Röntgen didn’t publish a triumphant announcement that night. He didn’t tell his wife. He barely left the room for the next several weeks, eating and sleeping in the lab while he tried to figure out what he’d stumbled onto — and whether it was real.

Quick answer

X-rays were discovered by accident on November 8, 1895, when German physicist Wilhelm Röntgen noticed a barium platinocyanide screen glowing across his darkened lab while he tested a covered, energized vacuum tube — light that shouldn’t have been able to reach it. He spent weeks investigating the mysterious rays in secret before publishing his findings that December.

A shimmer he wasn’t looking for

Röntgen was investigating cathode rays — streams of particles produced inside vacuum tubes when high voltage passes through them, a hot topic among physicists like Heinrich Hertz and Philipp Lenard at the time. To study the effect cleanly, he’d wrapped his Crookes-Hittorf tube in black cardboard so no visible light could escape and confuse his observations.

He darkened the room, switched on the current, and caught a faint shimmer coming from a bench several feet away. When he struck a match, he found the source: a small screen coated in barium platinocyanide, a chemical he happened to have sitting out for an unrelated experiment, glowing faintly in the dark. The covered tube was somehow throwing off something invisible that traveled through the air, and even through solid objects, to make that screen light up.

The hand, the ring, and the skeleton on the wall

Not knowing what he was dealing with, Röntgen called the phenomenon ‘X-rays’ — using the mathematical symbol for an unknown quantity — and spent weeks testing what could and couldn’t stop them. Paper, wood, and flesh let the rays pass through; dense materials like bone and lead blocked them.

On December 22, 1895, he asked his wife, Anna Bertha, to place her hand on a photographic plate for about fifteen minutes while he aimed the rays at it. What developed was a ghostly image of the bones in her hand, with her wedding ring floating clearly around one finger. According to the story that’s been retold ever since, Bertha looked at the picture of her own skeleton and said, ‘I have seen my death.’ A few days later, Röntgen submitted his paper, ‘On a New Kind of Rays,’ to the Würzburg Physical-Medical Society, and the image of Bertha’s hand became the first X-ray photograph of a living person’s body ever published.

The part most people miss

The world didn’t wait politely. Within weeks of Röntgen’s announcement in January 1896, newspapers and magazines were running poems and cartoons about the ‘new photography,’ an English company was advertising X-ray-proof underwear for the modest, and portrait studios opened up offering paying customers a picture of their own bones. Serious medicine moved just as fast in the other direction: by June 1896, only six months after the announcement, battlefield surgeons were already using X-ray machines to locate bullets in wounded soldiers. What took much longer to arrive was the version most people actually remember — the shoe-store fluoroscope that let kids wiggle their toes and watch the bones move inside a new pair of shoes. Those machines didn’t show up until the 1920s, built on a fluoroscope Boston physician Jacob Lowe developed to check World War I veterans’ foot injuries before repurposing it for shoe fitting in 1920. Decades of children irradiating their feet for fun followed, until rising awareness of radiation risk phased the machines out of stores by the 1950s.

Through all of it, Röntgen could have made a fortune. Doctors and instrument makers wanted the technology immediately, and it would have been trivial for a physicist of his stature to patent the process. He refused, on the same principle later followed by Marie and Pierre Curie with radium: he believed a discovery this useful to humanity shouldn’t be locked behind a license. When he won the first Nobel Prize in Physics in 1901, he donated the prize money to his university, and true to form, he skipped giving a speech at the ceremony. The man who accidentally handed the world a way to see inside itself walked away from the payday almost as quickly as he’d found the glow.

Sources

Nobel Prize outreach materials and the Nobel Foundation’s official history of the 1901 Physics Prize, covering Röntgen’s award, his declination of a Nobel lecture, and his refusal to patent the discovery.

The American Physical Society’s ‘This Month in Physics History’ retrospective on November 8, 1895, corroborating the barium platinocyanide screen, the tube setup, and the timeline of Röntgen’s first paper.

The Oak Ridge Associated Universities’ Health Physics Museum and Wikipedia’s entry on the shoe-fitting fluoroscope, documenting Jacob Lowe’s 1919-1920 development of the shoe-store X-ray machine and its spread through the 1920s-1950s, well after Röntgen’s original 1895-96 discovery and its immediate commercial and medical fallout.

