But wait there's more

Planets. What are they? How many are there? What are they plotting? These questions have plagued mankind for millennia. OK maybe not the last one, but still the quest to understand the mysteries of space and the movements of the planets has been a driving force behind scientific endeavour for thousands of years.

Solar system, music by Queensland Symphony Orchestra

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkHMOW4mfgY

The first descriptions of the inner planets (Mercury and Venus) and the closest outer planets (Mars, Jupiter, Saturn) were made by ancient Babylonian astronomers around 4000 years ago. Uranus would not be discovered for another ~3800 years, in April of 1781. Neptune would follow relatively soon after in September, 1846. Finally Pluto would join the ranks of the planets following its discovery in January, 1930.

Diagram of the solar system.
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/ice-dwarf/en/

The first explanations for the movements of the sun, moon, stars and planets throughout the night sky were developed approximately 2600 years ago with the creation of the geocentric model. There were many variations of this model throughout the ages but they all feature the Earth as the center of a revolving universe. These models were based on the observable fact that the sun, moon and stars all appear to circle the earth. An opposing theory was put forth approximately 300 years later which placed the sun at the center of the universe with all the planets, Earth included, revolving around it. This heliocentric model was disregarded, and often violently opposed by supporters of the geocentric model (particularly the Catholic Church and other religious bodies who believed, for obvious reasons, that the Earth and humanity were the center of creation) for hundreds of years. It wasn't until the reintroduction of this model in the 16th century by Nicolas Copernicus that it began to spread and overtake the old geocentric model. Eventually it was accepted that the planets, including Earth, did in fact orbit around the sun while various moons orbited their respective planets. The principle idea of the sun as the center of the universe was more easily discarded as advances in technology aided in the shift in scientific thought. Now we know that the sun is simply one star among the estimated 100-300 BILLION stars in our galaxy, the Milky Way. In turn our galaxy is only one among an estimated 225 BILLION galaxies in the observable universe. 

Monty Python's Galaxy Song from The Meaning of Life. Performed by Eric Idle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk

However, today we are going to scale back and focus solely on the planets, dwarf planets, moons, asteroids, and various other satellites of our solar system. Our story opens on Pluto. Once the proud 9th and final planet in our solar system it has since fallen on hard times.

Sad Pluto the dog from Disney
http://www.disneyclips.com/imagesnewb/pluto3.html

76 years after its discovery Pluto was officially demoted from planet to dwarf planet on September 13, 2006. While Pluto is hardly the first stellar body to be reduced in status (Solar Bodies Previously Considered Planets) it is the most controversial (because it is the most recent). While many people were unhappy with Pluto's demotion (mainly due to sentimental reasons) the International Astronomical Union (IAU) officially finalized the criteria for planethood in a resolution ratified near the end of 2006. The resolution criteria read as follows:

'The IAU...resolves that planets and other bodies, except satellites, in the Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

(1) A planet is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite

(3) All other objects, except satellites, orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies."'

The resolution continues by stating that according to the above definition Pluto is a "dwarf planet" and is placed into the new category, Trans-Neptunian Objects. Additionally planets and dwarf planets are two separate classes of objects despite the similarity in names, and so dwarf planets are not simply smaller planets.

Credit: by Karl Tate, SPACE.com contributor
http://www.space.com/18584-dwarf-planets-solar-system-infographic.html

This classification and ordering of the objects in our solar system is relevant because of a recent publication by Konstantin Batygin and Dr. Michael Brown. Dr. Brown was one of the leaders of the Pluto demotion movement in 2006. Now in the first 2016 issue of The Astronomical Journal, Batygin and he describe a new addition to the list of planets, the mysteriously titled Planet 9. While there is no direct evidence of this planet its existence can be inferred from the motion of several smaller objects in the Kuiper Belt. The Kuiper Belt is a ring of dwarf planets and small solar system bodies that orbit the sun at the outer edges of the solar system (similar to the Asteroid Belt between Mars and Jupiter). Specifically the researchers noted that a KBO (Kuiper Belt Object) named Sedna exhibited strange orbital characteristics. Aside from the extreme range (it takes 11,400 years to complete an orbit, 69 times longer than Neptune's ~165 years) it is one of several KBOs which share an almost identical perihelion (the point of orbit closest to the sun), both in angle and distance. Batygin & Brown calculated that the likelihood of these objects sharing the same angle and distance in their perihelion was approximately 0.007%. In light of this they determined that the most plausible explanation for this oddity was that Sedna and its contemporaries were being influenced by a large unseen object. This unknown planet has a mass ~10 times that of Earth and orbits the Sun approximately once every 20,000 years. Batygin and Brown have crowdsourced their observation team, hoping that some observatory in the world will be able to provide the visual confirmation of their, as yet, theoretical planet.

