<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Blogcritics Author: Mental_Floss</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/</link>
<description>A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously.</description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2007 06:30:34 EDT</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
<generator>Blogcritics.org custom software</generator>

<item>
<title>Announcement: Short-content feeds</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/</link>
<author>Phillip Winn</author><description>Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we&#039;re sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable.

Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren&#039;t favorable to duplicate content, and don&#039;t always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds.

We hope that you&#039;ll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it&#039;s only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.</description>
<category>Administration</category><guid isPermaLink="false">0@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Are Stomach Ulcers Caused by Stress and Spicy Foods?</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/06/29/063034.php</link>
<author>Mental_Floss</author><description>The human stomach is lined with a protective coating of mucous. The acids that digest our food are very strong, and without this protective lining, they would erode the walls of the stomach. Mucous production is dependent on blood flow to the stomach tissue; undue stress sends messages to the brain to reduce blood flow (hence, some people are &quot;white as a sheet&quot; when they&#039;re frightened) and therefore stomach secretions are reduced, leaving the stomach open to attacks from its own digestive enzymes. So went the medical logic for many years, but an Australian doctor named Barry Mitchell didn&#039;t quite buy this stress theory. After years of studying the stomach biopsies of ulcer patients, Dr. Mitchell presented a paper stating that a previously unidentified bacterium, Helicobacter pylori, was the actual cause of ulcers. His theory was met with skepticism from the medical community, so Dr. Mitchell took a bold step -- he drank a huge dose of h. pylori and very quickly developed an ulcer. He then cured himself with a regimen of antibiotics. Today, it is universally accepted that ulcers are caused by this bacterium, and antibiotics are the standard treatment. Recently, scientists have also linked h. pylori to stomach cancer and heart disease, and are studying the relationship in hopes of finding new treatments for both conditions. 
&lt;div id=&quot;authorbio&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mentalfloss.com&quot;&gt;mental_floss magazine&lt;/a&gt; is where knowledge junkies get their fix. It&#039;s a fun blend of trivia, humor and everything you should&#039;ve learned in school but didn&#039;t.&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<category>Sci/Tech</category><guid isPermaLink="false">65895@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2007 06:30:34 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Doctors Once Believed that Stomach Ulcers Resulted from Stress and Spicy Food</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/06/26/102125.php</link>
<author>Mental_Floss</author><description>The human stomach is lined with a protective coating of mucous. The acids that digest our food are very strong, and without this protective lining, they would erode the walls of the stomach. Mucous production is dependent on blood flow to the stomach tissue; undue stress sends messages to the brain to reduce blood flow (hence, some people are &quot;white as a sheet&quot; when they&#039;re frightened) and therefore stomach secretions are reduced, leaving the stomach open to attacks from its own digestive enzymes. So went the medical logic for many years, but an Australian doctor named Barry Marshall didn&#039;t quite buy this stress theory. After years of studying the stomach biopsies of ulcer patients, Dr. Marshall presented a paper stating that a previously unidentified bacterium, Helicobacter pylori, was the actual cause of ulcers. His theory was met with skepticism from the medical community, so Dr. Marshall took a bold step -- he drank a huge dose of h. pylori and very quickly developed an ulcer. He then cured himself with a regimen of antibiotics. Today, it is universally accepted that ulcers are caused by this bacterium, and antibiotics are the standard treatment. Recently, scientists have also linked h. pylori to stomach cancer and heart disease, and are studying the relationship in hopes of finding new treatments for both conditions.