Explore more: more accidental inventions that changed the world.

X-rays FAQs

Who discovered X-rays and when?

German physicist Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen discovered X-rays on November 8, 1895, at the University of Würzburg, while testing a covered vacuum tube and noticing an unrelated screen glow across the room.

Why are they called ‘X-rays’?

Röntgen used ‘X’ because it’s the mathematical symbol for an unknown quantity — he had no idea what kind of radiation he’d found, so the placeholder name stuck permanently.

What was the first X-ray image of?

The first X-ray photograph of a living person was taken on December 22, 1895, of the bones in the hand of Röntgen’s wife, Anna Bertha, wedding ring included.

Did shoe stores really have X-ray machines?

Yes, but not right away. Shoe-fitting fluoroscopes let customers view the bones in their feet inside new shoes, but the technology wasn’t developed for that purpose until 1919-1920, roughly a quarter century after Röntgen’s discovery, and stayed common in stores into the 1950s.

Tales You Can Hold

Fun-facts books for curious kids, personalized books that star your child, and more from the FYI Tales Bookstore. Visit the Bookstore.

Photo: Erwin Hanfstaengl / Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

The post The Glow in an Empty Lab That Became the X-Ray appeared first on FYI Tales.

It wasn’t really a ride. It was a job interview. The machine was the first working escalator, and its inventor wasn’t hoping to entertain the boardwalk crowd so much as impress the men who ran New York’s bridges and planned Boston’s future subway. Coney Island was where he could prove, cheaply and publicly, that his invention could move people better than stairs, elevators, or their own two feet.

Quick answer

Yes: the escalator’s public debut wasn’t in a department store or a subway station. Engineer Jesse W. Reno installed the first working escalator, which he called an “inclined elevator,” as a temporary attraction at Coney Island’s Old Iron Pier in 1896, where roughly 75,000 people rode it in about two weeks.

A patent nobody built

The idea of a moving staircase predates Reno by decades. In 1859, a Massachusetts patent attorney named Nathan Ames patented “Revolving Stairs” — a theoretical design with steps that could be upholstered for comfort and powered by hand or hydraulics. Ames never built one; his patent sat on a shelf, more thought experiment than machine.

Jesse Wilford Reno, a Lehigh University-trained engineer, took the idea further. On March 15, 1892, he patented an “Endless Conveyor or Elevator”: a looping belt set at an angle, studded with cast-iron cleats for grip, with a moving handrail alongside for balance. There were no steps, just a slanted conveyor belt doing the work of a staircase. Reno had the patent. What he didn’t have yet was proof it worked, or anyone willing to pay for one.

Selling city hall with a beach ride

So Reno built one and put it where thousands of people already showed up looking to be amazed: the Old Iron Pier at Coney Island. For two weeks it carried curious New Yorkers seven feet up its 25-degree slope at around 23 meters a minute — an amusement, but also a working demonstration.

The pitch, according to contemporary accounts, was aimed less at fairgoers than at officials: the trustees of the Brooklyn Bridge, the operators of the elevated railways, and planners of Boston’s still-unbuilt subway. Reno’s machine, boosters argued, could move roughly 3,000 people an hour continuously and without an attendant — “manifestly superior” to a vertical elevator that had to stop, load, and unload one carful at a time. After Coney Island, the demonstration unit moved again, to the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge, for more of the same audition.

The part most people miss

Reno never got to name his own invention. That credit went to a rival. Around the same years, engineer Charles Seeberger was developing a competing design with flat, hinged steps instead of a bare sloped belt — closer to what you’d stand on today. Seeberger partnered with the Otis Elevator Company, and their joint machine won first prize at the 1900 Paris Exposition Universelle. Seeberger trademarked the name for it, stitching together Latin fragments — “scala” for steps, plus a prefix and suffix borrowed from “elevator” — into “escalator.”

Otis eventually bought out both men: Reno’s moving handrail and inclined belt, Seeberger’s flat steps and comb plates, folding the best of each into the machine that now carries millions of people a day. The “escalator” trademark itself didn’t survive as private property either — in 1950, the U.S. Patent Office ruled it had become a generic term, partly because Otis’s own advertising had used it that way for decades. The machine Reno risked his money proving on a beach boardwalk ended up everywhere, except in his own name for it.

