If you’re an early riser in the mid-northern latitudes of our planet (and statistically speaking, the odds are good for the latter part), then there’s a comet you might want to check out.

Comet McNaught (C/2009 R1) is currently moving rapidly across the northern sky, and it’s just on the edge of being bright enough to see with your unaided eye. Over the next few days it may even get bright enough to see easily in dark skies.

This picture, taken by Ernesto Guido and Giovanni Sostero, shows the comet and its long tail. It’s a multiple exposure centered on the comet, which is why you see several star images for each star. You won’t get a view this nice (probably) with binoculars, but you should be able to spot the tail.

The CometChasing website provides a helpful map of the comet’s location over the next few days. On June 21 it’s pretty close to the bright star Capella (one of the brightest in the sky) but it’s not known how bright the comet will be by then. Also, McNaught reaches perihelion (closest point in its orbit to the Sun) on July 2/3, so it’ll be tough to see in a few weeks (though probably brighter; as they gets closer to the Sun most comets get much brighter, but their proximity to the Sun makes them very difficult to spot). With comets it’s always good to get them while the getting’s good. Go look now!

You can find more info on the Cometography site, a spectacular picture on APOD, and an interesting animated GIF showing the motion of the comet, too.

As a bonus for early risers, Jupiter and Uranus will have a series of close approaches to each other in the sky, so you can check that out as well.

If we’re lucky, BP’s relief wells will be done in August and the company’s all-time blunder will stop leaking. But even it that happens, the Coast Guard now concedes, it will take years to clean up this disaster.

“It’s the breadth and complexity of the disaggregation of the oil” that is now posing the greatest clean-up challenge, the commander, Adm. Thad W. Allen, said at a news conference at the White House [The New York Times].

The oil has now spread 46 miles from the original site of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration now says, and has been found at a depth of more than 3,000 feet. That confirms the wide undersea plumes of oil; BP initially denied those existed. Admiral Allen said it’s time to think of this not as one spill, but rather as hundreds of thousands of little ones.

Meanwhile, more oil continues to enter the Gulf. BP says its containment dome is capturing 11,000 barrels a day, though the government’s revised estimation of the total flow rate was 12,000 to 25,000 barrels, and the flow would have increased when BP sheared off the top of the riser during the recent operation that put the cap in place.

And as the oil patches flirt with the coastline, slathering some spots and leaving others alone, residents who depend on tourism and fishing are wondering in the here and now how to head off the damage or salvage a season that’s nearing its peak [AP].

In those areas where oil has already made landfall, cleanup workers continue to slog away. But at least 75 in Louisiana have grown ill, including fisherman George Jackson.

“They didn’t supply us with nothing,” says Jackson. “Now they’re starting to disperse gloves and hazmat suits.” Chemicals and vapors, both from oil and dispersants, can pose serious health risks. They can inflame the nose, throat and lungs, and aggravate asthma. When absorbed in the bloodstream, oil compounds like benzene or toluene can cause headaches and dizziness and could have long term toxic effects on the brain, liver and kidneys after prolonged, direct contact [CBS News].

As all this goes on, President Obama continues to star in his weird rehash of The Queen. If you haven’t seen Helen Mirren’s Oscar-winning performance, she played Queen Elizabeth II during the weeks after Princess Diana’s death, when the British people demanded their sovereign show some emotion. There has been a similar groundswell in the U.S.—especially among its punditry—for the Prez to break his legendary cool and show some anger about the spill. This morning he obliged.

“I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar,” Obama told Matt Lauer. “We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick” [USA Today].

Previous Posts on the Gulf Oil Spill:
80beats: Meet the Oil-Covered Pelicans, Symbols of the BP Oil Spill
80beats: This Hurricane Season Looks Rough, And What If One Hits the Oil Spill?
80beats: We Did the Math: BP Oil Spill Is Now Worse Than the Exxon Valdez
80beats: “Top Kill” Operation Is Under Way in Attempt to Stop Gulf Oil Leak
80beats: Scientists Say Gulf Spill Is Way Worse Than Estimated. How’d We Get It So Wrong?

Image: U.S. Coast Guard photo by PA2 Gary Rives

What if an unknown researcher predicts an earthquake using a disfavored technique? If an earthquake then happens and hundreds die, should naysayer scientists go to jail?

Some in the city of L’Aquila, Italy answered that odd question with a resounding yes. An April 6, 2009 earthquake that was predicted by Giampaolo Giuliani killed 308 people. Now the city’s prosecutors are considering charging seven researchers at the National Geophysics and Vulcanology Institute (INGV) and members of the city’s Major Risks Committee with manslaughter.

The prosecutors say the committee could be considered criminally negligent for telling the townspeople that there was no need to evacuate. A formal investigation has been opened, but charges haven’t yet been filed.

