not so. The results were amazing, same as with the ethanol and water compound, we obtained almost spherical shaped diamonds of nanometric size. There is no doubt; tequila has the exact proportion of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms necessary to form diamonds.”

The diamonds were made by heating tequila to transform it into a gas, and then heating this gas further to break down the molecular structure. The result: solid diamond crystals, about 100-400 nanometres in size. They could be used to coat cutting tools, or as high-power semiconductors, radiation detectors and optical-electronic devices.

Olives could turn out to be more than just a tasty snack or delicious pizza topping - or rather, their stones could. Often discarded in the cultivation of the olive for oil or other uses, it is estimate that every year the olive growing industry produces 4 million tonnes of olive stones as waste. Scientists at the University of Jaén and the University of Granada, both in Spain, have demonstrated a method of extracting bioethanol from the stones.

Bioethanol is a renewable source of fuel that can be produced from many kinds of waste plant matter, but it has recently come under fire. Turning fields over to growing fuel instead of food has seen grain prices rise and increased the threat of hunger. Nevertheless, the push towards bioethanol continues, with the UK government mandating that by 2010 all cars run on 5% biofuel. Thus, producing energy from an unwanted food by-product looks increasingly attractive.

The fuel was extracted by first blasting the stones with high-pressure hot water and then adding enzymes to break down the organic matter into sugars. This mixture was then fermented with yeast in order to produce ethanol, with a maximum yield of 5.7 kg per 100 kg of olive stones.

They won't be powering your car just yet.

If this process could be applied to all 4 million tonnes of stones produced each year it would result in 228,000 tonnes of ethanol. Government figures for 1997 (the only ones I could find, unfortunately) indicate that 22,243,000 tonnes of petrol were sold that year. Unfortunately for olive producers, this means that waste stones would only be able to provide around a fifth of the UK’s bioethanol needs in 2010 - let alone any other countries.

It’s not all doom and gloom however. This research shows that energy can be extracted from the most unlikeliest places, and will perhaps encourage others to seek out other forms of energy from waste bio-materials.

I’m away in Cambridge this weekend, so today I’ll have to leave the science to Mythbusters’ Adam Savage, who explains how gases can effect the sound of your voice:

Those of you who actively follow science news might have been wondering this past week why I hadn’t yet commented on the Nobel Prize announcements. No, I haven’t forgotten in all the course-starting excitement - I just thought it would be more useful to wait until all of the prizes had been announced. Before the results however, a bit of history.

The Nobels have been awarded for over 100 years, with the first prizes given out in 1901. The Swedish chemist Alfred Nobel, wishing to to atone for his inventing dynamite, specified in his will that his fortune should be used as a fund that would celebrate intellectual achievement. He decreed there should be awards given annually to five disciplines: Chemistry, Physics, Physiology or Medicine, and Literature. Later in 1969, a prize for Economics was created in honour of his memory.

I always wondered why there is no Nobel for Mathematics. A story I’ve often heard is that Nobel’s wife cheated on him with a mathematician, but it turns out this story is completely unfounded - for one thing, Nobel was never even married. There is no concrete reason as to why Mathematics was omitted, but many feel it is because Nobel viewed it as a science with little practical benefit for humanity. So there! On to this year’s prizes:

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

Half of this prize was awarded to Harald zur Hausen “for his discovery of human papilloma viruses causing cervical cancer.” The second most common cancer in women, cervical cancer is estimated to cause 253,500 deaths worldwide each year. The work done by zur Hausen has lead to vaccines that provide greater than 95% protection against infection by two high risk strains of human papilloma viruses, HPV types 16 and 18.

The other half of the prize was split between Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier “for their discovery of human immunodeficiency virus.” By isolating and cloning HIV, their work allowed other groups to prove the virus’s link to acquired human immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). Working with the virus to create diagnosis methods and antiviral drugs would not have been possible without the pair’s discovery.

The Nobel Prize in Physics

Yoichiro Nambu received half of the prize “for the discovery of the mechanism of spontaneous broken symmetry in subatomic physics”, whilst one quarter each went to Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa “for the discovery of the origin of the broken symmetry which predicts the existence of at least three families of quarks in nature.”

