Talk:Red rain in Kerala

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Red rain in Kerala article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Good article Red rain in Kerala has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on March 8, 2006.
WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
This article is maintained by the Kerala workgroup.
More information about this article...
WikiProject Meteorology
 This article related to meteorology and/or specific weather events is part of WikiProject Meteorology and Weather Events, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to weather or meteorology. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Meteorology.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3


Contents

[edit] Multiplication?

Sorry if this is in the wrong place, but - I was reading about the 'red rain' phenomenon a while back and I remember reading about how these 'cells' or 'particles' started to multiply when presented with extremely high temperatures. Is there any information on this? Should there be? Does anyone have a source? I think it was at the Cardiff University's page on this "red rain". Tanru 16:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Try a search on Google for Jack Szostak. He and his colleagues have been doing research on physical replication of vesicles of organic chemicals in the prescence of clay. This is much more interesting than the spores from space ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davy p (talk • contribs) 05:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain

I don`t get it. Can someone please explain to me how hard it is to dry them and do an isotope analysis for let`s say two or three of the most significant elements, especially since i actually know that this process usually doesn`t take much longer than about a day. So what`s the hold up???Slicky 15:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh ho, very true. I made a similar point over on Panspermia about the red rain. Basically there are a few extremely unreliable sources being used to bouy up a lot of statements made during a fad a few months back in July when the subject was featured in a "pop science" magazine. The entire subject seems to have been dropped, and alas noone cares to write articles titled "We were completely wrong about the Red Rain". I think we should crack down on the reliability of the sources, and cut out some of the bogus claims. Jefffire 17:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Never mind isotope analysis, no one seems to have used chromatography (GC-MS or other forms) to see what compounds are in the particles. Except for an assumption in Louis's first paper on arXiv of a value of 1.5, there doesn't even seem to be any attempt to measure the specific gravity of the particles or that of the shell/core. All that this would require at its simplest is a test-tube and some concentrated sugar or salt solution and a bit of patience.Davy p 20:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Chromatography ie. HPLC is a point. The DNA analysis in their Astrophys Space Sci paper is completely inconclusive. Spores pack DNA very thoroughly in protein. How about Urea extraction and protein electrophoresis? Mechanical crushing and freezing does not even disrupt living cells completely. Ethidium Bromide just shows enhanced Nucleic Acid flourescence if it is able to intercalade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.133.8.114 (talk) 01:49, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critics

Sorry if this is not the proper way to add my comment, but this is my first time writing in Wikipedia. I am astonished how most of you accept this "research" without any critics. There is no evidence whatsoever that those particles are alive. I checked several papers of Godfrey Louis on Arxiv.org, and I think his whole theory is at least doubtful.

The elemental composition of the particles clearly indicates that it is of inorganic origins. On pics it looks like sand dust. There is no picture where we could actually see these things moving or dividing.

If this were really extraterrestial life thousands of scientist were already studying them. In contrast, Mr. Luis has published only on Arxiv.org, where anyone can publish his/her papers without control.

Best regards, B.Zoltan, Hungary.

I hear your concerns and agree with them. This is a topic where normal scientific methods tend to get overlooked, and as a result the article has a tendency to fill with pseudoscience. Keeping it in line with Wikipedia's policies is an ongoing challenge and one which does become quite tiring. Jefffire 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Found or not?

I'm slightly puzzled in terms of proofs here. In the paragraph below, the wiki article states that the red rain was 'found' (ie) proven to be algal in origin (and later this is restated in longer form under 'Initial Reports'). If it was thus proven, what then lead to the later speculation of other origins ? Either the initial report was incorrect, or there was some doubt in the diagnosis, or it was correct and the other speculations are non-scientific loony hypotheses. The article doesn't state why was the original report was questioned (if it was), but just launches into other speculations on origin. Why did people look further into this than the initial report's answers, which, the way the article reads, were very definite of a straight forward terrestial origin ? If the Gov of India's report had reservations in its summation, this should be stated (it would explain why people offered other theories). If the Gov of India report is so definite in its conclusion, then an explanation is needed as to why people doubted it (sorry I haven't read the report in question). That is, as the wiki artcle stands, it is unclear (at least to this poor user) as why 'found' ≠ proven here.

"...initially ... but the the Government of India commissioned a study which found the rains had been coloured by spores from a locally prolific aerial algae. Then in early 2006, the coloured rains of Kerala ... are extraterrestrial cells ..." PS the reference to the Gov of India study could do with a date added, to add context to initial and then in. When was this report published ?

The Yeti 02:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The CESS report, 'Coloured Rain: A report of the phenomenon', is dated November 2001. It has 'Distribution Statement: Limited Circulation' on its documentation page.
Some of the reasons why this doesn't appear to be the end of the matter include reservations by the authors about how an actual algal bloom onset could be so sudden and how large quantities of spores could become airborne during the night prior to the first red rainfall; each of which is substantial problem for the hypothesis. Equally the 1% aluminium that they found in the stuff isn't consistent with spores; neither is the 7.5% silica that they report, though this isn't directly addressed in the report. It's not impossible that there are pressures on (non-loony) academics in India just as there are elsewhere.
As I've mentioned elsewhere on Talk pages, the use of GC-MS could have been expected quite early on and could have been expected to nail the matter quite conclusively. Even now no chromatographic analysis has appeared, at least I haven't been able to find any trace.
The CESS report did conclude that trentepohlia was the cause, but didn't 'prove' it, so it's appropriate to use the word 'found'. The initial official explanation had been that the raindust came from a meteor travelling west to east. As the red rain continued, this obviously didn't wash (pardon the pun ;) Davy p 01:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. However, I have to disagree in saying it's appropriate to use the word 'found', as when I read the word 'found' I mentally read this as 'proven'. This part of the article (& initial reports) needs to be rewritten to make it clear that the conclusions were only a hypothesis & therefore open to interpretation/doubt, rather than implying a conclusive answer had been agreed on  ; and also stating the problems with their hypothesis (some of which you've stated above. I mean, one would've thought they would know with fair certainty whether the red rain was straight forward algae or not, but apparently is isn't so obvious after all). In other words, the wiki article doesn't make clear it why people went and looked futher into this.
Let me put it this way, if a reputable scientific body had said 'yep, this mysterious stuff, we've looked into it, and are pretty certain its nothing special', most other scientists would just nod their heads, and get on with soemthing else. Except in this case, they didn't. Why ? The Yeti 20:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
But most scientists did nod their heads and get on with something else after the CESS findings. The fact that Louis and Kumar didn't does not mean most scientists doubted the findings of CESS. 151.200.214.162 09:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paranormal?

I noticed the revert war going on, and I'm inclined to respectfully disagree with the current inclusion of this article in the parnormal wikiproject. The only area of the wikiproject where this might fit under would be crytozoology, and that is a stretch because cryptozoology is related to life forms whose existance is unclear. Whatever this is (life form or not) exists. It thus would fall under astrobiology, which has a considerably more secure scientific backing. The inclusion of the paranormal tag does end up pushing a POV agenda (even though I sincerely doubt this was the intent). Could someone provide me with further justification for why this fits within the wikiproject? Irongargoyle 00:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