Sources

This account draws on Jesse W. Reno’s patent record and biography as documented on Wikipedia, Untapped New York’s reporting on the Old Iron Pier demonstration, and the National Inventors Hall of Fame’s profile of Reno, cross-checked against Guinness World Records’ entry for the first escalator.

Explore more: More true stories about everyday objects.

escalator FAQs

Who really invented the escalator?

Jesse W. Reno built and patented the first working version, a sloped conveyor belt he called an “inclined elevator,” in 1892 and demonstrated it in 1896. But the flat-step design most escalators use today, and the name “escalator” itself, came from his rival Charles Seeberger, working with the Otis Elevator Company.

Where was the first escalator installed?

At the Old Iron Pier in Coney Island, New York, in 1896, where it ran for about two weeks as a paid amusement ride, carrying an estimated 75,000 riders.

Why was the first escalator a fairground ride instead of a store fixture?

Reno needed a cheap, public way to prove his machine worked before pitching it to transit officials like the Brooklyn Bridge trustees. Coney Island’s crowds gave him both an audience and a stress test.

Tales You Can Hold

Fun-facts books for curious kids, personalized books that star your child, and more from the FYI Tales Bookstore. Visit the Bookstore.

Photo: Chepry (Andrzej Barabasz) / CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

The post The Escalator Started as a Coney Island Thrill Ride appeared first on FYI Tales.

What came out wasn’t the sheet of dough they expected. It broke apart into flakes — thin, crisp, and, once toasted, strangely good. That kitchen mistake became the recipe for Corn Flakes, a product that would eventually split a family, trigger a courtroom fight over a last name, and put flaked cereal into breakfast bowls worldwide.

Quick answer

Corn flakes were invented in 1894 at the Battle Creek Sanitarium in Michigan, when Dr. John Harvey Kellogg and his brother Will Keith Kellogg accidentally let a batch of boiled wheat go stale before rolling it into sheets. Rather than a flat dough, the stale grain came out as individual flakes. The brothers patented the flaking process in 1895–96, and Will later built it into the company that became Kellogg’s.

A sanitarium kitchen looking for a miracle grain

John Harvey Kellogg was superintendent of the Battle Creek Sanitarium starting in 1876, a Seventh-day Adventist health resort where guests followed a strict vegetarian diet with no alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine. Kellogg treated food as medicine and was constantly experimenting — he’s also credited with early versions of peanut butter and a grain-based coffee substitute for patients who wanted something easier on the digestion than the heavy, meat-forward breakfasts of the era.

His younger brother Will Keith Kellogg worked as his business manager and lab assistant, running the sanitarium’s day-to-day operations while John chased new food ideas. Historical accounts also credit John’s wife, Ella Eaton Kellogg, with suggesting the technique of rolling dough into thin sheets in the first place — a detail that gets left out of the tidy “two brothers” version of the story.

The batch nobody meant to ruin

The brothers were boiling wheat berries to make a flattened wheat-meal product for sanitarium patients when they got pulled away and left the batch sitting too long. By the time they returned, the wheat had staled. On a tight budget, they ran it through the rollers anyway instead of tossing it — and instead of a solid sheet of dough, the flakes separated on their own. Toasted, they held their shape and crunch.

John Harvey Kellogg filed a patent for “Flaked Cereals and Process of Preparing Same” on May 31, 1895; it was granted April 14, 1896, as U.S. Patent No. 558,393, and covered flaking grains generally, not just wheat. John was the only name on the patent, but Will spent years afterward refining the process — including the eventual switch from wheat to corn, which flaked more reliably and tasted better toasted.

The brothers’ partnership didn’t survive success. In 1906, Will split off to found the Battle Creek Toasted Corn Flake Company, adding sugar, malt, and salt to make the cereal more appealing to a mass market — over John’s objections, since sweetened food ran against his health principles. The rift over credit and the family name became a legal fight that reached the Michigan Supreme Court, which ruled in Will’s favor in 1920, cementing his control over what became the Kellogg Company.