Symmetry breaking is responsible for the universe around us - without it, we wouldn’t be around to award Nobels! When the universe was created, matter and antimatter particles annihilated each other in a great cosmic battle for supremacy. If there had been an equal amount of particles on both sides, the universe would have been left empty as both matter and antimatter were completely obliterated. It’s thanks to the “breaking” of this matter-antimatter symmetry that matter was able to achieve dominance and lead to the universe we see today. Even one extra particle of matter for every ten billion of antimatter was enough to break the symmetry.

Nambu was the first to mathematically model how this symmetry breaking could occur at the subatomic level, and in doing so helped refine the standard model of particle physics. The symmetry breaking model formulated by Kobayashi and Maskawa suggested an extension of the standard model was required to explain some observations in particle physics, and they hypothesised the existence of third family of quarks, the fundamental particles that make up many matter and antimatter particles. Their model predicted in the 1970’s particles that weren’t observed until the late 1990’s.

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2008

The Chemistry prize this year was split an equal three ways, by Osamu Shimomura, Martin Chalfie and Roger Y. Tsien “for the discovery and development of the green fluorescent protein, GFP.” First observed in the jellyfish Aequorea victoria in 1962, this protein is used by scientists around the world to learn more about biological processes.

Pigs with GFP modified DNA glow green.

By modifying a subject’s DNA to attach GFP to another protein as marker, scientists can visually follow the progression of the protein around an organism as it glows green. It can be used to watch the growth of nerve cells, or observe the development of cancer. Following the discovery of GFP, other colours were added to a biologist’s toolkit, allowing further flexibility in their use. One group of researchers even marked the different nerve cells in a mouse’s brain with a multitude of colour, without harming the mouse in any way.

The Nobel Prizes in Literature and Peace and The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2008

Whilst great achievements, the other Nobel Prizes fall a bit too far outside the “science” umbrella to discuss here. Nevertheless, congratulations to Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio “author of new departures, poetic adventure and sensual ecstasy, explorer of a humanity beyond and below the reigning civilization”, to Martti Ahtisaari “for his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts”, and to Paul Krugman “for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity.”

Indeed, congratulations to all of the Nobel Lauretes (the Nobel foundation does not like to call them winners, because it’s “not a competition or lottery, and therefore there are no winners or losers”) on their fantastic achievements. Who do you think should be up for the honour next year?

It’s quite possible you already have significant amounts of dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) inside you. According to the Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division in Newark, Delaware, this chemical has many industrial applications, and can easily enter the body. Indeed, it is often unintentionally ingested as it is found in many different food substances. It’s even used by terrorist organizations such as al-Quaeda.

This colourless and odourless substance is most often found in liquid form (large quantities have been reported in the world’s oceans, affecting the indigenous sea life), and can cause death if inhaled, although liquid DHMO is inert to human skin. Prolonged contact with DHMO in either a solid or gaseous state, however, can also lead to death.

There is also strong evidence to show that DHMO strongly contributes to climate change - indeed, some weather configurations can lead to sudden localised deposits of the liquid chemical.

A survey by US researchers Patrick K. McCluskey and Matthew Kulick found that nearly 90% of participants would sign a petition supporting an outright ban on the use of DHMO in the United States. Studies carried out elsewhere seem to agree with these findings; the majority of public citizens want to see an end to DHMO, but world leaders refuse to act. Continue reading for my suggested action to combat the spread of DHMO.

This pipeline has been contaminated by DHMO.

Well, you should probably just do nothing. Dihydrogen monoxide, more commonly known as H₂O, or ‘water’ can be extremely dangerous if misused - it’s easy to burn your self in boiling water, for example - but I don’t think we need to worry about it.

I wrote this post because I myself was caught out by this oldy-but-goody science prank recently - the latest issue of New Scientist mentions it in the Feedback column. I read along going ‘oh, it’s already in my blood steam, really’ and ‘well I haven’t heard of this but it sounds pretty bad’, until finally, the penny dropped.

