Simple Space Pleasures

Space Station Urine Recycler

"Not to spoil anything, but I think up here the appropriate words are 'Yippee!',". This is an actual quote from the ISS, from space station Commander Mike Finck. 'Yippee' is a positive term, not one used very often with regards to space exploration. What, you may ask, has brought about this restrained jubilation that invokes the somewhat archaic term of 'Yippee'?

Have they discovered extra-terrestrial life? I, personally, think that would call for more than 'Yippee', assuming it's good alien life. If they've just stumbled upon a Borg Cube dwelling behind the moon, that would definitely not call for a yippee, or any celebratory term. Perhaps they've cracked the secret of faster than light travel, or teleportation. Again, yippee seems somewhat limited, even if they have only made some massive discovery in theory, and the practice is still to come.

So it must be something more mundane but still positive. Maybe they've finally managed to grow some carrots or get the filter coffee working (water doesn't boil the same way in zero gravity, something to do with the reduced pressure I'd guess, but knowing water it's probably something more surreal). Give up.

They've fixed the urine recycler. That's right, 'Yippee' is because people on board the ISS can now drink their own piss to their hearts content. Only in this situation would having to drink your own waste liquid be cause for celebration. And it's not just a 'yippee'. Here's some other quotes;

- "There will be dancing later," (mission controllers): So piss drinking is a cause for actual dancing too. Even if you factor in the difficulties of dancing in zero gravity, where even the most basic dance steps become hideously elaborate (imagine the Hokey Cokey in zero-g, you put your left arm in, all your other bits will go with it), dancing is done either in groups or with a partner. The confines of the ISS probably make dancing in groups very impractical, but there's only 3 people on board at any one time, so if dancing in pairs is opted for, some poor bugger will be left out every time. Maths, that is.

- "Urine passes Nasa taste test": Not sure if this is a BBC elaboration or a genuine NASA quote, but either way it's worrying. Taste test for urine? This implies that they've had times when urine hasn't passed the test. Is there a flavour scale for urine? How bad does urine have to be before it's recognised as unpleasant urine, by people who celebrate being able to drink it?

I'm being stupid of course. The machine recently fixed takes urine and other waste water and scrubs it thoroughly (with what? More water? Chemicals, I beleive, let's leave it at that). It actually "distils, filters, ionises and oxidises" all water fed into it. I used to work with machines that sort of did that, not to the same scale degree of thoroughness, but close. We weren't supposed to drink from them, but I'd assume that's to do with taste, rather than actual hazards. How dangerous can utterly pure water be? It's like saying some air is dangerous because it's too fresh. Maybe our systems are more adapted to buggy tap water and anything without the background level sof chemicals would upset us, like when you go to Spain and you can't drink the 'hard' tap water because of the ionic content that screws up our weedy British systems. But if there's nothing there but pure H2O molecules, how could that be dangerous? It's probably not. This is moot anyway as I never drank any.

But those poor buggers on the ISS can celebrate their urine drinking future all they like (speaking of which, if the International Space Station is meant to represent all the countries involved in it's construction and maintenance, how much of an effective representation can 3 astronauts provide? I hope they're mixed race at least). If the water on this planet keeps getting used up, we'll come to depend on this technology. Unless of course they can get hold of one of those big Ice asteroids wandering around the solar system. Again, for such a thing to happen, we'll need to ISS to be involved. Here's hoping they keep up the good work. All that training and hard work and their reward is the opportunity to drink urine? It's not exactly a fine wine, is it. But if urine was a fine wine, what would you eat that would go with it?

Oh, God....

Sore throat? Get a new one...

Stem Cells used to rebuild throat!

Spanish woman gets her damaged trachea replaced by a stem-cell developed new one? Admittedly, I've twice used the word 'throat' now without actually being technically accurate, as it's the windpipe that feeds into the lungs that's been replaced. This isn't technically part of the throat, in my limited experience, although it does connect to it. Still, it's an impressive feat.
The article mentions several drawbacks though. The holy grail of stem-cells seems to be taking a clump of stem cells from the person who needs a transplant, put them in a dish of some sort, then grow whatever organ or tissue is needed by said patient, then stick it back in them. Sort of like some squidgy but biologically advanced herb garden, perhaps? That would understandably be great, preventing the need for this whole opt in-opt out organ donor malarkey.

