Skip to main content

Real Mosquitoes Don’t Eat Meat – Brad Wetzler ****

Science magazines often have a page for answering the “dumb” questions we all like to ask – and the answers make a ready-made collection for a book. Scientific American and New Scientist have both done this – now Outside Magazine‘s “The Wild File” gets its second collection (the first, called Why Moths Hate Thomas Edison wasn’t available for review at the time of writing).
The style here is slightly more laid back and facetious than the columns from the general science magazines, but the effect is very readable and easily digested.
Brad Wetzler is the contributing editor responsible for the column – chances are, the way magazines work, that words aren’t always his, but he’s responsible for the overall feel, and gives us some excellent insights into the natural world. Not surprisingly, given the the magazine this features in, these are mostly nature questions, though the book does begin with an astronomy section before moving on to your body, the planet and living creatures (plants included). As is often the case with these collections, some of the most enjoyable answers are those that shatter old wives tales and “common knowledge”, such as “you lose most of your body heat through your head (so wear a hat)” – wrong. Or “does hot tea cool you in hot weather” – sorry, no. Others are just those sort of questions children delight in asking, and the child in all of us wants to know the answer to (can African and Indian elephants mate, for example). Others are just plain odd – for example, how far can you get away from a McDonalds in the US. But it’s fair to say there’s not one of these little factoids that isn’t quirkily interesting.
The only real criticisms are for the tendency to end a piece with a fairly lame witicism (e.g. on a query about the return of the “dust bowl” phenomenon referred to in the novel The Grapes of Wrath, we are told “Forget about migrating to California, and stock up on Evian while you can.”), and the missed opportunities. The answers to questions quite often seem to miss out on great opportunities to throw in a “wow factor” piece of information. For example, the question about why the moon often appears large near moonrise misses the surprising fact that the actual visual size of the moon is as small as the hole in a punched piece of paper held at arms length. And the answer to the question “I’ve heard it’s sometimes possible to see stars during the middle of the day. True?” misses the opportunity to dispose of the old chestnut that you can see stars from the bottom of a well or up a chimney. Not the end of the world by any means, but a pity.
All in all, though, an easy read of bite-sized delights, idea to fill in a few minutes on the train or simply to get some answers to those infuriatingly obvious questions that no one seems to bother answering. Something that’s amazing about this sort of book is, though there are several around, they all seem to come up with enough new and engaging questions to be well worth reading. Great fun.
Paperback:  
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Superior - Angela Saini *****

It was always going to be difficult to follow Angela Saini's hugely popular Inferior, but with Superior she has pulled it off, not just in the content but by upping the quality of the writing to a whole new level. Where Inferior looked at the misuse of science in supporting sexism (and the existence of sexism in science), Superior examines the way that racism has been given a totally unfounded pseudo-scientific basis in the past - and how, remarkably, despite absolute evidence to the contrary, this still turns up today.

At the heart of the book is the scientific fact that 'race' simply does not exist biologically - it is nothing more than an outdated social label. As Saini points out, there are far larger genetic variations within a so-called race than there are between individuals supposedly of different races. She shows how, pre-genetics, racial prejudice was given a pseudo-scientific veneer by dreaming up fictitious physical differences over and above the tiny distinct…

Where are the chemistry popular science books?

by Brian Clegg
There has never been more emphasis on the importance of public engagement. We need both to encourage a deeper interest in science and to counter anti-scientific views that seem to go hand-in-hand with some types of politics. Getting the public interested in science both helps recruit new scientists of the future and spreads an understanding of why an area of scientific research deserves funding. Yet it is possible that chemistry lags behind the other sciences in outreach. As a science writer, and editor of this website, I believe that chemistry is under-represented in popular science. I'd like to establish if this is the case, if so why it is happening - and what can be done to change things. 


An easy straw poll is provided by the topic tags on the site. At the time of writing, there are 22 books under 'chemistry' as opposed to 97 maths, 126 biology and 182 physics. The distribution is inevitably influenced by editorial bias - but as the editor, I can confirm …

The Art of Statistics - David Spiegelhalter *****

Statistics have a huge impact on us - we are bombarded with them in the news, they are essential to medical trials, fundamental science, some court cases and far more. Yet statistics is also a subject than many struggle to deal with (especially when the coupled subject of probability rears its head). Most of us just aren't equipped to understand what we're being told, or to question it when the statistics are dodgy. What David Spiegelhalter does here is provide a very thorough introductory grounding in statistics without making use of mathematical formulae*. And it's remarkable.

What will probably surprise some who have some training in statistics, particularly if (like mine) it's on the old side, is that probability doesn't come into the book until page 205. Spiegelhalter argues that as probability is the hardest aspect for us to get an intuitive feel for, this makes a lot of sense - and I think he's right. That doesn't mean that he doesn't cover all …