≡ Menu

The Periodic Table of Science Bloggers

Elementally speaking, Universe Today is a science blog. Screenshot showing a part of David Bradley's Periodic Table of Sciece Bloggers. Can you find UT?

David Bradley is a first-class science writer from the UK, who writes with a chemistry slant at his blog Sciencebase. He’s also an interesting guy to follow on Twitter, and coined the term “Scientwists.” David also must be incredibly creative (or have more time on his hands than I could ever imagine) as he has created a Periodic Table of Science Bloggers. There you’ll find over 100 different science blogs, covering topics from astrobiology to zoology. While the blogs aren’t listed in topical groups similar to how the elements on the real periodic table are grouped, most are listed as an element whose abbreviation comes close to the blog or blogger’s name. For example, Universe Today is listed as “Uut – Ununtrium.” Check out this very cool periodic table to expand your horizons and bit and find some new blogs and new subjects to read about.

I have to admit I hadn’t heard of Ununtrium before, but here’s what it is:

“Ununtrium is the temporary name of a synthetic element with the temporary symbol Uut and atomic number 113.”

“It is placed as the heaviest member of the group 13 (IIIA) elements although a sufficiently stable isotope is not known at this time that would allow chemical experiments to confirm its position. It was first detected in 2003 in the decay of element 115 and was synthesized directly in 2004. Only eight atoms of ununtrium have been observed to date. The longest-lived isotope known is 284Uut with a half-life of ~500 ms, although two newly discovered heavier isotopes probably have longer half-lives.”

While Ununtrium is nothing like Universe Today — which is one of the longest-lasting blogs (over 10 years!) — the abbreviation fit well!

About 

Nancy Atkinson is Universe Today's Senior Editor. She also works with Astronomy Cast, and is a NASA/JPL Solar System Ambassador.

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • vagueofgodalming March 20, 2010, 2:33 PM

    Golly. This will put Phil Plait’s nose out of joint, though not too much, since Pharyngula isn’t there either.

    Not sure I really think of Jack of Kent as a science blogger.

    On the plus side, he isn’t taken in by (or hasn’t heard of) Watts Up With That and Climate Audit.

    The main impression, though, is just that there are an awful lot of science blogs out there. If I know 100 and you know 100, we only overlap a little.

  • erthx13 March 20, 2010, 11:56 AM

    Thank you. Very interesting (as usual), helps with orientation.

  • Torbjorn Larsson OM March 20, 2010, 12:06 PM

    Um. Blog element #115 Uup (Universe Plasma) is also known as Plasma Universe. Yes, _that_ PU, I believe.

    Driven by one Ian Tresman, displaying a prominent article on “pseudoskepticism” (wherein if you aren’t agnostic, you aren’t a skeptic), and started because Tresman in his nearly singular interest in posting about plasma had to “overcome the overt pseudoskepticism towards the subject on Wikipedia”.

    Not to put too much of a bad stench on Bradley’s vetting actual science sites after asking for links to display, but P.U.

  • Jon Hanford March 20, 2010, 1:19 PM

    P.U. ? *facepalm*

  • Sili March 20, 2010, 3:12 PM

    The main impression, though, is just that there are an awful lot of science blogs out there. If I know 100 and you know 100, we only overlap a little.

    That should actually allow you to estimate the population size if you consider the two samplings independent.

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb March 21, 2010, 11:37 PM

    Torbjorn Larsson OM said;

    “Um. Blog element #115 Uup (Universe Plasma) is also known as Plasma Universe. Yes, _that_ PU, I believe.
    Driven by one Ian Tresman, displaying a prominent article on “pseudoskepticism” (wherein if you aren’t agnostic, you aren’t a skeptic), and started because Tresman in his nearly singular interest in posting about plasma had to “overcome the overt pseudoskepticism towards the subject on Wikipedia”.
    Not to put too much of a bad stench on Bradley’s vetting actual science sites after asking for links to display, but P.U.”

    God damn, I really hate being conned by a con-artist, especially when it is a known supremo and renown plasma universe con-artist. I had wondered why iantresman turned up in the recent Universe Today article by Jean Tate “World-wide Campaign Sheds New Light on Nature’s “LHC”

    Now I also understand why iantresman was so distraught when I destroyed his crazy arguments just like plucking a chicken.

    So. I have made a formal complaint the the science writer David Bradley, who address appears on his personal journalist site “Sciencebase” at; http://www.sciencebase.com/resume.html . I have referred to the UT article to Mr.Bradley to show the nature of these attention seeking EU individuals.

    Let me repeat why “Electric Universe”, “plasma cosmology”, “plasma universe” is nonsense whose proponents use untoward tactics to gain a profile;

    You should be aware, that people like iantresman, will manipulate the terminology so that they are looking like they are writing about plasma physics, but in fact are discussing plasma cosmology or electric universe – pretending they are interchangeable terms. If you take the foot of the pedal, we will hear rampant EU and plasma cosmology, but when the pressure is put on them, the it is all about plasma physics and the thin veil of the imaginary support from the IEEE, etc.
    Sadly many of these individuals (like iantresman from the site plasma-univese) are ‘trained’ in how to respond, and have various strategies to raise the profile of their pseudo-scientific philosophies. They have as one of their main methods to influence those who have little or no knowledge of the topic, and persuade them that they views are acceptable ‘alternatives’ to current astronomical / astrophysical theories.
    (I you think that I’m over the top, just look at where targeted kids encyclopaedias on the web (kids net au )What chances have people have, when the individuals try to manipulate others who know no better.)
    While astrophysics/ astronomy and plasma physics are somewhat interrelated in several fields of studies, these EU individuals will suggest that they are ‘part of the mainstream’, when they are no better than pseudo-science hitmen.

    Time and again, the ire of deceptive EU comes out, and time and again, the responders to the given storyline have to come out again to defend science, the scientific method, and the accepted astrophysics. (Dr Flimmer, Lawrence Crowell, myself, ND, Olaf, etc.)

    What is frustrating is knowing there is a deliberate agenda and being diverted away from not discussing the storyline but
    defending the science behind it.

    As yet, authors of stories in Universe Today, expect us to ignore the nonsense, but still expect the knowledgeable bloggers to do all science explanations in the comments!

    The EU blogger know this, and this is how their deliberate and endless disruption continues. Their desperately trying to get a voice, but no one listens any more. I wonder why?
    (I notice that iantresman has now formed his pleading thread ” Civility on Universe Today comments?” at BAUT to try and drum up support against me. Thats OK. I already know he has complained directly to Jean and attempted to do as much attention seeking because no one is listen to them.)

    Q. Who actually proposed “Universe Today” to be placed in the site periodic table?

    * My humblest apologies to the Universe Today writers here. The length and content probably violates the rules here, but something has to be done to eliminate deceptive and mostly disruptive behaviour by an organised group with an agenda. I am hoping that David Bradley will read the comments here. Thank you.

  • sciencebase March 22, 2010, 2:07 AM

    Many thanks for featuring the Periodic Table of Science Bloggers on UT.

    I’m looking into the issue raised by the commenters here regarding one particular entry, added in good faith, which is now on-hold…

    db

  • sciencebase March 22, 2010, 11:47 PM

    By the way, I deliberately did not seek out the usual suspects for this page. Do we really need all the science blogs everyone already knows on yet another list? I wanted to have a little fun, create a novelty (some would say a folly), connect with some new people, see how virtually virulent a meme could be…

    Some very well-known science bloggers are on my PT, but only because they contacted me and asked for an element. Mostly, this grew organically.

    Readers may be pleased to learn that element 115 was assigned to British science writer Paul Sutherland’s excellent Skymania News (http://news.skymania.com) in the final version of the PT4SB.

    Thanks for your continued interest. If there’s a big enough call for it, I may start adding isotopes…

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb March 23, 2010, 1:47 AM

    May more elements grace you pages…

    Idea. How about the zillion of different particles in a table?

hide