I'm firmly in the opt-out camp myself, if organs from my mangled carcass can be used to save lives why the hell wouldn't I approve? A lot of people I've heard are just uncomfortable with the idea for no discernible reason. "It's not natural" apparently. Of course not, it's medicine. The natural thing to do would be just to let everyone die when they get ill, even if it's something easily curable, but we don't do that, because as thinking, rational beings we don't have to submit to natures whim's. Nature doesn't have whims either, it's a concept, or a process or whatever you like. Some people don't allow themselves medication because of their ultra religious beliefs which state that illness is the work of God, so by treating themselves they are going against his will. Unlike most scientists, I support this viewpoint. If I was God, and I'm at least a close second, the first thing I'd do is kill off all the people that stupid. So good luck to them. Or not.

So, back to the point, his trachea surgery is brilliant, but not quite perfect. For starters, someone still had to die for the surgery to go ahead. Without getting into the whole aborted -foetuses debate, this is a less than desirable pre-requisite for any surgery. Before they've begun, it's already got a 50% mortality rate. But there's potential for improvement, as they needed a donor trachea to provide a 'framework' for the stem cells to grow around. I guess it's beyond our means to make false ones at the moment, but still, here's hoping. We obviously can't control the way the stem cells develop in spatial configurations at the moment, but it's a start.

Also, I like the way the article states that the use of stem cells 'tricked the body into thinking the donor trachea was part of it'. If we're being honest, the stem cells are technically part of her body, so it's not really a trick. The trachea structure is donated, but does that make up the bulk of the donated tissue after every donor cells has been scrubbed off? But that's just being pedantic.

So, the scope for this is endless, but as always I worry about such procedures being abused, or used for less than noble purposes. If we can make safe, reliable organs to order, would people be happy with the ones they've got? My initial throat confusion was genuine, and lead me to wondering if the Spanish lady had the same voice as before. Obviously a trachea transplant wouldn't effect that, but what if it was the larynx and voice box?

Say some well-to-do person wanted to be a singer, so they get specially designed voice box made that allows them to sing well. But of course, a voice is nothing if you don't have the lungs to use it right. So they get a new pair of those too, bigger and better and fresher than the old ones, which are taken out and thrown in the bin, as no-one needs donor's anymore. Theoretical person can now sing very well. But being a famous singer is more than just vocal ability these days, it's about image. So person gets all ugly parts of her, or his, but lets say her, her body removed and replaced with specially designed better ones. Lets say for arguments sake that said person is horrifically ugly, so all bits of her body, bar skeleton and brain and some connective tissue, get replaced. Now we have basically the bulk of a person sat squelching in the corner. Rap it around a skeleton, bung in a rudimentary brain and it could be used to perform very simple tasks, like digging holes, pushing buttons or working for Virgin Railways. All unskilled labourers could be made redundant, replaced by the flung-off semi-carcasses of the wealthy.

So what happens to our now attractive singing person? She becomes a star for a brief period, but then people start doing the same and redesign themselves to be more talented and better looking and ever on to the point where she gets left behind in the race to be the next new superhuman celebrity star person thing. She gets depressed and sinks into drink (seriously damaging 8 Livers before the money runs out) and drugs (4 septums lost to coke and 2 arms lost to repeated use of infected needles, all replaced before money runs out). After a lengthy spell in 'rehab' where she's chained to a wall for 23 hours a day and gets hosed down regularly (proper comfy rehab is for people with money, which as we've established, has run out), she attempt to re-launch her career by appearing on 'I'm a celebrity, get me out of here', but in this day and age the horrific trials involve eating massive, swollen organs like anuses and bladders grown from her own cells, while being watched and laughed at by Ant & Dec (versions 4.8).

This combination of copious autocannibalism while being mocked by small Geordie clones finally destroys the last vestiges of her sanity. She tries to get a brain replacement, but that's the only organ that can't be replaced as it would mean she's not the same patient anymore, and medical malpractice insurance doesn't cover that. But she's adamant, so they put her under anaesthetic and just remove her brain and launch it into space. Not for research, just to get rid of her because she's getting on everyone's nerves.

So what I'm saying is, stem cells, not necessarily a good thing.

Problems with Star-Gazing, an absence of Navel gazing

I'm back! Thesis progress has a directly inverse relationship to that of blogging, I've found. Which is good for the future career, bad news for the regular readers. Hello both! Long time no see.

