Blog Archives

In Good Company

05 Jul 2011 | By Ralph Benedetto

Well, here’s another new discovery that is not for the squeamish.

Scientists sampling DNA strains from the navels of volunteer donors have found 662 microbes that are apparently new to science, showing that the human navel is apparently a ripe environment for bacteria.

Hey, it’s dark, it’s warm, sweat collects there so it’s moist, what’s not to like if you are a bacterium?

The Belly Button Biodiversity Project, run by scientists at North Carolina State University has been analyzing navel swabs from a host of volunteers.  So far, they’ve found 1,400 distinct bacterial strains, nearly half of which have never been seen before.

The Belly button Biodiversity Project?  Why, yes, indeed.  You can also check out a  belly button bacteria website.  The world is a fascinating place.  The belly button bacteria website (not its real name) says that you know more about the creatures that live in Australia than you do about those that live in your very own belly button.  How do they know?  We could do a test on the monotremata and find out, but perhaps we’d better just skip it.

So, why belly buttons, anyway?  What prompted the researchers to look there?   The article I read has an answer for you:

Researchers led by Rob Dunn and Jiri Hulcr at NC State wanted to examine belly buttons because, well, they’re harder to scrub than the rest of your body.

Because they’re dirty, so you’re more likely to find bacteria there.  This is not a reason to start attacking your belly button with cleansers, by the way.  Biology is fully of facts that are often disconcerting, such as the revelation that lobsters are in the same phylum as insects so they are more closely related to bugs than to other animals, but, don’t worry, bugs are generally high in protein and low in fat.  You just have to get used to these things.

And now, back to our story:

Science writers Carl Zimmer and Peter Aldhous (from New Scientist) each donated a swab, and while Aldhous’ sample failed to yield bacterial colonies, Zimmer’s sample was apparently flush with life.  Some species in his microbiome have previously only been found in the ocean, he writes. Another one, a species called Georgenia, has only been found living in the soil in Japan, a place Zimmer has never been.

I think that’s the part that intrigues me the most.  Japanese soil bacteria riding around in the belly button of a guy who has never been to Japan.

Human beings are, of course, giant bags of bacteria.  We are covered with bacteria and filled with bacteria.  When we die, the bacteria inside us spiral out of control and we start to putrefy from the inside out.  This process begins within minutes of death.  Of course, many of our bacterial hitchhikers help us out by fighting off infection or by producing nutrients or vitamins that we can make use of, so don’t knock the little guys.  Many of them are your friends.

Look at this way, at least you know you’re never truly alone, right?

Category: Microbiology  Tags: , ,  Leave a Comment

Fact or Fiction

20 Jun 2011 | By Ralph Benedetto

I am currently reading Following the Equator by Mark Twain.

I know, I know, the last article on here was about the care and feeding of the apostrophe, and now I’ve brought up Mark Twain.  Is this a place for science articles or what?  Let’s allow Mr. Twain to speak for himself:

Dr. Hockiu gave us a ghastly curiosity–a lignified caterpillar with a plant growing out of the back of its neck–a plant with a slender stem 4 inches high. It happened not by accident, but by design–Nature’s design. This caterpillar was in the act of loyally carrying out a law inflicted upon him by Nature–a law purposely inflicted upon him to get him into trouble–a law which was a trap; in pursuance of this law he made the proper preparations for turning himself into a night-moth; that is to say, he dug a little trench, a little grave, and then stretched himself out in it on his stomach and partially buried himself–then Nature was ready for him. She blew the spores of a peculiar fungus through the air with a purpose. Some of them fell into a crease in the back of the caterpillar’s neck, and began to sprout and grow–for there was soil there–he had not washed his neck. The roots forced themselves down into the worm’s person, and rearward along through its body, sucking up the creature’s juices for sap; the worm slowly died, and turned to wood. And here he was now, a wooden caterpillar, with every detail of his former physique delicately and exactly preserved and perpetuated, and with that stem standing up out of him for his monument—monument commemorative of his own loyalty and of Nature’s unfair return for it.

Nature is always acting like that. Mrs. X. said (of course) that the caterpillar was not conscious and didn’t suffer. She should have known better. No caterpillar can deceive Nature. If this one couldn’t suffer, Nature would have known it and would have hunted up another caterpillar.  Not that she would have let this one go, merely because it was defective. No. She would have waited and let him turn into a night-moth; and then fried him in the candle.