Credit: By Karl Tate, infographics artist
http://www.space.com/31671-planet-nine-discovery-explained-infographic.html

So while Pluto is out of luck with regards to planethood we may soon have a new 9th planet to take its place. Its just unfortunate that Pluto was demoted because how cool would it have been to name this new discovery Planet X! Anyway as always thanks for stopping by and be sure to come back soon!

Various Sci-Fi novels and films involving Planet X
(Clockwise from left): http://bookreviewbuzz.com/science-fiction-clouds-over-planet-x/
http://ufodigest.com/article/man-planet-x-science-fiction-movie-1951-review-links-and-comparison-real-planet-x
http://www.demonoid.pw/files/details/2478312/?load_bal=002014149902&show_files=1&page=2
http://www.sffaudio.com/review-of-brad-lansky-and-the-alien-at-planet-x/

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto#IAU_classification

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Nine

http://time.com/4184942/planet-9-new-pluto-solar-system/

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/22/pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_discovery_of_Solar_System_planets_and_their_moons

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-resources/how-many-galaxies/

http://www.universetoday.com/36610/how-many-galaxies-have-we-discovered/

Eye can see clearly now

As someone with absolutely terrible vision I can tell you glasses and contacts suck. Contacts are a pain to deal with, and can have disastrous consequences if you forget them.

*Warning Disturbing* Girl gets eyes eaten by parasite after leaving contact lenses in too long

Glasses aren't any better. They are expensive as hell, fragile, and irritating whenever you want to do anything active. Not to mention how annoying this is:

(Left): Fogged up glasses; (Right): Glasses in the rain
(Left): http://says.com/my/lifestyle/how-to-choose-cosmetic-contact-lenses-that-won-t-get-you-awkward-stares
(Right): http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=31571.0

For a long, long time there were no other options when it came to correcting vision. Even contact lenses are relatively new, especially compared with how long glasses existed as the sole option. Then came the advent of corrective eye surgery either using a microkeratome or lasers. How sci-fi is that by the way? Even though its commonplace it's still really cool that doctors can correct your vision by shooting lasers into your eyes. Also referred to as LASIK, laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis, this process involves reshaping the cornea to improve visual acuity.

http://www.123rf.com/photo_13819012_anatomy-of-the-eye.html

While this procedure has been shown to correct vision with a 92-98% success rate (based upon surveys of LASIK patients during March, 2008) there are a number of associated risks. Such risks and complications can include: dry eyes (usually temporary but can lead to dry eye syndrome if untreated), corneal scarring (1.44% incidence rate), retinal detachment (0.36% incidence rate), and vision loss due to infection (0.0001% incidence rate). As well around 5% of patients report vision regression later in life, most often becoming nearsighted which is standard for everyone once they reach about 40-45 years of age. So overall LASIK and other eye surgery techniques are still incredibly beneficial, although success is defined as correction to at least 20/40 vision (the minimum required to obtain a driver's license in the USA) and relatively risk free. Now however, there is a new technique which could consign LASIK and all previous vision correctives to the history books. That's right I'm talking about robot eyes.

Bender (Futurama) gasp!
http://memegenerator.net/instance/64773131

Finally the day we have all been dreaming of since we first saw Predator and the Terminator is upon us! We will soon be able to upgrade from puny, pathetic human vision to the far superior ROBOVISION!

Terminator vision:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvRb9jZ9wFk

OK so I might have exaggerated a bit. The new procedure won't actually give you heat vision (yet). In fact it won't even give you 20/20 vision. No, it will give you 3x better than 20/20 vision! Developed by an optometrist from British Columbia, Dr. Garth Webb, the Ocumetics Bionic Lens surgically replaces the lens in your eye in a procedure taking approximately 8 minutes according to Dr. Webb. On top of the instant, and permanent eyesight correction, the new lens removes the risk of regression and prevents the development of cataracts. As of May, 2015 Dr. Webb and his team were waiting to begin animal trials, and hopefully following success there human trials. Optimistically the new lenses will be available in Canada within the next 2 years. Until that time however all we can do is wait, and hopefully see.