&lt;div id=&quot;authorbio&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mentalfloss.com&quot;&gt;mental_floss magazine&lt;/a&gt; is where knowledge junkies get their fix. It&#039;s a fun blend of trivia, humor and everything you should&#039;ve learned in school but didn&#039;t.&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<category>Sci/Tech</category><guid isPermaLink="false">65733@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:21:25 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>How Tall Was Goliath? Fun With Cubits</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/06/25/115744.php</link>
<author>Mental_Floss</author><description>Just how long is a cubit? It depends on whom you ask. Noah&#039;s cubit was somewhat longer than the Egyptian, Greek and Roman cubit. For Noah, the cubit was the measurement from his elbow to the tip of his middle (longest) finger. This inexact measurement likely caused great problems throughout the world, particularly in Africa, where a cubit could range anywhere from less than 12 inches (for pygmy cultures) to more than 36 inches (for the Watusi). Most sources agree that a cubit in the Bible was equal to 21.8 inches, an Egyptian cubit was equal to 20.6 inches, a Greek cubit was equal to 18.3 inches, and a Roman cubit was equal to 17.5 inches. To complicate things, there is another type of cubit. A &quot;short&quot; cubit is the length of the forearm, not including any part of the hand. Scholars believe that this unit was occasionally used in the Bible as well, as in the case of the height of Goliath. Said to be &quot;six cubits and a span&quot; tall, David&#039;s target would have been nearly 11 feet tall using a regular cubit, but a more likely height of 6&#039; 9&quot; using the &quot;short&quot; cubit. Because humans were shorter during ancient times, a man of that height could have been considered a giant, despite the fact that he would have had difficulty dunking on Patrick Ewing.
&lt;div id=&quot;authorbio&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mentalfloss.com&quot;&gt;mental_floss magazine&lt;/a&gt; is where knowledge junkies get their fix. It&#039;s a fun blend of trivia, humor and everything you should&#039;ve learned in school but didn&#039;t.&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<category>Sci/Tech</category><guid isPermaLink="false">65669@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:57:44 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>America&#039;s Most Deadly Airship Disaster</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/06/22/081234.php</link>
<author>Mental_Floss</author><description>Although the Hindenburg is better remembered, America&amp;rsquo;s most deadly airship disaster involved the U.S.S. Akron. The airship was commissioned on November 7, 1931, as a vessel of the U.S. Navy and was tested extensively to determine possible uses during wartime. Both the Akron and its sister ship, the U.S.S. Macon, were intended for use as aerial aircraft carriers. Five trapeze-like devices on the bottom of the airship served to launch and retrieve &amp;ldquo;Sparrowhawk&amp;rdquo; fighter planes. Unfortunately, the project was doomed. Several accidents marred the experiment in the short life of the Akron. On February 22, 1932, a ground handling accident at Lakehurst, New Jersey damaged the lower fin, and the ship was moored over two months for repairs. An accident while landing at Camp Kearny, California, on May 11 of the same year resulted in the deaths of two sailors. A second fin mishap at Lakehurst occurred on August 22, 1932, while the ship was leaving the hangar.The biggie happened early in the morning of April 4, 1933. In the midst of an angry cold front, the Akron crashed violently into the ocean off the coast of Atlantic City, New Jersey, killing 73 of the 76 people aboard. To add insult to injury, a second Navy airship sent to help search for survivors also crashed, resulting in the loss of two more lives. This event marked a rather abrupt end to the Navy dirigible program. Only 36 people (less than half the Akron&amp;rsquo;s toll) perished four years later in the crash of the Hindenburg, which would bring to a close the age of the airship as a form of commercial transportation.&lt;div id=&quot;authorbio&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mentalfloss.com&quot;&gt;mental_floss magazine&lt;/a&gt; is where knowledge junkies get their fix. It&#039;s a fun blend of trivia, humor and everything you should&#039;ve learned in school but didn&#039;t.&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<category>Culture</category><guid isPermaLink="false">65573@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:12:34 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Noah Webster &quot;Americanized&quot; the English Language</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/06/21/074224.php</link>
