CL flickr

Visit our You Shoot page.

Straight Dope

Saturday, August 22nd, 2009

I’ve noticed a lot of my neighbors have built elevated gardening beds in their yards using wood that’s marked as treated with arsenic. Will the arsenic get into the vegetables and fruits these people are growing? If so, is that a health concern?
— Ray Charlton, Corvallis, Oregon

Hard to say. Were these vegetables and fruits they were actually planning to eat?

Manufacturers treat wood with arsenic for the same reason you don’t want it in food — it kills things, in this case the bacteria, fungi, and insects that would otherwise nibble on the wood. Although several wood treatments contain arsenic, the compound of greatest concern is chromated copper arsenate, or CCA, a trifecta of dangerous chemicals that at one time (like 1990) was used on almost all the pressure-treated lumber in the United States. Although CCA is supposed to stay put, small amounts can leach out when the wood is exposed to the elements. CCA-treated garden borders aren’t the only thing leaking arsenic into the environment; the same can happen with treated-wood mulch or chips, decking, and traffic sound barriers.

Continue reading Straight Dope

(illustration by Slug Signorino)

Straight Dope

Saturday, August 1st, 2009

I’ve seen pictures of Pangaea, the giant land mass that eventually separated into the continents we know today. But why were the continents smushed together like that in the first place? What made the land higher on that one side of the earth? Were there other continents we can no longer account for? Is it related to the asteroid that may or may not have smashed into Earth and helped form the moon?
— Chris D., Cranston, R.I.

Careful, bud. Thinking outside the box is great, but we don’t want to cross the border into the completely insane. That’s a chronic risk with continental drift, talk of which was a sure way to clear out your end of the bar at scientific conferences until the 1950s and which still inspires wacky theories. Asteroids don’t figure in any of those I’ve heard about — but wait till you get a load of the expanding earth.

Continue reading the Straight Dope

(Illustration by Slug Signorino)

Straight Dope

Saturday, July 25th, 2009

Superman is able to use his super strength to squeeze coal into diamonds. Theoretically, if someone had unlimited strength in real life, would it be possible to do this?
— marcusbrute

You realize, Marcus, we’re talking about what (a) a fictional character of virtually unlimited powers (barring kryptonite-related issues) could, (b) if real, be (c) theoretically but (d) realistically expected to do. Even by the Straight Dope standards this takes us into a pretty abstruse realm. That’s probably why I got into a big argument on the subject with my assistant Una, who’s normally as tranquil as a September morn.

Admittedly, I started off behind the eight ball owing to my scandalously inadequate knowledge of artificial diamond making. I submitted that squeezing coal into diamonds was impossible. Somewhere I’d gotten the idea that fake diamonds were all made by a process known as chemical vapor deposition, and that CVD approximated how natural diamonds were made. CVD involved heat and pressure, but the main thing was you started out with a seed crystal you bathed in carbon-rich vapor and from this the diamond was basically grown. That was a far cry from the scenario in the comic books, where Superman grabbed a chunk of coal, squeezed, and voila, a diamond. For one thing, growing a diamond via CVD could take two or three days. Not to slight this achievement, but it wasn’t the kind of dramatic gesture that was going to thrill Lois Lane.

Continue reading Straight Dope

(Illustration by Slug Signorino)

Straight Dope

Saturday, July 18th, 2009

What’s the final word about Y2K? We were told this was a serious problem, and that huge dollars and man-hours were needed to head off trouble. Why didn’t the sky fall, as predicted? Were the dollars spent before January 1, 2000, well spent or not? The date change seemed seamless to a layman. Was this because we headed off most of the trouble before it happened, or because it wasn’t as serious as predicted?
— Paul Wheeler

One may inquire: Why am I answering this now? Because the question keeps coming in, and at some point you have to ask, if I don’t take it on, who will? So here’s the best answer you’re likely to get: 1) While the true extent of Y2K issues will never be known, what we do know suggests the problem was wildly exaggerated. In retrospect, it would have been smarter to focus resources on a few truly high-risk areas, wait till 1/1/2000 for everything else, and fix what broke. Looked at in that light, the money spent on remediation, estimated at between $100 billion and $600 billion, was mostly wasted. 2) That’s hindsight talking. To put things in perspective (I realize the argument cuts both ways) many now say the world as we know it is going to end due to global warming. You think the smart choice is to say “relax”?