The part most people miss

The popular internet claim is that corn flakes were invented specifically to stop people from masturbating — that’s an overstatement, and fact-checkers have pushed back on it. But the exaggeration sits on top of something that’s genuinely true and stranger than the meme: John Harvey Kellogg was a fierce anti-masturbation crusader who believed that plain, bland, meat-free food dulled sexual urges, and that belief shaped the entire dietary philosophy behind the sanitarium’s food, corn flakes included. Kellogg wrote and lectured extensively on diet as a tool for curbing what he called “self-abuse,” and his broader methods for the cause were far more extreme than a breakfast cereal. Corn flakes weren’t sold with that pitch, but they were born inside a health program built around it — a piece of context that tends to get flattened into a punchline or dropped entirely.

Sources

Wikipedia’s entry on corn flakes details the 1894 accidental discovery, the disputed roles of John Harvey Kellogg, Will Keith Kellogg, and Ella Eaton Kellogg, and the 1895–96 patent (No. 558,393).

The National Inventors Hall of Fame’s profile of John Harvey Kellogg confirms his patent, his role at the Battle Creek Sanitarium, and the forgotten-dough origin of the flaking process.

Snopes’ fact-check on the corn flakes and anti-masturbation claim lays out what’s documented about Kellogg’s dietary beliefs versus the exaggerated version of the story that circulates online.

Explore more: more accidental inventions.

corn flakes FAQs

Did the Kellogg brothers really invent corn flakes by accident?

Yes. Historical accounts and the patent record describe the flakes as the result of a batch of wheat dough that was left out, went stale, and was rolled anyway rather than thrown out — not a planned recipe.

Were corn flakes originally made from corn or wheat?

Wheat first. The accidental discovery in 1894 used wheat berries; the switch to corn, which flaked more reliably, came later through Will Keith Kellogg’s continued experiments.

Is it true corn flakes were invented to stop masturbation?

Not exactly. Corn flakes weren’t created or marketed specifically for that purpose, but they did emerge from John Harvey Kellogg’s broader — and well-documented — belief that a bland, plain diet suppressed sexual urges.

Tales You Can Hold

Fun-facts books for curious kids, personalized books that star your child, and more from the FYI Tales Bookstore. Visit the Bookstore.

Photo: Th78blue / CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

The post The Accident That Turned Stale Wheat Into Corn Flakes appeared first on FYI Tales.

That part isn’t folklore. It’s one of the best-documented phenomena in modern biology, and scientists have been formally studying it ever since a shipment of axolotls landed in Paris in 1864 and started doing something nobody expected.

Quick answer

Axolotls (Ambystoma mexicanum) can regrow limbs, tails, jaws, skin, spinal cord, and portions of the heart, lungs, and brain — repeatedly, without scarring — because cells at the wound site revert to a stem-cell-like state and rebuild the missing structure from scratch, a process biologists call blastema formation.

A Parisian mistake that started it all

In 1864, a shipment of axolotls arrived at the Jardin des Plantes in Paris, joining a handful sent the year before, destined for the vivarium of French naturalist Auguste Duméril. Duméril was just trying to keep the strange Mexican salamanders alive in captivity. Instead, some of his animals did something no one had documented: rather than staying in their permanently larval, gilled state, a few individuals lost their gills, grew eyelids, and climbed out of the water as ordinary, land-walking salamanders.

Duméril had stumbled onto neoteny — the axolotl’s usual trick of reaching sexual maturity while still looking like a juvenile — and began breeding the colony to study it. That Parisian lab population is considered the ancestor of most axolotls now living in research labs and home tanks worldwide, including the federally funded colony at the University of Kentucky’s Ambystoma Genetic Stock Center, whose pedigree traces back to that same 1860s stock — reportedly the deepest lineage of any laboratory animal on record.

How to rebuild a leg without a scar

Cut off an axolotl’s leg, and within days skin cells migrate to seal the wound. Then mature cells nearby — muscle, cartilage, connective tissue — do something almost no adult vertebrate cell can: they forget what they are. They dial back their identity toward something closer to a stem cell, pile up into a mass called a blastema, and reread local genetic signals to rebuild bone, muscle, nerve, and skin in exactly the right place and proportion. No scar tissue forms in the process.

