Updates: Whatever Happened to Protecting Cells from Radiation?

Ozone Warming -- Antiradiation -- Quantum Novelty -- Babbage Computer

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Ozone Recovery, Warmer Antarctica
The Antarctic ozone hole that forms every spring has kept that continent's interior cold even as the rest of the world has warmed over the past few decades [see "A Push from Above"; SciAm, August 2002]. Thanks to the global ban on chlorofluorocarbons, stratospheric ozone levels there are slowly recovering. A repaired hole, however, could speed Antarctic ice melting and change weather patterns, according to a computer model by Judith Perlwitz of the University of Colorado at Boulder and her colleagues. With more ozone, the lower stratosphere would absorb more ultraviolet light and warm up by as much as nine degrees Celsius. That in turn would break down circulation patterns that trap cold air over Antarctica's interior, making the continent heat up. The changed patterns would also make Australia warmer and drier, and South America could get wetter. Such ozone details may need to be worked into global climate models, most of which have neither incorporated such effects nor included enough of the stratosphere. The journal Geophysical Research Letters published the study on April 26.

Protecting Cells From Radiation
Scientists remain on the lookout for novel drugs that combat radiation damage. One of the most promising is CBLB 502, made by Cleveland Biolabs in Buffalo, N.Y.  [see "Surviving Side Effects"; SciAm, October 2007]. In the April 11 Science, researchers report that the drug, also called Protectan, enabled 87 percent of mice to survive lethal doses of radiation, although it worked only if injected within an hour before exposure. (It showed some protective effects if injected after exposure to lower levels of radiation.) The compound, which could be given in the event of a nuclear explosion or meltdown, did not shield malignant cells, so it could protect healthy cells of cancer patients undergoing radiation treatment. The company now needs to test the agent in large numbers of people. —David Biello

Quantum Side Step
In 1879 Edwin Hall discovered that a magnet can deflect the flow of electrons, like wind pushing ships off course. In 1980 physicists observed the quantum version, in which the applied magnetic field pushes electrons in discrete steps; it is as if the ships were responding to separate gusts even though a steady wind was blowing [see "Electrons in Flatland"; SciAm, March 1996].


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Now Princeton University physicists have demonstrated the quantum Hall effect without any applied magnetic field. They created special conditions for electrons in a bismuth crystal such that when the electrons travel close to the speed of light, they effectively generate their own magnetic field that deflects them. Such unusual materials not only elucidate the fundamental nature of the quantum Hall effect—it is deeply connected to superconductivity—but also could lead to novel electronic technology. The work appears in the April 24 Nature.

Difference Engine No. 2—No. 2
Nineteenth-century British mathematician and engineer Charles Babbage has a host of inventions to his name, including the standard railroad gauge, the cowcatcher and the ophthalmoscope. A famous design he never built is his Difference Engine No. 2, a piece of Victorian technology meant to tussle with logarithms and trigonometry. Working from Babbage’s 1849 plans, Doron D. Swade, a curator at London’s Science Museum, constructed the first working version of it in 1991 [see “Redeeming Charles Babbage’s Mechanical Computer”; SciAm, February 1993], which is on display at the museum. Now Swade has constructed a second engine, unveiled on May 10 for a one-year exhibition at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, Calif. It consists of 8,000 bronze, cast-iron and steel parts, weighs five tons and measures 11 feet (3.4 meters) long and seven feet (2.1 meters) high. —Larry Greenemeier

Note: This story was originally printed with the title: "Updates: Whatever Happened To...?".

Buy This Issue

Philip Yam is the managing editor of ScientificAmerican.com, responsible for the overall news content online. He began working at the magazine in 1989, first as a copyeditor and then as a features editor specializing in physics. He is the author of The Pathological Protein: Mad Cow, Chronic Wasting and Other Prion Diseases.

More by Philip Yam
Scientific American Magazine Vol 299 Issue 1This article was published with the title “Updates: Whatever Happened to Protecting Cells from Radiation?” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 299 No. 1 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican072008-4S62kf2PAkyhF8dHa65k7G

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe