Solar Shadow Play, Seances for Science, and More from Our 1925 Coverage
Rachel Feltman: Happy Monday, listeners! For Scientific American 's Science Quickly, I'm Rachel Feltman. I was out of the office taking a little break last week, so I didn't have the chance to write and record our usual news roundup. Instead, I thought it would be fun to dive back into the Scientific American archives for the first time in a while. Let's see what SciAm was up to 100 years ago.
The April 1925 issue of Scientific American had more in common with our coverage in 2024 than you might expect: 99 years apart everyone was going gaga over eclipses. While the January 1925 total solar eclipse didn't quite hit the same swath of the U.S. as the one we got to enjoy last year, it did treat folks in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts to totality. According to SciAm 's April 1925 article on the subject, the weather was pristine for eclipse viewing. The article also details some apparently very eerie visual effects that showed up during the eclipse. Apparently, some folks in the path of totality saw patterns of dark, squirming bands on the ground during the last moments of sunlight. 'Indeed,' the article states, 'there was hardly anything more weird in the whole unearthly sequence than the appearance in the growing obscurity of these thousands of writhing serpents of shadow.'
The 1925 writer helpfully explains what scientists still think is behind these illusory snakes. Apparently they were the shadows cast by streaks of air with different densities. As anyone who's ever gotten to experience an eclipse knows, the shadows cast by the sun sharpen as the light source narrows in scope. So while we don't usually see the squiggles of warmer and cooler drafts of air refracting different amounts of light, an impending total eclipse can make the effect noticeable. There was reportedly some pristine snow on the ground during the 1925 eclipse, which likely created a perfect background for seeing some solar shadow play.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
One interesting difference between last year's eclipse and the one in 1925? The moon was late—or, more accurately, all the humans were early—by about five seconds. The April 1925 edition of SciAm explains that while the general public probably found it delightful that the totality predictions were so close to exact, astronomers were 'disappointed' by the discrepancy.
What I find really neat is how scientists became aware of the five-second delay at all. According to SciAm, observing stations along the path of totality were poised to send a signal over telegraph wire at the moment the moon completely covered the sun. Those signals were automatically recorded by 'accurate time-measuring machines' at Bell Labs and Yale University so scientists could later analyze the event's timing.
The same article predicts that an eclipse in 2025 'could be predicted not only within
an error of five seconds but within an error as small as can be observed.'
Predicting the exact arrival of totality requires knowledge of where the sun and moon will be in the sky at any given moment. We've now got an excellent read on where the moon is all the time, thanks to mirrors left there during the Apollo missions. And as we explained in our January episode on heliophysics, there are always plenty of scientists focused on the sun.
Moving on from eclipses, I can't talk about vintage Scientific American without reminding you that the Scientific American Psychic Investigation was a very real, very serious endeavor in 1925. Technically the magazine's official search for proof of genuine ghosts was held from 1923 to 1924, but the rules specified that the aptly-named Psychic Committee would review any applications still pending when the deadline closed. In April 1925 Scientific American spent an entire page explaining why it's rejecting the claims of a woman known as 'Margery,' who was apparently the wife of a well-known surgeon in Boston.
According to reporting by PBS, Margery was the most serious contender in SciAm 's hunt for a genuine spiritual medium, with famous illusionist and skeptic Henry Houdini included in the committee that investigated her. Apparently Houdini got so fed up with the length of how long it was taking Scientific American to reject Margery's claims. That he published a pamphlet dismissing her claims at his own expense.
Now, you might assume that Scientific American 's readers were upset to see the magazine take mediums so seriously. But according to an article about the Margery investigation published in SciAm 's August 1924 issue, the 'most persistent' criticism the magazine faced for its psychic challenge was that it was too 'hasty' in dismissing individual mediums.
Rigorous as always, Scientific American waited to make its official declaration on Margery until members of its committee had attended almost 100 of her seances.
