Ripley Entertainment Inc.'s Blog, page 224
January 23, 2020
The First Cloned Cat Looked Nothing Like Its Original
Featured in Ripley's Believe It or Not!
It all started with a team of researchers at Texas A&M University that was commissioned by a pet-cloning company called Genetic Savings & Clone Inc. The company wanted to start a dog and cat cloning company after Dolly the sheep proved that mammal cloning could be done. Dogs were proving difficult to clone, so some of the researchers focused on cats.
Carbon Copycat
“Carbon Copy,” the kitty in question, was born as an experiment conducted 18 years ago and was meant to set the stage for the pet cloning industry. But the experiment didn’t go as planned. Despite the idea that cloning is a form of duplication, CC, short for “Carbon Copy,” hardly looks like the original cat from whom she was cloned.
Purr-fecting The Process
The team began by extracting the nuclei from skin cells of a grey cat. Then, using a method called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), they transferred the somatic cell nucleus—which contains almost all of the DNA of an animal—into an egg cell with the grey cat nucleus. The resulting cell has nuclear DNA from only one “parent,” rather than a combination of alleles from a mom and dad.
As one can imagine, cloning is a delicate process. Unfortunately, when these embryos were implanted, they did not survive until birth. But the research team learned from this setback and continued to move forward with trials and experimentation. When spaying a calico named Rainbow, the scientists took some ovary cells—not to be confused with eggs—and used those nuclei. After several attempts and repeated failures, their hard work eventually came to fruition and a clone was born.
Rainbow, Calico Cat || Photo courtesy of Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences
However, something was off. The new kitten wasn’t quite a duplicate of Rainbow. She wasn’t the same color as the original cat. Rainbow was a calico, with grey and orange spots; the new kitten, now known as Carbon Copy, had grey spots with no trace of orange at all.
“We really didn’t think about that happening at the time,” explained Duane Kraemer, who was a team member on Operation Copycat. “We chose Rainbow because she was the next cat to be spayed.” Because the team knew cattle had been cloned using cells from ovaries had been successful, they decided to use the cells that would be removed from the calico anyway.
Carbon Copy as a kitten || Photo Courtesy Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences
Although the scientists didn’t anticipate it, they believe that there is a reasonable explanation for the physical features of CC: a process called “X chromosome inactivation.”
Spotting The Difference
Almost all calico cats are females; the genes for black and grey spots, and the genes for orange spots, are on the X chromosome. Therefore a cat needs two X’s to have both black and orange spots. But, only one color gene is “active” in any spot—the orange spots have inactive black genes, and the black spots have inactive orange genes.
When selecting a cell from Rainbow, the scientists inadvertently picked one that only had the active gene for grey spots. Thus, a cat with no ability to form orange spots was born.
18 Years And Feline Fine
Later, both Rainbow and CC were adopted by different families. Duane and his wife Shirley took in CC. They built her a multi-level cat house and brought her a male cat to live with. CC gave birth to four kittens, three of whom survived, making CC the first cloned pet to give birth!
Carbon Copy’s kittens || Photo courtesy of Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences
“She’s a very good mother,” Duane explained. “Shirley was concerned, so she got baby bottles and food and so forth thinking CC might not bond with the kittens. But, CC was just a super mother.”
The owners were also somewhat concerned that CC might not be healthy. After all, cloning mammals was a fairly new science, resulting in many questionable births and miscarriages. Dolly, the first cloned mammal to live long enough to get publicity, famously died young.
However, this was not the case with Carbon Copy. In fact, CC still lives with her owners, Duane and Shirley, and the whole cat family. In December, she celebrated her 18th birthday. As indoor cats typically only live 16-18 years, CC is already beating the odds.
By Kristin Hugo, contributor for Ripleys.com
Kristin Hugo is a science journalist with writing in National Geographic, Newsweek, and PBS Newshour. She’s especially experienced in covering animals, bones, and anything weird or gross. When not writing, Kristin is spray painting and cleaning bones in her New York City yard. Find her on Twitter at @KristinHugo , Tumblr at @StrangeBiology , and Instagram at @thestrangebiology .
Source: The First Cloned Cat Looked Nothing Like Its Original
Why 98.6 Degrees Fahrenheit Means You’re Hot Stuff
Featured in Ripley's Believe It or Not!
We’ve come a long way since 1851. Back then, the Yosemite Valley in California was being discovered by non-indigenous people for the first time. Robert Schumann premiered his third symphony, “Rhenisch,” in Dusseldorf. American inventor Isaac Singer patented the sewing machine. And the Denny Party became the first Euro-Americans to settle in what is modern-day Seattle, Washington.
This historical year also saw the development of the first average human body temperature calculation. A German physician by the name of Carl Reinhold August Wunderlich developed it, and it remains a standard, still in use today: 98.6°F (37°C). Along with death and taxes, 98.6°F remains one of the few factors in life we can reliably count on, right? Think again!
Twenty-first-century Americans are colder than our 19th-century ancestors. Here’s why the average human body temperature has dropped and why some physicians are calling for a new standard.
Dr. Wunderlich’s Fascinating Research On Body Temperature
Before diving into why human beings continue to get colder, it’s essential to understand the process Wunderlich used to develop a temperature standard in the first place. Wunderlich collected millions of temperature samples from 2,500 patients in the city of Leipzig. Whether sick or well, he took their temperatures and then wrote a veritable tome on temperature variation related to illness.
In his work, Wunderlich noted temperature variations based on gender, age, height, and weight. This research proved so accurate that 98.6°F became the textbook standard for ideal body temperature for generations. As a result, doctors started using body temperature as a critical indicator of individual health and to identify the presence of infection.
Of course, physicians today recognize that body temperature can change for a variety of reasons. It can fluctuate by as much as half a degree throughout the day. What’s more, older people tend to stay cooler than younger people. Menstruating women are generally warmer than men, and people measure warmer after eating or working out.
Nonetheless, it has long been recognized that the human body hovers around a standard temperature. Why? A relatively stable temperature supports the body’s many health processes. These processes include the maintenance of chemical reactions, the function of organs, and the prevention of fungal infections.
So, what gives when it comes to our decrease in body temperature?
Why We’re Getting Colder
As it turns out, our body temperatures have been dropping by approximately 0.05°F (0.02°C) every ten years since the early 1800s. The result? Women born in the 2000s are on average 0.58°F (0.32°C) cooler than females born in the 1890s. For men, those born in the 2000s measure 1.06°F (0.58°C) cooler than males born in the early 1800s.
These findings have even led scientists from Stanford to call for a revised body temperature number. Scientists theorize that this change in body temperature has to do with decreased rates of inflammation due to antibiotics, anti-inflammatory drugs, and overall better health.
After all, inflammation results in proteins known as cytokines that raise the body’s metabolic rate, generating heat. Unlike individuals today, our 19th-century counterparts were plagued by recurrent malaria, tuberculosis, dental disease, chronic wounds, and bouts of dysentery. No wonder they stayed so hot!
The Future of Body Temperature Readings
Scientists also theorize that our comfortable modern lifestyles may play a role in these changes. Americans live in temperature-controlled environments hovering around a constant 70°F (21.1°C) year-round. In other words, our bodies don’t have to work hard to maintain our body temperature.
Does that mean people in other parts of the world—those without access to antibiotics, thermostats, and dental care—run warmer? A 2008 study from Pakistan supports this conclusion with subjects averaging Wunderlich’s original figure of 98.6°F. That said, more research is still needed.
Some scientists think the cooling trend will continue in the future as medicine and life expectancy improve. Researchers even hope to use body temperature as a means of predicting longevity. No one knows for sure, though, what a continued drop in temperature will mean for humans moving forward.
By Engrid Barnett, contributor for Ripleys.com
January 22, 2020
Charlie McCarthy: The Dummy Only Dummies Didn’t Listen To
Featured in Ripley's Believe It or Not!
While the idea that Orson Welles’s radio dramatization of War of the Worlds started a nationwide panic of people believing the planet to be under the threat of an alien invasion, most people actually had their radios tuned to the comedic chatter of a ventriloquist dummy named Charlie McCarthy.
Charlie McCarthy was the character and puppet used by Edgar Bergen in his ventriloquist act. The doll was a well-dressed teenager, well-versed in catcalling and innuendo. Bergen actually had the doll made when he was in his teens, saving up $35—quite a lot at the time—to have master dummy-maker, Theodore Mack, craft the head and internals. Bergen himself made the body.
Bergen says he based Charlie on an Irish newsboy he knew. The monocle, top-hat, and tux were added to make the jokes seem even more out of the ordinary. The young Bergen quickly made a living in vaudeville and on the radio. His longest stint lasted nearly 20 years on The Chase and Sanborn Hour, earning top billing for much of the time. The show was even renamed The New Edgar Bergen Hour near the end of their tenure.
Charlie was beloved by listeners. The dummy was able to get away with much more brazen womanizing and double-entendre than human hosts like Bergen. Radio censors could be harsh on comedians at this time—especially on the radio—but seemed to have a soft spot for the dummy.
Edgar Bergen with Robert Ripley
Bergen worked with many radio stars of the time, including Frank Sinatra, Henry Fonda, Roy Rogers, Groucho Marx, Liberace, and was even personal friends with fellow-radio-star, Robert Ripley. Charlie, on the other hand, made enemies, establishing a long-standing feud with comedian W. C. Fields.
In 1938, The Chase and Sanborn show dominated Sunday night radio. Orson Welles’s program, The Mercury Theatre series aired in the same time slot but was viewed by most listeners as boring and pompous. On October 30th, the War of the Worlds was broadcast. Many newspapers later reported that it fooled the country and caused a panic but, according to radio polls that night, only about two percent of listeners even tuned into Mercury Theatre broadcast. The rest were listening to Bergen and Charlie cracking jokes. One critic even wrote a telegram to Welles that read, “This only goes to prove, my beamish boy, that the intelligent people were all listening to the dummy, and that all the dummies were listening to you.”
Welles would often appear on Bergen and Charlie’s show in later years, with Charlie often deflating the actor’s genius and pride.
Source: Charlie McCarthy: The Dummy Only Dummies Didn’t Listen To
How X-Ray Machines Made Glowing Shoe Sales
Featured in Ripley's Believe It or Not!
When was the last time you checked your shoe size? The Pedorthic Footcare Association recommends a fitting every time you buy a new pair. But let’s be real—21st-century shoe buyers don’t seem to prioritize regular “shoe fittings” into their busy schedules.
However, in the early-mid 20th-century, shoe fitting was not only an intriguing activity for adults and children alike, but it could be discounted as a “sight-to-see” thanks to the shoe-fitting fluoroscope.
Who Needs A Salesman?
When the time came for new shoes, customers did a bit more than peruse the aisles for a potential pair. Instead, they were asked to step onto a platform—often placed atop beautifully-designed cabinet-like boxes—and position their feet inside small recesses. An x-ray tube, ensconced in lead casing, lit the foot from beneath when a sales clerk turned the device on. Viewfinders on top of the cabinet allowed a look at the glowing skeletal foot through the prospective shoe, presumably showing how well it fit.
From the Collection of the Museum of Health Care at Kingston
“You have to have been born before 1955 to remember them, but it was fun to see your own ghostly bones,” says Dr. Jacalyn Duffin, a hematologist, medical historian, and professor emerita at Queens University in Kingston, Ontario. “It was never a very good device,” she adds.
And while you could only see the front half of your foot from one angle, the device was definitely a marketing must-have, as Duffin and colleague Charles R. Hayter explains in Baring the Sole: The Rise and Fall of the Shoe-Fitting Fluoroscope—a study of the machine’s history. Stores were pressured to have the device to lure in customers and it “promised faster and more lucrative sales, not an accurate fit,” the study says.
The machine also played perfectly into the time of the “scientific motherhood trend.” During the early 20th century, rapid advances were being made in science, including social sciences, medicine, and communication. Mothers were being placed under a heavy spotlight to ensure that they were well-educated regarding new technologies and medical advice in order to raise their children healthfully. Easily influenced by science, medicine, and industrialization, the up-and-coming fluoroscope was an even hotter commodity. In fact, as stores installed these machines, companies recommended facing the fluoroscope machine toward the ladies’ and children’s departments where sales were heaviest, writes Paul Frame, a health physicist at Oak Ridge Associated Universities.
An Element of Health
In the 1920s, radium was seen as a source of better health and was used as an ingredient in products from toothpaste to pillows. It didn’t take long, however, for its dangers to become evident. In 1943, the International X-ray and Radium Protection Committee recommended .2R as the maximum daily dose of this substance—then lowered to .1R by the American Standards Association. R stands for roentgen, the unit by which radium is measured.
1918 ad for Radior cosmetics
The output of the shoe-fitting fluoroscope wasn’t studied until 1948 when the amounts of radiation being emitted by the machines were varied and high. A survey of machines in Detroit, Michigan, showed that 43 out of 200 machines were throwing out way too much radiation—75R per minute on the high end. Stunted growth, cataracts, and sterility were among the ailments to which customers and clerks, who interacted with the machines routinely, were exposed.
No Longer A Good Fit
Warnings, articles, and further investigations into the dangers of the devices followed suit and customer opinions soon began to sour.
From the Collection of the Museum of Health Care at Kingston
A pop culture illustration of that change can be found in It, Stephen King’s novel set in 1958. In this story, ten-year-old Eddie Kaspbrak remembers being 5 years old and climbing onto this inviting “desk” in the shoe store. His hyper-vigilant mom threw a fit, screaming about the machines causing cancer—one of the earliest adopted sentiments against the fluoroscope.
“People became afraid of them because of fallout scare, and they were no longer attracting people into stores, so stores got rid of them,” Duffin says.
Pennsylvania was the first state in the U.S. to ban shoe-fitting fluoroscopes and, in 1960, another 34 states followed suit. The devices stuck around in Britain and Canada, finally walking into history in around 1970.
And so these works of commercial art ended up decorating dumps, basements, and science classrooms. It took some time, but this was an x-ray device people finally were able to see through.
By Liz Langley, contributor for Ripleys.com
January 21, 2020
January 20, 2020
Are Drones The Answer To Saving The Whales?
Featured in Ripley's Believe It or Not!
There are no roads in the sea, no animal crossing signs, and no speed bumps. And yet, those driving fishing vessels often accidentally run into ocean traffic—and by “traffic,” we mean whales.
Hitting a whale is bad news, for both parties: the ship and the whale. North Atlantic right whales are especially endangered as a result of fishing gear and ship strikes. Unfortunately, people on ships often don’t know what kind of creatures lurk beneath the water until they accidentally run into them.
Thankfully, there is now a way to scout ahead and look for whales so that ships can avoid running into them. The tech company Planck Aerosystems has designed drones that can launch off of ships and scan the seas for whales. If one of these sea-dwellers comes within the trajectory of the ship, or where the ship is going, the driver can change the course. No more living speed bumps!
Credit: NOAA Fisheries/Lisa Conger.
This technology is new, making it difficult to say just how effective it will be at minimizing ship strikes, or how many ships will adopt it. However, it has shown some promising results so far.
“Over the course of about three weeks of unmanned flights, over 100 whales were automatically detected, including more than ten North Atlantic Right Whales,” explains COO Dave Twining. “While this number may not seem all that large, it is significant when you consider there are only around 400 individuals of this species currently on the planet.”
That’s not to say that this tech has necessarily saved 100 whales; it’s not possible to know for sure if how many of the ships would have hit, let alone killed, these sea mammals. However, it’s important to be extra careful with these North Atlantic right whales, as they are at a high risk of extinction. Senator Cory Booker has even introduced the SAVE Right Whales Act, a program that, if adopted, will designate money the save these animals, specifically. People concerned about disturbing and entangling whales have even started using sound-dampening technologies and line-free nets to try to help these animals stay safe.
The new drone technology differs from that of regular drones for several reasons. For one, most drones that hobbyists use must be controlled manually, and take a considerable amount of time to learn and use. Regular drones also have to be launched from stationary platforms, whereas the new drones can fly from a moving ship sailing over bumpy waves.
With so much attention on this species and new advancements in technology, we can only hope that their population will recover.
