Feedback is New Scientist A popular publication that keeps you updated on the latest science and technology insights. We welcome feedback on topics you think would interest our readers. Please email us at feedback@newscientist.com.
Exploring Unconventional Measurements
Since the Golden Retriever became a quirky unit for measuring ice blocks, our feedback inbox has been flooded with examples of unique and often surprising units of measurement.
Craig Downing, who describes himself as “one of those readers who checks the back of every issue,” shared a fascinating insight about the Rideau Canal in his hometown of Ottawa, Canada. Every winter, the canal transforms into the largest ice skating rink in the world, requiring meticulous snow removal for a smooth surface.
According to a statement from the National Capital Commission, “For every centimeter of snowfall, our crew clears 125,000 kg of snow from the skateway, equivalent to the weight of approximately 450 polar bears.”
Craig expressed his confusion: “I usually visualize snow depth in terms of ‘shovel loads’ or ‘knee-deep driveways.’” Moreover, living in Ottawa, he has yet to encounter a polar bear firsthand, limiting his experience with these majestic creatures.
The average polar bear reportedly weighs around 277.8 kilograms (612 pounds). However, gender nuances play a significant role; adult male bears can weigh between 350 and 600 kg (775 to 1,300 lb), while females typically range from 150 to 290 kg (330 to 650 lb), with some exceptional cases reaching up to 800 kg.
This lack of specification raises questions regarding many unconventional units. Steve Tees submitted a query, stating, “I keep hearing about ‘xxx warehouses’ causing traffic delays. Can someone clarify the size of these warehouses?”
The Sounds We Dread
Various sounds can hinder focus. While nails on a chalkboard are notoriously unpleasant, other common annoyances include loud chewing and vigorous teeth brushing by strangers.
One particularly despised sound is the high-pitched screech produced when adhesive tape is pulled from a surface, which deters many from DIY projects.
But understanding the science behind this noise could help. For example, an experiment published in Physical Review E explores the physics of peeling off cellophane tape. Researchers employed high-speed cameras and microphones to study the tape’s removal speed, discovering that “microscopic cracks travel through the tape at supersonic speeds, producing a shock wave that manifests as a high-pitched screech.”
We eagerly anticipate feedback from follow-up studies aiming to demonstrate quiet tape removal methods.
On Retractions and Their Implications
Our feedback section takes a keen interest in the world of retracted scientific papers. Whether due to questionable graphics generated by AI, manipulated images, or dubious research claims, these cases pique our curiosity.
A prominent example is a 2026 retraction from Pharmacological Research and Prospects. Originally published in 2022, the paper investigated ivermectin—an anti-parasitic drug controversially labeled a potential cure for COVID-19 and suggested for liver cancer treatment. We believe such claims warrant skepticism.
The retraction notice indicated it was “by agreement” between the authors and relevant parties, prolonging the discussion long past its culmination.
It was stated that “the corresponding author was not involved in the submission process, did not sign an open access agreement, and did not review or approve the final manuscript version before submission,” raising serious concerns.
Furthermore, the journal’s investigation uncovered evidence of image duplication from previous publications. This is, without a doubt, troubling.
Yet, the authors maintained, “the conclusions of the article are otherwise unaffected.” This left the first author musing on how conclusions could remain valid despite significant discrepancies.
Our interpretation is clear: once a paper is retracted, it loses credibility, and its conclusions are no longer taken seriously.
Have a story for feedback?
You can email your article to Feedback at feedback@newscientist.com. Don’t forget to include your home address. Discover this week’s and past feedback on our website.
Source: www.newscientist.com