<author>Mental_Floss</author><description>Had all of Noah Webster&amp;rsquo;s &amp;ldquo;American&amp;rdquo; spelling changes become commonplace, your body parts would include the thum, tung, and hed.  Much of what Webster put in his first dictionary, 1806&amp;rsquo;s Compendious Dictionary of the English Language, became the norm in the new country. This work was one of the first to designate &amp;ldquo;i&amp;rdquo; and &amp;ldquo;j&amp;rdquo; as separate letters, likewise with &amp;ldquo;u&amp;rdquo; and &amp;ldquo;v&amp;rdquo;. Noah was keen on removing silent letters from words, such as the &amp;ldquo;u&amp;rdquo; in honour and the &amp;ldquo;k&amp;rdquo; in publick. He also championed the reversal of the &amp;ldquo;re&amp;rdquo; in words including centre and theatre, replaced &amp;ldquo;que&amp;rdquo; with &amp;ldquo;k&amp;rdquo; in words such as cheque, and changed &amp;ldquo;c&amp;rdquo; to &amp;ldquo;s&amp;rdquo; for the likes of offence and defence. But quite a few of Noah Webster&amp;rsquo;s suggestions fell by the wayside. When he took the &amp;ldquo;e&amp;rdquo; off imagine and definite, the American public couldn&amp;rsquo;t get used to the new spellings. Even though &amp;ldquo;women&amp;rdquo; sounds more like his preferred spelling of wimmen, and &amp;ldquo;is&amp;rdquo; sounds more like iz, those changes also didn&amp;rsquo;t make the cut. When newer editions of Webster&amp;rsquo;s dictionary appeared later in the 19th century, many of his radical spelling changes were withdrawn. It was a drastic improovment (as he would have wanted you to spell it). &lt;div id=&quot;authorbio&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mentalfloss.com&quot;&gt;mental_floss magazine&lt;/a&gt; is where knowledge junkies get their fix. It&#039;s a fun blend of trivia, humor and everything you should&#039;ve learned in school but didn&#039;t.&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<category>Culture</category><guid isPermaLink="false">65522@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2007 07:42:24 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Most Populous U.S. City West of Reno, Nevada Is Not Los Angeles</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/06/20/124456.php</link>
<author>Mental_Floss</author><description>What&#039;s the most populous U.S. city west of Reno, Nevada? If you think Los Angeles, you&#039;re wrong. The correct answer is San Jose, California. There&#039;s quite a curve in the Pacific coast of America. So much so, in fact, that Southern California lies further east than most people realize. Reno lies at a longitude of 119° 49&#039; -- just a hair west of Fresno, California, at 119° 48&#039;. Los Angeles (the #2 city in the country with 3.5 million people) is actually east of Reno at 118° 15&#039;. San Diego (1.2 million population) is even further east, at 117° 10&#039;. Many large cities in Northern California lie west of Reno, including Oakland, Sacramento and San Francisco. But the city with the highest population in that area is San Jose, America&#039;s 11th largest city (816,884 inhabitants).&lt;div id=&quot;authorbio&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mentalfloss.com&quot;&gt;mental_floss magazine&lt;/a&gt; is where knowledge junkies get their fix. It&#039;s a fun blend of trivia, humor and everything you should&#039;ve learned in school but didn&#039;t.&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<category>Culture</category><guid isPermaLink="false">65468@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:44:56 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>America&#039;s Revolutionary War the Bloodiest Ever?</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/06/19/090204.php</link>
<author>Mental_Floss</author><description>Even though it dragged on for nine long years, fewer than 4,500 American troops lost their lives in battle during the Revolutionary War. Of course, this number is a bit misleading, since our new country only had a small regular Army and Navy. Some estimates claim that as many as 30,000 American civilians lost their lives defending their families and property. The country&amp;rsquo;s population was about 3.5 million during this time. As time went on, wars became gradually bloodier. This was due to several factors, including the increase in the size of the forces and the advancement of weaponry. Here are some sobering figures for the number of battle deaths in America&amp;rsquo;s other major armed conflicts: 
Civil War: 190,000+ dead (North &amp;amp; South)
World War I: 50,000+ dead
World War II: 290,000+ dead
Korean War: 33,000+ dead
Vietnam War: 47,000+ dead
In each of these wars, many others perished in non-battle situations due to injuries, diseases and other factors.&lt;div id=&quot;authorbio&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mentalfloss.com&quot;&gt;mental_floss magazine&lt;/a&gt; is where knowledge junkies get their fix. It&#039;s a fun blend of trivia, humor and everything you should&#039;ve learned in school but didn&#039;t.&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<category>Culture</category><guid isPermaLink="false">65431@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:02:04 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Popeye&#039;s Spinach Fetish Is Bad Science -- A Stray Decimal Point</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/06/18/102353.php</link>
<author>Mental_Floss</author><description>A stray decimal point led to Popeye&#039;s spinach fetish. He&#039;d have gotten more iron from eggs, pork, or even brown sugar. The original study of spinach&#039;s iron content had been conducted in the 1890s, long before computerized data, and the results were handwritten. However, according to T.J. Hamblin in the December 1981 British Medical Journal, German chemists reinvestigated this &quot;miracle vegetable&quot; in the 1930s. What did they find? The original researchers had misplaced a decimal point, accidentally multiplying the iron content in spinach tenfold. Well, blow me down. Thanks in no small part to Popeye, spinach consumption increased 33 percent from 1931 to 1936. Today, three U.S. cities have monuments honoring the sailor for his endorsement of the leafy green: 
Chester, Illinois, hometown of Popeye creator E. C. &quot;Elzie&quot; Segar has a statue of the character in Segar Memorial Park.