By Kristin Hugo, contributor for Ripleys.com
Kristin Hugo is a science journalist with writing in National Geographic, Newsweek, and PBS Newshour. She’s especially experienced in covering animals, bones, and anything weird or gross. When not writing, Kristin is spray painting and cleaning bones in her New York City yard. Find her on Twitter at @KristinHugo , Tumblr at @StrangeBiology , and Instagram at @thestrangebiology .
The Gallon Challenge: Know Before You Blow Chunks
Featured in Ripley's Believe It or Not!
Over the years, dozens of internet challenges have made the rounds on YouTube and across social media platforms. Some of these viral trends are used to benefit a specific cause, such as raising awareness for ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) by dumping buckets of ice water over one’s head.
However, other versions of these viral challenges—swallowing spoonfuls of cinnamon and consuming toxic Tide pods, to name a few—pose a bit of a risk to participants. Perhaps, the longest-lived of these dangerous tests seems to be the infamous Gallon Challenge. This trending contest tasks competitors with drinking one gallon of milk in one hour. To “complete” this challenge, one must keep the entire gallon down—meaning if you don’t throw up for 60 minutes, you win.
Though it sounds harmless enough, no one should attempt this.
Your Body Has Limits
Like many internet-based trials, the Gallon Challenge is not only foolish but can also prove lethal.
Why? Because the human body is not designed to digest this sheer quantity of liquid in such a short time frame.
“First of all, there is a total stomach capacity as well as [an] individual tolerance for large quantities in your stomach at one time,” Dr. Sarah Ash, Associate Professor at N.C. State and coordinator of the school’s Undergraduate Nutrition Program, told The Technician newspaper. “The stomach, in general, only holds about a half a gallon—one of the triggers of the vomit reflex is the so-called ‘stretch’ receptors in the stomach that sense when capacity has been met.”
The difficulty of this challenge has nothing to do with milk, specifically. In fact, the lactose within the milk wouldn’t even have enough time to begin breaking down.
“The lactose is not likely the cause of the vomiting,” said Dr. Ash. “Lactose intolerance, caused by too little of the digestive enzyme that breaks down lactose, is a problem of the large intestine, not the stomach.”
Participants of the Gallon Challenge should be prepared for a few other side effects, such as diarrhea and uncontrollable gas.
Too Much of a Good Thing
Still, doctors warn that the consumption of too much of anything in too little time can be dangerous. In the similar Water Challenge, where contestants are asked to drink a large amount of water in a short time, there have been several reported instances of fatalities.
Water intoxication—overhydration, hyperhydration, or water poisoning—occurs when the normal balance of electrolytes in the body is pushed outside safe limits due to excessive water intake. This causes a decrease in the levels of sodium in the blood and can cause a potentially fatal disturbance in brain functions.
In February 2005, Matthew Carrington, a student at Chico State University in California, died while participating in a fraternity hazing ritual involving forced water intoxication. Two years later, Jennifer Strange, a 28-year-old mother of three from Sacramento, died after participating in a radio contest. Contestants were asked to drink as much water as they could without urinating, and the winner would receive a Nintendo Wii game system. Strange drank two gallons of water in three hours, passing away six hours later.
The first mention of the milk version of the challenge was thought to come from Major League Baseball pitcher Bill Lee’s book, The Wrong Stuff, which described relief pitchers doing it to pass the time on their off days in the late 1960s.
In 1999, legislators set up their own version of the Gallon Challenge in North Carolina to promote the dairy industry and, a year later, the MTV show “Jackass” filmed a Gallon Challenge in Portland, Oregon. The results? A lot of people throwing up—and a lot more attempting the challenge.
In 2008, several members of a fraternity at Arizona State University set up a “milk-chug” challenge on a local bridge. They were arrested for causing a car accident after they vomited on the traffic below.
Though the supposed statistic floating around the internet claims that one in 15 people can successfully complete the challenge, that leaves 14 out of 15 who cannot. As long as there’s some sliver of hope, people will continue trying to tackle this intoxicating challenge. But, we highly recommend you don’t try this at home.
By Ryan Clark, contributor for Ripleys.com and host of Ripley’s Believe It or Notcast
Ripley Entertainment Inc.'s Blog
- Ripley Entertainment Inc.'s profile
- 52 followers
