Infrasound

Photo credit - mxruben

Photo credit – mxruben

It’s time for some speculation. Why not? Everyone is entitled to cut loose once in awhile. Although science officially despises speculation, scientists do it all the time as they explore new ideas. They need to go a little bit beyond what is certain when they want to illuminate the unknown. As long as they keep the speculation out of their public work, they’ll be alright.

A case in point would be research into the effects of sounds we can’t even hear. These researchers are studying infrasound, which is too low for us to hear. Sounds pitched too high for humans are called ultrasound. There are many sources of infrasound. We are living unawares in a vast sea of sounds that we can’t hear. It’s been known for awhile that elephants communicate over great distances using subsonic rumbles. Non-elephants go along never knowing that their big neighbors might be talking about them, not behind their backs but below their hearing. Whales are known to produce infrasounds that travel hundreds, or even thousands of kilometers in the ocean. Most of the rest of the creatures of the sea wouldn’t even be aware of it.

Other sources of infrasound are strong storms, which are so powerful that they are identifiable among the jumble of noises in the atmosphere. There’s the “voice of the sea,” an atmospheric background of infrasound noise detectable everywhere. It’s thought to be made by the waves produced in large storms all over the world’s oceans.

Photo credit - kconnors

Photo credit – kconnors

Just as the wind in your eaves can produce a spooky moaning sound, so the wind can make long-lasting infrasound moans as it blows over mountain ranges. Here’s where some speculation comes in. Data show that in areas such as the Alps or the Rockies, where wind and mountains meet, there are increased psychological disturbances and even suicides among the people living there. Humans might be reacting to the ultra low sounds even though they can’t hear them. This seems to be supported by experiments where subjects listened to music which contained infrasound. Though it sounded the same as the unaltered control music, some listeners reported feeling unsettled or getting chills down their spines while listening to it.

There’s lots of speculation going on now about how much we might be affected by sounds we can’t even hear.

rjb

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 4 Comments

Happy Document Freedom Day

Open Formats

Open Formats

On Document Freedom Day let us acknowledge open formats and their value to a free and open society.

rjb

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Handedness

Photo credit - Unhindered by Talent

Photo credit – Unhindered by Talent

Humans show a strong preference in which hand they use for most tasks. The things that require the most dexterity and fine control are done by our preferred hand. Things like writing, for example, people do well with one hand and horribly with the other. The majority of people, around 90%, are right-handed. Most of the remaining 10% are left-handed, and a few are ambidextrous, or equally able with both hands.

Credit Guy Rich Caswell – Public Domain

There has been debate and disagreement as long as can be remembered about handedness. Why is it there? What causes it? Does one’s handedness indicate the presence or lack of moral rectitude? Well, that last question is positively anti-scientific, but that doesn’t stop it being asked.

As for what causes handedness, it’s been shown that the distribution of it and the hereditary nature of it indicate that it’s genetic. Not only that, but it’s most likely that it’s all down to one gene with both a dominant and a recessive version. A child’s handedness is determined by which versions of the gene the parents have.

— More studies have complicated things. It’s now thought that only about a quarter of the determination of handedness is by genetics, and three quarters by environmental factors. Refer to the Wikipedia article on handedness.

The two forms of the gene aren’t simply a right-handed version and a left-handed version. If that were so, it wouldn’t explain how two left-handed parents could have a right-handed child, or how identical twins can sometimes be oppositely handed. Instead, the researchers are describing the dominant version as right-handed and the recessive one as random. So, of the pair of copies of the handedness gene that a child gets, if even one is dominant they are right-handed. If both are recessive then the child could be left- or right-handed. Hence the definition of the recessive gene as random.

Oddly, there’s a link between handedness and the direction the hair grows. As the hair swirls away from the crown of the head it either turns to the right, clockwise, or to the left, counterclockwise. Almost all right-handers have clockwise whorls, while left-handers and the ambidextrous have whorls which randomly go one way or the other.

The one gene seems to be both a right-handed/random gene and a clockwise whorl/random gene. If you get two copies of the random variant from your parents you have a 50/50 chance of being left-handed, and if you’re left-handed you have a 50/50 chance of having a counterclockwise hair whorl.

And now, after all that, here is something that might debunk the whole idea of a link between handedness and hair whorls. For that, go to the University of Delaware and their series on the Myths of Human Genetics.

rjb

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment