Do Polar Bears Get Lonely?

by New Scientist, Mick O'Hare (Editor)

Amazing and intriguing questions and answers from the team behind the international phenomenon Why Don’t Penguins’ Feet Freeze? The popular-science magazine behind the runaway international bestsellers Why Don’t Penguins’ Feet Freeze? and Does Anything Eat Wasps? takes on another irresistible batch of the strange, silly, and mind-boggling questions that plague curious minds the world Culled from New Scientist’s popular “The Last Word” column and edited by Mick O’Hare, the author of How to Fossilize Your Hamster , Do Polar Bears Get Lonely? is guaranteed to amuse and amaze as much as it informs. (And if a polar bear appears to be lonely, it probably means there wasn’t enough walrus for dinner.)

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, Popular Science, Reference, Humor, Trivia, Animals

240 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 2008

Reviews

[Caroline · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fun read, and wonderful just to pick at….

The New Scientist is a prestigious science magazine with a learned readership from around the world. The book contains a selection of eccentric, serious and funny questions that have been submitted to the magazine over the years, with about three responses to each question – these being responses from New Scientist readers working in different disciplines.

To give you a flavour of the book – herewith some of my favourite questions….

The mineral water in my local shop has a label telling me it is from a 3000-year-old source, yet there is still a ‘best before end’ date on it approximately two years in the future. If the water has been in its aquifer for 3000 years, why should it go off in a sealed bottle?

Why do cooked foods taste different after they have cooled from the way they tasted when they were hot?

Why are fizzy drinks such as lemonade, cola or champagne far more appealing than the same liquid once it has gone flat?

If I tap my nose with my finger I only register a single touch, yet the sensation from nerves in my nose has only a few centimetres to travel to my brain, whereas the one from my fingertip has to travel about a metre up my arm and shoulder. Is this an illusion arranged by my brain, or is the brain unable to distinguish between two events so close together in time? Can anybody explain?

Why are some people left-handed and others right-handed?

Why do mosquitoes bite one individual and not another?

Do fish get thirsty?

Do polar bears get lonely? I’m not being flippant, just attempting to find out why animals such as humans or penguins are gregarious, while others such as polar bears and eagles , live mostly solitary lives.

Hummmmm……Who cannot help but be intrigued by such wonderful puzzlings?

And herewith - very briefly and tersely - my favourite answers to these questions.

Re. minteral water.

The ingredients of the plastic of the bottle may eventually contaminate the water.

Re cooked foods v food that has cooled.


“Only a small amount of the taste of food is detected by the tongue…The majority of what we call ‘taste’ is more specifically described as ‘flavour’ and it comes from odour identified by nasal olfactory cells. That requires the flavour molecules to be wafted up from the mouth. This is more readily achieved when food is hot.”

Re fizzy drinks that have gone flat.


“Carbon dioxide forms carbonic acid in the drink, and it is this which gives the drinks their appealing ‘fizzy’ taste – not the bubbles….When the drink goes flat, most of the dissolved carbon dioxide has been released back into the atmosphere.”

Re. tapping nose with finger.


“You do register two touches…..The illusion arises because you have many more sensory receptors on your fingertips than on your nose, and they are more sensitive in different ways…..Your brain just chooses to disregard the sensory stimulation of the skin on your nose because it is a much less rich source of information.”

(C....Actually I must have very sensitive nose-skin, because I can feel both sensations) *___*

Re. why are some people left-handed and some people right-handed.


The simple answer is they have inherited genes for right-handedness….. The genes involved are a little strange, because while one makes people right-handed, the other only makes it random as to whether an individual is right or left-handed.
Why humans alone among animals are 90% right-handed is a separate question, with the answer going back 2 million years. This is when human brains became asymmetric and the neural equipment for the fast, precise movements for speech and finger dexterity became localised in the left hemisphere. Why it is the left hemisphere is unclear.

Re. why do mosquitoes only bite some people.


“Attractiveness to mozzies correlates with obesity, maleness, temperature and sweat.”

“While it is true we all produce a bouquet of natural chemicals some of which attract biting insects, a fortunate few give off an aroma that apparently masks these attractive chemicals and so prevents these people from being bitten because the mozzies can’t track them down.”

