Long Time No Update

You may have noticed that I've pretty much stopped updating. You may wonder why. I mean, there's certainly a lot more interesting information out there. Surely I haven't run out of things to talk about already, have I?

Well, there's two reasons I've stopped updating. The first reason is pretty simple. This blog takes up a lot of time. Generally about an hour of writing per entry with two to three hours of researching to make sure I've got my facts right. And trust me, making sure the facts are right have saved my ass a couple of times. The truth is out there, but it takes quite a bit of digging to find sometimes. That said, if time were the only issue, I'd just update less often (look at January, where I worked, compared to December, which I mostly had off). No, there's another reason I've pretty much stopped updating.

This is the other reason why.
Clicky-poppy to go to its Amazon.ca page.

The Book Of General Ignorance is perhaps the best trivia book I've ever stumbled across. It not only dispels a lot of common misconceptions, it's well written and more than just facts. It also gives context, which is extremely important. It sometimes has relevant quotations, or amusing images to go along with it.

Does that sound familiar? Sound a little like what I try to do with my blog? Yeah, I thought so too. Which is, in a way, totally validating. At the other end of the spectrum though, it's totally discouraging. Seeing what you're trying to do done elsewhere, and done extremely well, leaves you with a feeling of, "Why should I bother?" Add in the fact that they've already covered a lot of the ground that I have (at least I'm reassured that my fact-checking is as good as theirs), or that I plan to, and it leaves me wondering why I bother writing at all, when I could just suggest you buy the book.

So that's what I'm doing. Go buy the book. If you like this blog, you'll love the book.

What will I do with my little corner of the web? I'm not sure. I may start using it as a place to write short fiction (the use of my original blog, back before the word blog existed). I may use it to vent my frustrations at the world. I may periodically update it under its current function as a repository of fun facts. What I do know is that it won't be updated with any frequency for a while.

To the rare few of you who have visited, I thankee sai. I hope you enjoyed reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it. Now go buy the book.

Garfield Beat Her To It

Here's your soundtrack for the post

September 18th, 1978 was an auspicious day in history. It was a hot (high of 31°C) September day in Muncie, Indiana, and the work-week was just starting. It was a sweaty Autumn day. It was the first time that Garfield the cat said, "I hate Mondays." He wasn't the first person to declare a hatred of Mondays, and he certainly wouldn't be the last. Perhaps the second most famous declaration against Mondays would take place less than a year later.

Bob Geldof, perhaps best known nowadays for his charitable works, once wrote a song for his band the Boomtown Rats called "I Don't Like Mondays" (which you're hopefully listening to right now via the YouTube clip above). The thing is though, the line "I don't like Mondays" wasn't his, not really. He got it from a piece of breaking news he saw coming over the telex while doing a radio interview in January 1979.

Telex: Think a old-timey stock ticker combined with a
typewriter, only it gives news instead of stock info.

What was the news coming in over the wire? That 16 year old Brenda Ann Spencer had decided that a good way to liven up her boring Monday was to start taking pot shots at the elementary school across the street from her house with a .22 rifle.

Geldof said, regarding the writing of the song:

I read it as it came out. Not liking Mondays as a reason for doing somebody in, is a bit strange. ... And the journalists interviewing her said, 'Tell me why?' It was such a senseless act. It was the perfect senseless act and this was the perfect senseless reason for doing it. So perhaps I wrote the perfect senseless song to illustrate it.

I have to agree with Bob, that's a pretty weird reason for deciding to take thirty shots at a crowd of children. According to Spencer, that's not entirely the whole story though, although I should note that the parole board hasn't been convinced by her justifications. She has, at various points, claimed that she was on drugs at the time (PCP & alcohol) and that she was physically and sexually abused as a child. If either were true, the killings wouldn't be forgivable, but at least they'd make a little more sense than "I don't like Mondays."

Unfortunately, I tend to agree with the parole board on this. There's no evidence that she was on drugs at the time (she claims that the prosecution and her attorney conspired to hide the evidence), and initial police reports say that even though there was plenty of alcohol in her house at the time of her arrest, she didn't appear to be intoxicated. Add in that she told them that she had fantasies about becoming a sniper. And she had bragged to classmates that "she was going to do something big to get on TV," the week before. As for the abuse thing? The first time she mentioned it was at a parole hearing in 2001, not at any of the court mandated counseling sessions she'd had in the twenty years she'd been incarcerated. I'm not saying that's proof that she wasn't abused (far from it), but still, it gives me doubts. If I was creeping up on 40 years old and had spent most of my life in prison, I'd start looking for reasons for the parole board to look on my case with some sympathy.