It isn’t limited to limbs. Researchers have documented axolotls regenerating tails, jaws, ovaries, sections of the spinal cord and brain, and portions of the heart and lungs — sometimes many times over an individual’s life. In 2018, an international team led by regeneration biologist Elly Tanaka, then at the Research Institute of Molecular Pathology in Vienna, finally sequenced the full axolotl genome. At roughly 32 billion base pairs — about ten times the size of the human genome — it was, at the time, the largest animal genome ever fully assembled. The goal wasn’t novelty; it was pinning down which genes actually run the regeneration program, in hopes of eventually nudging human cells toward doing something similar.

The part most people miss

For all its regenerative superpowers, the axolotl cannot regrow the one thing it actually needs most: its habitat. The IUCN Red List now places the wild population at just three remaining sites in and around Mexico City — the canals of Lake Xochimilco, Lake Chalco, and Chapultepec Lake — spanning a combined extent of occurrence of roughly 467 square kilometers, a fraction of the vast lake network the Aztecs once knew. Confusingly, the site most associated with axolotls, Xochimilco, is also the one where monthly surveys have failed to detect a single wild individual since 2017; the more recent confirmed sightings have instead come from Chapultepec Lake, an artificial, cement-lined lake inside a city park. The population researchers do track has collapsed regardless — from roughly 6,000 axolotls per square kilometer in 1998 to just 36 by the last full census in 2014. There’s a hopeful coda: between 2017 and 2018, researchers released 18 captive-bred axolotls into a restored wetland refuge and an artificial pond near Xochimilco, and every one of them survived and gained weight, proof that reintroduction can work for an animal that can rebuild a heart but can’t rebuild a lake on its own.

Sources

Nature (2018), “The axolotl genome and the evolution of key tissue formation regulators,” the genome-sequencing study led by Elly Tanaka and collaborators at the Research Institute of Molecular Pathology, Vienna.

“Cut and Paste: The Mexican Axolotl, Experimental Practices and the Long History of Regeneration Research in Amphibians, 1864–Present,” a peer-reviewed history archived on PubMed Central, covering the 1864 Paris shipment and Auguste Duméril’s neoteny discovery.

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species assessment for Ambystoma mexicanum, documenting the species’ three remaining wild sites (Xochimilco, Chalco, Chapultepec), extent of occurrence, and critically endangered status.

Mongabay’s 2025 report on the 2017–2018 captive-bred axolotl reintroduction study near Lake Xochimilco.

Explore more: More Wild Animal Tales.

axolotl FAQs

Can axolotls really regrow their brain?

Yes — axolotls can regenerate damaged portions of their brain and spinal cord, along with limbs, tails, jaws, and parts of the heart and lungs, without forming scar tissue.

Why don’t humans regenerate like axolotls?

Human cells generally respond to injury by forming scar tissue instead of reverting to a stem-cell-like state. Axolotl cells at a wound site “dedifferentiate” and form a blastema that rebuilds the exact missing structure, which is why scientists sequenced the axolotl genome to study genes relevant to human regenerative medicine.

Are axolotls extinct in the wild?

Not officially, but they’re critically endangered. The IUCN lists wild axolotls at just three sites near Mexico City — Xochimilco, Chalco, and Chapultepec — and surveys have found none in Xochimilco’s canals specifically since 2017, even as Chapultepec has produced more recent confirmed sightings.

Where does the name “axolotl” come from?

It comes from Nahuatl, the Aztec language, often translated as “water dog,” and is tied to a legend about the god Xolotl transforming into a salamander to try to escape being sacrificed.

Tales You Can Hold

Fun-facts books for curious kids, personalized books that star your child, and more from the FYI Tales Bookstore. Visit the Bookstore.

Photo: LoKiLeCh / CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

The post Why Axolotls Can Regrow Almost Anything (Except Home) appeared first on FYI Tales.

Gas doesn’t just disappear. So Plunkett did the only sensible thing: he had the valve sawed off and tipped the cylinder over. Out slid a scoop of white, waxy powder. He was 27 years old, two years out of his Ph.D., and he was looking at what would become one of the strangest and most useful materials of the 20th century—though at that moment, all he had was a ruined refrigerant experiment and a weird lump of solid.