So, done a bit of scouting around the news sites. Well, the various subjects offered by the BBC news site. I know I tend to stick to the BBC news for my links, but it does seem fairly comprehensive and fairly non-partisan. Also, I pay my license and seldom watch tv, so I wanted to get my moneys worth somehow. So, what's been happening?

Supermodel has no belly-button!

On the front page, not in the Science section. Although it is fairly scientific in a way, so I can use it. Apparently, there's this supermodel named Karolina Kurkova. Not being into fashion or the more 'physical' men's magazines, I'd never heard of her. But I don't think anyone could describe her as unattractive. Indeed, if anyone did, I would assume they were lying. Or Gay. Or a lying Gay person, it does happen. But apparently, she has no belly button. Although, looking at the pics, she does have a belly button, just not one as deep as you'd normally expect. There's a lot of speculation as to why this is the case, with many possibilities such as it being the result of some unspecified abdominal surgery, or some umbilical after effect from birth, or even re-shaping after cosmetic surgery. There are many questions people are asking, and so far the lady in question is not saying anything.

But I have a question; How is this in any way important to anything or anyone ever? Could there be a less relevant issue to take up front page space? I'm sure there are many physiological procedures that could affect the appearance of a belly button, or navel if you will, but are any of them an issue. The article has many comments from people with the same problem, as if it's some sort of support group. Is it a problem ever? Has anyone's life been ruined by the lack of navel? And what's up with our media when, confronted by around 6' foot of physically perfect blonde demi-goddess, the first thing people pick up on is the shallow indentation.

I don't really mind the article that much, it just got to me for persistent use of the terms 'belly button' and 'tummy'. I always find them incredibly patronising, despite them being 'acceptable'.

(Tools) Lost in Space!

This made me giggle. Apparently, some astronauts were fixing some faulty mechanism on the ISS when a tool bag came loose. Now, I once dropped a screwdriver while trying to fix a light fitting on the ceiling. I had to get down from the ladder and get it. I found this very annoying, so I have no idea how enraged these guys must be, but I'm guessing a lot. I would love to be a fly on the wall on the way home, it's bad enough when something goes wrong on a car journey, with recriminations flying everywhere, never mind when you're travelling at supersonic speeds through atmospheric temperatures that could melt lead whilst high enough so that people in aeroplanes look like ants. Stress must be something these guys are coached for, right?

And I have to wonder, how much were the tools worth? It costs about $10,000 a kilo to send things into space, so no wonder they didn't take a spare, but do they get the best possible tools or do they claim some money back by buying cheap ones, like the ones round the corner from the entrance at Hyper Value. Either way, I assume they'll just drift out in Space for ever, or if they do return to earth they'll burn up in the atmosphere. If they don't then they could hit the ground at supersonic speeds and kill someone. Here's hoping it's Peter Stringfellow, so we could see the headline 'Tool Killed By Tools'.

Interesting point, the ISS (International Space Station, just so you know), is 10 years old today. And it's not finished. Which begs the question, when you have a whole planet of builders to choose form, why pick the guys who built Wembly Stadium?

A Mammoth Task

Russian scientists have mapped the genome of the woolly mammoth! They think. About 80% maybe. Or not, they're not sure how big it is really. The genomes, not the mammoth, they're about the size of elephants, that much is obvious from the intact frozen remains. Speculation abounds of a Jurassic Park style cloning resurrection (which they may try to do with Michael Crichton, now that he's popped it). However, the killjoy scientist at the end of the article tries to quash any hopes of this with petty rationalisations such as 'it's not possible'. I jest of course, I always approve when someone in the know acts all reasonable and well thought out. And even if it were possible, if we could start producing new mammoths, where would they go? They're as big as elephants and we're running out of room for the ones we've got, and I don't think they'd make good pets or cattle. I suppose there might be a market for mammoth wool clothes, but it looks itchy to be honest.

Unemployed at the crossroads of life (and other tortured metaphors)

Not got an article in mind, so this is just a link back to here

Not really been keeping abreast of news about Science at the moment, but a quick scan reveals that we really are melting the ice-caps, frogs in Yellowstone park aren't doing too well, India's launched a moon mission, they've found an old Hebrew book and a picture of leopard won a prize. But apparently, none of this is anywhere near as important as two 'comedians' joking about having sex with a woman. I'm not a huge Brand fan, I often thought his endless claims of sexual conquests quite boring, and people complain he doesn't respect women or something. But when he makes such claims and they turn out not to be true, there's a huge outcry, so what's he to do. I found the whole thing offensive, but only because it was a crap joke. These guys are the most highly paid comic personalities in the country, and the best they could do was an inversion on the hack 'I shagged your mum' heckle? Jesus wept.

The BBC news website, my main source of self-contained stories, recently changed their 'Science and Nature' section to 'Science and Environment', perhaps because of the ever increasing number of environment-based stories, or maybe it was just an attempt to seem more eco-aware. I don't know, but if I was cynical, seeing as all things in 'nature' occur in 'the environment', I would suggest that this renaming is a way of seeming more environmentally aware doing any bloody thing differently. Not that that's a bad thing.

I'm currently experiencing a persistent low-level anxiety which I've not encountered before, and I think it's caused by the paradoxical situation of being very busy while simultaneously unemployed. Depending on how you look at it, if I were to hand my thesis in tomorrow, it's either either a month overdue, 5 months ahead of schedule or 11 months early. Again, a lot of contradictions and variables which logically shouldn't exist simultaneously. But they do. So hey ho.

It's going slower than I planned, but it is going at all, which is better than I expected. Again, incompatible scenarios existing simultaneously. My whole life seems to be in some sort of quantum superposition in which all states exist simultaneously with each other until someone observes it, a la Schroedinger's cat. So what I'm saying is, if you ask me 'how's it going?', I might be revealed to have died several minutes ago. Which is why I seem tense when people ask about my progress. Nothing personal.

Look for work at this level is another new experience. I could feasibly accept a normal job, but having a PhD means I should be aiming for higher-up positions, such as post-doctorate positions or even lectureships. I haven't had to apply for these before, so am at a loss for how it's meant to go. I have applied for 4 different jobs already, none have replied thus far. Is that normal? I don't know. It's taken this long in the past, but for this kind of job? Would the complex nature prolong the interview process, or should the assumed intelligence level of those involved increase efficiency, which would mean I get a reply on the same day? God knows. But I haven't been offered anything yet, so maybe it's just me.

I've been feeling at a loss. I don't feel as involved with the Neuroscience squad because I have more outisde interests and probably don't dedicate myself to it as much as my peers. But then I don't feel as involved with my comedy colleagues as I'm the one who's doing a doctorate rather than getting gigs and networking. Although I recently did a gig at a Neuroscience conference. It went alarmingly well, probably the time I've been most 'in tune' with an audience, which should surprise no-one, although it does suggest I only do my best comedy in front of a crowd of Neuroscientists or similar, which does drastically lower my potential success in the wider world of comedy. Pah

I cleaned the house today, that mother of all procrastination tasks, after writing blogs that is. But it did need doing. Although I still finished with many hours put aside for a serious thesis writing session, which would have occurred if the last bit of data I need for my results section of the current chapter didn't require a brief means comparison in SPSS. For those of you unfamiliar with SPSS, it's the statistics package of choice for my department. And by 'choice', I mean it's the one we get given and that's that. SPSS is much like the NHS in a lot of ways. We're glad to have it, and it is useful, but sometimes it's so bloody chaotic or downright crap you'd rather just sneak a bottle of isofluorane and a few tools out of work and remove your own appendix. And as tortured metaphors go, that ones pretty much screaming for death and will confess to the Holocaust at this point. And there we go again, a tortured metaphor about tortured metaphors. Is that a record?

Anyway, I need to compare the means of two groups of results. I say the mean of one group is 57.68. SPSS keeps saying it's 68.71. I'm right, it's wrong, but it refuses to say otherwise. There's no reason for this ridiculous claim, apart form being pointlessly bloody minded. Is it possible to cause physical harm to software? 'I'm going to seriously corrupt your core programming' doesn't really have that much of a menacing ring to it.

Although I should refrain from saying stuff about a programme on my own PC. If it is being deliberately malicious, and I'm writing this on software right now, who knows what it could 68788 **&(£%$* - - - - - - _____________ [][]{}{[][}{[}{}{][][][][][Ld££££££££------...... . . . . . . .

Nudity is an offence against human dignity!

X-Ray vision upsets some people

Some years ago, I attended a conference concerned with what to do with a PhD if you didn't want to stick with academia. This was precisely the sort of thing I really should have been writing down, seeing as I now have no job or offers to speak of, and am confused about where to start looking. In fact, I think I did write a lot of stuff down, but couldn't tell you where I left my notes, probably in the bar where the social took place afterwards, along with the memories of the night and a generous portion of the respect of my peers.