Sources: 
http://www.higherperspectives.com/superhuman-vision-1568738067.html?utm_source=cleo&utm_content=inf_10_34_2&tse_id=INF_2b54ac431b624851b5668fd39e897a41
http://www.medicaldaily.com/bionic-lenses-will-improve-eyesight-3-times-better-2020-vision-seeing-perfect-without-334824
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LASIK
http://www.nature.com/eye/journal/v21/n1/full/6702180a.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6305599
http://www.allaboutvision.com/visionsurgery/outcomes.htm
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/girl-left-her-contacts-6-months-and-amoebas-ate-her-eyeballs

VeLIESiraptors!

Hey everybody, so last time I mentioned the original opinion that Jurassic Park is great. No one else has said that before right? Anyway today I want to talk about how Jurassic Park is a GIANT PACK OF LIES! So when Jurassic World was announced last year, or 2014 or whenever it was, there was a great deal of speculation, at least by me presumably by others as well about the look of the dinosaurs. It is common knowledge now that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs. Thomas Henry Huxley, a famous British biologist, proposed the idea shortly after the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859. However this hypothesis, based upon comparisons of Compsognathus and Archaeopteryx lithographica fossils, and similar claims were mostly disregarded for the next hundred years.

Left: Compsognathus, Right: Archaeopteryx lithographica

The discovery of Deinonychus antirrhopus in the 1960s reignited the debate due to the striking similarities with avian morphology. By the time Jurassic Park was released in the early 1990s most paleontologists accepted the theory, classifying all extinct species as "non-avian dinosaurs".

List of Non-Avian Dinosaur Species with evidence of feathers.
Velociraptor mongoliensis highlighted

This claim was still contested by some scientists who decried a lack of feathered dinosaurs in the fossil record. Discoveries of new fossils and reexaminations of previous finds have filled that void since then. At present over 40 species of "non-avian dinosaurs" have been found to show evidence of feathers. In fact many species have now had the color of their feathers described by researchers. Studies performed on Anchiornis huxleyi, a heavily feathered species dated from 161-151 mya, revealed that the molecular composition of the feathers was similar to eumelanin, a pigment found in cuttlefish. A similar study, performed on the fossils of extinct bats, showed that color could be determined by examining the shape of the melanosomes, cellular compartments that produce and store pigment. According to Jakob Vinther, the senior author of the study, meatball shaped melanosomes denote reddish pigments while sausage shaped pockets contain black pigments.

Great video showing some of the color changing abilities of the cuttlefish.
Cuttlefish manipulates melanin pockets in its body to change colors and camouflage.

Ok back to Jurassic Park. When you think of dinosaurs which one comes to mind first? Probably the Tyrannosaurus rex which is fair it's probably the most popular dinosaur in the world. But not far behind on that list is the Velociraptor. The terrifyingly intelligent and deadly raptors have been depicted as fast, scaly, killing machines in every iteration of the franchise. I mean just look at them:

Chris Pratt vs. the raptor pack, Jurassic World.

Who wouldn't crap their pants if they saw a pack of these things headed towards them, or tuned to see a head poking out of the trees? 

"Clever Girl" clip from Jurassic Park.

There's only one problem, THAT is not a Velociraptor! THIS is a Velociraptor:

Velociraptor mongoliensis compared with other Dromaeosaur species.

Oh sorry, let me make that a little clearer:

Velociraptor compared with other Dromaeosaur species.

Yeah that one. Lets quickly cover the differences between the movie version and the reality. Firstly

Velociraptor mongoliensis size comparison to a human.

it's covered in feathers, as evidenced in the fossil record. Secondly and more importantly, it's tiny (relatively) approximately 2.07m (6.8ft) long and 0.5m (1.6ft) tall. On top of this there is no record of Velociraptors hunting in packs, and their intelligence has been highly overstated by the films. True their brain size compared to their body was large for a dinosaur, but that is misleading. A different species, Troodon formosus, generally believed to be the smartest dinosaur based upon brain to body size ratio is still considered to have been less intelligent than most modern birds and mammals.