Quick answer

Teflon (PTFE, or polytetrafluoroethylene) was discovered by accident on April 6, 1938, when DuPont chemist Roy Plunkett found that a cylinder of tetrafluoroethylene gas had spontaneously turned into a solid white powder overnight, seemingly making the gas ‘vanish’ from the container.

A refrigerant experiment gone sideways

Plunkett wasn’t trying to invent anything revolutionary. He’d joined DuPont’s Jackson Laboratory in Deepwater, New Jersey in 1936, and his job was to find safer refrigerants—chlorofluorocarbons, the chemistry of the moment, meant to replace toxic gases like sulfur dioxide and ammonia in home refrigerators. As part of that work, he’d manufactured about 100 pounds of tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) gas and stored it in small pressurized cylinders packed in dry ice, planning to react it with hydrochloric acid.

On that April morning, Plunkett and his lab assistant, Jack Rebok, set up one of the TFE cylinders to run the next step of the experiment. They opened the valve. Nothing happened. Given that TFE is a gas under pressure, this should have been impossible unless the cylinder was empty—but weighing it proved otherwise. It still had its gas-filled weight. Something had happened to the TFE that nobody expected, because at the time, chemists didn’t think TFE could polymerize at all.

The powder nobody ordered

Plunkett had the valve removed and turned the cylinder upside down. A whitish, waxy solid fell out onto the workbench. Instead of shrugging it off as a ruined batch and moving on—which many chemists in his position might have done, since it wasn’t what he was being paid to find—Plunkett got curious. He ran tests on the mystery substance and found it was almost unbelievably inert: acids didn’t touch it, solvents didn’t dissolve it, heat barely bothered it, and almost nothing would stick to its surface.

What had happened, chemists later confirmed, was that the fluorine and carbon atoms in the TFE gas had linked together into long, tightly bonded polymer chains under the pressure and cold of the cylinder—forming polytetrafluoroethylene, or PTFE. DuPont patented the polymer (Plunkett’s patent application was filed in 1939) and, in 1945, trademarked the material as Teflon.

The part most people miss

Teflon’s first real job had nothing to do with kitchens. During World War II, the material was classified and funneled straight into the Manhattan Project, where its extreme resistance to corrosive uranium hexafluoride gas made it essential for seals and gaskets in the gaseous diffusion process used to enrich uranium. The public didn’t hear the word ‘Teflon’ until years later. Nonstick cookware didn’t arrive until the 1950s, pioneered commercially by French engineer Marc Grégoire, whose company Tefal began selling Teflon-coated pans in France in 1956; American cookware followed by the early 1960s. It’s also worth separating two things people often blur together: PTFE itself (the actual nonstick coating) is chemically stable and considered safe for cookware, but for decades it was manufactured using a separate processing chemical called PFOA, one of the ‘forever chemicals’ now linked to serious health and environmental harm. DuPont phased PFOA out of Teflon production by 2013—a real controversy, but a different chemical from the one Plunkett found in his cylinder.

Sources

Science History Institute, biographical profile of Roy J. Plunkett, detailing his background, the 1938 discovery at DuPont’s Jackson Laboratory, and Teflon’s path from refrigerant research to nonstick cookware.

Wikipedia entry on Roy J. Plunkett, cross-referenced for dates (born June 26, 1910; April 6, 1938 discovery; 1936 Ohio State Ph.D.), assistant Jack Rebok’s name, and Plunkett’s later career and honors including the National Inventors Hall of Fame.

Additional reporting drawn from The Chemical Engineer’s history of PTFE and coverage of the PFOA ‘forever chemicals’ controversy, used to confirm the Manhattan Project application, the Tefal/Grégoire cookware timeline, and the distinction between PTFE and PFOA.

Explore more: more accidental inventions.

Teflon FAQs

Who invented Teflon and when?

DuPont chemist Roy Plunkett discovered it by accident on April 6, 1938, while researching refrigerants at the company’s Jackson Laboratory in New Jersey.

Why did the gas seem to disappear?

