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:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

On the Fringe - Michael Gordin *****

This little book is a pleasant surprise. That word 'little', by the way, is not intended as an insult, but a compliment. Kudos to OUP for realising that a book doesn't have to be three inches thick to be interesting. It's just 101 pages before you get to the notes - and that's plenty. The topic is fringe science or pseudoscience: it could be heavy going in a condensed form, but in fact Michael Gordin keeps the tone light and readable. In some ways, the most interesting bit is when Gordin plunges into just what pseudoscience actually is. As he points out, there are elements of subjectivity to this. For example, some would say that string theory is pseudoscience, even though many real scientists have dedicated their careers to it. Gordin also points out that, outside of denial (more on this a moment), many supporters of what most of us label pseudoscience do use the scientific method and see themselves as doing actual science. Gordin breaks pseudoscience down into a n

A (Very) Short History of Life on Earth - Henry Gee *****

In writing this book, Henry Gee had a lot to live up to. His earlier title  The Accidental Species was a superbly readable and fascinating description of the evolutionary process leading to Homo sapiens . It seemed hard to beat - but he has succeeded with what is inevitably going to be described as a tour-de-force. As is promised on the cover, we are taken through nearly 4.6 billion years of life on Earth (actually rather more, as I'll cover below). It's a mark of Gee's skill that what could have ended up feeling like an interminable list of different organisms comes across instead as something of a pager turner. This is helped by the structuring - within those promised twelve chapters everything is divided up into handy bite-sized chunks. And although there certainly are very many species mentioned as we pass through the years, rather than feeling overwhelming, Gee's friendly prose and careful timing made the approach come across as natural and organic.  There was a w

Michael D. Gordin - Four Way Interview

Michael D. Gordin is a historian of modern science and a professor at Princeton University, with particular interests in the physical sciences and in science in Russia and the Soviet Union. He is the author of six books, ranging from the periodic table to early nuclear weapons to the history of scientific languages. His most recent book is On the Fringe: Where Science Meets Pseudoscience (Oxford University Press). Why history of science? The history of science grabbed me long before I knew that there were actual historians of science out there. I entered college committed to becoming a physicist, drawn in by the deep intellectual puzzles of entropy, quantum theory, and relativity. When I started taking courses, I came to understand that what really interested me about those puzzles were not so much their solutions — still replete with paradoxes — but rather the rich debates and even the dead-ends that scientists had taken to trying to resolve them. At first, I thought this fell under