Now, Following the Equator is a work of nonfiction, but there’s no particular reason that should stop Mark Twain from inserting a tall tale or two if the spirit moved him to do so, so I began to wonder if this was real.

Well, yes, as it turns out.

Twain didn’t tell us where the mysterious Dr. Hockiu (would that not be a great title for a movie?) found his caterpillar or his fungus, but the activity described in the section is relatively close to that of Cordyceps sinensis, also known as Caterpillar fungus, which acts upon the caterpillar of the ghost moth.

The caterpillar in question lives underground for several years.  If the fungus attacks it, it eventually fills the caterpillar’s body, kills it and removes all the moisture, mummifying it.  When the caterpillar is near the top of the hole it lives in, it dies and the mushroom of the fungus grows out through the caterpillar’s forehead and can stand from 2 to 6 inches in height.

Why does the caterpillar go to the top of its hole to die?  I don’t know.  Presumably a signal from the fungus takes over the body.  There are a whole series of insect parasites that are able to alter the insect’s behavior in ways that help the parasite.

The mushroom, by the way, is apparently prized for its medicinal qualities in some Asian traditional medicines.

I don’t know if this was the specific caterpillar and fungus combination that Mark Twain saw, but, if not, it’s close enough for now.

You never know what you find when you read a good book.

Category: Microbiology  Tags: , , ,  Leave a Comment

Making Your Mark

20 Jun 2011 | By Ralph Benedetto

Well, the small and the weak need someone to speak up for them, and there is a group that is making sure that happens.  I am talking, of course, about the Apostrophe Protection Society.  What does this have to do with science?  Absolutely nothing at all, as far as I can tell.  Now that we’re clear on that, let’s continue.

In fact, let’s continue in the group’s own words:

The Apostrophe Protection Society was started in 2001 by John Richards, now its Chairman, with the specific aim of preserving the correct use of this currently much abused punctuation mark in all forms of text written in the English language.

Well, I guess that’s clear enough.

The group’s website gives a nice list of the rules for the correct use of the apostrophe and then includes an extremely polite disclaimer:

We are aware of the way the English language is evolving during use, and do not intend any direct criticism of those who have made the mistakes above.  We are just reminding all writers of English text, whether on notices or in documents of any type, of the correct usage of the apostrophe should you wish to put right mistakes you may have inadvertently made.

By the way, is it just me, or does the Society in Favor of Correct Comma Usage (should there by chance be such an august body) need to take a look at the first sentence in that last paragraph?

What else do they have?

On our Examples pages you will see pictures of real-life apostrophe abuse, many of which have been submitted by visitors to this site.

I don’t know why, but it amuses me that they feel the need to say that these are “real-life” examples.  Well, I suppose they are being scrupulously correct in letting us know that they didn’t make up any of these examples.  Good for them.

But they also want you to learn about our friend the apostrophe:

Now CLICK HERE for a fun way to check your knowledge of apostrophe use! Afterwards why not consolidate your knowledge HERE?

You might want to note the fact that I have substituted links that amuse me in place of the links the Apostrophe Protection Society uses on their page.

So, why bother to post something like this on a science blog?  Well, after all, small details can have a big impact, and clear communication is a vital part of science.  In this world of texting and tweets, some of the small details (and some of the big ones) are being lost to our detriment.

Category: Uncategorized  Leave a Comment

In Bad Company

01 Jun 2011 | By Ralph Benedetto

Germany is currently suffering through an outbreak of E. coli which is believed to have spread throughout Europe on contaminated vegetables.  Now, that statement by itself doesn’t tell anything like the whole story, so let’s start by introducting the main character.

Escherichia coli is a normal inhabitant of the mammalian digestive tract.  You, as a human being (and I assume that only human beings are actually reading this article, though I suppose I can’t rule out the idea of a particularly gifted Labrador retriever or something) have a nice population of E. coli living in your intestines right now.  (If there is a particularly gifted Labrador retriever reading this article, you, too, have your very own population of E. coli, so don’t feel left out.)