Re. Do fish get thirsty.


“Marine fish, which have a low salt concentration compared with that of seawater, will constantly leak water through their body wall… To replenish this lost water marine fish need to drink, so it would be easy to argue that they get thirsty. The surplus salt they ingest by drinking seawater is excreted by specialized cells located in the gills.

Freshwater fish, on the other hand, are unlikely to become thirsty. Because they live in a more dilute environment, they have the opposite problem: water flows inwards and dilutes their blood. The freshwater fish there need to excrete excess water, which they do in much the same way we do, via dilute urine.
So we can see that marine fish get thirsty and drink, while freshwater fish avoid drinking but pee a lot.”

Re. Do polar bears get lonely?

“Bears and eagles rarely associate with their own kind because individuals need to defend their own feeding territories in which food is often scarce. Polar bears live in an environment where the food resources are too limited to sustain a large community, so it makes sense for them to be the only predator in this particular niche. When food is plentiful both bears and eagles will gather together with a reasonable degree of amity.”

“In zoos, where security and food are not constraint, polar bears often seem happy to have the stimulus of company.”

This is the perfect antidote to all those silly questions and puzzles in Christmas crackers, and the general ennui of days of too much festive imbibing. Something to keep the family perky and interested over the holiday season. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

[8stitches 9lives · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oh how I love anything relating to New Scientist magazine. As a subscriber to the magazine I just had to see what this book was all about. It's an intriguing and fun, lighthearted read.

[Xanthi · Rating 2 out of 5]

I didn't enjoy this book as much as I was hoping to. Some of the questions were just plain inane. The 'vegetarian' one towards the start of the book was down right stupid and I am glad that someone with some sense piped up (someone from my city, I am pleased to note). Some of the questions are rehashing issues I have seen already tackled on Mythbusters. Some of the answers are just hocum (see the one that touts the paleo diet) and some go technical that they lose me half way along the line.
So, all in all, a patchy book.

[Alison · Rating 3 out of 5]

I didn't realise this was essentially letters from readers asking questions and a variety of responses from others (some experts, some not so much) so was a little bit disappointed in it. I had hoped for something a little more definitive and also something with a little more humour (which the cover and title suggests) but it's still an interesting read. I may have skimmed over a few questions I wasn't particularly interested in or with complicated answers I couldn't follow but there's probably something here that would interest most people.

[Christie · Rating 3 out of 5]

A collection of science related questions submitted to the NewScientist website. The chapters as correlated to the topics on the website http://www.newscientist.com/lastword, which are:
Food and Drink; Domestic Science; Our Bodies; Feeling OK?; Plants and Animals; Our Weather, Our Planet, Our Universe; Troublesome Transport; Best of the Rest.
There were some interesting questions that were selected to be included in this publication and a nice way to gain some knowledge on subjects you may never have given much thought or have always wondered about. Some of the answers can be a bit contradictory as there is almost always often more than one contribution for an answer to the question posed. Nonetheless, it is a starting point for stimulative thought on scientific questions and was an enjoyable read.

[Lance · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really enjoyed the range of topics covered in this book. Highlights included the genesis of eggs within eggs, detailed descriptions of chemical nucleation sites, the truth about how smarties get coated evenly, how striped toothpaste is made, whether one can fool forensics by getting a blood transfusion before committing a crime, aging an adult human, the Levy flights of insects and the mechanisms for airbag deployment. It was also good to see so many insightful responses from British readers. Thank you range of tropics Baby Adam!

[Didi · Rating 3 out of 5]

do i hear intellectual woman in stem???

maybeee!!! i kinda skipped around with this book and only read the questions/responses that interested me. personally i would've preferred shorter explanations with a little more humor. i think that would make it more enjoyable, but i still had a good time.

i learned insects cant get obese because of metamorphis. elephants do in fact sneeze. now this one was mind boggling...hamsters, cats, whales... don't sweat. something about a lack of sweat glands. also... blowing ur nose during a cold can entail a load of 6.5 ounces of mucus per hour. das cray cray.

perfect book for those who love giving out fun facts or seeming smart on the basis of extremely detailed, random bits of science.

[Jbussen · Rating 3 out of 5]

(Science-y) Not as fun as this type of books usually are for me. Not as humorous as I'd like. Just not that much fun. Some of the questions were like something out of a college course with like responses. Lots of science-y type Q&A. But it had enough of the, How do they make round chocolates like Whoppers that I can give this book at least a pass and a i'm happy I read it. Although I did skip a bunch of the questions I found uninteresting. Why does red wine lighten with age while the reverse is true of white? Answer? Science. Chemical process is explained. Meh. Not my bag. But if it is your have at it.

[Conrad · Rating 3 out of 5]

A collection of letters to New Scientist magazine along with readers' answers. Very entertaining and informative, I'm a sucker for this kind of pot pouri science book. Difficult to give it a star rating because it's a collection of questions and answers but three seems fair. I didn't realise when I picked it up in the second hand book shop that it was published in 2008, so many of the topics are now outdated. But it's still and entertaining read with an old fashioned feel of eccentricity with even the silliest questions given thoughtful and well reasoned answers. I enjoyed it.

[Ava Courtney Sylvester · Rating 3 out of 5]

Poop is not edible, friends.

When I read hat claim in this book, I had to stop reading. I had hoped for a trivia book that would take serious and silly questions and provide reasonably scientific responses. Here, though, answers come from sources with unknown credentials, which would be fine if an anonymous author insisted digesting one's own feces would be a source of nutrients in an emergency situation and wouldn't taste bad if one held one's nose.

Citation needed, to say the least. But I really don't want to know from whence it came.

[Alexander · Rating 3 out of 5]

A collection of questions posed by readers of new scientist that are then answered by a mix of experts and pseudo-intellectuals. It can be a bit insufferable at times but a lot of the questions are quite intriguing. Quite a bit of the science is outdated seeing as this book is from 2007 or thereabouts.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hugely entertaining and instructive, if nothing else a must for the downstairs loo

[Angela · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this book quite interesting, a good idea the system of answering and question.

[Tim · Rating 2 out of 5]

wouldn't rave about it partly okay but as the saying goes ask a silly question get a silly answer

[Michaela · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was interesting but some of the questions have too many answers some of which are very long and alot of the time give similar answers.

[Warren Gossett · Rating 5 out of 5]

11 years old, but still brings up interesting scientific questions and oddities.

[ポピ · Rating 2 out of 5]

The facts weren’t as fun as the previous book

[Dave · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating book full of mind boggling questions with surprisingly technical answers. I loved it!

[Vicki Hanley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting facts in bit size chunkd6

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

fascinating lucky dip of questions and answers on diverse topics of scientific interest
the third in what may be a never-ending franchise

[Ben Scofield · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good
Interesting
Entertaining

[Bill Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lots of interesting questions - and many even more interesting answers - recommended reading!

[cp · Rating 4 out of 5]

A feast of fun facts best nibbled over a period of time.

[Harrison Large ラージ • ハリソン · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was fine. Didn't hold my attention like Penguins did. About the same quality as Wasps. Bit of a shame really but glad I finally read it. You can probably skip this one.

[Krzysztof Mazur · Rating 3 out of 5]

Przyzwoity zbiór ciekawostek i naukowych wyjaśnień spraw, o których człowiek na codzień by nawet zapewne nie pomyślał. Czasem lekko przydługi, ale znośny sposób prezentacji zagadnień.

[Finn Urmston · Rating 2 out of 5]

Just exactly what you think it’s like really.
Slim read most of it only stopping at the questions I found interesting. There’s a lot of boring ones.

[Isabelle · Rating 2 out of 5]

I ended up mostly skim reading this book as though some of the questions were really interesting, other questions I found to be a bit obtuse and not very interesting.
A really interesting question was about why red wine becomes light as it ages whereas white wine becomes darker.

[Δx Δp ≥ ½ ħ · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jangan pernah mengaku diri sebagai orang pintar jika gak bisa jawab pertanyaan berikut,

1. Berapa waktu yang diperlukan seekor sapi untuk menghasilkan susu yang memenuhi ngarai Grand Canyon secara penuh?

2. kalo kita mencelupkan sesuatu ke gelas, maka akan keliatan kalo air di gelas akan naik. dg logika yang sama, jika kita mengangkat semua kapal yang ada di samudra, maka berapa penurunan air laut yang terjadi? apa bisa mencegah pengaruh global warming terhadap kenaikan sea level?