More than happy to. Out of neccesity, WP:PARA is a bit of a hodgepodge. Don't let the title fool you; I in no way think that this article is 'paranormal' in the least, nor is the banner meant to imply that. However, the project has chosen as part of its scope to include articles on extraterrestrial life, from the weird and out there to the ones with solid scientific backing (like panspermia). We have no agenda, I assure you; just want to make sure that articles such as this are getting attended to. So, to reiterate: the tag, and the project, are not trying to make any sort of statement; we just want to make sure this article has some more eyes on it (it's a great article, btw, and kudos to its contributors. Normally, I'd say something here about how we can help clean up articles, but here, I think the best we could do is help with vandalism patrol). --InShaneee 03:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Might I suggest that therein lies the problem. A "paranormal" project should focus on things generally considered pseudoscience (not that some things considered pseudoscience today might not be found to have merit in the future), but should I think leave fringe science (like panspermia) to the general science Wikiprojects. In this case, Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology would I think have the most appropriate specialization. Wouldn't you agree that writing about the "red rain" phenomenon requires a rather different expertise than writing about the ancient astronaut theory? Of course, if some of you at the Paranormal wikiproject are especially interested in the more "mainstream" aspect of this topic, you could always form an astrobiology wikiproject, which I would be very happy with.--Pharos 04:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, please don't let the name fool you; we've become a 'swiss army project' sort of out of neccesity. We DO deal with mainstream topics all the time; our current collaboration deals with a quite well known hoax, for starters. While the Microbiology project will probably want to claim this article, it is neither unusual nor unwanted for two wikiprojects to claim the same article. As I said before, we have no agenda here, and aren't planning to 'alien up' this article any. Astrobiology is a part of our scope, so we just wanted to tag it as such. --InShaneee 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Out of what necessity has your project spread itself beyond what it describes itself as? As I said in one of my edit summaries, change the name of your project if it covers mainstream science. Don't slap your paranormal tag on articles which have nothing to do with the paranormal. And I'm sure you needn't worry about this article being maintained, as two other projects already claim it. The simple fact is that this has nothing to do with the paranormal, and therefore, it does not come under the remit of 'wikiproject paranormal'.
I would like to bring to everyone's attention that I was blocked for 24 hours by InShaneee, presumably because he wanted to prevent me expressing my opinion here and hoped that everyone would support his view. He accused me of vandalism ([1]) - I challenge him and anyone else to specify which of my edits can possibly be considered vandalism. It's extraordinary that someone would go to such lengths to claim an article for 'their' project. 81.178.208.69 23:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
" A "paranormal" project should focus on things generally considered pseudoscience " From what I see there are quite a few "paranormal" explinations for the red-rains. The "Extraterrestrial hypothesis" section makes this article within the scope we have outlined for the project... and despite the presense of non-paranormal explinations, the first many people thing of is the paranormal. ---J.S (T/C) 23:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
You're not really understanding the situation then. The evidence for life on Mars found in ALH84001 does not make that object 'paranormal'. The evidence for life in comets that some say the red rain in Kerala provides similarly has nothing to do with the paranormal. Change your project name if you want to cover this article - don't call it paranormal when it's not. And don't get your admins to block people with offensive lying claims that they are vandals, just because they don't want your tag on an article where it's not appropriate. Excuse me if I'm not writing with much diplomatic intent here but I'm absolutely livid that I was blocked by someone so petty and childish over something so trivial. And by the way, it's 'explanation', not 'explination'. Worldtraveller 00:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, there you go, I've accidentally outed myself. Worldtraveller 00:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Real maturity I'm seeing here... Whatever, if you want to own your little article, I'll leave you too it. ---J.S (T/C) 07:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
My edit fixes the odd alteration you made to Worldtraveller's sig above.--MONGO 13:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Um. J.smith, are you saying that blocking somebody for removing a WikiProject template because he didn't think it applied is not taking ownership of an article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA?

As the article has stabilited quite a bit and is well written, any thoughts on making it featured? Peer review first, maybe? -Runningonbrains 00:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't think it was FA material really. Having just read it, I come away not really having any conclusive idea what the rain was. Richard001 01:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA (2)

I am proposing that (per discussion with raul) this article is made into a featured article in time for april fools day, would anyonebeinterested in helping with it? RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I reckon I could have this featurable by Sunday. Although I am thoroughly disillusioned I feel like writing just one more FA. Seeing as I started the article I might as well finish the job on it. Worldtraveller 16:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

This is a fascinating and well-written article. Kudos to all writers involved! --Hemlock Martinis 18:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usage of "sic"

One sentence reads "Wickramasinghe has reported on the 30th of March 2006 that “work in progress has yielded [sic] positive for DNA”.[19]" I see nothing in that sentence that merits the usage of sic; I'd guess that whoever initially inserted the quotation thought that "yielded" was spelled incorrectly, which it is not. vedantm 21:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The cited link has it misspelled as "yeilded". Someone must have edited the article to "correct" the quotation. I'll change it back to the original. Mgiganteus1 21:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wait a second

This was initially recognized as an airborne algae which had done similar things before, except one physicist said that it might be pansperm, and his friends said it didn't have any DNA, but the labs said it did? Um. Please to remove the entire panspermia speculation section. ←BenB4 13:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the point was that one test did not show DNA, a later (different) test gave a positive result, but that result cannot be considered conclusive (because the test is not definitive?), so the question of whether there is DNA present is unresolved; the panspermia speculation is in fact the entire point of this article.

[edit] Joke?

Is this article a joke? No offence! Amit 08:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Where does it sound like one? --soum talk 08:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Um, gee, I don't know, like maybe the part claiming the rains were colored by extraterrestrial spores. Me thinks someone's been watching too much SciFi! 4.249.117.209 (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Article needs to be cleaned up in teh referencing, per GA? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So, what's it?

I've read it, and also a few of those external links. But... What are those red cells actually? Are they dust all along? Cells hiding their DNA? Algal Spores? DNA-less multiplicating cells? Alien-cells? Wobster (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Almost certainly not alien cells. If there was any hint that these particles could be indications of life outside Earth, where are the masses of reports from the various space agencies like NASA or ESA? This might seem a bit cynical, but what better way to boost your budget for space exploration than to find evidence of extraterrestrial life? Also, the few chemists, biochemists or biologists who have examined the material say it is likely of Earth origins, the only scientists who say otherwise are physicists. One could reasonably exect that in six and a half years if there was anything of real interest in this "red rain" it would have been found by now or have been the subject of more extensive study. Colored rain is not that uncommon. See [2] or search Google.
This article gives too much weight to the opinions of a few people supporting controversial theories. According to Carl Sagan "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". IMHO there is no evidence for the claims made in the latter part of this article. Silverchemist (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
In my view, the whole extraterrestrial hypothesis section needs to be re-written into evidence-based form (there basically isn't any evidence) and toned down. The protodomain section in particular is speculative and repetitious and way over length, and should mainly refer elsewhere.Plantsurfer (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] what is result?

  • where is result information ? alien or no ? Berserkerus (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no more information. This article reports the latest information available. That fact that nothing new has been reported in two years is very damning. The home page of Dr. Godfrey Louis, the author of the paper that rekindled interest in the red rain, which was updated on 2008-04-10 [3], has nothing more recent than the 2006 article. Dr. Louis, who switched universities in October 2006, lists his current research as being "in the area of experimental Solid State Physics, Electronic Instrumentation and computer based Instrumentation" with a "special interest" in solving the red rain phenonomen. Ask this question: "If you had good evidence for extraterrestrial life, the discovery of the millenium, would you be working on electronic instrumentation?" and "Where is the work from other scientists?" It has been almost seven years since the red rain fell. Since that time we have sampled dust from a comet and started exploring Mars, but no one reports anything about these supposedly alien cells which fell right in our own backyard!? IMHO, the most likely explanation is that nothing unusual was found and anyone involved would prefer that the whole issue would just go away. Unfortunately, this article in Wikipedia keeps the issue alive despite the lack of any supporting evidence.Silverchemist (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Regrettably :( Tnx for answer Berserkerus (talk) 09:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. To keep tabs on your progress so far, either strike through the completed tasks or put checks next to them.

Needs a fair use rationale to include this image in the article:

Needs inline citations:

  • Y Done"One such case occurred in England in 1903, when dust was carried from the Sahara and fell with rain in February of that year."
  • Y Done"Another theory is that the rain contained mammalian blood, a large flock of bats having been killed at high altitude, perhaps by a meteor"
  • Y Done"Chemical analyses indicate that they consist of organic material, and so they proposed that the particles may be microbes of extraterrestrial origin"
  • Y Done"Louis and Kumar suggest that this was caused by the disintegration of a small comet entering the Earth's atmosphere, and that this comet contained large quantities of the red particles"

Y DoneAdditionally, the tag in the external links section needs to be addressed.

This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with related WikiProjects so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The TEM image of the single grain is quite relevant to the article. I have added source details as requested on Wickramasinghe's web page.
The SEM image, from Louis & Kumar's paper, appears to be rather anomalous. The size of the particles shown in this image is uniform, at about 10 um, rather than variable, 4 to 10 um, as described elsewhere, and they are dimpled rather than smooth and rounded as described elsewhere. L & K's paper mentions the anomaly, but does not go into any great detail. It would make the article less confusing if this image were to be removed.
The image showing red coloured water in buckets, Red rain Kerala.jpg, is relevant, because it makes clear at a glance the possibility that culture of Trentepohlia from samples could have been the result of contamination rather than that Trentepohlia spores were the cause of the redness.
Image:Red rain Kerala optical microscope.jpg provides the clearest picture of what these particles actually look like; and their appearance is consistent with the descriptions given both by Louis & Kumar and by the CESS. Hence it is vital. Well it's vital unless the intention it to deliberately slant this article. Davy p (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to address the above concerns. I hope it meets the requirements now. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I oppose the GA rating for this article as it stands. While it may satisfy the mechanics of Wikipedia, eg. citations and free images, the content is substandard. The propagation of largely unsupported conjecture should not be part of Wikipedia. A significant part of the article reflects the views of a very limited number of proponents. If it were not for the hypothesis (not a theory!) proposed by a physicist and his graduate student the whole "red rain" topic would be a minor, local mystery. Louis and Kumar made some amazing claims in unreviewed web postings. For example, they "published" a paper in 2003 entitled "New biology of red rain extremophiles prove cometary panspermia" [4], but never made this claim nor presented its supporting evidence in any peer-reviewed, reputable scientific publication. IMHO given the time elapsed and the lack of any further work (see my post in "what is result" above) it is becoming increasingly less likely that the definative explanation for the red rain phenonomen will be forthcoming. The Wikipedia article should state the facts, relying on articles published at the time of the event, not several years later, then the in point form, with minimal bias or additional comments, list the various hypotheses.Silverchemist (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The above issues I have raised have been fixed although several editors have listed additional issues about the content of the article. I am no expert on the topic, and consider the current state to be sufficient in providing a broad overview of the topic. I see that Silverchemist believes that the article should be shifted to more prior information, and that can still occur after I pass the article. Do the main editors of this article still believe that there are any major issues with this article concerning the topic that I should take into consideration before passing the article, or do you see it to be sufficient now? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I have done some work rearranging the article to separate the factual part from the hypotheses, but now I come to the extraterrestrial sections, which I suspect may generate more discussion. The references in these sections are in need of cleanup. There are duplicates, inaccurate ascriptions and formatting inconsistencies. I will try to fix these and keep the tone as NPOV as possible. Right now there is a lot of duplication in the extraterrestrial section that needs to be fixed. I suspect this arose over time as many editors made contributions. The Proto-domain hypothesis should not be here. IMHO the connection is too tenuous: if the red rain was due to a meteor or comet and if the red particles were cells lacking DNA then maybe it supports a highly controversial theory. It belongs elsewhere, perhaps in the Panspermia article. Please be patient with the process and I think this article will be eligible for GA status soon. Silverchemist (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the Proto-domain section per Wikipedia:Fringe theories. This hypothesis has very limited support. It is not even covered in the Wikipedia article on panspermia. If it belongs anywhere it is in the panspermia article. If someone wants to move it to that article, I have made that section self-contained with respect to the references (as of June 4, 2008. IMHO the article may now be suitable for GA status. Silverchemist (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: Pass

I too believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and looks good after addressing the above issues. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trentepohlia spores

There are a lot of whacky, unsubstantiated ideas in this article. From a scientific perspective the discussion about the particles possibly being Trentepohlia spores requires the following evidence just to get off the starting blocks:

  • An authentic image of Trentepohlia spores. So far there is no information on what they look like, but the article is attributing red rain to their presence. Can they be confirmed to have the same colour and morphology as the red rain particles?
  • Cited evidence that they can be liberated into the air in sufficient abundance. I personally think this is implausible, but at the very least that fact would require a citation.
  • Cited comparison of the colour of Trentepohlia spores and the 'red rain' particles. I am familiar with the alga Trentepohlia in the British Isles, and I can't help noticing that its filaments are not the same blood-red colour as shown in the red rain images, but bright orange, the colour of carrots, not surprisingly, because the pigment responsible is carotene.

Frankly, until this article is consistently presenting facts that would stand scrutiny in the primary school classroom it does not deserve GA, let alone FA status. FW (fantasy world) might be nearer the mark at present. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Figure 6 in the CESS report. It supposedly shows spores of Trentepohlia culturede from lichens collected from trees in Kerala. They look exactly like the red rain particles. Silverchemist (talk) 05:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... "exactly like the red rain particles"? The best that can be said is that they look similar.
Use Stokes's law to calculate the settling time of 4-12 um spores in water and see if this agrees with CESS's reported time of "several houre". Davy p (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The only mention I could find in the CESS report of settling time was in the abstract where it was noted that the solids settled after several hours. There are too many details missing to do a meaningful calculation; how many hours, height of the water column, water temperature, etc. Am I correct in assuming you would like to see if the density of the particles is similar to that of spores (which assumes we have a good value for that parameter). Silverchemist (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Plantsurfer pointed out shortcomings in the Trentepohlia hypothesis with which I agree. It seems to me to indicate a somewhat limited scientific investigation that the CESS did not measure the particles' relative density (which would clearly differentiate between, say, spores, sand, iron oxide particles etc.). Or, if they did then they failed to report their finding. To measure the density would seem a fairly obvious and easy thing to do with almost any unknown insoluble material. Nevertheless, from their published settling time of several hours etc. and using Stokes's law to calculate settling times for particles in the range 4 to 10 um it is possible to glean additional diagnostic information. This alone is sufficient to convince me that the CESS report is flawed. I hope that others may also take the trouble to do the sums and make plausible estimates where necessary. Davy p (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I tried doing the calculations assuming that wtaer was at 20 C and settling times from 1 to3 hours, depth of the container from 10 to 30 cm and particles from 4 to 10 microns. The density of the particles could be anywhere from 1.04 to almost 3 g/cm3, depending on the combination of parameters used. The elemental analyses done by both CESS and Louis rule out inorganic materials as the main constituent of the sediment. Silverchemist (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To have found settling times between 1 hr and 3 hrs it looks as though your sums have gone wrong somewhere. The settling velocity, assuming Stokes's law for a sphere falling in a uniform fluid medium applies, is proportional to the square of their diameter (so a range 4 to 10 um will give min/max velocities in the ratio 16:100; about 1:6). It's also proportional to the difference of density between the sphere and the medium (so, assuming the water has a specific density of 1.0, particle density differences in the range 1.04 - 1.0 to 3.0 - 1.0 give a min/max velocity ratio of 0.04 to 2.0 or about 1:50). So the ratio of settling velocities for the least dense smallest particles to the most dense largest ones within your chosen range will be about 0.04 * 16 to 2.0 * 100, i.e. about 300:1 over a given distance. Davy p (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My calculations are correct. Given the settling times and distances (which give settling speeds ranging from 0.0009 to 0.008 cm/sec) and particle sizes of 4 and 10 microns I calculated the corresponding densities. If I put the extremes of the densities and particle sizes into Stokes equation sure I get the large range you suggest, but what does that prove? Are you questioning the particle sizes, the composition (the density range for materials composed of CHNO is rather small) or the fact that the particles settled as described? I don't mind these discussions, but I like to know where its going. The composition of the particles, as measured by three different methods by two different groups, rules out ash or dust since the inorganic content is very low. Even the CESS work, which looked at the entire sediment, found less than 15% by weight inorganic materials (elements other than CHNO usually found in biological samples).Silverchemist (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed confusing; I hadn't intended to be. Having done back-of-envelope sums, I had used a spreadheet to calculate terminal settling velocity for two ranges: diameters of 4, 6, 8 and 10 um and specific densities 1.15, 1.5 and 2.5. The value of 1.15 was chosen as a reasonable upper limit for spores. My calculated values range between 1.5 and 91.9 um per second. Actual settling velocities will be slightly lower because the particles are non-spherical. Translating velocities into settling times over a distance of 150 mm gives times for 10 um and 4 um particles of 0.5 and 2.8 hours with density = 2.5; and between 4.5 and 28.4 hours with density = 1.15. Each of these densities thus appears to settle at rates significantly outside the stated settling time of "several hours". This seems to me to offer useful diagnostic information and, given the requirement to differentiate between (live or dead) organic material, sand and something else unknown, it is somewhat surprising that no measurements of specific density are mentioned in the CESS report. Louis's value for density of 1.5 appears correct, though his papers also have serious flaws. This doesn't indicate what the particles are, but they certainly don't seem to be spores or sand. Davy p (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, but it seems to me that the chemical analyses (by numerous methods and groups (CESS, Louis and possibly Brenna) are the most credible data we have on the composition of the particles. Elements heavier than oxygen constitute at most 14% by weight of the solids. One possible explanation for the settling times shorter than you calculations would indicate is that the particles were agglomerated to some extent. There is one comment in [5] which talks about alga in water froming "mucilaginous masses resembling drops of blood". The CESS report does talk about debris in the settled solids. Silverchemist (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Louis includes brief mention of a mucilage-like layer, but, as I recall, specifically in relation to the SEM images. (Perhaps something like this came into some of the stories that were told in connection with allusions to menstruation.) Elsewhere, his description of the particles is that under optical microscopy they are smooth and shiny. Possibly the particles did agglomerate but a) in the images in the CESS paper at least a proportion of the particles are separated; b) for the CESS investigator to need to let them settle, presumably something must have unsettled them, such as pouring or shaking, which would unclump them; c) Louis's reported value of 1.5 doesn't require an auxiliary hypothesis to support it and, despite his wacky hypothesis, there is no obvious reason why he should have fabricated this figure.