Continue reading Straight Dope

(Illustration by Slug Signorino)

Straight Dope

Saturday, July 11th, 2009

There’s an old saw about God protecting drunks and fools. I’m particularly interested in the drunks part. Almost nightly, it seems, we hear on the news that a drunk driver killed one or more people in another car but the drunk survived, sometimes without injury. A family member suggested drunks are saved because they’ve passed out and are more relaxed, but I’m skeptical. Is it just the crashes where the drunk walks away after killing another that make the news?
— PLT, Indianapolis

If somebody’s going to walk away from a fatal car crash, you really want it not to be the inebriated loser who caused it. However, while all the facts aren’t in, there’s reason to think drunk drivers sometimes get a break they don’t deserve.

We’ll call what you’re describing the lucky-drunk hypothesis. Although it’s been floating around for a long time, scientists apparently first examined it seriously in a 1982 study of trauma victims treated at a Texas hospital (Ward et. al, American Journal of Surgery). Roughly a third of the 1,200 patients had been drinking.

Continue reading Straight Dope

(Illustration by Slug Signorino)

Straight Dope

Saturday, July 4th, 2009

I recently read a speech by Noam Chomsky in which he says that during the Vietnam War, “soldiers were fragging officers.” I, a man too young to have served in that conflict, have heard this before but thought it was just a rumor. Can you shed some light on this dark matter?
— Tom, Chicago

I can, but frankly not much — and in my opinion, that’s a story all by itself.

Fragging — assaulting a superior officer using a fragmentation grenade or other explosive — was surprisingly common during the Vietnam War. The most reliable figure is 730 suspected incidents from 1969 through 1971, much higher than in U.S. wars before or since. Oddly, there’s no official count of fragging deaths; one unofficial source says 86, another 45.

Continue reading Straight Dope

(Illustration by Slug Signorino)

Straight Dope

Saturday, June 27th, 2009

In his book Collapse, Jared Diamond claims, “When NASA wanted to find some place on Earth resembling the surface of the Moon, so that our astronauts preparing for the first moon landing could practice in an environment similar to what they would encounter, NASA picked a formerly green area of Iceland that is now utterly barren.” This struck me as wrong. Growing up, I heard the slag fields around Sudbury, Ontario, helped get the lunar astronauts accustomed to the moon’s desolation. I’ve heard similar things about islands in the Canadian arctic and deserts in the American southwest. I can’t see NASA hauling astronauts around the world just to look at places without trees. I wonder if the real explanation is that the astronauts had to take geology lessons. True?
— CAMERON BARR, EDMONTON

You nailed it, friend. Most astronaut field trips were about geology, not getting used to a bleak hell unfit for life. For that they could have stayed in Houston.

The astronauts trained at lots of sites in the U.S. and around the world, at least a couple of which humans had turned into wildernesses. According to Diamond, “Since human settlement began, most of [Iceland's] original trees and vegetation have been destroyed, and about half of the original soils have eroded into the ocean. As a result … large areas … that were green at the time that Vikings landed are now lifeless brown desert.” Similarly, much of the area around Sudbury, Ontario, was a moonscape in the 1960s due to nickel smelting.

Continue reading Straight Dope

(Illustration by Slug Signorino)

Straight Dope

Saturday, January 24th, 2009

In The Bad Girl’s Guide to the Open Road, Cameron Tuttle suggests the following technique for getting out of a DUI: If you get pulled over, immediately step out of the car with a bottle of your favorite liquor and chug a couple shots’ worth. The officer now has no way of proving you were drinking before you got out of the car. Interesting thought, but is this actually true? Perhaps the most the officer could do would be to cite you for public intoxication/open container in public?

— Hazle Weatherfield, via the Straight Dope Message Board

Yes, Hazle, that’s an interesting thought. But can you imagine this ridiculous gambit actually working here in reality land? I didn’t think so. Tuttle concedes as much, prefacing her advice with the comment that “if you’ve been drinking and have an open bottle of hard liquor in your car, you’re already in deep shit. So what do you really have to lose?”

Let’s back up a bit. Prior to Breathalyzer-type technology, which measures blood alcohol concentration, or BAC, drunk driving was a tough charge to make stick – prosecutors needed witnesses to testify about the defendant’s slurred speech, unstable gait, and so on. Things got only slightly easier after BAC testing devices became available in the 1930s. Although a high BAC was telling evidence, you still needed corroborating testimony about drunken behavior, plus you had to have an expert witness explain what BAC meant. Eventually states wised up and passed “per se” laws, which defined drunk driving quite simply: operating a vehicle with a certain minimum BAC. Today it’s .08 percent. Read more.

(Illustration by Slug Signorino)