We'll wrap up our tour of the April 1925 issue with a quick scan of the 'Inventions New and Interesting' section. If you've never looked at our archives before, this is the place to start for a quick hit of delightfully weird historical ephemera. It features new patents the editors of the magazine found particularly innovative, and the result feels like an 'as seen on TV' collection of late-night infomercial gadgets.
For instance, in April 1925 the magazine featured an electrical salon device that offered all sorts of attachments, from razors to dental-hygiene devices. I guess you could call it the original Dyson Airwrap. The magazine also showcases an elaborate device meant to remove the core of a grapefruit, which I have to admit is baffling to me for several reasons.
Another featured product is a small folding table for dogs, which the magazine suggested could 'create good manners' by 'rais[ing] their standard of living.' I see what you did there guys. Though it was noted that if most people had as much trouble getting their dog to eat off the table as the SciAm photographer did, 'we should not call it a great success.'
In a blurb titled 'Foiling the Highjacker' the magazine highlights 'an extremely clever device to frustrate the motor-car holdup men.' Was it some kind of door lock or alarm system? Nope: it was a gun holster that reportedly kept revolvers safely—and accessibly!—pointed at either the floor or dashboard of the car.
That's not to say all of SciAm 's favorite new inventions look silly in hindsight. The April 1925 issue also shares the game-changing news from the University of California that prunes can now be dehydrated artificially more efficiently than they can be dried out in the sun. And some of the magazine's highlighted products are so practical that it makes me shudder for folks who had to live before their invention: serrated kitchen shears, rubber scrapers for cleaning kitchen sinks, and foot-powered mop wringers to save cleaners from bending over.
Perhaps the most thrilling entry is one called 'Washing the Car in An Automobile Laundry,' which describes a bold new facility where cars are carried on a conveyor belt and washed in a stunning 14 minutes.
That's all for this week's vintage news roundup. The usual 21st-century news will be back next Monday. If you're hungry for updates on current happenings, you can go check out ScientificAmerican.com. We'll be back on Wednesday to explore how AI is changing the way some people grieve.
Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Naeem Amarsy and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was edited by Alex Sugiura. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scientific American
6 hours ago
- Scientific American
Science Quiz: Event Horizons and Flesh-Eating Parasites
Allison Parshall is an associate editor at Scientific American covering mind and brain. She writes the magazine's Contributors column and weekly online Science Quizzes. As a multimedia journalist, she contributes to Scientific American 's podcast Science Quickly. Parshall's work has also appeared in Quanta Magazine and Inverse. She graduated from New York University's Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute with a master's degree in science, health and environmental reporting. She has a bachelor's degree in psychology from Georgetown University. Follow Parshall on X (formerly Twitter) @parshallison
Scientific American
6 hours ago
- Scientific American
Testosterone Therapy Is Booming. But Is It Actually Safe?