Unless I was worried about ending up like Brooks Hatlen...

So, she put thirty bullets into a group of kids, what was the result? Two men killed (the principal and the janitor), eight kids and one police officer injured. The principal, one Burton Wragg, was actually shot and killed while saving the life of one Chris Stanley who went on to become a teacher himself. Mike Suchar, the janitor, was killed while he tried to drag Wragg's body to somewhere that he could get medical attention. Mary Clark, aged 8 at the time, was shot and didn't tell anyone for several hours. That kid was either in shock, or she had an unhealthy obsession with school. As for the police officer, one Rob Robb (not making that up, I swear), he was shot through the neck but was stabilized by the time the news had hit the papers.

After a long standoff with the police, Brenda eventually gave herself up to the police, and she's been in prison the entire time since, barring her time in court, which isn't surprising given the comments she made either during the standoff or during the time before her trial:

• "I just did it for the fun of it. I don't like Mondays. This livens up the day. I have to go now. I shot a pig. I think and I want to shoot more. I'm having too much fun [to surrender]."
• "I had no reason for it, and it was just a lot of fun"
• "It was just like shooting ducks in a pond"
• "[The children] looked like a herd of cows standing around; it was really easy pickings"
•  That she was going to "come out shooting"

"I Don't Like Mondays": A problem better solved with lasagna than with a rifle.

---

Sources:
Telex image taken from Al-Ahlia Contracting Group
Image of Brooks hanging taken from JoBlo.com


Indiana State Climate Office
The Milwaukee Journal, Jan 29, 1979 edition
The Boomtown Rats website - it seems to be the official fan-website, not the offficial band website
San Diego Union-Tribune article on Chris Stanley
Wikpedia articles on I Don't Like Mondays and Brenda Ann Spencer
Snopes.com

One edit made out of respect for the deceased

Dealing Neither With Nethers Nor Drinks

Today's topic is Vaginicola.  Get your laughs and jokes out of the way now.  This is serious business.  DEADLY serious.

Alright, not deadly serious, but we can't sit back all day and make jokes about carbonated douching.  Particularly since colas don't make effective spermicides. Cracked has covered it, the Mythbusters have covered it (note: illegal streaming, watch at your own risk, 47min mark), and even if you don't trust them, Snopes has covered it too.  I've even tracked down the actual research which can be found here (PDF) (which in turn disagrees with earlier research which can be found here (PDF) ).  Basically, I'm not wasting a whole lot of time on this particular piece of incorrect information.

Alright, vaginicola.  What is it?  Well, it's derived from two Latin words, vagina and colere, which mean sheath and to inhabit respectively.  See, now you're thinking entirely different dirty thoughts, aren't you?  Come on!  Minds out of the gutter here people!  This is science!  Well, non-dirty science.  I'll leave the dirty science to the Kinsey Institute (for now...).

Alright, time for the big reveal.  Are you ready to see some vaginicola?  Some award winning vaginicola imagery?  A picture of a nice, wet vaginicola?  Alright, now I'm getting dirty, so here you go, taken from the 2006 Biomedical Image Awards... vaginicola!

The bluish bit is the sheath, the green
bit in the bottom image is the vaginicola itself.

If you're like me, you look at that an go, "Wow.  That's awesome."  Shortly thereafter you go, "Now, what the heck is it?"  First off, that's not the actual colour.  It's been digitally altered to better show the different bits.  With that disclaimer out of the way, it's a protist (which is a convenient word that biologists have frowned upon for almost 50years, but they don't really have a good alternative yet, so I'm using it).  That means it's really small.  How small?  They're measured in μm (micrometers), and the sheath that they secrete for themselves is about as long as a human hair is wide.  Yeah, they're super tiny.

They live in fresh water and they eat... ummm... algae?  Bacteria?  Not entirely sure, since there's almost no actual information about them online other than a vague definition and a few pictures.  The lack of information is actually kind of nice, since it means that I've pretty much said all there is to say, and the only things I can still say about it are just useless gobbledygook unless you're a biologist.  So here's another picture, with two vaginicolas living in one lorica (the proper name for the sheath).

