How to convey amounts of snow to Canadians: use polar bears
The comments are New scientist a popular sideways look at the latest science and technology news. You can submit articles that you think readers might enjoy to Feedback by emailing feedback@newscientist.com
A herd of bears
As a result of using golden retrievers as a unit of ice mass, Feedback found that our inbox was filling up with other examples of unconventional and often unintuitive units of measurement.
Craig Downing, who identifies himself as “one of those readers who opens every issue from the back” and is therefore featured in this column, talks to us about the Rideau Canal that runs through his hometown of Ottawa, Canada. The canal freezes every winter, becoming the largest ice rink in the world in terms of surface area. However, the rink must be carefully cleared of snow to ensure a smooth surface.
Hence the statement by the canal managers, the National Capital Commission, that Craig received an email. “For every centimeter of snow, our teams remove 125,000 kg of snow from the ice rink. This is equivalent to 450 polar bears!”
Craig is baffled. “I usually think of the mass and volume of snowfall in terms of ‘shovel loads’ or ‘knee-deep driveways,’” he says. It doesn’t help that there are no polar bears in or near Ottawa, making his first-hand experience of the world’s largest land predator limited.
Based on the figures given, the average polar bear must weigh 277.8 kilograms, or 612 pounds. But there is one key factor we need to consider: the gender of the bears. Ever diligent in our fact-checking, Feedback went to the website of the charity Polar Bears International, where we learned that “adult males normally weigh between 350 and 600 kg (775 and 1,300 lb)” and “adult females typically weigh between 150 and 290 kg (330 and 650 lb),” with dramatic exceptions, such as when “researchers at Canada estimated that a male bear weighed 800 kg (1,700 lb). lb) ! »
Based on this, we can actually confirm that Rideau Canal workers are moving the equivalent of 450 polar bears, specifically larger females. The measure of their production in male polar bears is only 357 furry creatures, and they should be smaller.
This lack of specifications affects many unconventional units we see used. Steve Tees writes to complain: “I often hear about an ‘xxxx shed’ causing traffic jams on various motorways. Can anyone define the size of the shed involved?”
Taped
There are many sounds that lead to distraction. Nails on a chalkboard, of course, but also other people chewing loudly and other people brushing their teeth. Come to think of it, it’s mostly other people.
A much-hated sound is the high-pitched squeal produced when you remove tape from a surface. This noise is about 90% of the reason Feedback avoids DIY projects.
Perhaps understanding is the key to overcoming. So, on the pages of Physical examination Ewho published an experiment exploring the physics of tape peeling. According to journalist Karmela Padavic-Callaghan, the researchers used high-speed cameras and microphones to record a piece of tape being quickly peeled off a window. They observed “micro-cracks passing through the tape at supersonic speeds and ultimately creating a shock wave that we then hear as a high-pitched scream.”
Commenters are looking forward to the follow-up study where they will show how to remove the tape without making a sound.
Otherwise unaffected
Feedback is a connoisseur of retracted scientific articles. Whether they were removed because they contained an absurd AI-generated graphic, or because researchers manipulated images, or because the studies were simply implausible, we love learning about them.
A strong contender for our favorite 2026 retraction has emerged in Research and perspectives in pharmacology on February 13. He pulled from an article that was first published in 2022.
The study focused on ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that gained notoriety after being touted as a miracle cure for covid-19, among other things. The study suggests it could also be used to treat liver cancer, and Feedback would like to suggest that this claim was, in itself, cause for suspicion.
The retraction announcement – which we note was made “by agreement” between the authors and various other parties – is one of those that continues, long after you think they should be over.
It first notes that “the corresponding author was not personally involved in the submission process, did not sign the open access agreement, and did not review or approve the final version of the manuscript prior to submission.” Which sounds bad.
Then, we learn that the journal’s investigation “uncovered evidence of duplication of several images and figures from previously published articles.” Yeah, that looks really bad.
And finally: “The authors declare that the conclusions of the article are otherwise unaffected. » The comments had us staring halfway through, glassy-eyed, trying to understand how the conclusions could possibly be “otherwise unchanged” when the lead author did not approve the final version of the manuscript and some of the images are duplicated from other papers.
Our interpretation is that the conclusions are not affected because we do not take the article less seriously after the retraction than before.
Do you have a story to share?
You can send stories to Feedback by email at feedback@newscientist.com. Please include your home address. Comments from this week and past ones can be viewed on our website.