As more men turn to testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) for energy, mood and muscle, experts warn the risks are still not fully understood. By , Stephanie Pappas, Fonda Mwangi & Alex Sugiura This episode was made possible by the support of Yakult and produced independently by Scientific American 's board of editors. Rachel Feltman: For Scientific American 's Science Quickly, I'm Rachel Feltman. Whether it's framed as a cure-all for fatigue and low libido or a shortcut to gaining muscle mass, testosterone replacement therapy, or TRT, is all over the Internet these days. But how much of the hype is actually backed by science? On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Here to help us make sense of the testosterone boom is Stephanie Pappas, a freelance reporter based in Colorado. Stephanie recently covered the growing popularity—and availability—of TRT for Scientific American. Thanks so much for coming on to chat. Stephanie Pappas: Thank you. Feltman: So you recently wrote about testosterone replacement therapy for Scientific American. For folks who are not on the right part of the Internet to have heard all about this—or maybe staying off the wrong parts [laughs] of the Internet, depending on your perspective—what's going on with TRT right now? Pappas: Well, testosterone replacement therapy has become extremely popular. It has been something that's been in the background for many, many years. Synthetic testosterone was first invented in 1935, but for a long, long time people thought that testosterone replacement, if it was used for any kind of symptoms men might be having, that it could cause prostate cancer. And then it was believed, perhaps, it could cause heart disease or cardiovascular events like a stroke or a heart attack. As it turns out the last few years we found that it doesn't really cause these really serious events. However, a lot less is known about the long-term health impacts. People are really flocking to TRT largely as a result of word of mouth. There are a lot of private clinics that offer this out of pocket, so you don't have to have an insurance company agree that you need it. And people on social media are using it for just a litany of different symptoms, and it can be anything from muscle-building to fatigue to mood problems and irritability, and it's kind of being pitched as a cure-all for a lot of different things. Feltman: And what evidence is there for the benefits of testosterone replacement therapy, maybe starting with people who actually have low testosterone? Pappas: Yeah, so there is such a thing as low testosterone. No one exactly agrees on what the cutoff is, and probably that's because there's a lot of variability in our hormones—like, anyone who's ever tried any sort of hormone treatment, including birth control or HRT [hormone replacement therapy], can tell you that people respond really differently. So for men who really do have low testosterone, the evidence suggests that you can see some benefits in mood if you have major depression. You may see some improvements in energy. The most well-established result from the studies of TRT is that you'll probably see a little boost in libido if you have low testosterone and you now start taking TRT, and that's because testosterone works in the brain to increase sexual desire. Feltman: Hmm. Pappas: For men who don't have low testosterone, which are many of the men who are now getting treatment, the evidence for benefits is much, much lower. We don't know if you really see much besides additional muscle-building abilities. Feltman: And what are the potential downsides? You mentioned that one of the reasons there's such a boom right now is that research has showed that the connection to prostate cancer is not concerning the way we once thought it was. But what about other issues that can come up when you don't have low testosterone and you start taking a bunch of testosterone? Pappas: Right, so if you are taking a testosterone supplement, your body actually shuts down its own testosterone production. There's this neat little feedback loop that says, 'Oh, if the testosterone's high in the blood, we're going to just kind of ramp it down.' And a side effect of that is, actually, because testosterone is involved in sperm production, your body will also stop producing sperm. So as more younger men turn to TRT, we are seeing that men who are interested in still having children are finding they're losing their fertility. Oftentimes men are told, 'Oh, you'll recover it once you stop.' But that can actually be slow and complicated, so urologists in the field often see men who aren't understanding why they're not, you know, able to get their partner pregnant, and they may have tried for quite some time. Feltman: Right, and, you know, not that this is the reason that's upsetting, but there is also kind of an irony there because a lot of the marketing is sort of stereotypical masculinity, so it's not surprising that people are caught off guard by that potential downside. Pappas: Yes, absolutely. They are really marketing this—if you go, you can see it on billboards or online—these ads are all about muscles, they're about machoism. And oftentimes the reports from some of these freestanding clinics is that men are not being told all the information about all the side-effect possibilities. Feltman: When you say that regaining fertility after these treatments can be complex and slow, could you walk us through what you mean by that? Pappas: Sure, because your own testosterone levels and sperm production drop, you're going to have to, usually, get off the testosterone. That can really lead to a hormone crash; since your body is, really, at that point in quite low testosterone, you may feel irritable, you may feel fatigue. So you're gonna have to go through that—a bit of a roller coaster. Doctors will prescribe some medications that can help even