Two vaginicolas are better than one!
Click to embiggen, clicky-poppy.

 Vaginicola: Sounds messy, isn't.

---

Sources:
Colour enhanced image of vaginicola taken from the 2006 Biomedical Image Awards
Image of two vaginicola taken from the Protist Image Database


Dictionary.com
Wikipedia article on Peritrichs, the closest thing they have to vaginicolas, which are a subset of a subset of peritrichs

You Know What People Want In Their Cruise Ships? Water.

*EDIT*
As pointed out in the comments section, the first ship to have an on-board swimming pool was not, in fact, the the RMS Olympic as stated below.  It did have a pool before the Titanic, but unfortunately for me, after having written this long post, it was an earlier ship in the White Star Line fleet that had the first on-ship pool.  The honour goes to the RMS Adriatic, not the Olympic.  And certainly not the Titanic.  I'm keeping the article because it's mainly about the frequent confusion between the Olympic and Titanic, with the pool being the focal point for that, but please, as you read, keep in mind that my initial research was wrong and it's not actually the Olympic that had the first ocean-going pool.
*end EDIT*

Let's say you're building a ship in the early 1900's.  Let's say you're building the largest ship known to man at that point.  Let's say that you want it not only big, but luxurious.  Let's say you do it.

So you've got the world's largest ocean liner, and you need to think of a way to make it more luxurious.  You may not be building the fastest ship on the seas, but damnit, if people are going to trapped on your ship, they're going to enjoy it.  So what do you add that no other ship has?  You got it, a pool.

So what was the biggest, most luxurious ship in the early 1900's?  Here's a hint:

Recognize those four funnels (smokestacks) sticking out of the top?

You're wrong.  That's not the Titanic.  Darned good guess though.  And if you accept the information that's widely available, both in many books and most of the internet, the Titanic was the first ship to have an on-board pool.  Like so much information out there though, it's wrong.

So, if that's the first ocean liner with on on-board pool, but it's not the Titanic, what is it?  It's the Olympic, the first of White Star Line's three Olympic-class ocean liners.  It's also the only one to stay afloat for significantly longer than it took to get it built.  The Olympic sailed for over twenty years (despite hitting two other ships in its lifetime).  The Titanic, the second in the Olympic-class, sank on its maiden voyage after hitting an iceberg. The Britannic (rumour says it was originally intended to be called the Gigantic, no joke), the third and final Olympic-class liner, sank a few months short of three years afloat after hitting a mine during WWI.

All three of the Olympic-class ocean liners were built with very similar layouts and amenities, to the point that facts about the Olympic and the Titanic are often used interchangeably when it comes to discussing their layouts.  Some books have mistakenly printed blueprints of the Titanic when talking about the Olympic, and pictures that are said to be taken on the Titanic are sometimes pictures of the Olympic.  This is particularly true when it comes to the pool area, where the differences are extremely negligible and very few pictures exist from either ship.  Don't believe me?  One of these is the Titanic's swimming bath (as the pool area was called) and one is the Olympic's.

Can you tell which is which?
Click to embiggen, clicky-poppy

The Titanic is on the right, the Olympic is on the left.  Honestly, I thought at first that both were images of the Olympic being passed off as the Titanic (it happens, a lot), but then I noticed the tiny differences that, assuming the dates on the photos are correct, aren't likely to be due to additions to the Olympic.

 Alright, so the Titanic wasn't the first pool floating on the open seas.  That distinction goes to its older sister the Olympic.  It was, however, the first pool to sink into the open seas.

So did people like the idea of having a pool on their ship?  Well, the simple answer to that is, "Try and find a decent sized cruise ship without a pool nowadays."  Within a decade or so, pools weren't just common on the large liners, they were de rigueur.  And it all started with the RMS Olympic.

 The RMS Olympic pool: First in the on the open ocean, overshadowed by the first in the open ocean.

---

Sources:
RMS Olympic image taken from here
RMS Olympc swimming bath image taken from LostLiners.com
RMS Titanic swimming bath image taken from CorbisImages.com


LostLiners.com
RMSTitanic.net
Last Mysteries Of The Titanic on YouTube.com
Titanic Wreck Observations 2005
Titanic-Titanic.com
Encyclopedia-Titanica.org
VictorianTurkishBath.org
National Museums of Northern Ireland
HistoryOnTheNet.com
Titanic-WhiteStarShips.com
Wikiepedia articles on the RMS Olympic and the RMS Titanic

They Don't Play Possum

Time for a lesson in the importance of proper spelling, and the dangers of abbreviation.

If you are, like the majority of the people who pass through this bit of webspace, North American, the word possum brings to mind something fairly specific.  Namely, the Virginia Opossum.

Not a rodent, otherwise I'd call it an R.O.U.S.

It's the largest marsupial North of the tropic of cancer, and it basically combines the some of the worst elements of a rat and a raccoon.  Which isn't to say it's not a fascinating animal, but it's a scavenger and it's big enough to be scary.  Trust me.  When one of these bastards is standing in front of you, hissing and baring those teeth at you, you give it a wide berth.

Assuming you forget about the whole
"playing possum" thing.  I did.

Now, this is where the whole 'proper spelling' thing kicks in.  That little beast shown above isn't a possum. A proper possum is named after the similarities to the opossum, but they are, generally speaking, far less disturbing.  Possums (as opposed to opossums) are native to Australasia.  They're marsupials too, and like the opossums, they're generally nocturnal and at least partially tree-dwelling.  Unlike the opossum though, the possums don't pretend to be dead when cornered, and more importantly, they don't tend to look like giant rats.

Heck, you could make a
stuffed animal based off that!

So, what's the etymology behind all this?  Well, it goes back to the Virginia opossum, whose name comes from the Algonquin Indian name for them, aposoum, which meant "white beast."  A pretty fitting name, if you ask me.  Like pretty much everything that was taken from a Native American word, it got bastardized and we call them opossums now.  When the marsupials of Australasia were discovered later on, the more opossum-like ones (sub-order Phalaneriformes) were dubbed possums.  They're not very closely related (think manatee to hippo), but they look a lot alike, so they're named similarly.

Playing possum: Not what a possum will do if you get too close.

I couldn't find a video of someone threatening an actual possum, but I did find lots of video of people feeding them. Here's one that's got a momma possum with her baby.

---

Sources:
Opossum image taken from FIPS blog, image originally from, and owned by 24/7 Wildlife
Opossum playing dead image taken from some crackpot's webpage
Common brushtail possum image taken from the city of Holdfast website
Wikipedia articles on  possums and opossums

Well, The Rats Seem Okay

Think, if you will, all the way back to my last blog post, where I mentioned the name William J. Baerg in reference to experimenting with yourself as the guinea pig. Now I'll explain exactly what I meant by that.

William Baerg was an entomologist who worked at the University of Arkansas from 1918 to 1951. He published his first article in 1920 (Beekeeping In Arkansas), and somewhere in the next year he decided that his name wasn't quite epic enough (I agree), and he started publishing under the name William J. Baerg (better, but still not spectacular) in 1921.

For reference, his full and proper name was William Baerg, the J. stood for nothing, and was just there to make him sound more official. Normally, I'd throw up a picture of him now, but I can't seem to find one, but this picture is likely him:

The hand, not the tarantula.
(click to embiggen, clicky-poppy)

You see, Baerg is also known as "the father of North American tarantula research." He focused mainly tarantulas, but he was quite knowledgeable about all sorts of North American spiders.

One of the things he researched was just how dangerous spider bites were. First, he'd get the spider and a few rats to experiment on (he seems to have preferred using six test rats for each experiment). Then, he'd pick up the spider and the rat, have the spider bite the rat, and then he'd observe and report. If the rats didn't seem too badly injured by the bite, he let the spider bite him. And it worked pretty well. Baerg's the main reason we know that tarantula bites are about as dangerous as bee-stings. After seeing the rats suffered no long-term damage from a tarantula bite, he'd let it bite him. In his own words:

It is doubtless a far-fetched conclusion that if the poison produces mild effects on young rats, it will not be dangerous to man; yet this conclusion I found quite safe in the case of the tarantula (Eurypelma steindachneri).

So, when a colleague from Cornell asked Baerg to look into whether the danger presented by the black widow spider was fact or fiction, Baerg knew what to do: Get one to bite some rats and watch to see whether they were badly injured or not.

