Science fiction movies and TV shows are perpetually trying to see through things: Everyone from Superman to last year’s KITT reboot were all using some method or other to see through walls and clothing. Since we already live in the future, see through technology exists in myriad forms, not the least of which is airport full-body scanning. These scanners are so good at seeing past clothing that they might violate child porn laws in the United Kingdom. So now we’re in the position of trying to find ways to make see-through-stuff technology worse.

Enter the non-ionizing terahertz-frequency radiation. The terahertz range sits betwixt the infrared and the microwave bands of the electromagnetic spectrum. Pretty much everything on the planet emits it, and different objects emit different frequencies. Without any need for an emitter, a receiver could be designed to take pictures in the terahertz range. It wouldn’t have sharp lines, but terahertz radiation has a short range, and the emissions vary depending on the object. It would see people as a hazy silhouette. The radiation passes through wood, ceramics, cloth, and paper, but not metal or water.

In a short range situation —- like an airport security scanner —- a receiver could be installed to watch for the pattern of terahertz radiation. A person’s silhouette would show up fine, but a metal knife or handgun would appear as a black outline on the screen. There are already two companies with equipment like this ready to sell, and at least one CEO claiming the technology can be tuned to pick up radiation from drugs or other contraband a person might be carrying.

Not only would the new technology be safer, and avoid privacy concerns, it might make an airport security guard’s job a little better.

I’m in lovely La Jolla this evening, getting ready for my third annual contribution to SIO295/295L: Introduction to Marine Biodiversity and Conservation, Climate Change and Marine Ecosystems. It’s “Communications Week,” and I’m teaching a full day media training on tomorrow, to be followed up by Randy Olson teaching on film and, well, how not to be such a scientist.

The more of these sessions you do, the easier it is to get set in your ways–but I’m trying to avoid that. I’m changing things up.

In particular, I am going to start teaching about that Sagan clip I posted earlier–why was Sagan so effective? What message did he articulate, and why did it resonate enough that Cosmos was able to reach half a billion people around the world?

Would a similar science communication model work today? Or is it hopelessly dated?

Another thing I teach on is web-based science communication, and the blessings (and downsides) of blogs. In particular, I contrast science blogs with other forms of online communication that, I believe, have greater potential to reach non-scientific audiences–in particular, entertaining YouTube videos. Videos like this one (yes, that’s right Phil, as of today you made the curriculum!):

Why is Phil Plait good at what he does? Why is listening to him talk about black holes not a drag, not boring or wonky, but actually intriguing and more than a little amusing?

(For another example of Phil making black holes a blast–rather than a dark abyss–listen to our Point of Inquiry episode.)

At Scripps, and in these trainings in general, I teach the students the basics of how to design a message, how to deal with weirdo journalists, how to grapple with a changing media. But the higher level stuff–the stuff that makes a Phil Plait–isn’t something you can necessarily teach. It emerges from a combination of talent, insight, and creativity.

It’s…star stuff. (Thanks, Carl.)

My hope, though, is that by training larger numbers of scientists in the basics of communication, we’ll set some few on the path towards being real media entrepreneurs. It won’t be everyone. But there are more communication innovators out there than we’ve yet encountered–of that I’m very sure.

In the post below on the prolific nature of the Kennedy clan some commenters were curious as to the general socioeconomic slant of Irish Catholics. The GSS has a variable ETHNIC which asks which nation an individual’s ancestors came from. Combine that with RELIG, and you can figure out how Irish Catholics stack up nationally. While I was looking at Irish Catholics I thought I would look at whites from various nations. I decided to exclude Jews from the analysis because I think there’s a big difference between Polish Catholics and Polish Jews socioeconomically and we’d lose information aggregating. Further, I constrained the sample to non-Hispanic whites. To look at socioeconomic index I focused on the SEI variable. Here’s how SEI is calculated:

SEI scores were originally calculated by Otis Dudley Duncan based on NORC’s 1947 North-Hatt prestige study and the 1950 U.S. Census. Duncan regressed prestige scores for 45 occupational titles on education and income to produce weights that would predict prestige. This algorithm was then used to calculate SEI scores for all occupational categories employed in the 1950 Census classification of occupations. Similar procedures have been used to produce SEI scores based on later NORC prestige studies and censuses.

Here are some values for reference:

Jewish = 62
White non-Hispanic = 51
Hispanic = 43
Black = 42
Only High School Education = 43
Bachelor’s Degree = 63

I’ve crossed the ethnic groups with religion & region (RELIG & REGION):

I omitted cells where the N < 50. Additionally, “British” aggregates those of Scottish, Welsh, English, and “American” ancestry. Nordic combines those from all the Nordic countries. French includes Quebecois. I’ll let readers speculate, but I’m pretty sure that those with ancestors from Slavic countries of “No Religion” are disproportionately Jews.