As reported in Life in Italy:

“Those involved were highly qualified individuals who should have provided the public with different answers,” said L’Aquila’s chief prosecutor, Alfredo Rossini. “It was not the case that we received no warning, because there had already been tremors. However, the advice given was that there was no need for people to leave their homes”.

Giuliani, the man who predicted the quake, works at the National Laboratories at Gran Sasso, though he has been misreported in both Italian and American media outlets as a physicist, seismologist, and a collaborator with the National Institute of Nuclear Physics. According to Science Insider, Giuliani’s work on earthquakes is a “hobby” and seismologists do not use the radon tests he cited, since statistically they have failed to accurately predict quakes.

Related content:
80beats: Scientist Smackdown: Did a Seismologist Accurately Predict the Italian Quake?
80beats: Toads—Yes, Toads—May Know When an Earthquake Is Coming
80beats: Science Via Twitter: Post-Earthquake Tweets Can Provide Seismic Data
Bad Astronomy: Do rainbow clouds foretell earthquakes?

Image: United States Geological Survey

If you relax and concentrate, you’re more likely to make a goal. Seems pretty logical, but researchers at Britain’s Exeter University have tracked soccer players eye-movements to make sure. They have confirmed that players who ignore goalies’ distracting antics are more likely to make the shot.

The latest in the why-Britain-hasn’t-won-the-World-Cup-since-1966 line of research–which has also looked at the ball’s surface (smooth is good but some grooves necessary) and the psychological benefits of playing on your home field (it’s better)–Greg Wood’s study will appear in the Journal of Sports Medicine. Hopefully it will be available in time for the World Cup’s start on June 11th.

Wood says that goalies can make use of a biological instinct to screw up a kicker’s shot.

“We focus on things in our environment that are threatening. In a penalty kick, that threat is a goalkeeper,” Wood said. “If he (the goalkeeper) can make himself more threatening, he can distract the kicker even more. By doing (certain) behaviors, he can make it so the kicker will kick (the ball) near the goalie.” [AP]

The study tracked eighteen university-level players’ eye movements as they attempted penalty shots with varying levels of distraction from the goalie. It found that the players who lined up the shot, ignoring the chance that the goal-keeper might block it, were more likely to score.

Wood, a psychologist at the School of Sport and Health Sciences at the university, said the main problem was not skill but anxiety levels. “England definitely has a problem with this especially when compared to other teams such as Germany. While Germany wins 80 per cent of its penalty shoot outs, England loses 70 per cent. “If I was giving advice to the England team I would say pretend you are in a practise match, look at where you are going to hit the ball and aim it there. Totally ignore the goalkeeper. Even if he knows where the ball is going he is not going to get to it if it is well placed.” [Telegraph]

Anecdotal evidence has hinted at the same conclusion. Case in point: Bruce Grobbelaar’s 1984 European Cup goal-saving “spaghetti legs” shown in this video.

“The biggest memory I have is the 1984 European Cup final against Roma and my ’spaghetti legs’ routine during the penalty shootout that won us the trophy,” Grobbelaar said [as quoted in the study]. “People said I was being disrespectful to their players, but I was just testing their concentration under pressure. I guess they failed that test.” [ABC]

As also reported in The Telegraph, the study also concluded that teams that go first win sixty percent of penalty shootouts and that the best uniform color is red, “a dangerous and dominant colour in nature.”

Related content:
Discoblog: Soccer Star Seeks Out Serbian Placenta Massage to Speed Healing
Cosmic Variance: The Physics of Beckham
Cosmic Variance: Yet Another World Cup Post
DISCOVER: The Brain: Why Athletes Are Geniuses

Image: flickr / Shine 2010 -2010 World Cup Good News

I hope you all can do this, I am.

HOUSTON — NASA is inviting members of the public to send electronic images of their faces into orbit aboard one of the final remaining space shuttle missions.

Visitors to the “Face in Space” website can upload their portrait to fly with the astronauts aboard shuttle Discovery’s STS-133 mission and/or shuttle Endeavour’s STS-134 mission. Participants will receive special certificates from the Internet site once the mission is completed.

“The Space Shuttle Program belongs to the public, and we are excited when we can provide an opportunity for people to share the adventure of our missions,” said Space Shuttle Program Manager John Shannon. “This website will allow you to be a part of history and participate as we complete our final missions.”

To submit your image, visit: http://faceinspace.nasa.gov

Those without a picture can skip the image upload section, and NASA will fly their name.