Guess what? The rats were pretty much fine. You know, relatively speaking. For twelve to fourteen hours they were clearly in pain, they sometimes had convulsions, and they entered a state that he describes in his notes as "Sleeping (in coma?)", before apparently recovering completely. In fact, they built up a resistance to the black widow venom quite quickly, and by the third time they were bitten (three weeks after the first bite) the rats showed no reaction to the venom at all, beyond their licking the wound.

And this is where the previously mentioned "far-fetched conclusion" bites him in the ass. Or more specifically, in the left hand.

At first, things looked promising. On July 9th 1923, Baerg let a black widow bite him. He made it bite him on the finger at 11:15am, and within five minutes there's a sharp pain and the site of the wound is visibly throbbing. Ten minutes later the pain is slowly dissipating, and by 2:10pm the pain is completely gone and he feels fine. Clearly, as the rats indicated, the bite of the black widow isn't actually all that bad.

Not so bad at all, is it?

Since the first test went so well, and the rats seemed to develop an immunity fairly quickly, Baerg decided to repeat the experiment the next day. This time, things didn't go so well.  The spider bit deeper, for longer, and probably injected a lot more venom.  Baerg was, however, both a scientist and an optimist, and here's how he described it in the article he wrote about the tests (emphasis added by me):

The fangs were allowed to remain inserted for about five seconds, and during this time the pain which when the fangs entered was rather faint, increased rapidly, presumably produced by the poison rather than by the fangs. The results, from the point of view of the investigator, were all that could be desired.

I will remind you that Baerg himself was the investigator.

So, he let the spider bite him at 8:25am on July 10th, 1923.  The pain was minor at first but increased rapidly.  Then it spread.  Everywhere.  His arm, his chest, his hips, his legs, his toes, his head. He had trouble breathing and couldn't keep food down.  He didn't manage to get any sleep for the first 28 hours, and didn't manage more than a nap until the night of the 11th, when he was plagued by delirium and nightmares.  He spent almost three full days in the hospital.  Even after he left the hospital, it was still another full day before he was well enough to work.  The pain was gone from most of his body by the 13th, but the pain in his hand persisted for a few days longer, and there was an itchiness that stayed for almost a week.  His body temperature fluctuated fairly wildly for more than a month, although he claimed he wouldn't have known if he hadn't been taking it, since there were no associated symptoms.

That's enough to keep you from ever wanting to be near a spider ever again, isn't it?

Well, you're not William J. Baerg.  He continued to research spiders (and other insects) his entire life. Even after he retired, he was still helping other people do their entomological research.  47 years after the black widow incident, in 1970, when he was 85 years old, Baerg heard that someone was investigating the toxicity of the yellow sac spider, whose bite is thought to be mildly necrotic and highly painful.  What advice did he give them?

He volunteered to be the test subject for the human bite test.

The head researcher politely declined the offer.

William J. Baerg: He makes the Mythbusters look absolutely cowardly in their scientific experiments.

---

Sources:
William J. Baerg's hand (?) image taken from Encyclopedia of Arkansas
Black widow spider bite image taken from WebMD.com, originally from David-O's Flickr stream


Encyclopedia of Arkansas
University of Nebraska - Lincoln, DigitalCommons Journal of Parasitology archive (Vol. 9, No. 3, pp 161-180)

A Whole Other Level Of Cottonmouthed

Ever been really dry mouthed? I mean, so dry-mouthed that your speech is impaired? So much so that it's not just an issue, it's a medical problem? Well, that's called xerostomia (literally, dry mouth disease).  You haven't?  Well neither have I, and I'm pretty glad about it.

But... if you wanted to go all William J. Baerg (I'll discuss him next time) and experiment on yourself... You can find out exactly how bad dry mouth can be by getting yourself a mouthful of silica gel desiccants.  You know, those little packets that you find in the bottles of pills sometimes, or in with other things that are moisture sensitive.

You know, the things that say
"DO NOT EAT"

I'm not going to try it myself (not while writing this anyway, I don't have any silica gel packs handy), but I welcome you to try it yourself*. Feel free to report your findings to me if you do!

Now, we need to be absolutely clear on a couple things here before you go off and eat some commercial-grade desiccants:

1) It's got to be the 'non-indicating' silica gel. The stuff that looks the same when it's fresh as it does when it's totally used up. The stuff that goes from orange to dark green, or orange to colourless is probably safe too, but it's best to not mess around. And the stuff that goes from blue to pink? Toxic as all holy hell, and you should never put it in your body. It's got cobalt (II) chloride, which if swallowed will cause nausea, will probably cause vomiting, and may cause permanent damage to your thyroid gland and pancreas. It's also carcinogenic. So, once again, to be absolutely explicit about this: DO NOT PUT THE STUFF THAT GOES FROM BLUE TO PINK INTO YOUR MOUTH! Only the stuff that starts clear and stays clear is absolutely positively safe to put into your mouth (and even then, only if it hasn't been contaminated by something else along the way, but if you get it out of a pill bottle, you should be fine).**

2) Don't swallow it. Even if it's the stuff that starts clear and ends clear. It's technically non-toxic (it's pretty much inert under normal circumstances), but it will irritate your insides. Oh, and it might dry the heck out of you. It won't kill you, but it won't be pleasant either.

Even suggesting you put it in your mouth is probably a bad idea, but it won't cause you any permanent harm, especially if you don't swallow and you make sure you're not using the toxic stuff.

Alright, with the disclaimers out of the way, here's how you get the most dry-mouthed bang for your buck:

1) Dehydrate the silica gel. Take them and throw them in a warm oven (200°F / 93°C) for 15mins or so. This will also let you know if it's the non-indicating stuff, or something that goes from a colour (usually orange) to clear. If it's any colour other than white/clear (possibly off-white or yellow-tinged) after drying it out, best not muck about with it.

2) Have something handy to spit it into. This might not be easy since your mouth may dry out fairly quickly. But still, it's better to have somewhere to spit handy than to not have it at all.

3) Keep in mind how much spit it's going to absorb. Your standard silica gel will absorb 40% of its weight in water, so 1g of the silica gel will absorb 0.4mL of spit. The smallest silica gel packs have about 0.25g of silica gel in them, which means they'll absorb 0.1mL of spit. How much is that? Two drops. Your mouth would have to be pretty dry to even notice that it's two drops drier. Best get yourself several, or a rather large one. Maybe several large ones. Remember to avoid swallowing it though.

Now you're ready for scientifically induced cottonmouth!

Damnit, that's not what I meant,
and you know it, Marvel Comics.

So, even though I've made a big deal about how this experiment isn't going to hurt you, you've still got a huge nagging doubt in your head, don't you? "If this isn't dangerous, why the warnings all over the package?" Liability. These things present a fairly massive choking hazard, and heaven help you if you ever inhale some by accident. Not that they're any more toxic in your lungs than in your stomach, but... They won't go away. They are, as I said, pretty much inert. Which means your body won't be able to break them down. Which, in an organ as delicate as your lungs, is a very, very bad thing. If you don't manage to cough it back up, it could do quite a bit of damage in there. Plus, there's the whole cobalt (II) chloride issue. And the outside contamination issue. The silica gel itself may not be dangerous, but if it was shipped with rat poison, then it might be coated in something that is.

Still, what fun is science without a little danger? You'll never discover anything interesting if you never take any chances! Just ask Marie Curie! Hmm... Alright, maybe she's a bad example.

Silica gel cottonmouth: A relatively safe experiment to try at home.*

---

*While I encourage you to try it, I in no way accept any responsibility for any problems, physical or mental, that arise as a result of your trying this. While theoretically safe, there's always a chance that something could go wrong, and you accept all responsibility for that wrong should it happen while you are conducting this test, either on yourself or on someone else.
**That all said, there probably isn't enough cobalt (II) chloride to actually make you sick, but I'm not taking any chances with liabilities here, and neither should you.

Sources:
Silica gel packet image taken from eHow.com
Cottonmouth image taken from Gone and Forgotten blog
Seton Resource Center
Wikipedia
GeeJay Chemicals Ltd.
AGM Container Controls Inc.
eHow.com How To Recycle Silica Gel Packets
Chow.com - What Happens If You Eat One Of Those Silica Gel Packets?
Dictionary.com pages for xero, stome and minim

She's Not My Granny, But She's Welcome In My Kitchen

Mmm... Delicious.  But not Golden Delicious.

The Granny Smith Apple.  Possibly the most popular apple in the world.  I mean, there are all sorts of drinks and other products that are 'green apple' flavoured, and I guarantee you that they're not talking about under-ripe Fujis.  How popular are Granny Smiths?  Have you ever seen the logo for the Beatles' recording company?  Yeah, they're bigger than Jesus (not really) and they chose the Granny Smith as the apple to represent them.

