Mrs Sarah's Reviews > A Short History of Nearly Everything

A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson

by
83942
's review
Sep 04, 07

Read in May, 2007

Not everyone is a science geek. Bill knows that.

I am a science geek. Not that I took a lot of science courses, but it's a source of fascination for me. There was a lot of stuff I already knew -- if you've read A Brief History of Time the first two chapters are a wash -- but there was also a lot of stuff I didn't. It is miraculously accessible and funny, like all of Bryson's work.

This is a textbook on its face, but at its heart is the diary of a grown man coming home every evening for a year with the words "Guess what I learned today" sparkling on his lips. It's fun to get excited about dinosaurs and asteroids and sub-atomic physics.

My favorite bit, though, it less cheerfully indulgent. In every chapter he peels up a little piece of unpleasantness about our world. How we've poisoned ourselves with lead for four generations with the American government barely batting a lash. How naked we are in the path of an asteroid belt, and how microscopic is our knowledge of them. More compelling -- how every century has had its known truths about the nature of the universe, and how frequently they're wrong.

This is my fourth Bryson book, after A Walk in the Woods, In a Sunburnt Country, and I'm a Stranger Here Myself: Notes on Returning to America After 20 Years Away. He's originally from Iowa, worked in England for most of his adult life, and now lives in Hanover, New Hampshire where I once played D&D every Sunday for three months.

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read A Short History of Nearly Everything.
sign in »

Comments (showing 1-5 of 5) (5 new)

dateDown_arrow    newest »

Kenny Bell PLEASE READ* Do you remember when he talked about stromatolites-the ancient rock structure dated from 3.5 billion years ago, made from cynobacteria-blue/green algae. He says the scientist agree that these were the first origins of life. My question is how do scientist know that the rock is the object that is 3.5 billion yrs old and not the organisms? Because the organisms could just have appeared when man first appeared.(Adam and Eve)


Mrs Sarah I'm a bit confused by your question, and I'm going to reply to you even though this is almost certainly SPAM.

I don't have the book to-hand, but if the data you gave me is correct, rock is carbon-dated to 3.5 years. The rock is *made from* compressed/fossilized blue-green algae. We know that the algae was alive before it died to form the rock, therefore the algae was alive 3.5 billion years ago.

It sounds to me like you think the rock existed and then was colonized by the algae at some later point, but this is not the case. The rock is made from algae the way that sandstone is made from sand. If we know the age of a piece of sandstone, and we know that sandstone is formed by compressing and heating sand, then we know that there must have been sand before this piece of sandstone. Make sense?


Kenny Bell -Yeah! Thank you.
-Another question though, how do they know that their method of dating a substance is reliable and not just some random numbers that pop up. Here's an excerpt from the book about how we got radioactive dating used to date the earth:

"He noticed that in any sample of radio active material, it always took the same amount of time for half the sample to decay- the celebrated half-life-and that this steady, reliable rate decat could be used as a clock.By calculating backwards from how much radiation a material had now and how swiftly it was decaying, you could work out its age. He tested a piece of pitchblende, the principal ore of uranium, and found it to be 700million years old."

How do they know this is accurate?

-Thanks for responding by the way.
I NO TROLL NOR SPAM YOU!


Mrs Sarah Oh good. I don't get a lot of activity on GoodReads, so I was suspicious, but it's good to know.

It's always smart to question science, that is what science is made for. Here is the simplest answer to your question.

All living cells contain carbon-14. When a cell dies, it immediate stops receiving carbon-14, and that which it contains at the moment it stops living immediately begins breaking down into carbon-12. We know that the halflife of carbon-14 is 5,730 years, and halflives are a constant. So, in any given cell, you should be able to compare the radio of remaining carbon-14 to carbon-12 and know how long ago -- within a margin or error -- that cell stopped living. There are some environmental variables, but we've been doing this for long enough now that most of those variables can be compensated for mathmatically. There's a pretty good article on the subject at StraightDope.com if you're interested in learning more about those variables.

So, how do we know it's not a random number? Because there is a tested and verified process by which we acquire the number, within a margin of error.


Kenny Bell Thank you so much pretty lady with a cat.


back to top