It’s a classic (albeit harmless) example of intentionally using science to confuse and miscommunicate. Leading the post with a headline highlighting the ‘risk’ to yourself or loved ones, mentioning terrorists/climate change and talking about the outrageous lack of political action are all designed to whip you up into a fury: ’something must be done!’ you cry. No wonder so many people get swept along by scare stories such as the link between the MMR vaccine and autism; it’s just all too easy. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go sweep my kitchen for traces of sodium chloride - did you know that in large doses, it can lead to heart disease?

Everyone enjoys a good curry. I actually can’t think of anyone I know who doesn’t. I’m not a sadistic hotter-than-the-sun curry lover, more of a korma/tikka masala kind of guy, but there’s something about spicy food that really gets the taste buds going.

That something is a molecule called capsaicin (pronounced “cap-say-sin”) which is found in all varieties of chilli peppers. Capsaicin is hydrophobic, meaning that it repels water molecules - which means drinking water won’t cool your burning tongue after a mouthful of too-hot chilli, but if cold enough it might numb your mouth for a bit.

I cook a lot, and I’ve learnt to treat raw chillies more like radioactive waste than a tasty ingredient. My worst experience with capsaicin came when I decided to take a shower after preparing a curry. I didn’t know that I still had juice from the chilli (and thus capsaicin) on my fingers and the act of showering spread the substance all over my face and hands because the capsaicin does not dissolve in water. I began to realise this only once my skin started burning. In the end, I don’t think I got to sleep until the early hours of the morning thanks to the pain!

There was only one thing that provided any relief. Capsaicin will bind to fat molecules, so bathing your hands in a fatty substance can help to stem the pain - this is also why Indian meals are often served with an accompaniment of raita, a yoghurt based dish. My flatmate was amused to watch me cover my aching hands with anything I could find in the kitchen that contained fat - I tried butter, oil, and finally milk which worked best. I cursed myself for being a semi-skimmed drinker, rather than the full-fat variety!

At least the chillies I had used weren’t that strong, relatively speaking. The “heat” of a chilli is measured on a scale named after its creator, Wilbur Scoville. The more Scoville heat units (SHU) a chilli has, the deadlier it is! Pure capsaicin has a Scoville rating of 15 to 16 million SHU, whereas chillies you would normally buy in a supermarket are rated around 2500 SHU. Some hot sauce manufacturers even proudly display their Scoville rating on the packaging - check out this 600,000 SHU sauce!

Scoville’s original method for rating chillies was actually pretty unscientific. Known as the Scoville Organoleptic Test, it requires an extract of the chilli to be mixed with a water and sugar solution. This concoction is then given to a panel (normally of five people) to taste. If three out of the five agree they do not detect any heat from the chilli, then the ratio of dilution is the SHU rating. For example, if a certain chilli must be diluted with one part extract to 100 parts water and sugar, then it has a rating of 100 SHU.

This subjective test has since been replaced with a machine - known as a high performance liquid chromatograph - which can measure the capsaicin in a chilli. This measure can then be converted back to the Scoville units for comparison, although industry consensus is the modern technique yields a Scoville rating about 20-40% lower than the original method.

So, the next time you tuck into a tasty curry, whether it be a mild korma or a deadly phall, remember capsaicin, watch out for the Scoville rating, and always have a glass of full-fat milk on hand!

Just a brief post today, although I will be making it up with a longer than usual weekly roundup tomorrow. All I have today is a game that challenges you to name all of the elements of the periodic table, in under 15 minutes. I mustered a meagre 24 out of 118, and missed out a few embarrassingly obvious ones. As a hint/bonus, I offer The Elements, a song by the most excellent Tom Lehrer.

The Guardian reports on the Advertising Standards Authority’s decision to allow Miracle Gro to advertise their organic compost as “100% chemical free”. The ASA’s reasoning is that viewers understand the word “organic” to mean no man-made chemicals are used in the manufacture of a product, so the advert is permissible. I’m not quite sure how a compost without any chemicals would be beneficial to plants, so it seems Miracle Gro are playing on the commonly held beliefs that chemicals, particularly man-made chemicals are inherently bad, and “natural” and “organic” products are free from such nasty things. Tut tut.

