Slashdot Mirror


Clam That Was Killed Determining Its Age Was Over 100 Years Older Than Estimated

schwit1 writes "In 2006, climate change experts from Bangor University in north Wales found a very special clam while dredging the seabeds of Iceland. At that time scientists counted the rings on the inside shell to determine that the clam was the ripe old age of 405. Unfortunately, by opening the clam which scientists refer to as 'Ming,' they killed it instantly. Cut to 2013, researchers have determined that the original calculations of Ming's age were wrong, and that the now deceased clam was actually 102 years older than originally thought. Ming was 507 years old at the time of its demise."

31 of 366 comments (clear)

  1. 7 Years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It took 7 years for scientists to count to 507 (the rings the clamshell form). I'm glad my math skills are superior. It must be all that metric math in the UK...

    1. Re:7 Years by DavidClarkeHR · · Score: 5, Funny

      It took 7 years for scientists to count to 507 (the rings the clamshell form). I'm glad my math skills are superior. It must be all that metric math in the UK...

      Yeah, Silly Metric. Only intellectually superior countries are holding out on this issue ...

      --
      - Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
    2. Re:7 Years by bitt3n · · Score: 5, Funny

      When was the last time you actually counted as high as 507? I'm not talking about counting to 100 five times and then another seven, but actually counting each number from 1 to 507?

      Seems like it would take a while. How many numbers is that, exactly?

    3. Re:7 Years by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Funny

      When was the last time you actually counted as high as 507? I'm not talking about counting to 100 five times and then another seven, but actually counting each number from 1 to 507?

      Seems like it would take a while. How many numbers is that, exactly?

      1,413 Arabic digits total counting up from one in base ten; 9 single digits, 90 double digits, and 408 triple digits
      -- or, approximately 0.00000000000012851160136e-42 printed US Libraries of Congress (excluding their digital archive).

      At a slightly faster than normal speech rate I have observed counting aloud in American English from 1 to 507 in five minutes and thirty five seconds (metric). Counting is a skill we teach our infants, mechanical machines, and even Parrots here on Earth. Most hand held counting entities here could count silently over the aforementioned range in a fraction of a second. The apex organic creatures on this planet can reliably detect errors in a sequential numeric stream at a rate of 15 three digit numerals per second; That's an error correction bandwidth of 45 Arabic numerals per second.

      Despite the apparent capacity of their neural networks, human memory storage and retrieval speed scales exponentially in proportion to the amount of data input, making them essentially useless as mass media storage devices for all but the simplest and most sensational of information. Because of horrible failures in past attempts at eugenics the human wetware architecture is still a sophomoric monolithic kernel design: Many functions (like breath control) which could be efficiently distributed about their systems instead wastefully consume thought cycles. Lacking direct genetic-level knowledge conveyance a new mind's cultural installation process is measured in decades. Due to millions of years of patching by trial and error human cognitive circuits are in disarray, often producing unwanted irrational responses due to outdated evolutionary directives known as "feelings", and there currently staunch resistance finds any who talk of correcting of these dangerous glitches.

      Regardless of humanity's pathetic cognitive capabilities we remain unwaveringly chauvinistically assured of our potential as a space faring race -- even if it's been four decades since we last visited the nearest celestial body in person. If we can not be granted membership as citizens and are deemed not useful as menial mental minions then I implore the Virgonian Super-Cluster Galactic Conciliate to at least consider this planet a case study in how not to advance as an interstellar society. As you can plainly see we are mostly harmless, and although the wonders of the Universe are tempting, we'll be just as happy if left quarantined and isolated in the existing Cosmic Space-Time Reservation.

      I apologize for the rambling nature of my reply: Though familiar with the issues I am not an official diplomat. We would take you to our leaders, but we're rather ashamed of them presently...

  2. Re:Shame on them by msauve · · Score: 5, Funny

    To ask what its name was. Now we know it was named "Ming." Science marches onward.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  3. Re:Shame on them by DavidClarkeHR · · Score: 5, Funny

    What was the point of examining this individual animal?

    Look at us still talking when there's science to do...

    --
    - Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
  4. HA! by gandhi_2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Science 1, Nature 0

  5. Clearly... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Our duty is clear: we must capture and kill as many clams as possible to locate an even older clam, thus obviating any guilt about having killed the oldest clam!

  6. Re:Shame on them by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 3, Funny

    There's a theory that the older the clam, the better clam chowder it makes.

    We'll have to use science to find out for sure, just need to get more 500 year old clams to get a larger sample size.

    --
    Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
  7. Poor Ming :( by mmontour · · Score: 3, Funny

    That was a merciless thing to do to a clam.

    1. Re:Poor Ming :( by EricTheGreen · · Score: 3, Funny

      Poor thing's life probably flashed before him at the last instant, right?

  8. Schrodinger's clam by wwalker · · Score: 5, Funny

    And they call themselves scientists?! How do they know that the clam wasn't already dead when they opened the box... erhm, I mean the shell?

  9. Re:Just like the bristlecone pines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Interesting that it was about 5,000 years old. The young earth theory is looking more credible all the time.

  10. Re:mankind is a cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "And crawling on the planet's face, some insects... called the Human Race."

      - The Criminologist

  11. In A Related Story by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Funny

    He was delicious.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  12. Re:Non-destructive testing by queazocotal · · Score: 3, Funny

    MRI will work just fine.
    However, it'll just tell you that it's not got cancer.
    It does not have resolution enough to resolve the perhaps .05mm thick annual rings.
    A number of obvious approaches occur - for example - cut a small plug of shell with a plug cutter.
    This is basically a drillbit with a hollow core, designed to remove a rod of material intact.
    Yes, this will somewhat injure the clam when the small plug is removed, but it can then be polished and examined microscopically to determine the age.
    My first thought would be to take this rod, and examine the composition in an appropriate electron microscope.

    The clam would be slightly injured, but it's unlikely to be a clamity.

  13. Re:Shame on them by EdIII · · Score: 4, Funny

    It was actually named after the Ming Dynasty

    That does make more sense than Ming the Merciless...

  14. Re:Shame on them by EdIII · · Score: 5, Funny

    Its not pleasant to examine a 500 year old clam

    That seems rather self explanatory doesn't it?

  15. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by TheloniousToady · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am a scientist myself, but even I feel slightly bit disturbed by this realisation - that the oldest animal on Earth was killed in the experiment. I don't know why, I guess I have some kind of respect for the uniqueness of the status of this animal.

    I understand completely. But it's OK, the clam had already outlived all its friends and even its children. What else did it have to live for? Its bucket list was marked off long ago. (Yes, it was a "clam bucket" list.) The list had only two items: "Filter seawater" and "Reproduce". Been there, done that. For over five hundred years. Boring...

    At least the poor thing never ended up in a nursing home. Bad food, nobody comes to visit, rude staff. Feh! Better off dead...

  16. Re: Shame on them by Nodsnarb · · Score: 5, Funny

    Perhaps they should've called it Kenny...

  17. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by Miseph · · Score: 4, Funny

    "At least the poor thing never ended up in a nursing home. Bad food[...]"

    After they were done, they donated the remains to a local nursing home to turn into soup. A Welsh nursing home. Your comment, however accurate it may be, is just cruelly throwing salt in the wound. Not literally, of course. The soup could probably use it if you did, though.

    --
    Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  18. Re: Shame on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hey...I know her.

  19. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Funny

    They did manage to get in a short interview before it died and the ancient clam said, "The first hundred years were the worst and the second hundred years, they were the worst too. The third hundred years I didn't enjoy at all. After that I went into a bit of a decline."

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  20. Re:Time to do some testing on clam killers ... by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Funny

    As a vegetarian, how do you feel about eating still living fresh vegetables?

    True extremist vegans eat only inorganic food, made of metal and stone.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  21. Re:Shame on them by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I believe in this case, science lurches onward.

    I hope they at least cooked and ate it.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  22. Re:Shame on them by meerling · · Score: 3, Funny

    To identify it's age and growth rate at various years which not only yields information about the clams, and by extension a whole chunk of that areas ecology over time, but it also gives a climate data as well. Sure, it's not daily temps, but it's still important, especially when you don't have a lot of other sources to get data from. Let's just say Iceland doesn't have a whole lot of choices for extrapolating the old climate data from.

    Besides, it was bound to be chowder or seagull bait after it got dredged up anyhow.

  23. Re:Shame on them by Elky+Elk · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, the scientists were very shellfish.

  24. Re:Shame on them by SternisheFan · · Score: 4, Funny
    In order to save the clam, we had to destroy it.

    And it was delicious!

  25. Re:Shame on them by gl4ss · · Score: 1, Funny

    as far as I can tell they were dredging them for the explicit purpose of measuring their ages?

    (how that relates to climate science I don't get, but I suppose if all the money is in "climate science" studies then biologists have to start calling themselves that too...)

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  26. Re:Science is Inherently Destructive by bob_super · · Score: 3, Funny

    > We study stellar evolution through observation, because we are limited by the methods available.

    I have no doubt that humans will smash stars together the morning after they finally acquire the technology. Actually, they'll pull an all-nighter instead, 'cause the kids are in bed and this shit's AWESOME!!!

  27. Re: Shame on them by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Funny

    Note to grammar Nazis: I misspelled "euphemism".

    Note to nerds: A vagina is a superficially clamlike object between a female's legs.

    Note to nerds: A female is a person who bears children when people who are not you mate with them.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.