But why is the film version so massively different to actual Velociraptors? Simple, it was never meant to be a Velociraptor. In the 1990 novel by Michael Crichton and the following film adaptation the role of the Velociraptor was based upon a completely different dinosaur, Deinonychus antirrhopus. Crichton discussed Deinonychus at length with its discoverer, John Ostrom, and reportedly told him that he was going to use them in his novel, but that he was going to call them Velociraptors because "Its more dramatic".

Left: Deinonychus antirrhopus size comparison to a human. Right: Artist recreation D. antirrhopus

So there you have it. Jurassic Park is a pack of lies. I'd just like to leave you with this message: I love Jurassic Park. I think its a fun film. and Jeff Goldblum is fantastic. I like Jurassic World as well. Even the absolutely ridiculous T. rex and Velociraptor team up at the end was great, and the Mosasaurus looked incredible. Thanks for hanging around. See you guys next time!

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur

http://flyingdinosaurs.net/a-z-of-feathered-dinosaurs/
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/43881/title/Color-Clues-in-Dino-Fossils/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor
http://dinopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Velociraptor
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/07/everything-i-thought-i-knew-about-velociraptors-was-a-lie/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinonychus
http://news.yale.edu/2015/06/18/yale-s-legacy-jurassic-world
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dinosaurs/iq.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troodon
http://www.oldearth.org/curriculum/dinosaur/dinosaur_compsognathus.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compsognathus
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Archaeopteryx_lithographica_%28Berlin_specimen%29.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic_Park_(film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic_World
http://screenrant.com/jurassic-world-trailers-velociraptors-chris-pratt/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKRnEOUxZm0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDwOi7HpHtQ

Something Old

Jurassic Park. What a great film right? Dinosaurs are so cool, but they're not the only awesome prehistoric creatures. Today I want to introduce/re-introduce you guys to five ancient non-dinosaur marine creatures that I think are pretty cool.

1. 

Machimosaurus rex

This enormous reptile belongs to the superorder Crocodylomorpha, part of the Linnaean classification system scientists use to determine the relatedness of species, which contains all species of crocodilians both living and extinct. Federico Fanti and his colleagues, who discovered the huge fossil in the Tunisian desert, have estimated the total length of the 130 million year old creature at approximately 9.6 meters, or 31 feet long. For reference the largest modern crocodile can be found at the Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary in Orissa State, India, and measures in just over 7m (23ft). Assuming this figure holds true (scientists are currently awaiting the discovery of a more complete fossil specimen) it would crown this newly discovered species as the largest saltwater crocodile of all time. However, while gigantic in its own right M. rex didn't even come close to the largest crocodile of all time, Sarcosuchus imperator (also known as Supercroc), which is estimated to have reached lengths of 12m (>39ft).

Sarcosuchus imperator skull next to modern crocodile skull

  

Fanti described M. rex as having "...stocky, relatively short and rounded teeth." and "...a massive skull capable of a remarkable bite force." This leads paleontologists to believe that the crocodile consumed a wide variety of prey items including prehistoric sea turtles.

2.

Archelon ischyros

Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)

Archelon is an extinct genus of gigantic marine turtles that lived during the Cretaceous period, approximately 70 mya. These turtles are the largest to have ever lived with the biggest fossil measuring in at 4.87m (16ft) from beak to tail, and 3.96m (13ft) from flipper to flipper. In comparison the largest living sea turtle, the leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) comes in at 2m (6.5ft) from beak to tail and weigh 900kg (2000lbs). Estimates based upon the body composition of leatherbacks, as the most physically similar living species, suggest that A. ischyros would top the scales at over 2721.55kg (3 tons). While modern turtles are omnivorous, with a varied diet from algae to invertebrates and small fish, A. ischyros's large size meant it would most likely not have been able to chase down actively swimming prey. Paleontologists believe that it probably used its broad crushing beak and powerful bite to break through the shells of the large crustaceans and molluscs of its time.

3.

Dunkleosteus terrelli

D. terrelli skull

D. terrelli was essentially what you would get if you mated a tuna with a tank. The largest of the Dunkleosteus genus, these armoured fish lived during the late Devonian period approximately 380-360 mya. Measuring up to 10m (33ft) long, weighing in at 3628.74kg (4 tons) and with a head covered in bony plates up to 5cm (2in) thick D. terrelli was a figurative swimming tank. D. terrelli didn't have teeth, but instead possessed a beak composed of two bony plates which they used to crush their prey. They did this thanks to an ability to open their mouths in 1/15th of a second creating a vacuum to suck prey into their open beak which they could close with an estimate bite force of 8000 psi (pounds per square inch). In comparison the greatest current measured bite force belongs to the saltwater crocodile at 7700 psi, however incidents involving captive killer whales suggest that they may possess a bite force in excess of 19000 psi. 

4.

Kronosaurus queenslandicus

Named for Kronos, the leader of the Titans in Greek mythology, K. queenslandicus is a member of the Kronosaurus genus of pliosaurs, an extinct group of marine reptiles that lived during the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods (~200-66 mya). Reaching lengths of 10m (33ft) with teeth that grew up to 30cm (11.8in) K. queenslandicus was a powerful predator which fed upon ancient marine turtles and plesiosaurs. Utilizing the Pilosaurids unique swimming style, similar to that of modern turtles and sea lions but using both fore and hind limbs for locomotion, K. queenslandicus would have been capable of maintaining high speeds for long periods making it difficult for prey to avoid. 

5.

Livyatan melvillei

L. melvillei skull w/teeth cast

The final entry on this short list is the aptly named Livyatan melvillei a prehistoric leviathan which fed on smaller whales between 12-13 mya. As the only fossil remnants of L. melvillei to be discovered are a skull and some teeth, total size estimates range from 13.5m (44ft) to 17.5m (57ft) long. In comparison the largest modern sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) can reach 20.5m (67ft) although on average the males grow to 16m (52ft). If these estimates are accurate then L. melvillei would be equivalent in size to another ancient sea monster, Carcharodon megalodon. In fact these massive predators shared the oceans for a (relatively) short time with C. megalodon living from 15.9-2.6 mya. Little is known about the hunting strategies of L. melvillei but scientists theorize that it fed on baleen whales which it may have attacked from below similar to C. megalodon and modern Great Whites (Carcharodon carcharias). Alternatively it may have simply used its powerful jaws to catch and crush the smaller whales ribs. The skull shape with its similarities to sperm whales suggests that L. melvillei may have utilized echolocation to hunt.


So those are five non-dinosaur ancient marine creatures that I think are seriously cool. If you enjoyed this post maybe name some prehistoric creatures you think are awesome in the comments (yeah dinosaurs are allowed). Thanks for stopping by!

Sources:
Machimosaurus rex:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/160111-ancient-crocodile-marine-largest-paleontology/
http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/species/s/sarcosuchus.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195667115301178
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcosuchus
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/largest-crocodilian

Archelon ischyros:
http://www.britannica.com/animal/Archelon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archelon
http://peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/archelon
https://www.uhaul.com/supergraphics/states/south_dakota/turtle/archelon.html
http://www.arkive.org/leatherback-turtle/dermochelys-coriacea/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leatherback_sea_turtle
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/leatherback.htm

Dunkleosteus terrelli:
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-terrifying-prehistoric-sea-monsters.php
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkleosteus
http://www.dkfindout.com/uk/dinosaurs-and-prehistoric-life/prehistoric-fish/ancient-armoured-fish/
http://www.enkivillage.com/what-animal-has-the-strongest-bite.html
http://list25.com/25-most-powerful-bites-in-the-animal-kingdom/

Kronosaurus queenslandicus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronosaurus
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11552174/Farmer-in-Australia-finds-perfect-fossil-of-ancient-sea-predator.html

http://australianmuseum.net.au/kronosaurus-queenslandicus 

Livyatan melvillei:
http://www.livescience.com/6649-gigantic-prehistoric-whale-hunted-whales.html
http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/species/l/livyatan.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livyatan_melvillei
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_whale
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalodon

First we were like Whoa! Then you were like Oh! Then we were like Yo.

Sea Turtles. Who doesn't love them? Nobody. Sea turtles are awesome, and not just because of their super chill, laid back, surfer attitudes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpV7NIJTxD0

Sea turtles are just as awesome in real life. They've existed since the time of the dinosaurs (oldest sea turtle fossils date back ~150 million years), they can travel thousands of miles across oceans (Leatherback sea turtles travel 10,000 miles each year crossing the Pacific Ocean) and yet return each year to the same beach where they were hatched, they are some of the deepest diving animals on earth (Leatherback sea turtles: max. dive depth 1186m). On top of all that they are absolutely adorable:

http://giphy.com/gifs/funny-animated-vzOhKYvn96uhG

Unfortunately sea turtles are facing a lot of issues today. There are seven species of sea turtle in the world's oceans today. Of those seven, 3 are listed as Vulnerable, 1 as Endangered, and 2 are Critically Endangered by the IUCN Red List. They face threats from by-catch, poaching, nest site disruptions, reduction of nesting sites by human expansion, entanglement in ghost fishing gear, and pollution. However, today I want to touch on an aspect of sea turtle conservation that is simple, easy and could actually save you money, and that is light pollution. 

The two most vulnerable periods in a sea turtle's life history occur on land, hatching and nesting. Female turtles exert massive amounts of energy hauling themselves up onto the beach and then digging a nest in which to lay their eggs. During this haul out period if the female turtle is "spooked" or "put-off" by some characteristic of the beach (perhaps it is too steep, or the sand is too wet which could endanger a nest laid there) she will often return to the ocean without nesting, and look for a new site further along the beach. This results in the creation of a false crawl; these are tracks left by the female hauling herself onto the beach but returning to the water without nesting. Due to the strenuous nature of the nesting process it is preferable for the females to nest in as few attempts as possible. Studies and observational evidence have shown that artificial lighting on nesting beaches deters nesting. Satellite imaging has also shown that sea turtles tend to avoid artificially lighted beaches, and are therefore being shunted into smaller nesting areas with the expansion of human settlements. Repeated false crawls can have major consequences for both nesting turtles and their offspring. As the females become more exhausted with each haul-out attempt they may become more compromising in their choice of an appropriate nest site. This can lead to nests being placed either too close to the surf or the vegetation which can result in the nest being destroyed by flooding, or strangulation by roots. In addition performing more haul-outs reduces the female's energy reserves so nesting will take longer; combined with the added time of performing multiple false crawls the female turtle may still be on the beach when the sun comes up. This can result in increased risk from daytime predators or in some locations human disturbance or poaching.

In addition to the interference in nesting, artificial lights are even more dangerous to hatchling turtles. Female turtles abandon their nests once the eggs are covered leaving hatchlings to dig themselves out and navigate to open water on their own. This is a dangerous and difficult process in and of itself, requiring the hatchlings to work together to climb out of the nest and rely on the protection of numbers to survive the gauntlet of natural predators en route to the sea. It is estimated that only 1 in 1,000 hatchlings will survive to adulthood, and a large percentage of that mortality occurs during the initial run to the ocean. Complicating this ordeal is the increase in artificial lighting on and around nesting beaches. Most sea turtles hatch at night and use the reflection of the moon and stars off the ocean's surface to navigate, along with the general slope of the beach. Artificial lighting disorientates and distracts hatchling turtles causing them to head inland resulting in death by dehydration, and predation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHzp6NFnp3c

So artificial lights are incredibly harmful to sea turtles, but why should we care? We use artificial lights to see at night. Why should we turn them off just for some stupid turtles? Well firstly because we have a moral obligation to our fellow species not to endanger and harm them whenever it is avoidable. Secondly sea turtles are incredibly important both ecologically, and economically. They fill a crucial ecological niche in the habitats they are found in, and are especially important during periods of eutrophication (an over abundance of nutrients in the water resulting in a boom in primary productivity) as they are chief consumers of algae. Economically they are doubly beneficial. Firstly they attract snorkellers and divers with their elegance and secondly they are a major predator for jellyfish which can deter swimmers. Given the increase in jellyfish population, maintaining and protecting sea turtle populations should be a priority.

http://theuglyorange.com/tag/pacific-sea-turtle/

So how can we fix this issue of artificial lighting. Well there are actually a few very simple methods to reduce light pollution:

• Turn off lights visible on nesting beaches or use special fixtures to shield the lights from the beach;
• Use low-pressure sodium-vapor lighting (LPS) instead of normal lights;
• Use Turtle Safe Lighting - these red lights emit a very narrow portion of the visible light spectrum, which is less intrusive to nesting sea turtles and hatchlings;
• If disoriented hatchlings are found away from the sea, call local law enforcement;
• Tint windows that face the beach;
• Close opaque curtains or blinds after dark to cover windows visible from the beach.

