Feedback is 麻豆传媒鈥檚 popular sideways look at the latest science and technology news. You can submit items you believe may amuse readers to Feedback by emailing feedback@newscientist.com
A shedload of bears
Following the use of golden retrievers as a unit of ice mass, Feedback has found our inbox filling up with more examples of unconventional and often unintuitive units of measurement.
Advertisement
Craig Downing, who self-identifies as 鈥渙ne of those readers that opens every issue from the back鈥� and therefore gets top billing in this column, tells us of the running through his home city of Ottawa, Canada. The canal freezes every winter, becoming the world鈥檚 largest skating rink by area. However, the rink must be meticulously cleared of snow to ensure a smooth surface.
Hence the by the canal鈥檚 managers, the National Capital Commission, that Craig was emailed. 鈥淔or every 1 cm of snowfall, our crews move 125,000 kg of snow off the Skateway. That鈥檚 equivalent to 450 polar bears!鈥�
Craig is baffled. 鈥淚 usually think of snowfall mass and volume in terms of 鈥榮hovel loads鈥� or 鈥榙riveways full up to your knees鈥�, 鈥� he says. It doesn鈥檛 help that there are no polar bears in or near Ottawa, so his direct experience of the world鈥檚 largest land predator is limited.
Based on the numbers given, the average polar bear must weigh 277.8 kilograms, or 612 pounds. But there is a key factor we need to account for: the bears鈥� sex. Ever diligent in our fact checking, Feedback wandered to the website of Bears International, that 鈥渁dult males normally weigh 350-600 kg (775-1,300 lb)鈥� and 鈥渁dult females are usually 150-290 kg (330-650 lb)鈥�, except for the dramatic exceptions, like when 鈥渞esearchers in Canada estimated one male bear at 800 kg (1,700 lb)!鈥�
Based on this, we can indeed confirm that the Rideau canal staffers are moving the equivalent of 450 polar bears 鈥� specifically, largish female ones. Measuring their output in male polar bears accounts for a mere 357 of the furry creatures, and they would have to be on the smaller side.
This lack of specification affects many of the unconventional units we see used. Steve Tees writes in to complain that 鈥淢any times I hear of a 鈥榮hedload of xxxx鈥� causing tailbacks on various motorways. Will someone please define the size of the shed involved?鈥�
Travel to Churchill in northern Canada, the 'Polar Bear Capital of the World', to witness the planet鈥檚 greatest concentration of these iconic Arctic predators. Explore their evolutionary history, observe their behaviours in the wild, and gain insight into the delicate balance of Arctic ecosystems.
Churchill polar bear adventure: Canada
Scotched
There are many sounds that drive Feedback to distraction. Fingernails on a chalkboard, of course, but also other people chewing loudly and other people brushing their teeth. Come to think of it, it鈥檚 mostly just other people.
One much-hated sound is the high-pitched screeching produced when you peel adhesive tape off a surface. This noise is about 90 per cent of the reason why Feedback avoids DIY projects.
Perhaps understanding is the key to overcoming. So, then, to the pages of Physical Review E, which has an experiment exploring the physics of peeling Scotch tape. According to reporter Karmela Padavic-Callaghan, researchers used high-speed cameras and microphones to record a piece of tape being quickly peeled off a pane of glass. They observed 鈥渕icro-cracks travelling through the tape at supersonic speeds and eventually creating a shockwave that we then hear as a high-pitched screech鈥�.
Feedback anxiously awaits the follow-up study where they demonstrate how to peel the tape off without making the noise.
听
Otherwise unaffected
Feedback is a connoisseur of retracted scientific papers. Whether they have been pulled because they contain a nonsensical graphic generated by AI, or because the researchers had manipulated images, or because the studies were just implausible, we enjoy learning about them.
A strong contender for our favourite appeared in Pharmacology Research & Perspectives on 13 February. It pulled a paper that had first been published in 2022.
The study concerned ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that has gained notoriety after being promoted as a miracle cure for, among other things, covid-19. The study suggested it might also be used to treat liver cancer, and Feedback would like to suggest that this claim was, in itself, grounds for suspicion.
The retraction announcement 鈥搘hich we note is 鈥渂y agreement鈥� between the authors and various other parties 鈥� is one of those that just keeps going, long after you think it should be finished.
It first notes that 鈥渢he Corresponding Author was not personally involved in the submission process, did not sign the Open Access Agreement, and did not review or approve the final version of the manuscript prior to submission鈥�. Which seems bad.
Next, we learn that the journal鈥檚 investigation 鈥渦ncovered evidence of duplication of several images and figures from previously published articles鈥�. Yup, that definitely sounds bad.
And finally, 鈥淭he authors state that the conclusions of the article are otherwise unaffected.鈥� Feedback found ourselves staring glassy-eyed into the middle distance trying to work out how the conclusions could possibly be 鈥渙therwise unaffected鈥� when the lead author didn鈥檛 approve the final version of the manuscript and some of the images are duplicated from other papers.
Our interpretation is that the conclusions are unaffected because we aren鈥檛 taking the paper any less seriously post-retraction than we were before.
听
Got a story for Feedback?
You can send stories to Feedback by email at feedback@newscientist.com. Please include your home address. This week鈥檚 and past Feedbacks can be seen on our website.