But I do remember a talk from a representative of QinetiQ, about the various technologies he was helping to develop in the name of security, defence, research or, in a nutshell, anything that might at some point turn a profit. One of the things he discussed was a scanner with wave amplitudes specifically arranged to scan beneath clothes, in an attempt to improve airport security, in both efficiency and thoroughness. He did mention that there'll probably be some objection to being able to see through people's clothes. Well, he was right.

It's a tricky one, but I'm leaning in favour of these devices. Largely because the technology is cool, and it brings into existence a crazy comic book superpower that most people assumed would always be fantasy. Like flight, or robots. But the main argument seems to be focused either on a violation of privacy or an affront to dignity. I don't think these two are essentially the same. For one thing, we've given up a lot of 'privacy' in recent years, what with CCTV, Speed cameras, online logging of all our activities, TV licensing crackdowns, ID cards etc. But a lot of privacy has been surrendered voluntarily, largely through websites like facebook, myspace or youtube. Thanks to facebook, I now have access to photographs of 3 lesbian weddings. I have no problem with that, but I never asked for that, it's not something I believed I'd ever see, let alone 3 times (at least). I can't talk, my own wedding photos are on there.

But wedding photo's are meant to viewed, that's the point. But you also get to see more risque pics of people. The anti-filth rules of most social networking sites mean the more exhibitionist of us has to be restrained, but if there were no such rules?.... Youtube is the same, if not worse. As an experiment, I just typed in 'my boobs' into youtube, assuming that no women (the same gender that regularly gets enraged when anyone with a Y chromosome stairs at their chest swellings despite how much they've drawn attention to them, don't deny it!) would just post a video showing off their breasts to every seedy bloke with web access. I was wrong, there're lots.

But it is different I'll admit, as the web offers a large degree of anonymity. If thousands of lonely blokes were stood right in front of them, they probably wouldn't feel as comfortable displaying their 'assets'. And fair enough. There may also be an element of separation, in that it's not 'really real' if it's on a computer screen. It's sort of 'false', a representation rather than the real thing. I can see that. But then, 'I can see that' is the problem.

But that brings us back to this X ray device. It doesn't actually see you directly, it generates a false image of what you have under your clothes. But to a lot of people, that counts. It wouldn't bother me so much, because looking at my naked body would definitely count as 'work' rather than 'pleasure'. I wouldn't get annoyed at someone who cleaned out a toilet I'd blocked, because his interacting with my biomatter is a violation of my privacy. I'd guess he's enjoying it less than anything and is in fact doing me a favour. But some people don't think this way. It's interesting that it's politicians getting their teeth into this, European ones at that. But not Dutch ones, I assume, that wouldn't conform to stereotypes.

Maybe it is a bit invasive, but then everything about the airport is. I'd happily let some poor git stare at a false image of my body for a few seconds if it meant getting through check-in quicker. What's to stop him or anyone else just superimposing a pic of my head on a random nude body? Nothing, and I'd be OK with that. it would be an improvement if anything. But the words 'dignity' and 'airport' rarely got together, where you undergo several humiliations in order to spend hours in a metal tube sucking in the emitted gasses of dozens of strangers. They can strip search you if they want, this seems like the lesser of two evils. And who'll be the people most unwilling to undergo this sort of scan? Crazy fundamentalists. You see what I'm getting at? We might all get a pleasant flight for once. And the technology is great, let's see how far we can take it. Maybe even medical applications will arise. Can you imagine a colonoscopy without an endoscope? If you can, don't. It's a hideous image however it works.


(Several mentions of boobs, nudity, lesbians and X-ray vision in this blog, may get some more unusual readers this time around)

Don't forget to keep fit, or vice versa

Fat levels contribute to Alzheimer's?

Interesting. The levels of fatty acids in the Brain contribute to Alzheimer's, or at least do in transgenic mice designed to show Alzheimer's like symptoms. That's an important distinction, because these mice don't actually have Alzheimer's, they have a certain pathology that shows the same symptoms. The article does point this out, but this article is slightly hit-and-miss with it's accuracy. Sometimes it specifically points out the facts, sometimes it glosses over them. For example:

"...in mice genetically engineered to have an Alzheimer's-like condition" - Correct. The mice don't have Alzheimer's, as discussed above. If we could give mice actual Alzheimer's, then that would mean we understood it precisely, which suggests we could do something about it, beyond just giving it to mice. The strain is called APP_SWE Tg257, to be precise (Assuming they use the same ones as in my lab)

