July/August 2025: Science History from 50, 100 and 150 Years Ago
3 min read
Toxic cigars; dueling with a swordfish
Mark Fischetti
1975
Kennedy Protects Science Funding
'When a scientist seeks public financing for research, the request is judged by the review panels for the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other Federal granting agencies. The 94th Congress has given numerous signs that it might like to make such judgments itself. The House of Representatives, in passing a bill authorizing $755.4 million for the NSF for fiscal year 1976, adopted an amendment that would give Congress veto power over any grant. The Senate adopted an authorization bill that did not include an amendment. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, chairman of the subcommittee that prepared the bill, said the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare unanimously regarded the amendment as 'not only unworkable but contrary to the principles which have brought this nation to its leadership position in scientific research.''
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.
Accurate Missiles
'Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger announced the intention of the U.S. to develop a new generation of long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads against distant targets with unprecedented accuracy. An 'active' guidance system that could supplement a missile's basic inertial guidance system by generating corrections in the trajectory of the warhead as it reenters the atmosphere is under development and should be capable of achieving near-perfect accuracy.'
1925
Nothing Magnetic in This Ship
'The Carnegie, a scientific research vessel constructed entirely of wood and other nonmagnetic materials, has been making a magnetic survey of the ocean. The timbers in her hull are fastened with bronze spikes and bolts, the rigging is hemp instead of steel, the cookstoves are built of brass and copper, the anchors are bronze, each weighing 1,900 pounds, and the anchor chains are not chains at all but are manila rope hawsers 11 inches in circumference. Because of this method of construction, no corrections on account of the presence of iron or other magnetic material need be applied to the results obtained with the various magnetic instruments onboard. The yacht is charged with the study of the Earth's magnetism and with seeking out the cause of variations in its magnetic and electric fields.'
1875
Oil Wells Waste Gas
'There is little doubt that the gas escaping constantly from oil wells is of nearly or quite as much value as the oil itself. It is a wonder that means have not long since been adopted to utilize this immense product of the Earth. For years the gas has been allowed to pass away into the air uselessly. One well in the Butler oil region of Pennsylvania flows with a pressure of 300 pounds to the square inch and is estimated to yield a million cubic feet of gas every 24 hours.'
A Toxic Mouthful for Cigar Smokers
'The products of smoking tobacco in cigars are quite numerous and complex. Distinct products in the smoke include cyanhydric acid; sulphuretted hydrogen; the fatty acids formic, acetic, propionic, butyric and valerianic; carbolic acid; creosote; pyridine, picolin, collidin and other similar alkaloids. Also found are ammonia, nitrogen, oxygen and small quantities of marsh gas and carbonic oxide.'
Swordfish Duel
'A few days ago a couple of men in a boat fishing in Lower New York Bay found what they supposed, by its single fin above the water, to be a shark. They attacked the monster, and were astonished by the sudden piercing through of their boat bottom by the sword, 4.5 feet long, of a large swordfish. They succeeded in noosing its tail and killing the fish, after which it was brought to a restaurant a few doors from the Scientific American office. The New York Express states that the fish weighed 390 lbs., and measured 19 feet 8 inches. It was certainly one of the finest specimens we ever saw. The swordfish is allied to the mackerel, which it resembles in form, and is a swift swimmer. The sword consists of a strong straight bone, sharp and flat. The ordinary length of a fish body at full growth is 14 feet, and its sword 6 feet, or 20 feet in all.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Eric Adams vows to sue election board over independent run
NEW YORK — New York City candidates running as independents can only appear on one ballot line. Mayor Eric Adams wants to sue over that — a self-serving move to boost his visibility as he launches a longshot bid to retain his mayoralty. Adams suggested on Tuesday he plans to take action against the New York City Board of Elections over ballot access, potentially opening another legal front in his reelection bid. Speaking at an unrelated press briefing in City Hall, the mayor blasted the board's decision to limit him to one independent ballot line in the general election — a determination based on state law. 'I think that's unfair,' Adams said. 'I think the rules for everyone should be the same, and so our legal team is now looking at that to determine if it's constitutionally sound.' Adams dropped out of the Democratic primary while still under the cloud of his now-defunct criminal bribery case, which was tossed at the behest of President Donald Trump's Department of Justice. He'll run as an independent in the November general election and wants to appear on two ballot lines of his own creation: EndAntiSemitism and Safe&Affordable. Candidates who earn the nomination of major parties can also run on an independent ballot line, which Adams — a registered Democrat — is now calling unfair. Last week, Adams' campaign spokesperson told The New York Times the team was exploring its legal options. The mayor's comments Tuesday solidified his opposition to the decision. 