She's the one in the dress.

So, who the heck is Granny Smith anyway?  Why does she have an apple named after her?  Well, Maria Ann Ramsey Sherwood Smith (great name!) was a farmer who grew orchard fruit in Australia in the 1800's, specifically apples and pears, although her family did grow a few other vegetables as well.

 Her entire adult life, when she wasn't busy giving birth that is (she had nine kids, six of which survived childhood), she cultivated apples trying to grow  some that would grow better.  Pretty smart thing to do if you're living in an area which isn't particularly well suited to growing apples.  Her family's orchards were just Northeast of Sydney, Australia, which is very humid and very warm, and that's not so good for most varieties of apples.  So she tried growing hybrids, and her orchards did significantly better than most of the other orchards in the area.  But did that stop her from trying new things out?  Heck no!  I mean, what the hell else did she have to do as an apple grower in the 1800s?  Other than have kids, I mean.

Now, there's a couple stories about how she came up with the Granny Smith, but I like the one that hints at some sort of fate, so that's the one I'm going to tell (thankfully, it's also the most widely accepted version of events at the moment).

The story goes like this: Granny Smith (as she was called locally by this point in her life) was, in addition to being a great orchardist, also a wonderful baker, and her pies were particularly well known.  Not surprisingly, her apple pies most of all.  One day she bought some French crabapples from a chap who grew them in Tasmania, made a pie of them, and threw the cores and skins into a compost pile (I doubt that the term compost pile was used back then, but whatever) near a creek on her property.  Some time later she found a small tree growing out of the heap and associated it with the crabapples.  I guess she was happy with the way the pie had turned out, because she nurtured the sapling until it bore fruit, some time in 1868.  Quite pleased with the fruit of this new tree, which clearly wasn't the crabapples she was expecting, she showed it off to a neighbouring farmer.  They liked it too, and Granny started cultivating this new variety.

And then she died in 1870.  Long before there were enough mature trees for her to find out whether the fruit would turn out to be popular.  Which it was.  Several local orchardists started growing them, and they started winning awards about twenty years later.  By 1895, Albert H. Benson, an expert for the New South Wales Department of Agriculture said it was fit for export.  The next year he planted a full crop of them at the Bathurst Primary Industries Centre (then known more simply as the Bathurst Experimental Farm, or alternately as the Government Experimental Station, which sounds way more sinister), and from there?  It's all history.

Slow moving history, but history nonetheless.  England started growing them in the 1930s, and they started growing them in the United States in the 1970s.  And now?  Canada imports 16,000 tonnes of Granny Smith apples a year.

Granny Smith: She died without ever knowing just how awesome her found fruit was.

---

Sources:
Apple image taken from Southwood Nursery
Maria Ann Smith image taken from the city of Ryde website
City of Ryde
Australian Dictionary of Biography
EzineArticles.com
FindAGrave.com
Wikipedia
Bathurst Primary Industries Centre
TheWorldGourmet.com

Fake Guards, Real Sadism

Alright, we learned yesterday that we, as a whole, will cave to authority pretty easily. But what happens when the position of authority is just in our heads? When the authority is totally arbitrary and not based on anything other than random chance?

If you've heard of the Stanford Prison Experiment, you already know the answer and you can go read an article on Cracked.com or something else if you want.  Try this one about animal intelligence, it's pretty fascinating.

I'm Testing The Effect Of Negative Reinforcement On ESP

Alright, this isn't about ESP, but it is about electrical shocks and negative reinforcement.  The title is a Ghostbusters reference, which is, in turn, a reference to today's topic: The Milgram Experiment.

Also, this fact isn't particularly fun except for the fact that it's a great conversation topic. But since that's kind of how this blog started, it's what we're talking about today.

The 1960s and early 1970s were a wonderful time to be an experimental psychologist, in that a lot of laws regarding ethical experimentation were only made in reaction to some of these experiments. In addition to the Milgram experiment, there was also the Stanford Prison experiment (I plan to cover it tomorrow) and the end stages of the CIA's MKULTRA experiments into LSD. Basically, you could get away with almost anything, which made for some interesting research. Unethical by modern standards, but totally interesting nonetheless.