Although, as you note, elements heavier than oxygen constitute no more than 14%, given the high overall oxygen content these are likely to have been completely oxidised. Hence the proportion by weight of 'high density' constituents would be greater than the 14% by weight of the heavier elements alone. Aluminium, for example, with an atomic weight 27, combined with one and a half oxygen molecules would have a molecular weight of 51. Equally, some of the calcium could be as carbonate.

It is difficult to know how to assess the proportion of Si. CESS report this as 'silica' and give a somewhat higher value than does Louis. Also, I wasn't able to see any mention in the CESS report of whether their tables of major and trace elements are by weight or elemental proportions. But an overall relative density of 1.5 doesn't seem unfeasible on the basis of elemental composition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davy p (talk • contribs) 21:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Elemental analyses are usually (if not always) reported as either weight percent or ppm. The CESS analyses may be higher in heavier elements because they analyzed "the dried sediment" rather than the just the red particles which Louis examined. CESS commented that the sediment was about 10% debris (insoluble inorganic material?). The mention of "silica" in the elemental analysis is probably a misprint for "silicon" since the technique used quantifies the element, not its compounds. If one assumes that the metals are present as silicates (which would be the case if the inorganics were Silicate minerals usually found in clay and soil) and excess silicon is there as silica (sand), then the CESS sample would contain about 26% inorganics by weight (if they were there as carbonates the % would be lower). The sample analyzed by Louis would have a considerably lower inorganic content.Silverchemist (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

