Antimatter detected using a track etch detector.

In a very surprising series of measurements made by the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, gamma events matching the signature of energetic positron decay were found just before, during, and after a pair of lightning storms.

For those not familiar, the Fermi telescope allows astronomers to study black holes, pulsars, the subatomic particles emitted by them, and very, very high energy particles far beyond what we are currently capable of producing on earth. Also, positrons are anti-electrons, a form of antimatter. They are also known as the emitted particle from Beta “+” decay, where a proton is hit by the magic wand force, and turned into a neutron, positron, and neutrino.

Now antimatter has never been seen in lightning storms before, although I do wonder how hard they looked. I mean, watch even just a normal patch of sky for long enough (although I really mean loooooonnnggg), and you’ll see lower energy gamma flashes from annihilation of positrons emitted from Oxygen-15, Nitrogen-13, Carbon-11, and maybe a couple of others. However, what the Fermi scope saw is interesting because the energetic decays imply that the electric field associated with the storm switched directions for some reason. See, normally they see gamma rays from decelerating electrons moving toward the detector, (Bremsstrahlung Radiation) however this time they saw radiation from the positrons. Now since positrons have the opposite charge of an electron, they move in the opposite direction in a given electric field orientation. So where electrons were braking, positrons would have been accelerating. Since they saw positron braking radiation, the orientation of the field must have been flipped from usual. Pretty nifty.

Why is this happening? Well, obviously it has something to do with 2012. Damn those Mayans…they’re always right.

Link to Science News article: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/49288/title/Signature_of_antimatter_detected_in_lightning

*EDIT: that was fast. Someone asked what the picture in the top left was. Looking from bottom up: A photon (unseen line starting from around the yellow dot to the branching point above it) colliding with a particle generating matter and antimatter particles which fly off into two spirals. The much less energetic photon is later converted to an electron and positron visible as two diverging tracks later on. The extra track I didn’t talk about, which runs up and off to the right, is from the particle that collided with the first photon. So in sum, you are looking at the birth of matter from energy.

*EDIT 2: The above picture is from Stephen Hawking’s Universe Episode 3, Cosmic Alchemy. You can watch the part here. Pretty pictures start around minute 3:20.

It’s got some literature reviews and stuff, but most helpful for chemists is the best practices category, where they explore how to plan your metathesis reactions and how best to purify them. So very 2003 to say this, but blogging is a great medium for businesses to communicate with their customers. This is a really nice example. They have comments, so you can even talk to metathesis experts!

So how long before there’s an Ask Dr. Metathesis column, where frustrated grad students write in with their late-night isomerization angst?

Graphical abstract from: Dynamic viscoelastic behavior of individual Gram-negative bacterial cells.

Mitch

The press reports mention that (one of?) the victims feels that this wasn’t an accident. I think it’s interesting that one person passed out, but others reported low blood pressure and dizziness. My understanding of sodium azide is that it can be lethal, so it must have been a relatively low dose. (Thank God for small favors, huh?)

I don’t really know what to say about this, other than you have to be kind of a twisted individual to think this is a good solution to any sort of interpersonal problem you might be having.

(Credit for photo from Wikimedia.)

UPDATE: Changed a few words here and there for clarity.

Up to generation 20K, the number of mutations grew steadily to a total of 45. The adaptation to the environment, however, only increased strongly in the beginning. It was concluded that the most beneficial mutations were the first to occur. After generation 20K, a change in the mutT gene caused a rapid increase in the mutation rate to result in 653 mutation at generation 40K, but with a neutral signature, i.e. no further adaptation.

What I find most fascinating about this extreme long-term experiment is the confidence of the researchers that it would be possible to analyze the genes at a later point; this was not at all self-evident in the late ’80s! In addition, some work had to be done each day, for twenty years. What if the power had failed for a week or so? Of course, this unique opportunity to watch evolution as it happens is very intriguing.

An experiment that took even longer was awarded this year’s Ig Nobel Prize in medicine: Donald L. Unger of Thousand Oaks, CA, cracked the knuckles of his left hand, but not his right hand, every day for 50 years to see if knuckle-cracking leads to arthritis. After this time, both hands were fine, so he concluded: “While a larger group would be necessary to confirm this result, this preliminary investigation suggests a lack of correlation between knuckle cracking and the development of arthritis of the fingers.” Apparently, the experiment must be repeated.

I recently picked up Nick Reding’s book Methland, which is about the blight of a small Iowa town due to methamphetamine use. I was interested in it because I had heard about it from NPR; I was interested in what Reding had to say about the chemistry of meth synthesis. What I found was pretty amusing.

I should pause to say that Reding was not focused on the chemistry at all — rather, his thesis was that meth was a mere symptom of the devastating effects of global economic forces on a small Iowa town. It’s well written and pretty gripping stuff.

I’m sure I’m not the only chemist who can get distracted by chemical explanations that’s just obviously wrong. But some of the explanations were just terribly, terribly wrong:

“Mirror imaging is a process whereby a chemical’s molecular structure is reversed, moving, for example, electrons from the bottom of a certain ring to the top, and vice versa. Pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and methamphetamine are already near mirror images of one another. To make meth from ephedrine, it is necessary to remove a single oxygen atom from the outer electron ring. Thus ephedrine and methamphetamine not only look the same under a mass spectrometer, but both dilate the alveoli in the lungs and shrink blood vessels in the nose-hence ephedrine’s use as a decongestant while raising blood pressure and releasing adrenaline. The key difference is that meth, unlike ephedrine, prompts wide-scale releases of the neurotransmitters dopamine and epinephrine.

What the 1997 tests at the University of North Texas showed was that, at least in lab animals, mirror-image pseudoephedrine was equally as effective as regular pseudoephedrine as a decongestant. Unlike regular pseudo, however, the mirror-image version didn’t cause any side effects to the central nervous system, such as high blood pressure and a racing heart: the common “buzz” that one associates with cold medicine. Better yet for Warner-Lambert, mirror-image pseudoephedrine could only be synthesized into mirror-image methamphetamine, which, according to the Oregonian, had no stimulant effects and could not then be made into regular meth.” (quote thanks to Mike the Mad Biologist.)

Where to begin? First of all, “mirror imaging” is not a term; the word you’re looking for is, of course, enantiomers. The explanation about electrons is not correct; you can’t move electrons willy-nilly around rings. The comparison of ephedrine and methamphetamine as mirror images is wrong — they’re not even structural isomers. To make meth from ephedrine, you don’t “remove a single oxygen atom from the outer electron ring” (that sounds like something you do on the planet Zefu), you remove an oxygen and a hydrogen from a side chain by reduction. Ephedrine and methamphetamine most certainly DO NOT look the same under a mass spectrometer; I imagine it’s quite easy to distinguish the peaks from one another. Did Reding’s editor basically make a pass on the science stuff?

Reding’s book relies heavily on a series of articles on the meth epidemic written by Steve Suo of the Portland Oregonian. (If you look in Suo’s articles, you’ll see that Reding basically reworded the somewhat-more-correct chemistry explanation from Suo’s article.) Reding and Suo’s larger point  is that (-)-pseudoephedrine does not generate CNS-active methamphetamine, and that Warner-Lambert (and subsequently, Pfizer) were not interested enough in the larger public health issues to spend the money to push (-)-psuedoephedrine through the FDA approval process when the enantiomer they had was already quite lucrative.

So now that we’ve had a laugh about bad chemistry explanations, a question for everyone: how easy is it to get (-)-pseudoephedrine? The companies in India contacted by Suo said that they could supply ton quantities, no problem. I’m skeptical, but not that skeptical. Anyone out there know about this?

A post-doc in my research group was transporting a few chemicals in a plastic basket from one location to another.  The plastic was brittle due to gradual chemical exposure and cracked. Three bottles fell to the ground and broke. One contained lauroyl chloride, another an anthracene derivative (I don’t remember which one) and the third was a 100 mL bottle of tributyltin chloride. The first two are entirely inert and caused no concern.  The third chemical is an alkyl tin reagent which, in general, are known to be toxic.² Tributyl tin chloride has a high boiling point (170ºC) and a low vapor pressure compared to that of trimethyl tin chloride. To actually be affected by this chemical, you would probably have to lick the floor or rub it on your skin. However, it was a scenario where we decided it would be best to close the room and allow our on campus Hazmat team, composed of three guys and a truck, to clean it up.

Our lab safety officer soon learned, through USC Public Safety, that the Hazmat crew was unavailable due to a publicity event on the USC Health Sciences Campus. I am not exactly sure who was contacted next, but the response was big.  A building evacuation, two fire trucks, 10-15 firemen, several LAPD officers, and a Los Angeles county chemical spill response team later a news helicopter shows up. They were likely listening to the police radio and, once they arrived on the scene, started reporting the event on ABC news.

The chemical spill response team was no doubt baffled when they saw ~50 ml of clear liquid on the floor of our lab. This is the team called in when a chemical tanker flips over.

Eventually, the USC Hazmat team arrived and did the minor cleaning required from the beginning.

The image above is perhaps the best summation of how overblown the response was. It was used by ABC news to indicate a mass building evacuation.  The picture is actually of an on-campus engineering job fair that was happening a block away. Each white umbrella signifies a different visiting company.

Luckily, the media was distracted by a helium balloon, without which this overblown event may have been even further overblown.

Things I learned/re-learned from this event:

• Know what chemicals you are working with, how to clean them up and their toxicity.
• Find out who you need to call for both major and minor chemical spills.
• Don’t use dollar store plastic baskets for transporting chemicals (at least not long term).
• Don’t invite your Hazmat team to publicity events.

1) http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=7067340

2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1509475/

Also in place are new detection systems aimed to prevent another disaster like last year.  Readings will be taken in closer to real time to allow better overall monitoring of the various components of the system.

ScienceInsider claims beams will be in orbit sometime in November, followed by low energy collisions sometime in December.  They’ll ramp up the energy of the collisions slowly and probably won’t get to the cool collisions until January at the earliest. (/sarc)

We were given a list of a variety of web 2.0 platforms and suggested ways to use them in a classroom setting.  The workshop participants spanned a variety of departments across the university, so as I glance through the list, I can see how some platforms would lend themselves to use in certain departments, while others might make more sense for the physical sciences.

Here’s the list we were given, with links to information about the site.  Have any of you seen any of these technologies used in a classroom or seminar setting?  If so, how were they implemented?  Were they successful?  Would you have done it differently?

I think I could see myself using Jing as a resource to walk through out-of-class examples of more complex or complicated synthesis problems and mechanisms.  Jing is a screen-capture technology that allows you to upload video of your onscreen actions.  I could propose a synthesis problem, jump to my slides covering the needed concepts, and jump to ChemDraw to illustrate my thought process and the correct answer.

Times and technology are certainly changing before our eyes.  Are educators going to stick with the traditional lecture model, or are we going to move with the trends to bring content to students in new and exciting ways?  Or, if we do move with the trends, are we going to end up sacrificing quality to increase curb appeal?

Tools for Interactive Questioning

• Audience Response Clickers (more)
• Surveys/Discussion boards w/i the universities course management system (like Blackboard)
• Google Forms
• Harvard’s Berkman Center’s Live Question Tool

Strategic Recording

• Broadcasting classroom lectures for students taking the course online
• iMovie or Windows Movie Maker
• Jing
• CamStudio (open source screen capture)
• VoiceThread
• iTunes U
• Vimeo
• Ning (create your own social network) (more)
• Facebook

Collaborative Learning

• XMind Concept Mapping
• Google Docs/Google Sites
• PBWorks (formerly PB Wiki)
• Zoho Writer
• Wordpress/Blogger.com course blog
• Skype
• Elluminate/Adobe Connect/DimDim and other e-conferencing platforms