E. coli has certainly been responsible for a large number of disease outbreaks over the years, and most of them are nonlethal.  These typical involve such symptoms as (unpleasantness alert) stomach cramps, nausea, diarrhea and vomiting.

The current outbreak in Germany, however, is different.  It involves what is called EHEC.  This stands for enterohaemorrhagic E.coli.  This version of the microbe can cause symptoms such as bloody diarrhea and fever in addition to the symptoms listed above.  If the individual is a previously healthy adult, as bad it is, that may be all there is to it.  A small percentage of patients, however, particularly the very young and the elderly, may develop hemolytic uremic syndrome or HUS, which can lead to acute kidney failure and death.  There may also be neurological involvement, leading to seizures, strokes, coma and death.

Germany typically sees, at most, 50 or 60 cases of HUS annually.  Well over a thousand cases have been reported in a little over a month.  In fact, cases have been reported in nine different European countries:  Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the U.K.  Nearly every single case, however, involves a person who is either in Germany or who had recently traveled to Germany.  (There are a couple of exceptions, but since a certain number of HUS cases occur each year anyway, that isn’t surprising.)

It’s extremely unusual to see so many case of HUS, even in the midst of an E. coli outbreak.  This particular strain of the bacterium is apparently causing HUS at a much higher rate than any previously known strain, going back as far as public health records have been kept.

This isn’t the only way in which the outbreak is unusual, either.  Only a very small percentage of those afflicted are children, which is not how this disease normally works.

It only goes to show that, no matter how much we think we know about microorganisms, they always have the power to surprise us, sometimes to our detriment.  We always need to be on our guard, and we always need to remember that, no matter how much we know, there will always be more to learn.

Category: Microbiology  Tags: ,  Leave a Comment

In Good Company?

07 Apr 2011 | By Ralph Benedetto

Philip Tierno doesn’t feel comfortable staying in hotels. He knows too much.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I thought that was a pretty interesting start to an article.  It kind of sounded like the beginning of a mystery story.  Who is this man who knows too much?  A political insider?  A journalist working on an explosive story?  A guy who works in hotels?

No.

He’s a microbiologist, and he travels with an impervious mattress and pillow cover to protect against the unseen debris that guests leave behind in what he compares to the lost Roman civilization, particles “literally buried over time” in the bed.

Now, this made me ask a question:  where does one get an impervious mattress and pillow cover?  And just what is an impervious mattress and pillow cover made of, anyway?  The article doesn’t tell me that.  What is does tell me is that the mysterious Philip Tierno is director of microbiology and immunology at New York University’s Langone Medical Center.

It also tells me that what he’s worried about is what previous guests may have left behind on that bed.

Okay, what they definitely left behind on that bed.

Now given the recent bedbug epidemic in parts of the United States, you might think that we’re worried about macroscopic parasites here.  Definitely not.  Why not?  Well, because you can see them.  The question here is what is in the bed that you can’t see?

*Skin cells of course.  (While sleeping, you shed around 1.5 million cells (or cell clusters) every     hour.  Add up what happens in an eight hour night, and there you go).

*Bodily secretions.  (We’re talking about sweat, sebum, saliva that sort of thing.  Do you really want to think of this as your head is hitting the pillow?  Probably not.)

*Fungi

*Bacteria

*Dust (and where there is dust, there are dust mites, too)

And the list goes on and on.  Perhaps some cosmetics or pollen that were carried on the person who last laid there.  Allergy time has arrived.

Of course, this is merely discussing the bed.  Do you ever walk barefoot on a hotel carpet?  What might be buried in those fibers?  Well, whatever was on the last person’s shoes, for one thing.

Of course, the pillow cases and sheets at the hotel probably get washed regularly, but what about the bedspread.  How often does that get washed?  You may not wash your bedspread at home frequently, but, then, you know who’s using your bedspread at home.  And what about the rest of the room?

Things in the bathroom are supposed to be “sanitized for your protection” according to that little paper strip that a lot of hotel bathrooms sport.  This means that 99.9% of growing bacteria have been killed or removed.  I have a couple of questions.  Did they sanitize the little handle that you use to flush?  Did they sanitize the faucet handle?  You see, those two items frequently come into contact with that germiest of all thing:  human hands.