"There are currently 700,000 people living with dementia in the UK, but that number is forecast to double within a generation" - Correct but misleading. This smacks of scaremongering, but potentially scaremongering to increase awareness of Alzheimer's, which is OK I guess. But well done on saying dementia rather than Alzheimer's, because last I heard, it was only possible to confirm Alzheimer's after death, which is too late if anything. (Also, because of the unknown origin of the disease, you can't leave your body to medical examination after death in case someone 'catches' it, which is ridiculously unlikely but can't be guaranteed. Of course, anyone suffering the disease won't remember that, no matter how many times you tell them). But this is mildly misleading because dementia affects around 50% of people over 80. And thanks to improved health care and medical advances, that's the most rapidly expanding age group, so the disease will increase with it.

""In general, fatty acid levels can be regulated by diet or drugs...But a lot more work needs to be done before this novel therapeutic strategy can be tested on humans" - Good, I like the cautious tone. Because given the way the media works, this could be taken by several types of scaremongers and twisted to deliver completely different messages. The anti-choice health Nazi's like McKeith and her ilk could use this as just another example of how eating a lot of fat is bad for you and you shouldn't eat anything other than muesli and tree bark, you ignorant overweight prole. This would lead to mixed messages, as if you eat too much fat you'll die of heart disease and get Alzheimer's. In truth, doing both is highly unlikely, what with dying young being possibly the best prevention of Alzheimer's, but since when did logic and actual science stop these shrieking harridans?
Then there's the anti-government brigade, who could argue that 'life saving treatment being withheld on the NHS', by not giving Alzheimer's patients diet drugs or some other cock-and-bull rationalisation. If there were such a thing as a pill that could prevent uptake of body fat, then it would be worth billions, much like Viagra is. There are some diet pills that prevent up to 30% of fat being digested into your system, but this means it passes straight through. And bare in mind fat is hydrophobic, which means after visiting the toilet you get a lot of 'floaters', which may result in being invited to less parties.

This is a massive generalisation, of course, seeing as one type of fatty acid is linked to the disease and there are many in our bodies, and they are useful. But one thing that's remarkable about diet is the extent to which it depends on memory. Although there are many internal systems in use, like stomach extension, blood sugar levels etc., our habits can often override these with no fuss. If we eat at 3pm every day, we'll be hungry at 3pm, this is habit forming and is a basic and powerful form of memory. As long as we know we've eaten we'll not be hungry. But the time when you eat is an episode, and episodic memory is the first thing to go when you have Alzheimer's (trust me, this is my field). So it's around 3pm, you don't remember eating, you'll eat. You might eat half a dozen meals before someone stops you, it's a problem with people who suffer from anterograde amnesia (can't make new memories, the guy in Memento had it).

People who suffer from Anterograde amnesia have a problem with weight gain, as they forget that they've aready eaten. One of the most common causes of this is Alzheimer's, which is apparently worsened by fat consumption. Vicious cycle. But don't forget that not eating enough, like with sufferers of eating disorders tend to do, can cause memory loss too. Lack of thyamine shrivels the mammilary bodies (small brain nuclei, not breasts, although they lose mass too,m come to think of it) and these are part of the diencephalon, which controls memory. Korsakoff's syndrome, where you can't remember anything, but tend to make it up without realising it. These people have dull lives but exciting memories. So you could say you suffer memory problems if you eat too much or too little. What's the point of all this ranting? Buggered if I can remember.

Alzheimer's mentioned = 16 times.

Fight, fight, fight, fight fight!

When two crabs go to war...

Welcome, fight fans, to this exclusive in-depth analysis about what is shaping up to be one of the biggest battles the UK has ever seen. What's at stake? Only complete dominance of mainland UKs waterways and rivers, and all the goodies that go with it.

As with Cricket, Tennis, Football, Rugby, and pretty much anything else that involves competition, when it comes to the British waterways, our home grown efforts are completely outmatched by foreigners. But that doesn't make things any less exciting, for when the showdown finally occurs, you know it's going to be a no-holds-barred bloodbath, or whatever crustaceans use as blood. I think it's still blood they have actually, but probably not the exact same as mammal blood. You probably couldn't do a transfusion between a crab and, lets say, a goat. That wouldn't work. But then, given the complex nature of blood types, rhesus factors and all that, there's still a fair amount of danger involved in doing a transfusion between a goat and, say, another goat. Danger to the goats, because they may be getting an incompatible blood-type, and danger to yourself, because if you keep trying to inject and/or bleed a goat, it'll probably get quite angry and try to batter you to death.

Where was I? Crabs, yes...

In what is looking to be a serious clash of the titans, the upcoming battle has all the hallmarks of a Hollywood classic, with the so far undisputed king being challenged by an aggressive up and comer who may well dethrone him. Think Rocky 4, but without the ludicrous cold-war-ending political message. This battle, which actually is a case of East meets West, is going to kick start a whole new conflict, not end one. So lets look at the competitors...

In the Red Corner...

What we have here is the North American Crayfish, often known as the non-native crayfish, for obvious reasons. It arrived in our aquatic community in the 1970s, and has since then powered it's way to the top largely by killing and eating anything that gets in it's way. Incredibly aggressive and voracious, the Non-native crayfish can cause extinction of a group of native species within 4 years of arriving in the same ecosystem. Our own crayfish are forced to hide in isolated water sources to ensure survival. The Non-native is a mean bastard, with wide, aggressive claw stance, vicious pincers, and if that wasn't enough, it even spreads disease to other species while being immune itself. This mother is so bad he violates the Geneva convention! The North American Crayfish, much like the stereotype of its native countries military, takes no prisoners and causes maximum damage wherever it goes. It even burrows into seemingly secure riverbanks, causing structural collapse of the ground above. Not even the land itself is safe from these guys. And they are completely without mercy, even eating their own offspring if needs be. And I thought it was cruel to force your child to play tennis at age 4.

The North American Crayfish has dominated our waterways for years, so much so that authorities have implemented a 'kill on sight' policy for anyone who finds one. What, you ask, could possibly threaten such an entrenched aggressive species? Well since you asked...

In the Blue corner....

Hailing from the far east, we have the challenger, the Chinese mitten crab. The up and comer, this incredibly aggressive, superbly armed crustacean looks set to take on the Crayfish and oust him from his role as the biggest pain-in-the-ass the UKs aquacommunity has ever seen. So called because of the unusual hair on their claws (this crabs been pimped!), the mitten crab is incredibly aggressive, voracious and generally unstoppable. They eat anything and everything, with their incredibly large pincers designed for crushing supposedly well armoured mollusk shells. They also have the same burrowing habits as the crayfish. Britain has no freshwater crabs, so the mitten crab has had a relatively unchallenged rise to the top spot in the areas it's already infiltrated. But now the crab and crayfish populations are on the verge of meeting, and when two massively destructive communities share the same space, only one can survive...

Pre-Match analysis

In the run up to the big fight, there's always speculation as to who will have the edge, and what are the factors that will decide the outcome. It's never possible to be 100% correct, but just to keep the bookies happy, here's some points to bare in mind.

- The Crayfish have been around longer than the crabs, having at least an extra decade in which to cement their position, so if the crabs want to oust them, it's going to be a long, drawn out battle. We're not talking a one round knockout here, this will have to go the distance. It's the classic debate, experience or youth? But it's also worth baring in mind that the crabs can live in both salt- and freshwater, so there's always the option to retreat and regroup in coastal waters, which the Crayfish can't do. Both sides look to be prepared for a long slog, so it could be anyones game.

- Overall, the crabs are bigger, reaching as much as 10cm in width, compared to the crayfish's 7cm. As well as those formidable pincers, the crabs also have shoulder spines in their arsenal, which the crayfish lack. It's also widely recognised that the crabs are a lot stronger. The crabs are bigger and stronger than their opponents. But then, so was Ivan Drago...

- The crabs have a rounded body plans like all crabs, and presumably the same sideways walking thing too. The crayfish have a more streamlined shape and forward movement. In terms of overall manoeuvrability and agility, the Crayfish comes out ahead, which could be a deciding factor.

- Both species tend to wipe out any creatures that attempt to share their environment, so we won't be expecting any outside interference here. There'll be no allies running in with a chair mid-bout. There is the aforementioned 'kill on sight' which applies to the crayfish and not the crabs. But it's dubious as to how that will affect a sub-aqua battle, out of sight of humans. Unless you have Setanta, of course.

So there you have it, two monsters of the crustacean world, fighting it out for dominance. Who will emerge victorious? Either way, we'll be doing our best to exterminate the swines. Altogether now,

"It's the, Eye of the Tiger, the cream of the fight, risin up to the challenge of our rivals..."