     *http://www.conserveturtles.org/seaturtleinformation.php?page=lighting

On top of being beneficial for turtles these solutions are actually financially beneficial in the long term. Its a win-win!

For more information on threats to sea turtles, the impact of artificial lights, and questions about what we can do to reduce light pollution please check out the following sources. Thanks for reading and remember if you're in a turtle nesting area, turn out your lights. 

https://faborplumbsfuntasticfinds.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/

Turtle Information:

http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/threats/artificial-lighting/

http://www.conserveturtles.org/

http://www.defenders.org/sea-turtles/basic-facts

Sources:

http://myfwc.com/media/263029/technical_report_english.pdf

http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/threats/artificial-lighting/

http://www.conserveturtles.org/seaturtleinformation.php?page=lighting

http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/light-pollution-could-prevent-sea-turtles-nesting-properly.html

IUCN Redlist 2016

http://www.seeturtles.org/baby-turtles/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_turtle#Life_cycle

http://www.conserveturtles.org/seaturtleinformation.php?page=overview

http://www.seeturtles.org/sea-turtle-migration

http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/Lopez-MendilaharsuM_2009_JMBA2.pdfhttp://www.defenders.org/sea-turtles/basic-facts

End of Duncan's Story

First off I just want to apologize for the lack of posting over the last couple weeks. Things got a little hectic around the holidays, but things are back to semi-normal now.

Second I have decided to wrap up the story about my experience becoming a marine biologist. Mainly because I don't feel it is as interesting as I thought it would be when I started, and also because there are other, more interesting/current events that I wan't to talk about instead. So to conclude our story as briefly as possible:

I attended the University of Plymouth in the UK after I was accepted into the Marine Science MSc program. I learned when I arrived that they had a MRes program dealing specifically with Marine Biology so I switched into that (at the last second). I met a lot of great people in that program, and I enjoyed it for the most part. After a semester of courses we chose our dissertations projects. My research looked at the development of diving behaviour in grey seal pups under the supervision of Dr. Kimberley Bennett and Dr. Mark Briffa. The project required sitting at a desk and watching and classifying hundreds of hours of video footage of seals held in captivity at the Sea Mammal Research Unit at the University of St. Andrews. Two bright spots during this trial of grainy video were the postgraduate conference in Belfast and my trip to St. Andrews. I was lucky enough to be accepted to present my project at the 12th Annual Marine Biological Association postgraduate conference at Queens University Belfast. I was invited to give a talk on my subject (because it was relating to seals which people thought would be interesting, I hope they weren't too disappointed) which was fun (although I didn't think so at the time). The conference was a great experience and I enjoyed meeting and listening to all the attendees and invited speakers. Earlier in the year I had visited the Sea Mammal Research Unit in St. Andrews to talk to them about the methods they used to collect the data I was working with. While there I was also able to assist on one of their research projects, which meant working with the seals, which was a lot of fun. Following these excursions I returned to Plymouth and locked myself away in my computer lab until the end of September when I handed in my thesis. After that I was forced (for monetary reasons) to return the the United States, and I completed my viva successfully on November 5th. I was informed later that I had earned my Master's by Research with Merit in Marine Biology. Currently I am living in New York looking for jobs in marine biology. My interests are in marine mammals and reptiles and focus mainly on conservation, fisheries interaction/by-catch, sound and light pollution, habitat monitoring, and behavioural research.

Thank you for sticking with me through that long winded, sometimes rambling explanation of how I ended up here. Please check back again as we will now move on to more interesting topics. Also please check out my friend's podcast premièring tomorrow January 7th. Its called The Imposter check out the link below for a sneak preview:

https://soundcloud.com/amir-fogel/the-imposter-episode-i-promo

It is said to contain interesting sciency type stuff so give it a look. I may be appearing in an episode or two (still working out the details) so look out for that as well. Thanks again bye everybody.