'I don't think running for a general election should be tilted towards the primary lines in the city,' Adams said Tuesday. Any potential legal action against the board would be the second lawsuit Adams is filing in his longshot reelection bid. As POLITICO first reported, Adams sued the Campaign Finance Board last month, accusing the organization of improperly denying him millions of dollars in public matching funds. With his EndAntiSemitism ballot line, Adams has made clear that appealing to Jewish voters will be a key part of his campaign — a tactic shared by mayoral frontrunner Andrew Cuomo. Over the weekend, however, Adams sat down for a more than hourlong interview with Sneako, a streaming personality who has made comments widely considered antisemitic. On Saturday, a day before he sat down with Adams over cigars at Gracie Mansion, Sneako penned a social media post saying 'Israel is not compatible with Western civilization.' Adams said he was unaware of Sneako's prior comments. He said the content creator was at the official mayoral residence because he came along with conservative television personality Amber Rose, whom Adams had invited to meet his son. Sneako then asked to interview Adams on the spot. 'I didn't know him before that, and my son was excited to meet Amber Rose and engage in a conversation with her,' Adams said. 'And that was how all that came about.' Adams also defended his record with the New York Jewish community and said he does not share Sneako's views.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
U.S. appeals court weighs Trump's deployment of National Guard in L.A.
Washington — A federal appeals court in San Francisco weighed Tuesday whether President Trump can continue with his deployment of California's National Guard in Los Angeles to protect federal immigration authorities during enforcement operations and appeared skeptical of the state's arguments against the president's mobilization of more than 4,000 troops. The three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit heard arguments on a Justice Department request for it to halt a district judge's order that required Mr. Trump to return control of the National Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom while the court fight moves forward. Newsom, a Democrat, objects to the federalization of the National Guard in Los Angeles. Brett Shumate, an assistant attorney general with the Justice Department, said Mr. Trump's decision to call National Guard troops into federal service under a law known as Title 10 is unreviewable by courts, regardless of the facts of the case. If the panel were to side with California, he warned, "it puts Article III judges on a collision course with the commander-in-chief." Shumate said that California's interpretation of the law is "dangerous" and would allow Newsom to issue a "pocket veto" of any future orders from Mr. Trump. He said it's "essential" that the district court's injunction be lifted and said leaving it intact would put "lives and property at risk." Shumate said that if the 9th Circuit declines to halt the district judge's order, it should allow the Justice Department time to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court. But Sam Harbourt, a deputy solicitor general for California, said Mr. Trump's order calling the National Guard into federal service sweeps too broadly. He told the court that the president failed to consider any "modest measures" to quell protests in Los Angeles before taking the "grave and extraordinary step" of calling forth the National Guard. Harbourt told the judges that Mr. Trump circumvented Newsom when he unilaterally decided to deploy the California National Guard to Los Angeles and warned that the continued presence of troops in city streets would escalate tensions and the risk of violence. The three judges considering the Trump administration's request for a stay during the appeal are Judges Mark Bennett, Eric Miller and Jennifer Sung. Mr. Trump appointed Bennett and Miller during his first term, and former President Joe Biden tapped Sung for the 9th Circuit. Early on, Bennett appeared skeptical of the Trump administration's position that courts cannot review the president's decision to federalize the National Guard and should not second-guess his military judgments. But as the arguments continued, all three judges pressed Harbourt on his position. Bennett asked where in the law there is a requirement for the president to have considered alternative measures before exercising control of the National Guard. He also probed Harbourt on his claim that Title 10 required Mr. Trump to consult with Newsom before calling the California troops into federal service. Miller cited a state law that he said effectively makes the adjutant general of the California National Guard a "substitute" for the governor. Mr. Trump had directed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to effectuate the federalization of Guard troops, and he then issued memoranda to the adjutant general to transfer authority over the Guard from the state to the federal government. The case landed before the 9th Circuit after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled last week that Mr. Trump's actions in deploying the National Guard to respond to protests against immigration raids in Los Angeles were illegal and blocked the administration from deploying the troops in the city. The Trump administration swiftly appealed that decision, and the 9th Circuit panel issued a temporary administrative stay while it took more time to consider the issue. The legal battle involves whether the president exceeded his authority when he invoked Title 10 to call forth the California National Guard in response to protests in California's largest city. Demonstrations broke out earlier this month after immigration agents conducted raids across Los Angeles as part of the administration's efforts to crack down on immigration and execute mass deportations. Title 10 lays out three circumstances under which the National Guard can be called into federal service: when the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; when there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the U.S.; or when the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws. It then says that orders "shall be issued through" the governor. Mr. Trump said in his June 7 memorandum ordering the deployment of 2,000 National Guard members that the protests in Los Angeles "constitute a form of rebellion," which allowed him to federalize the National Guard and bypass Newsom. An additional 2,000 troops were brought under federal command. Roughly 700 active-duty U.S. Marines have also been mobilized to the area to protect federal property and immigration agents during arrests. In his decision, Breyer rejected the president's claim that the demonstrations are a "rebellion," writing that he is "troubled by the implication inherent in defendants' argument that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion." The protests, the judge said, "fall far short" of rebellion, and the administration failed to identify a "violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole." The judge's order did not address the president's mobilization of the Marines to Los Angeles. In filings with the 9th Circuit, the Trump administration argued that courts do not have a role in reviewing the president's decision to deploy the troops. Even if courts could review his decision to call the National Guard into federal service, the Justice Department said the president had ample reason to determine that the protests in Los Angeles rose to the level of a "danger" of rebellion, one of the conditions laid out in Title 10. "The district court's order improperly impinges on the commander in chief's supervision of military operations, countermands a military directive to officers in the Held, and puts federal officers (and others) in harm's way," Justice Department lawyers wrote. Newsom and California officials told the 9th Circuit in filings that Breyer's order should be left undisturbed, as it restored the status quo in place before Mr. Trump's June 7 memorandum. "Considered individually, defendants' legal arguments are meritless. Considered in the aggregate, they are terrifying," California lawyers wrote. They said that the administration's interpretation of Title 10 "would empower the president to commandeer a state's National Guard based merely on evidence that some civilians opposed his authority, disobeyed his commands, or presented operational difficulties for civil law enforcement officials — and without any input from (or even notice to) the governor. " They said that "unchecked power" could be used in any context, "not just where civilians are protesting immigration enforcement, but also where they are protesting other policies of a federal administration, or protesting in advance of a hotly contested federal election." "Collectively, defendants' arguments would sideline the judiciary, ignore Congress's limitations, and trample over the states' sovereign interest in their own militias," California's attorneys argued. Among the issues before the 9th Circuit panel is whether the Trump administration properly notified Newsom of its order calling the National Guard into federal service. The Justice Department argued in lower court proceedings that it did because two memos calling up the National Guard went through California's adjutant general, who runs the California National Guard, and not Newsom's office, as California has argued is necessary. That argument, Breyer wrote, "strains credibility" because Congress mandates that the National Guard requires the notice to be "issued through the governors." Teen questioned after family's quadruple murder 10 years after shooting at Mother Emanuel AME Church, victims speak of forgiveness Migrant farm workers express fears of ICE raids
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democratic divisions emerge as Congress tackles crypto regulation
Democrats are wrestling with their strategy on cryptocurrency, a once underground industry that has become a powerful player on Capitol Hill — and closely associated with President Donald Trump. Cryptocurrency groups scored a major win in Washington on Tuesday, with the Senate passing a landmark bill to regulate some digital assets. It was a bipartisan vote, with 18 Democrats joining nearly every Republican to support the bill following an intense lobbying and advocacy effort. But the battle over the legislation has exposed deep Democratic divisions over how to handle the broader issue of crypto in a GOP-controlled Washington. While some Democrats have pushed for the party to be leading the charge on developing policy for the quickly emerging industry, others have been wary of embracing a tool that they say has created conflicts of interest for Trump. Newly released financial disclosures show Trump made one of his largest fortunes last year, $57.3 million, on his family's cryptocurrency company World Liberty Financial. Progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking committee, said the GENIUS Act — the bill the Senate passed that would establish the first regulatory framework for issuers of stablecoins, digital tokens pegged to fiat currencies like the U.S. dollar — would create a 'superhighway' for corruption in the Trump White House. Warren also lamented to NBC News that the crypto industry is 'pouring money in to try to influence votes here in Congress.' But other Democrats see this is a rare chance for Congress to get ahead of an issue, arguing they can't afford to wait until they win back power in Washington to act — especially with how quickly technology moves. 