out your levels and help encourage your body to start producing its own sperm again. That can take some time; it can be a little expensive. Urologists can help you, though. But they do say that they are concerned that men have a, often, too rosy picture of what that's gonna look like. It can take up to two years to recover full fertility, there's kind of an unknown as to whether sperm quality will be quite as high as it was beforehand. And as anyone who's trying to have kids knows, two years can be quite a while when you're dealing with fertility problems. Feltman: Yeah, so let's talk some more about those freestanding clinics. You know, in addition to TRT, you know, being more in demand and more in the conversation, it also seems like it's more accessible than ever, so what are some of the sort of concerning characteristics of these clinics that are popping up? Pappas: Well, you don't wanna paint all clinics with the same brush ... Feltman: Sure. Pappas: Because there is a wide variety of care out there. So it can be any provider that can prescribe—because testosterone is a controlled substance—but they may not really be running you through a full workup, as a urologist or an endocrinologist affiliated with a practice or a hospital system might do. The recommendations from professional societies suggest you get two testosterone tests on different days because testosterone levels swing wildly. I could not find anyone who'd reported to me that they'd gotten two tests. I can't say that there aren't clinics that do it. Typically you're gonna get one test. Typically they are motivated to prescribe what they can to you. The problem, often, is that because of this long-term fear around testosterone, is that many primary care doctors are nervous about prescribing it or don't feel that they've been trained. I spoke to one man who, actually, his doctor said, 'Yes, your testosterone is undeniably low, but I don't know what to do about it. Maybe just go to one of these clinics, and they can help you.' His experience in that clinic, unfortunately, was that they kind of gave him a generic prescription, did not really test through his levels, didn't really talk through, you know, alternative treatments or other things he might look at doing. So he felt his loss and he ended up looking on Reddit for advice, which, as we all know [laughs], is a real hit-and-miss proposition ... Feltman: Sure. Pappas: So men are often kind of left searching for their own information, and they may not have good sources of information. Feltman: And the experts that you spoke to, what do they wanna see change about the way we're treating TRT? Pappas: The first step is that a lot of physicians who specialize in hormone replacement therapy for men would like to see more awareness among primary care physicians and other doctors that men might go to, because if they could coordinate that care in a really responsible way, there are probably many men who could benefit: they do have low testosterone but haven't ever thought about being tested. And then the other side of this is just patient education. If you're going to consider going to a clinic, don't just go somewhere that will happily hand you a prescription. Really look for someone who is going to sit down with you, who is going to talk through lifestyle changes, who's going to look at alternative problems. So one doctor I spoke to said, 'The first thing we do is we look for sleep apnea in our patients. If we can cure that, oftentimes we don't need to look at their testosterone levels again.' And don't be in a rush to walk out that first day with a prescription that might be too high for you and might lead to side effects like acne, or another side effect you can see is an overgrowth of red blood cells that can lead you to need to have to donate blood every month to keep that in normal range. Look for something that's not going to cause the side effects that can really affect your life in the long term. Feltman: Sure, well, thank you so much for coming on to talk us through your feature. I really appreciate it. Pappas: Thank you so much. Feltman: That's all for today's episode. You can read Stephanie's full story on TRT in the July/August issue of Scientific American. We'll be back next week with something special: a three-part miniseries on bird flu. From avian influenza's wild origins to its spread across U.S. farms to the labs trying to keep it from becoming the next pandemic, this looming public health threat has a lot of moving parts, but we'll get you all caught up. Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Naeem Amarsy and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was edited by Alex Sugiura. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.
Scientific American
12 hours ago
- Scientific American
Spellements: Friday, June 20, 2025
How to Play Click the timer at the top of the game page to pause and see a clue to the science-related word in this puzzle! The objective of the game is to find words that can be made with the given letters such that all the words include the letter in the center. You can enter letters by clicking on them or typing them in. Press Enter to submit a word. Letters can be used multiple times in a single word, and words must contain four letters or more for this size layout. Select the Play Together icon in the navigation bar to invite a friend to work together on this puzzle. Pangrams, words which incorporate all the letters available, appear in bold and receive bonus points. One such word is always drawn from a recent Scientific American article—look out for a popup when you find it! You can view hints for words in the puzzle by hitting the life preserver icon in the game display. The dictionary we use for this game misses a lot of science words, such as apatite and coati. Let us know at games@ any extra science terms you found, along with your name and place of residence,