Another question:  let’s assume that the housekeeper used a rag to clean up in the bathroom.  Did he or she use that same rag to clean anything else anywhere else in the room?

What about things that get handled a lot but which might not get cleaned at all?  For example, the door knob, the TV remote, the telephone, the clock…

Hm.  Makes you think, doesn’t it?

In Atlanta, a local television station used hidden cameras several years ago to monitor how the drinking glasses in hotel rooms were cleaned. In one case, a housekeeper appeared to clean a toilet and the glasses wearing the same gloves. In multiple hotels, the glasses were rinsed in the sink and dried for the next guests, in violation of health codes.

Oh boy.  This just keeps getting better and better, doesn’t it?

Now, mind you, I don’t recall too many epidemics starting in hotel rooms, unless you want to count the first outbreak of Legionellosis back in the 1970s.  Of course, that wasn’t due to inadequate cleaning of rooms, so even I don’t know why I bother to mention it here.

So, to recap, lots of different people stay in the same hotel room.  Each guest leaves behind a few souvenirs for the next guest, even if the room is properly cleaned between guests.  If it isn’t properly cleaned…

Sleep well.

And, if you need some music to get to sleep, trying looking for the song Dust Mites by Heywood banks.  It’ll fit right in with our theme for this post.

Category: Uncategorized  Leave a Comment

And the mystery…

30 Mar 2011 | By Ralph Benedetto

And now for another adventure in cryptozoology.  The Chupacabra is back!  Or not.

If you have committed these various posts to memory, then I feel quite sorry for you.  You should probably be doing something more worthwhile with your time.  If you haven’t committed these posts to memory, you might not recall that we earlier posted about the Chupacabra.  Well, once is just not enough when it comes to cyptids, so here we go again.

The two most famous cryptids in the world are probably Bigfoot and Nessie, but some polls rank the Chupacabra at number three on the list, which is pretty good since it hasn’t been around all that long.

(Just for the record, I would love to believe in cryptids, but I just can’t.  There are cameras everywhere these days, and the most unlikely and ephemeral events manage to get photographed, but nobody ever gets a good clear photo of a cryptid.  Why is that?)

Well, Benjamin Radford, a professional skeptic, has what he says is definitive proof of the nonexistence of the Chupacabra.

Just to recap, according to the article I read, the Chupacabra (or goat sucker) first popped up in Puerto Rico in 1995 where it was accused of mutilating livestock.  It then popped up in Texas in 2004, and various Chupacabra carcasses began to be found.  Now, the Texas Chupacabra didn’t really resemble the Puerto Rico Chupacabra, and the Texas Chupacabras were later shown to be coyotes with the mange.  The identification of the coyotes was supported by DNA evidence.

On top of the sudden change in appearance—a hairless, snarly-looking four-legged creature is the popular depiction in Texas—these coyotes didn’t even act like El Chupacabra. “When you did a necropsy of the chickens and goats that they attacked, they all had normal blood levels,” Radford told Life’s Little Mysteries. “They were not, in fact, vampirized.”

I included that quote simply because the idea of a scientific analysis ending with the statement, “They were not, in fact, vampirized,” presumably delivered in deep and ponderous tones and with a straight face, amused me.  I can picture the scene from a B movie of the sort favored by Daggett and Norbert.  (Yes, that might be an obscure reference, but it’s apropos here.  Trust me.)

Radford dug through every El Chupacabra mention and traced the physical description of the monster to a single event in the second week of August 1995, when a sketch from an eyewitness named Madelyne Tolentino ran in a Puerto Rican newspaper. Locals immediately tagged the alien-looking animal as El Chupacabra.

The creature, Radford noticed, shared a strong resemblance to the alien/human hybrid in the 1995 sci-fi thriller “Species.” When he spoke to Tolentino, he asked her if the thing that she saw could have been inspired by the film. Indeed, she had seen the movie in the weeks prior to making her description.

And there we have it.  The Chupacabra is a movie star.

Soon after, reports of nearly identical creatures began appearing throughout Latin America. But these can be dismissed, Radford says, because they’re all based on Tolentino’s Hollywood-inspired monster.

Okay, wait a minute.  I don’t believe in cryptids, but that sounds like a pretty cavalier statement to me.  You wave your hand and all of a sudden a bunch of reported sightings simply evaporate.  That means you don’t have to check them out, which certainly saves you a lot of work and makes your conclusion easier to draw, but is it scientifically valid?

“What I’ve tried to do is take the whole El Chupacabra enchilada and break it into small mysteries and then solve those mysteries,” Radford said. “There’s no place else for those mysteries to hide now. If I haven’t solved every piece of it, then I don’t know what I’m missing. It’s all there.”

Hm.  Having successfully dismissed a lot of sightings without the bother of checking them out, the author doesn’t know what he could possibly be missing in his report…

We can apply a little science of our own here. In order for a species to sustain itself, there has to be a minimum number of breeding organisms, otherwise the gene pool simply gets too small.  Where are these populations hiding?  That population will also need to feed.  Where is the food source?

Take the Chupacabra as an example.  Even if there were only fifty of them (and that’s an awfully small gene pool) they would require quite a bit of food, so there should be a lot more victims than there are. 

Granted, I reached that conclusion without checking out any of the reported sightings, but, apparently, you don’t have to check them out to reach your conclusions.

Perhaps the absence of cyptids makes the world a duller place, so, if there are cryptids out there, somebody go and get a good photo of one.

Category: Cryptozoology  Leave a Comment

Brushing Up on Micro

23 Mar 2011 | By Ralph Benedetto

And the benefits of science keep on coming, especially when it comes to dental care.
Now, once upon a time, dental care was a little different than it is today. Hundreds of years ago, people were interested in preventing bad breath and teeth whitening.

Well, I guess it wasn’t that different after all.

Anyway, here’s a recipe from the year 1615:

“For teeth that are yellow:
Take sage and salt, of each alike, and stamp them well together, then bake till it be hard, and make a fine powder thereof, then therewith rub the teeth evening and morning and it will take away all yellowness.”

Or how about this one from the 11th century:

“The woman should wash her mouth after dinner with very good wine. Then she ought to dry [her teeth] very well and wipe [them] with a new white cloth. Finally, let her chew each day fennel or lovage or parsley, which is better to chew because it gives off a good smell and cleans good gums and makes the teeth very white.”

[By the way, I didn't create these recipes and I'm not saying they work.  I'm just reprinting them here as a demonstration of what people used to recommend.]

Back in the days of yore (the days of what now?) good dental care involved cleaning your teeth by rubbing them with a cloth or by chewing on twigs.

Today, of course, we use brushes. Of course, we have soft, medium and hard bristles and all kinds of variations on handle shape and length and bristle shape and length and brushes that are electric.  We even have devices that shoot our jets of water and other devices that use ultrasound to get your pearly whites all nice and clean.

But that’s yesterday and today. What about [dramatic music] the toothbrush of tomorrow?
The toothbrush of tomorrow may not be a brush at all. According to an article in science daily:

Investigators from Japan show in vitro that the bacterium Streptococcus salivarius, a non-biofilm forming, and otherwise harmless inhabitant of the human mouth, actually inhibits the formation of dental biofilms, otherwise known as plaque. Two enzymes this bacterium produces are responsible for this inhibition.

The idea of bacteria living in and on our bodies and paying rent by keeping us healthy is not a new one. There are countless bacteria that help us out. (Mind you, they are really just trying to keep their home clean and livable, but we benefit from their actions.)

What else do the researchers have to say?

“FruA may be useful for prevention of dental caries,” corresponding author Hidenobu Senpuku, of the National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Tokyo says of one of the enzymes. “The activity of the inhibitors was elevated in the presence of sucrose, and the inhibitory effects were dependent on the sucrose concentration in the biofilm formation assay medium,” the researchers write.

Translation: the more sugar there was in the environment, but greater the amount of the enzymes the bacterium produced, which is a good thing for people who like to eat sugary snacks.

Now, this is the just the first stage, so we don’t know how this would work. Perhaps they would put these enzymes into toothpaste and you’d brush your teeth in the traditional manner, but perhaps they would sell you some of the bacteria. You’d put these bacteria into your mouth and let them grow and live there and they would protect your teeth for you.

Now, you probably have some of these bacteria already, so maybe they would use genetic engineering to create some super teeth cleaning bacteria and then sell those bacteria to you.

Does this sound disgusting to you? Having a mouthful of bacteria, I mean? Well, don’t worry, because you already have a mouthful of bacteria, no matter who you are and no matter how your clean your mouth. Let’s face it, the human mouth is a warm, moist, nutrient rich environment, and you introduce new bacteria into that environment every time you put something in your mouth, whether that be food or the pencil you use to write with. (That pencil, after all, has been in contact with your hands, and your hands have been in contact with table tops and door knobs and other things that have been touched by a lot of other people’s hands…)

I suppose the future holds some amazing things.  I’m not sure how amazing this particular one is, but at least it’s interesting.

Well, it’s interesting to me, and I suppose, if you’re still reading, it must be interesting to you.

Life is funny that way.

Category: Microbiology  Leave a Comment

Brain Drain

02 Mar 2011 | By Ralph Benedetto

Well, I’m sure that someone will be making use of this idea in a movie soon, but you can say that you read it here first.  Unless, of course, you read it somewhere else first, I guess.

There is a parasite called the hairworm which lives inside of grasshoppers.  These worms induce the grasshopper host to leap into water where the host drowns.  The hairworm, meanwhile, climbs out of the dying insect, swims away and gets on with its life.

So how does this work?  It’s all very science fiction to say “the parasite brainwashes the victim” or “the parasite takes control of the victim” but how does this actually happen?  (This is the kind of question the scientist asks first and the movie asks…well…not at all, usually.)

According to one article I read, “Postmortems of the grasshoppers suggest that worms triggered the insects’ death leaps by sabotaging their central nervous systems.”

Postmortems?  Yep.  Grasshopper autopsies, in other words.

It has long been a question among scientists (scientists ask very strange questions) whether the unusual behavior exhibited by individuals infected with parasites was just sort of a side effect of infestation or was somehow deliberately engineered by the parasite.  This particular study  indicates that the behavior in question is deliberately engineered.

So, let’s get the lowdown on what happens.

The hairworm breeds in water.  Maybe adult insects get infected when they drink water containing hairworm larvae.  (We don’t really know how this happens.  This is just a reasonable guess.)  Inside a grasshopper host, the hairworm grows until it occupies most of the empty space inside the host.  At this point, the worm is ready to emerge so that it can breed and produce more larvae.  The worm produces a mixture of chemicals that affect the grasshopper’s central nervous system, causing this grasshopper to jump into water, despite the fact that it will drown when it does so.

Kind of creepy, really.

The chemicals produced by the worms apparently affect signaling with in the central nervous system and mimic some of the chemicals normally produced within the grasshopper’s brain and affect its behavior.

Now, there are other organisms that, when they have a parasitic infestation, alter their behavior in ways that benefit the parasite, and it’s a good bet that there is some chemical tinkering going on there as well.

Here’s a link to a video of the hairworm making the grasshopper do its thing.
 There appears to be some discussion of the events in the video as well, but, unless you speak French, it will probably be less than illuminating.

And remember, even grasshoppers have their problems.

Category: Entomology  2 Comments

The Genus of the Lamp

28 Feb 2011 | By Ralph Benedetto

Professor Nigel Minton, one of the world’s leading experts on the Clostridium bacteria, will be presenting at the Society for Applied Microbiooogy (SfAM) annual Winter Meeting, being held at the Royal Society in London on January 12.

Now, I don’t know whether you made it through that first sentence or not.  Of course, if you didn’t make it through that sentence then you aren’t reading this one.  Not that this particular sentence is any great treat.  We can only hope it gets better as we go along, I guess.

In his presentation Professor Minton will discuss the potential exploitation of the anaerobic, Gram-positive Clostridium bacteria — a few strains of which have given the genus a bad name.

Given the genus a bad name…yes, I guess we could say that.  Let’s see who we have in this particular genus…

Clostridium tetani – this organism produces a toxin called tetanospasm which leads to a condition called tetanus.  Most people have heard of tetanus (or lockjaw) even if they don’t know exactly what it is.  Tetanus leads to muscle spasms and contractions.  It often hits the jaw muscle first but will eventually spread throughout the body.  The spasms are so severe that they can cause bones to snap and will eventually lead to death by suffocation caused by contraction of the diaphragm.

