Slashdot Mirror
Nature's Building Blocks
From actinium to zirconium, Emsley covers each of the elements of the periodic table in alphabetical order and includes a short section on the periodic table arrangement itself. Though the result looks rather formidable at 500-plus pages, Nature's Building Blocks is less like a college chemistry text (or the staple of every chemist's bookshelf, the CRC Handbook), than like a collection of bedtime stories. For one thing, the book need not be read front to back; just pick an element, any element, and start wherever you like; it's not even necessary to read any chapter beginning to end. Each is broken down into cleverly named subtopics such as "Human Element," "Economic Element," and by far the most fun, "Element of Surprise." Besides information on the history, uses, origin, and chemistry of each element -- all of which are a pleasure to read -- Emsley uses the "Element of Surprise" section to present the reader with facts that range from the commonsensical "I never thought of that!" variety to the utterly unexpected and fascinating. The gee-whiz quality with which he writes is truly refreshing.
The book demands about a high-school knowledge of chemistry, though many sections can be read without even that much, and even lifelong chemists will find it full of surprises. The stories and facts gathered therein include the clever way Niels Bohr is said to have hidden his gold Nobel Prize medal from the Nazis when he fled Germany, how nonstick Teflon sticks to aluminum frying pans, how magnetic mines work, how the British government accidentally killed 31 of its own citizens with silver iodide, and, in the "Who Knew?" category, the fact that a piece of indium metal lets out a high-pitched shriek when bent. As you read, don't be surprised to find yourself saying the words "Too cool" aloud fairly frequently.
So why does this book get an eight instead of a nine or ten? Unfortunately, Emsley is a lot better at talking about the elements' history, usage, etc. than he is about their chemistry. He often seems to be unsure of whether the reader is a knowledgeable chemist or reading about the subject for the first time; in the chapter on silicon, for example, he explains why silicon dioxide is a neutral compound -- a no-brainer for anyone who's had high school chemistry -- but two paragraphs later says that silicon is part of n- and p-type semiconductors without explaining what the heck an n- or p-type semiconductor is. Elsewhere, the text contains serious errors that any half-decent copy editor should have caught. The periodic table section of the book contains the phrase, "Most hydrogen atoms consist of a single proton." In context, he means hydrogen as opposed to deuterium or tritium, whose nuclei contain neutrons in addition to protons, but a hydrogen atom consists of a single proton and an electron; a single proton is a hydrogen ion. This sort of careless error is common enough to be seriously annoying (and possibly deceiving to the chemistry beginner).
Though it must be read with the proverbial grain of sodium chloride, Nature's Building Blocks is a worthy read indeed -- the kind of book that can get people excited about a subject that usually inspires groans and protests of "I hate chemistry!" And for that, this former chemist is grateful indeed.
You can purchase Nature's Building Blocks from bn.com. Want to see your own review here? Just read the book review guidelines, then use Slashdot's handy submission form.
I recommend "The Chemistry of Powder and Explosives" for interesting chemical reading.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Everyone knows that the fundamental building blocks of life are Lego Mindstorm! ; - )
Don't read this!
it?s not even necessary to read any chapter beginning to end
Is this a cute way to sidestep the "it's vs. its" question, or are people really embracing Microsoft's braindead extensions to the ASCII character set?
Titrations.
What a great word.
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
I've been wanting to read up on Turbonium!
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Books like these are why
I dropped High-school Chemistry
and ran headlong into Physics...
MUCH more enjoyable and didn't have
to memorize no damn periodic table!
"Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
I always wished there was a good "cool facts" chemistry book. Right now you have to google for it if you want some useful and interesting information, and even then you get a bunch of junk.
:).
Plus this is definately a must-buy at my old high school. Every kid had to do a project on an element--this book would basically do the work for you
I'm getting my copy next time I find myself in a bookstore.
It's aimed at people like me. People who are facinated with all things scientific, but do not have the in-depth knowledge. I am facinated by chemistry, and I know how it works on very general terms. But I don't have any formal education on the matter above what little I sat through in high school, 20 years ago.
The strata of human knowledge is more comlex that just "omniscient" and "complete dolt".
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
...is from the end of The Elements, Tom Lehrer's parody of Gilbert and Sullivan's "Modern Major General."
I used to have a recording of a Pharmacia chemist singing it with his barbershop quartet, but someone stole it and left 4 other CDs behind. Go figure.
I never found stoichiometry problems annoying, let alone difficult.
On a similar subject (digestable, lay science reads) try Six Easy Pieces by Richard P. Feynman and The Divine Proportion : A Study in Mathematical Beauty by H. E. Huntley.
pronoblem
Bah, nothing is more interesting than the CRC handbook of organic compounds. OK, LSD is strangely missing but it's more adventure to figure out the process thru related lysergic compound synthesis.
Josh Woodward
pronoblem
The full lyrics of the song are the opening of the book. Gotta love Tom Lehrer.
Ah yes; I remember getting A's in Chem 101 and 102, with the exception of the labs, where I got low C's, maybe even D's, after putting in too too many hours to count. In hindsight, I can't distinguish very well between titration and hazing rituals. That and physics labs taught me that the universe is well ordered -- but only for those with the most expensive, automated equipment.
I enjoyed reading two other books which blend heavy doses of chemistry with the story of a boy's journey through adolescence:
:-)
"The Chemical Elements", by Primo Levi, describes his experiences as a young Jew in Nazi Germany. I especially like his struggle when asked by the authorities to figure out how to improve the processing of some sort of metallic ore: he was fascinated by the intellectual puzzle, but, of course, determined not to help the enemy. The fact that he was essentially a prisoner of the German army at the time adds an extra element of suspense.
"Uncle Tungsten", by Oliver Sacks, follows an English boy through roughly the same period of time.
Both are chock full of the sort of fascinating chemical facts described in this review, but they feature compelling human stories as well. It doesn't hurt that Levi and Sacks are damn good writers
Michael Richmond "This is the heart that broke my finger."
mwrsps@rit.edu http://stupendous.rit.edu
Back in the day when I was 15 or so I obtained a copy of a book called 'The Anarchists Cookbook' .. The best Chemistry book I ever owned .. Now it didn't cover all of Natures building blocks .. although there is alot to be said from a 'hands on' learning approach .. I remember searching all summer for a strip of 'Magnesium' to ignite the Thermite powder I had created .. Lucky for me my first Chemistry class in highschool started that September .. Magnesium wasn't that hard to come by after all :)
When I was teaching high-school chemistry, I would have loved this book as a starting reference for my students. Yes, they had to do "report on an element", but we always had much more fun with "report on industrial process."
Finally, who could forget Illudium pu236, the shaving cream atom?
He wrote a guide to chemisry and the periodic table that taught me more than any high school chemistry class. In eigth grade, too.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
It's not in the book but there's plenty of literature at your VW dealer. If they have been in business a while they may have a Quantum mechanic, as well.
The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
I've wanted a book like this for a while; I'm off to fatbr- er, Barnes and Noble.
But before I go, I'll suggest to one and all Mendeleyev's Dream by Paul Strathern. I somehow got the impression from the online blurb that it was similar to this book; a history - and breakdown - of the PTE. It's not; however, it's a fascinating read on the history of chemistry, even for those of us who know little of the subject.
i might read it and I hate chemistry
but I hate chem due to my asshole science teacher
He purposly tried to fail me (losing assignments, giving me no credit for a test)
but I got even
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
I've always wondered why creation theory is always laughed at and not actually pondered more on sites like Slashdot. I mean, isn't part of an education and learning about the world around us being at least open to discussion of opposing viewpoints?
But nowadays, it's almost cliche to condescendingly deride a person or idea of faith.
Instead, how about reading a bit about Creationism or arguments against evolution.
I know this will be modded down since the idea of God is verboten among the /. intelligentsia, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
And tungsten, damn. That element rules. Highest melting point, IIRC. Also known as "wolframite".
I loved high school chemistry so much, I almost made the mistake of becoming a chemical engineer. I know, I know. Damn, good times.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Eh, I'll bite on this one.
"Creationism" is laughed at by science-y types because it's not science. Science consists (nominally) of some ever-changing theories and a mountain of experiment to back it up. Creationism consists of a Great Big Book of Immutable Theory, which is never to be tested or modified.
"Creation theory" is laughed at because it is laughable to put it in the same category as an actual scientific theory, which, while it may be incomplete, is a damned sight better than "a superhero from outer space did it".
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
the building blocks of nature are for physicists
When you put it in those terms...why did I go to high school again?
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
I have my own bedtime stories: Szabo and Ostlund's Modern Quantum Chemistry. Sure, it's not that modern anymore, but it's still a vital read. Plus, it's a Dover Classic, the godsend of all physics/chemistry students. Half my shelves seem to be Dover Classics.
Fortran programmer...oh yeah. Array math for life!
As for Piltdown man---it was eventually shown to be wrong. Science can be wrong---then theories are rewritten and reconsidered, and new hypotheses are proposed.
If the research you refer to has merit, good for him. (I'm not an earth-scientist; I'll trust the judgment of those journals.) Showing that the earth is young (though there are a lot of other thing that would seem to show an older earth, like radioactivity-dating or stars more than five thousand light-years away) doesn't show that the earth was created by a superhero from outer space.
The reason why creation science gives me the creepies is because it picks a full-blown story and looks for evidence to support it, so that "earth is young!" means "superhero from outer space!". Religion and science do not mix, and any attempt to make them do so destroys the credibility of both components.
I mean, I take a few issues with the young-earth theory, too, but I can't refute any of that, not being an expert.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Really?
If you credit radiometric dating, consider the post above about C14 and coal. Quick summary: all coal has C14 activity. C14, with a half-life of roughly 5730 years, would be extinct in 50 or 100 thousand years. By the evolutionary time scale, though, coal was laid down in the carboniferous era, something like 300 million years ago. There is no way C14 would be detectable in coal if it were anything like one thousandth of that age.
The Po halos are only proof of rapid formation of the granites - not of creation nor of when it happened. However the halos do not fit in with millions of years for the rocks to cool, a central point in the evolutionist model.
As to the somewhat more trivial point you mentioned about capitalization, if you look in the KJV you'll see that when the Lord is referred to with a pronoun, it is not capitalized. There are many guesses of who started that trend, but it's not a central point. After all, in Hebrew, there are no capitals anyway.
Got Wisdom?
Christian fundamentalists (and I have yet to meet a creationist who isn't one) require creationism to be true because if it is not their entire religion collapses.
Christian fundamentalists believe that the world was created in 6 literal days (7 if you count the day God got tired) between 6000 and 10,000 years ago. They believe that the first two people on this planet were Adam and Eve. They believe that Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden of Eden for eating the forbidden fruit. They believe that God cursed Adam and Eve and all of their progeny (i.e. us) for this transgression with suffering and death. They believe that 2000 years ago God sent his son/himself down to earth to give those of us afflicted with the curse of original sin a way back into his good graces.
As hard as it is for most of us to understand, they really believe all of that. So here's the rub: If creationism isn't true then there was no Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve then no one ate the forbidden fruit. If no one ate the forbidden fruit then humanity wasn't cursed with original sin. If there was no original sin there was no reason for God to send Jesus down to earth to redeem us from it. No Jesus, no Christianity.
Therefore, in the mindset of a fundamentalist Christian, creationism is the linchpin of their entire faith. That, in a nutshell, is why they will defend it so rabidly in spite of all evidence to the contrary. In the long run it doesn't really matter; dogmatic religion always loses to reality eventually. There was a time not too long ago when Christians insisted that the sun revolved around the earth and they had copious biblical passages to "prove" it. Creationism is going through some noisy death spasms, eventually it will just be an unpleasant memory.