3. Berapa hamster yang diperlukan untuk bisa menghasilkan energi bagi listrik sebuah kota (katakanlah New York) jika hamster tsb disuruh berlari pada kandang-roda dan energi geraknya dikonversi menjadi energi listrik? berapa banyak rumput yang mesti tersedia?

4. mengapa ada bunga yang mekar di malam purnama namun sebagian malah mekar saat malam bulan baru?

5. Jika kita kelaparan dan disuruh memakan bagian tubuh (selain daging), mana yang paling bergizi? kuku? rambut? (maap) kotoran? upil? air kencing? ato yang lain?

6. Jika kita ingin menghentikan perputaran bumi, berapa tenaga yang kita perlukan untuk mengeremnya? Jika tenaga itu diubah menjadi tenaga dorong roket (percayalah, setiap ada roket yang lepas landas, roket itu juga "mengerem" perputaran bumi) berapa lama waktu yang diperlukan roket tersebut?

Pertanyaan2 "sepele" inilah yang diajukan dan dijawab secara unik dan lucu dalam buku ini. Kelihatannya pertanyaan2 itu terkesan iseng dan sepele... tapi tunggu dulu... cobalah ikuti jawabannya. Anda akan tercengang, betapa pertanyaan-pertanyaan itu malah membutuhkan penjelasan sains yang rumit.

Berbeda dengan bku sains lainnya, buku ini disusun berdasarkan artikel The Last Word-nya New Scientist, dimana orang bebas bertanya dan menjawab. Dan tentu saja, jawabannya diberikan oleh para pakar terbaik dari seluruh dunia. Bahkan kadang pertanyaan itu menimbulkan polemik karena hasil jawaban berbeda.

Well, dari sejak mengenal majalah NS, saia langsung menjadi "pengikut" setia kolom TLW, karena wawasan kita akan diuji dengan pertanyaan "iseng", namun di lain pihak akan bisa memuaskan rasa ingin tahu. Kolom TLW menjadi artikel paling menarik setelah kolom "Marshal Brain"-nya HowStuffWorks.com dimana berbagai pertanyaan "nyeleneh" dijawab dengan penjelasan sains yang mencengangkan :)

namun, dari 3 buku TLW yang sudah diterbitkan, menurut saia, buku ini yang "tidak terlalu memuaskan sepeti pendahulunya". apa karena terjemahan? :p34hr:

Jadi, siapa yang bodoh? rang yang mengajukan pertanyaan "iseng" itu, atau justru orang yang tidak bisa menjawab pertanyaan "ilmiah" ituh? :))

[Joe · Rating 2 out of 5]

One has to have an astoundingly inquisitive mind to be interested by all the subject-matter here, and the sorting into subjects is only moderately helpful - personally, I found myself interested by most of the physics-oriented questions and few of the biological ones; but while one could understand that the 'Our Bodies' section would be largely biology-based, it wasn't a perfect divide. Further, letters and emails sent into New Scientist are barely where one would expect to find exceptional writing, and, for the most part, this holds true. The format also lends itself to a superficial discussion of a good number of topics, and very little more than the surface is scratched.

Thus, while I feel I know more for having read Do Polar Bears Get Lonely?, if one asked me what specifically I felt I knew more about, I'd struggle to answer; nor do I feel as though it was a book I particularly enjoyed reading.

[Nicky · Rating 4 out of 5]

Something else from the Kindle store that caught my eye for use as a palate-cleanser/relaxing read before bed. I don't know what draws me so much about non-fiction lately, but this was perfect for my purposes. It's a collection of questions submitted to New Scientist, and the responses sent in by subscribers, on a whole range of random questions, like whether spiders get thirsty and whether elephants sneeze.

It's no good for finding out the answers to questions of your own, if you don't happen to share the questions asked by the readers of New Scientist; it's not like an encyclopedia in which information can be looked up. The questions are only loosely grouped together in sections. Still, very good for learning all sorts of random and interesting things.

(Yes, spiders get thirsty. Yes, elephants sneeze.)