Makes you wonder if your tetanus vaccination is up to date, doesn’t it?

What else do we have in this genus?

Clostridium difficile – the most significant cause of hospital-acquired diarrhea and seven times more deadly than MRSA, despite the fact that it doesn’t have a cool abbreviation like MRSA.  About 3% of adults have this organism in their gut, but it doesn’t cause much harm since other organisms in the gut and the immune system keep it in check.  If certain antibiotics disturb your normal microbial flora, however, C. difficle can start to reproduce rapidly and dump toxins into the body that lead to illness and death.

And, of course, Clostridium botulinum, which produces a toxin that is colorless, odorless and tasteless and which is so toxic that you don’t even have to swallow, just put it in your mouth.  It is the most toxic naturally occurring poison known to exist.  (Don’t say “food poisoning” when you really mean “botulism”.)  Food borne botulism is often fatal.

Did you notice how often words like “death” and “fatal” popped up in that discussion?

So why is Professor Minton (remember him?  He was mentioned all the way back at the top of the page, in case all of my interruptions have confused anyone) thinks that we can use other members of the genus Clostridium for biofuel production, especially ethanol.  There is also some evidence that certain members of the group might be helpful in treating cancer.

So, the clostridia are mostly bad, but maybe they can be good, too.

It never hurts to remember that the vast majority of bacteria out there are either harmless to us or helpful to us.  Of course, some of them, when they are harmful, are very harmful indeed.

Category: Microbiology  Leave a Comment

Say What?

08 Feb 2011 | By Ralph Benedetto

Stop me if you’ve already heard this one…this information, all of which is accurate, has been published many times before and has made the rounds of the internet more times than I can count.

Dihydrogen monoxide:

  • is the major component of  acid rain.
  • may cause severe burns.
  • is fatal if inhaled.
  • contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
  • accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
  • may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
  • has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

  • as an industrial solvent and coolant.
  • in nuclear power plants.
  • in the production of Styrofoam.
  • as a fire retardant.
  • in many forms of cruel animal research.
  • in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
  • as an additive in certain “junk-foods” and other food products.

And so we are all terrified of this scary substance which is, of course, plain old H20 or water.

So why am I recirculating an ancient hoax?  Because of a recent study involving the tree octopus .

The Department of Education funded the study and that it was administered by Dr. Donald Leu, a former teacher and “national authority on integrating technology into instruction.” Leu’s study highlighted fallacious reports on the fate of the tree octopus– an allegedly endangered species roaming the treetops of the Pacific Northwest.  Researchers on Leu’s team asked a group of students to hunt down information on the critter, which of course does not exist. But the same researchers pulled a bit of trickery on the students — they directed them to a website dedicated to saving the mythical tree octopus from extinction. And presto: the kids taking part in the study fell for the hoax and even continued to believe in the tree octopus after the study’s leaders explained that there was no such thing.

Now, the investigators who conducted this study used it as proof that critical thinking abilities, since they fell for an “obvious” hoax.  Well, it is certainly true that the kids fell for it, but the researchers conducting the study told the kids to collect the information and then directed them to the website.  Is it such a shock that the kids in question went with it?  And how old were these kids, anyway?  After all, the dihydrogen monoxide hoax fooled many adults, including quite a few lawmakers.

I suppose the basic idea is a simple one:  anyone can publish anything they want on the internet, so you shouldn’t be too ready to accept what you read on the internet as being accurate or even remotely true.  At least a book published by a major publishing firm will have been fact checked and reviewed before it is published, since the publishing house won’t want to look foolish in the eyes of the world, but who fact checks and reviews a website?  And, even if someone does, who makes sure that the checkers knows what they’re doing?  Or, as Juvenal wrote,” Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”  (Or was it Juvenal?  Who is fact checking this article to make sure that I’m not pulling your leg?)

In the end, it comes down to you, the reader.  You have a brain; use it.   Apply some critical thinking.  (If you aren’t used to doing so, it’s like any other form of exercise:  it only hurts for a little while.  Then you adapt and you’re better off in the end.)

And remember, just because it’s on the internet doesn’t automatically make it true.

(Except that statement I just made.  You can believe that one.)

Category: Uncategorized  Leave a Comment
« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

  • Categories

  • Theme Credit