Scientists at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York have used graphene, a material made from carbon that is one atom thick, to create the world’s smaller balloon. They produced membranes innumerable to gas that measured from 1 to 100 square micrometres in area and 0.25 to 3 micrometres deep. A micrometre is one millionth of a metre, meaning around 1.5 million of these balloons could fit on your thumbnail. If only they could work out a way to write “Happy Birthday” on them. Until then, the suggested uses of the balloons include tiny weighing devices and pressure sensors.

Organic food is becoming ever more popular as people aim for a green and healthy lifestyle, but research by Dr Susanne Bügel and others from the Department of Human Nutrition at the University of Copenhagen has found that organic food has no nutritional benefit over food grown with pesticides.

The researchers looked at carrots, kale, mature peas, apples and potatoes using three different farming methods. The first used only organic-approved products such as animal manure, the second added in as much pesticide as allowed by regulation, and the third swapped out the manure for as many fertilisers and pesticides as are legally allowed. The crops were grown side by side at the same time, to alleviate any changes in weather or season that could have affected the result. Dr Bügel said:

‘No systematic differences between cultivation systems representing organic and conventional production methods were found across the five crops so the study does not support the belief that organically grown foodstuffs generally contain more major and trace elements than conventionally grown foodstuffs.’

I’ve always been slightly sceptical of organic food, and cynically thought that there probably wasn’t much difference in some produce when compared to the non-organic variety. On the other hand I’ve also found that organic chicken “tastes better”. I’d like conduct a blind taste test at some point to see if that is actually the case…

The internet moves pretty fast, so I apologise if you have already seen this. If you haven’t, then you’re in for a treat. The University of Nottingham’s Chemistry department has created The Periodic Table of Videos. The site has a video for each of the 188 elements, from hydrogen to ununoctium.

Each video is only a few minutes long, and gives you a quick overview of the properties of the element, as well as example experiments - many of which are considered “too dangerous” to be demonstrated in secondary schools any more. They are a highly enjoyable watch, and a great use of modern technology to teach people all over the world about chemistry.

The two main presenters are Pete Licence, who is great at demonstrating the explosive properties of sodium or the flow of liquid mercury and Martyn Poliakoff, who provides much of the hard facts from his office plastered with many periodic tables, including the periodic table of desserts. He also has the most wonderful mad scientist hair I have ever seen.

I haven’t yet made it through all of the videos, but I’m enjoying visiting the site for half an hour or so at a time as I check out some elements and brush up on my chemistry. I think this should be required viewing for all GCSE science students, and I can’t praise UoN enough. I hope they see a spike in their chemistry admissions next year! If I still haven’t convinced you, check out this trailer and you’ll hopefully be hooked.

I have decided that Sunday’s post will be a roundup of all the links that didn’t quite make the cut during the week. Enjoy.

The NASA Phoenix lander has found water in a soil sample on Mars. Previous probes had observed water-ice, but this is the first time actual water has been analysed by a probe. Apparently the White House has been briefed to expect a more “provocative” announcement than just the discovery of water, but I don’t think we can expect little green men any time soon.

A study of bees could help police hunt serial killers. The thinking is that bees create a “buffer zone” around their hive in which they do not forage for pollen, in order to avoid predators finding their home. Similarly, those who commit a series of murders tend to stay close to home, but not in the immediate area around their house. Scientists at Queen Mary, University of London tagged bees with coloured markers in order to track them as flew around a field of fake flowers filled with artificial nectar. Using “geographic profiling” - a technique used by police to hunt serial killers - they were able to identify the buffer zone and pinpoint the location of the bees nest. The study allowed them to refine the geographic profiling technique, which in turn will allow more accuracy for deceives in the search for a killer

Nearly all Spanish bank notes are contaminated with cocaine. I’d heard this one before (for British bank notes) but I didn’t actually think it was true. Chemists at the University of Valencia found the notes contained an average concentration of 155 microgrammes of cocaine, the highest in Europe. A full study has not been conducted on British notes, but data exists suggesting between 40% and 51% of bank notes are contaminated with 0.0011 microgrammes of cocaine per note.