Alma, Arkansas, is the headquarters of the Popeye Spinach Company, and they&#039;ve placed an eight-foot-tall fiberglass Popeye in front of their Chamber of Commerce building.
Crystal City, Texas, which calls itself the &quot;World Spinach Capital,&quot; has a painted Popeye statue behind their police station.&lt;div id=&quot;authorbio&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mentalfloss.com&quot;&gt;mental_floss magazine&lt;/a&gt; is where knowledge junkies get their fix. It&#039;s a fun blend of trivia, humor and everything you should&#039;ve learned in school but didn&#039;t.&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<category>Sci/Tech</category><guid isPermaLink="false">65390@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:23:53 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Madam C. J. Walker, The First Self-Made Female Millionaire in America</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/06/15/144456.php</link>
<author>Mental_Floss</author><description>Sarah Breedlove Walker was born in 1867 to former slaves in northeast Louisiana. Orphaned at a young age, she made her way to St. Louis and supported herself as a washerwoman for 18 years. A scalp condition caused some of her hair to fall out, and she experimented with a variety of homemade concoctions in an effort to regrow her hair. When new hair sprouted, it was soft and shiny, and her friends asked to try some of her miracle formula. There were virtually no hair products available specifically for African-Americans at the time, and Sarah saw a business opportunity. She found she had a knack for marketing, and before long, she founded the Madam C. J. Walker Manufacturing Company with her husband, Charles Joseph Walker. Sarah tirelessly sold her product door-to-door and recruited other women to do the same. By 1910, she had over 1,000 sales agents, which gave her time to develop new products like hair conditioners and facial creams. The woman who had $2 to her name when she arrived in St. Louis was a millionaire by 1914.&lt;div id=&quot;authorbio&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mentalfloss.com&quot;&gt;mental_floss magazine&lt;/a&gt; is where knowledge junkies get their fix. It&#039;s a fun blend of trivia, humor and everything you should&#039;ve learned in school but didn&#039;t.&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<category>Culture</category><guid isPermaLink="false">65092@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:44:56 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Smellie Method </title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/06/14/133839.php</link>
<author>Mental_Floss</author><description>In the 18th Century, childbirth was a very iffy process, and it was not uncommon for mother and/or baby to die in the process. It was a Catch-22 situation: doctors, exclusively male at that time, were only summoned in extremely critical cases in order to protect the mother&#039;s &quot;modesty,&quot; and midwives were not allowed to use instruments to aid in the birthing process. Scottish surgeon William Smellie (1698-1763) studied obstetrics in Paris and was eager to implement a surgery-free birthing process in his native Britain. He began by offering his medical services free of charge to mothers who were willing to let his students witness the procedure. Thus, he began the first scientific study of midwifery: he was the first to describe how the infant&#039;s head adapted to changes in birth canal and also the first to measure the fetal cranium in utero. His method of delivering breech babies, with the after-arriving head resting on the physician&#039;s forearm, is still used today and is, in fact, called the Smellie method.
&lt;div id=&quot;authorbio&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mentalfloss.com&quot;&gt;mental_floss magazine&lt;/a&gt; is where knowledge junkies get their fix. It&#039;s a fun blend of trivia, humor and everything you should&#039;ve learned in school but didn&#039;t.&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<category>Sci/Tech</category><guid isPermaLink="false">65090@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:38:39 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>