The Biology of B-Movie Monsters

**Lemur** · 09-02-2006, 15:13

A University of Chicago biologist has finally delivered the paper we've all wanted -- The Biology of B-Movie Monsters. It's about time!

Sample:

When the Incredible Shrinking Man stops shrinking, he is about an inch tall, down by a factor of about 70 in linear dimensions. Thus, the surface area of his body, through which he loses heat, has decreased by a factor of 70 x 70 or about 5,000 times, but the mass of his body, which generates the heat, has decreased by 70 x 70 x 70 or 350,000 times. He's clearly going to have a hard time maintaining his body temperature (even though his clothes are now conveniently shrinking with him) unless his metabolic rate increases drastically.

Luckily, his lung area has only decreased by 5,000-fold, so he can get the relatively larger supply of oxygen he needs, but he's going to have to supply his body with much more fuel; like a shrew, he'll probably have to eat his own weight daily just to stay alive. He'll also have to give up sleeping and eat 24 hours a day or risk starving before he wakes up in the morning (unless he can learn the trick used by hummingbirds of lowering their body temperatures while they sleep).

[edit]

Reading the paper, it reminds me a bit of Larry Niven's famous Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex essay ...

**Sjakihata** · 09-02-2006, 15:21

sweet, I've already forwarded this to a friend of mine who is studying to become a biologist. thanks for the find, hilarious.

**English assassin** · 09-02-2006, 16:02

Imagine ten million earthworm size spermatozoa swarming over a Metropolis beach, diving to fertilize the beach balls... but I digress.

LMAO.

**lars573** · 09-02-2006, 18:49

Originally Posted by Lemur

Reading the paper, it reminds me a bit of Larry Niven's famous Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex essay ...

That paper is all based on a huge supposition. That Clark could be/was circumzied. Based on how Supermans powers were portrayed in 1971 it is unlikely that baby Clark could be. Even if they could cut it it would probably grow back. And the foreskin baffels semen speed like you wouldn't believe, speaking from 10 years of personal experience.

**yesdachi** · 09-06-2006, 15:37

I have no idea why, but I find this very interesting.

**ajaxfetish** · 09-07-2006, 01:55

Finally, living proof that humor and academia are not incompatible. If only papers on such subjects would become more commonplace.

Ajax

**Papewaio** · 09-07-2006, 02:30

Originally Posted by lars573

And the foreskin baffels semen speed like you wouldn't believe, speaking from 10 years of personal experience.

Shouldn't foreskin retract over erection leaving no baffling in place?

**ajaxfetish** · 09-07-2006, 03:11

Hmmm. Well, not necessarily. Let's just say that stretchiness isn't a quality of all of the organ except the foreskin.

Ajax

**lars573** · 09-07-2006, 04:32

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Shouldn't foreskin retract over erection leaving no baffling in place?

Mine never has. And given the way I gather my sperm samples (

) if it were going to it would. I have been working on my full reatraction problem, half way there BTW. But the foreskin can stretch so much that it wouldn't self-retract even at full mast with death-grip masturbation.