In Louis's third paper.he labels a Ca peak in the EDAX spectrum but doesn't include Ca in the corresponding table of constituents. This would bring the derived density from his data closer to that from the CESS data. Louis's use of EDAX may also have been partially selective and focused preferentially on only part of the particles. Neither Lous nor the CESS mention cadmium or mercury, which is surprising, given that the CESS tests were sensitive to 1 ppm or better. I'd found a reasonable match with something approximately clay-like (i.e. stuff with an S.D. of 2 or 3) at 1:2 by volume with organics; and it seems to me that including a proportion of C in the inorganic mix would increases the density. Davy p (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bat blood

The hypothesis that the red particles were bat blood was a wild guess. "Cockell takes a wild guess that maybe a meteor explosion massacred a flock of bats" "It's raining aliens, (Ref 18 in the 04:05, 27 May 2008 version of the article). A wild guess should not be presented as a serious hypothesis and given a full paragraph in what is supposedly a serious article. A person reading this Wikipedia article without carefully reading the referenced material would be left with the conclusion that "bat blood" was a potential explanation for the phenomenon. I'm going to remove that paragraph but will preserve the references. Silverchemist (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder that it might be appropriate to re-include a paragraph about bats, but including what Charles Cockell actually said, as originally quoted in the New Scientist 'Aliens from Space' article. The article itself read thus:

However, if scientists have a favourite quote, it's this one, popularised by Carl Sagan: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I'm hearing it a lot in discussions about the red rain of Kerala. Grady thinks Louis and Kumar have jumped to the extraterrestrial conclusion far too quickly. "They seem to prefer the most bizarre explanation they could find," agrees Charles Cockell at the Open University, who studies the microbiology of extreme rocky environments.

What other explanations are there? ... ...

Cockell argues that there could be a simpler explanation - the red particles are actually blood. "They look like red blood cells to me," he says. The size fits just right; red blood cells are normally about 6 to 8 micrometres wide. They are naturally dimpled just like the red rain particles. What's more, mammalian red blood cells contain no DNA because they don't have a cell nucleus.

It's tough to explain, however, how 50 tonnes of mammal blood could have ended up in rain clouds. Cockell takes a wild guess that maybe a meteor explosion massacred a flock of bats, splattering their blood in all directions. India is home to around 100 species of bats, which sometimes fly to altitudes of 3 kilometres or more. "A giant flock of bats is actually a possibility - maybe a meteor airburst occurred during a bat migration," he says. "But one would have to wonder where the bat wings are."

What he actually said is that the particles look like red blood cells. Indeed those in Louis & Kumar's SEM image, which was published in their third paper, do look very much like red blood cells (and rather different to images elsewhere - they are dimpled and rather uniform in size, for example).
We don't know what Cockell may have said between the quotes, but my impression has been that he used 'bats' both in the same sense as 'bats in the belfry' and to illustrate his previous remark about bizarre interpretations. Davy p (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (amended Davy p (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC))
How about: "In response to suggestions that the particles may have been exterrestrial cells, it was suggested that a simpler explanation (but still a "wild guess") was that the red colour was due to mammal blood, possibly from bats." Silverchemist (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I say, leave the damn thing out. It was an off the cuff remark in a magazine, not a serious hypothesis. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Jefffire (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What I had in mind was something like:
Asked to comment on the 'spores from space' idea for the 4th March 2006 issue of New Scientist, Charles Cockell of the Open University, said, "They seem to prefer the most bizarre explanation they could find." Agreeing that the images look like red blood cells, he went on to suggest that, "A giant flock of bats is actually a possibility - maybe a meteor airburst occurred during a bat migration... But one would have to wonder where the bat wings are." Various subsequent commentators seem to have taken his suggestion rather too seriously and failed to realise that he may have been alluding to bats in the belfry. Davy p (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The CESS report

The external link to the official CESS report is broken. A copyright-free image of the report is avaiable at http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Red_Rain_Report.pdf but I am not sure of the best way to add it to the article so it is readily accessible. Can anyone help? Silverchemist (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I used the Internet Archive to fix the link and it appears to work on my computer, but please take a look and see if it works on yours. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It works just fine. Thanks. Silverchemist (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)