Discovery and Endeavour’s missions are the final two flights remaining until the retirement of the space shuttle fleet. They are targeted to launch in September and November, respectively. For more information about the STS-133 and STS-134 missions, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/shuttle

Image: ©2006 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation

Recently, I learned that the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, with support from the Sloan Foundation, had undertaken a path-breaking project to examine what scientists understand about the public. The Academy held four sessions on the topic with experts over the past year and a half, and then asked me to write a paper about the workshops and what they taught and revealed. The initiative, and my paper, are scheduled to be unveiled at an event at the American Association for the Advancement of Science auditorium in Washington, D.C., on June 29, co-sponsored by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Washington Science Policy Alliance. The event requires registration, and here is a write up for it:
While considerable attention has been paid to strengthening public education in science and technology, less effort has gone into helping researchers understand what lies behind the public response to new advances and discoveries. Public concerns about scientific developments can come not only from ignorance, but also from legitimate worries. In 2008, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences launched a study on what the scientific community knows or should know about the public and its concerns. Funded by the Alfred P. Sloan ...

The U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, a quarter-century look at the welfare of kids born to lesbian couples, has finally come out in the journal Pediatrics this week with the headline-grabbing finding that those children not only do as well as the rest of the population, they might actually fare better. You can download the paper by lead author Nanette Gartrell for free right now, but here are the key parts:

Select population only

Census data says that there are more than 270,000 American kids in same-sex households, with twice that many having a single gay parent. Gartrell’s study follows a particular slice: Lesbian couples who were together before the child’s birth, identified themselves as a lesbian couple, and went through the artificial insemination process. It didn’t include, for instance, women who may have had a child in a previous heterosexual relationship and then entered into a lesbian one later.

Better than the rest?

The study, which began in 1986, ended up following 78 kids from lesbian couples who were recruited for the study in Boston, Washington D.C., and San Francisco.

The mothers were interviewed during pregnancy or the insemination process, and additionally when the children were 2, 5, 10 and 17 years old. Those children are now 18 to 23 years old. They were interviewed four times as they matured and also completed an online questionnaire at age 17, focusing on their psychological adjustment, peer and family relationships and academic progress [CNN].

The children of these lesbian couples were just as well-adjusted as the kids of heterosexual couples to whom the researchers compared them. Indeed, the kids in the study proved superior in some areas, like academics, self-esteem, and behavior, as shown by the standard “Child Behavior Checklists” that were part of the surveys.

Planning, and parenting

This is a quantitative study, so the “why” question becomes the subject of speculation. But for Gartrell, the fact that she studied families with planned pregnancies and involved parents was the key.

Salon’s Tracy Clark-Flory puts the first point more forcefully:

One factor that seems awfully important here is that these pregnancies were all planned. Like, really, really planned. There were no forgotten pills, broken condoms or one too many glasses of red wine; these women had to actively seek out sperm donors and then undergo artificial insemination [Salon].

The parents in her study, Gartrell says, “reported using verbal limit-setting more often with their children” (as opposed to any kind of corporal punishment). They had dealt early with the difficult conversations about sexuality and prejudice, she says. That may have contributed to the fact that at 10 the kids of lesbian families appeared to have experienced more anxiety from being stigmatized, but by 17 that effect no longer showed up.

“They are very involved in their children’s lives,” she says of the lesbian parents. “And that is a great recipe for healthy outcomes for children” [TIME].

That is, good parenting is what matters, not gay parenting.

D-I-V-O-R-C-E

Buried in the study is a curious stat: When heterosexual first marriages end in divorce, 65% of the time mothers end up with sole custody. But, in the study of lesbian couples, things ended up much differently.

The percentage of separation was about the same: about 50% for heterosexual couples and 56% for the lesbian couples in the study. But when the study couples split up, they retained joint custody in 70% of the cases. The paper says, “Custody was more likely to be shared in these families when the mothers had previously completed a co-parent (second parent) adoption agreement.”

Weaknesses

The study’s long-term view of families headed by lesbian couples is its strength, along with the fact that gathering study participants before they gave birth meant the study wouldn’t be skewed by “families who volunteer when it is already clear that their offspring are performing well.”

But it does have weaknesses. For one, Gartrell’s funding came in part from gay and lesbian organizations like the Gill Foundation and the Lesbian Health Fund from the Gay Lesbian Medical Association. That has led anti-gay organization to respond to the study with charges of bias. Indeed, if Gartrell had been able to secure complete funding from an independent source like the National Institutes of Health, that would have been nice. But there have been easier things to do in the last quarter-century than glean government grants to study families led by same-sex couples.

A more pressing scientific question is: How much you can extrapolate the study’s data to 2010? As the study says, the differences between 1986 and today made recruiting a nationally representative sample quite difficult:

The NLLFS sample is drawn from the first-wave planned lesbian families who were initially clustered around metropolitan areas with visible lesbian communities, which were much less diverse than they are today; recruiting was limited to the relatively small number of prospective mothers who felt safe enough to identify publicly as lesbian, who had the economic resources to afford DI, and who, in the pre-Internet era, were affiliated with the communities in which the study was advertised.

Related Content:
80beats: Obama to Hospitals: Grant Visiting Rights to Gay Couples
80beats: Familial Rejection of Gay Teens Can Lead to Mental Health Problems Later
DISCOVER: The Real Story on Gay Genes

Image: iStockphoto