'I think every politician will say this. It's the same thing about any industry that they don't like or understand,' Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., who supports the GENIUS Act, told NBC news in an interview. The GENIUS Act now heads to the House, where the Democratic divide over cryptocurrency — which can often fall along generational lines — came to a head during a private meeting last week attended by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., other Democratic leaders and committee ranking members, according to three sources who were in the room and a fourth source who was briefed on the meeting. Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn., who is running for the Senate, expressed her support for the industry and a recent bipartisan bill called the Clarity Act, which would provide a regulatory framework for digital assets, according to three of the sources. The 53-year-old Craig serves in the House Agriculture Committee as the top Democrat, and 86-year-old Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., is the ranking member in the Financial Services Committee. Waters opposes the legislation and instead wants to bar Trump from benefiting from the digital assets Congress could legitimize. Waters expressed those concerns in the Wednesday meeting, three of the sources said. Other members agreed, including Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. Both Himes and Waters stressed a need for greater insider trading protections in the bill, the three sources said. The lawmakers said Democrats should not enable Trump to get wealthy off of unfettered access to the industry he wants Congress to regulate. Craig argued Trump was already bound by existing laws, one of the sources said. Waters began talking over Craig, who told the room that she was in the middle of speaking, leading to a heated discussion, the source said. As this episode was unfolding, Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., suggested that perhaps Democrats should act to ban the industry altogether, two sources added — an example of just how wildly far apart some Democrats are on the issue. Jeffries moved to table the discussion for another time, the three sources said. After the meeting, both Waters and a Craig spokespersons declined to comment, saying the meeting was private. Jeffries' office also declined to comment on a private meeting. A spokesperson for Scott did not respond to a request for comment. Craig, whose re-election campaign received a big boost from groups associated with the industry last year, has backed a check on Trump. During the Agriculture Committee markup on the Clarity Act, Rep. Eugene Vindman, D-Va., offered an amendment targeting entities that hold meme-based assets associated with the president, vice president or other public officials. All 24 Democrats on the panel, including Craig, backed the amendment; Republicans successfully voted it down. Looming over the Democratic debate is the fact that groups associated with the crypto industry were heavily involved in the last election. Fairshake, a crypto-focused super PAC that formed in 2023, spent $195 million in the 2024 elections. And the group already has $116 million in cash on hand for the 2026 midterm election cycle, according to the group's spokesperson, Josh Vlasto. 'We are keeping our foot on the gas and all options are on the table,' Vlasto told NBC News. Crypto groups supported candidates from both parties in 2024, but they also spent $40 million to oppose then-Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, who was ultimately defeated by Republican Bernie Moreno. That race is still lingering in the air among Democrats who fear that kind of cash being used against them. The cryptocurrency industry has also dialed up its lobbying and grassroots advocacy efforts in recent years. Stand With Crypto, an advocacy group, launched a campaign around the passage of the GENIUS Act encouraging people to call or email their senators in support of the bill. The effort resulted in 75,000 emails being sent to members, according to the organization. The group also organized so-called fly-in meetings ahead of key votes on the bill in order to link members with constituents who utilize crypto. Stand With Crypto has not made any election endorsements, but it is leaving itself the room to do so in the future. In the meantime, the group created a 'scorecard' that tracks how members fare on key votes and has been arguing to lawmakers that an increasing number of voters care about crypto. 'For these folks that are afraid of [crypto] people donating money, that's not really what we do. But what they should be concerned about is our voters voting differently, because these votes are up for grabs,' Mason Lynaugh, community director for Stand With Crypto, told NBC News. 'A lot of these people were not civically engaged before, and I don't know if the genie's going back in the bottle.' Even though Democrats are far from united on the topic, the industry has made some key allies in the party. 'We are here to legislate, and again, to try to bring into compliance an economy that is largely outside the United States is uncontrollable at this point,' Gallego said. 'I think it's the responsibility of us as Congress to put down the rules of the road.' Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., who also supports the GENIUS Act, said he voted for the bill because many of his constituents already use crypto. 'We're already using these products. And so from a public policy point of view, one of the questions for me, is, what will leave the consumers in a better place? So we clearly need some kind of regulatory structure,' Warnock told NBC news. Asked if the industry is pumping too much money into elections, Warnock replied: 'I think there's too much money in our system whether you're talking about oil and gas or the gun industry, it's a serious democracy problem.' This article was originally published on