The tetrafluoroethylene gas hadn’t vanished—it had polymerized into a solid white powder (PTFE) inside the pressurized cylinder, which is why the container kept its original weight even though no gas came out.

Was Teflon used for nonstick pans right away?

No. It was first used for wartime industrial purposes, including seals in the Manhattan Project’s uranium enrichment process, and didn’t appear in cookware commercially until the mid-1950s in France and the early 1960s in the U.S.

Is Teflon the same thing as the ‘forever chemicals’ in the news?

Not exactly. PTFE, the nonstick material Plunkett discovered, is considered chemically stable. PFOA, a separate chemical once used in manufacturing PTFE, is the ‘forever chemical’ linked to health risks, and DuPont phased it out of Teflon production by 2013.

Tales You Can Hold

Fun-facts books for curious kids, personalized books that star your child, and more from the FYI Tales Bookstore. Visit the Bookstore.

Photo: NASA / Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

The post Teflon: The Gas That Mysteriously Vanished appeared first on FYI Tales.

This isn’t a folk tale about a bird with a magic nose. It’s the Clark’s nutcracker, and for decades scientists doubted a brain that small could actually be doing what it looked like it was doing. Then a couple of biologists moved some rocks around and proved it.

Quick answer

The Clark’s nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana) buries tens of thousands of pine seeds every autumn in scattered underground caches, and studies show individual birds can accurately relocate roughly 10,000 of those hiding spots, months later, by remembering visual landmarks — not by smell, and not by chance.

A woodpecker that wasn’t

The bird gets its name from Captain William Clark, who spotted one along the Salmon River in 1805 during the Lewis and Clark Expedition and, understandably, got it wrong — he described it in his journal as a kind of woodpecker, going by its bill and behavior. It took the ornithologist Alexander Wilson, working from a specimen the expedition brought back, to sort the bird into its real family: the corvids, the same clan as crows, ravens, and jays. He named it after Clark, and the name stuck even after science figured out what it actually was.

What nobody appreciated for another century and a half was what was going on inside its head. Clark’s nutcrackers live at elevations where a hard winter can bury every ounce of food under feet of snow for months. Their entire survival strategy is a bet that they can find, later, what they buried now — while sober biologists suspected they were mostly just getting lucky or sniffing around.

Proving the bird wasn’t guessing

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, biologists Stephen Vander Wall and Russell Balda set out to settle it. In a landmark 1982 study published in Animal Behaviour, they let nutcrackers cache seeds in an enclosure, then — before the birds came back to dig them up — quietly shifted the rocks and sticks around each cache site. The birds didn’t dig in the actual spot. They dug near where the landmark now was, missing the real cache by roughly the same distance the landmark had moved. That was the tell: the birds were navigating by remembered visual reference points, the way you’d walk to a shed by lining it up with the oak tree and the fence corner, not by scent or blind chance.

Follow-up work pushed the numbers further. Individual birds have been tracked caching anywhere from about 5,000 up to nearly 100,000 seeds in a single autumn, spread across thousands of separate hiding spots, and relocating them with real accuracy as much as nine months later — deep into the following spring, feeding chicks with seeds they buried the previous fall. Researchers, including Diana Tomback at the University of Colorado Denver, who has spent a career on this bird, have called them, fondly, “cache-aholics.”

The part most people miss

The nutcracker doesn’t do this for fun — an entire tree species is betting its future on the bird’s memory, including its lapses. Whitebark pine, the nutcracker’s main food source in the Rockies and Sierra Nevada, has cones that don’t open on their own and seeds with no wings, so they can’t blow away or roll downhill like a normal pine’s. The tree has no way to plant itself except by getting eaten, or more precisely, forgotten. Nutcrackers carry whitebark pine seeds up to several miles from the parent tree, bury them, and — because no memory is perfect — never come back for a meaningful fraction of them. Those forgotten caches are the whitebark pine’s only real path to becoming a forest. The relationship is close enough that biologists consider it a textbook case of two species that evolved to depend on each other, and it’s fraying: whitebark pine populations have been hit hard by an introduced fungus called white pine blister rust, along with mountain pine beetles and changed fire patterns, which puts long-term pressure on the very bird whose forgetfulness planted the forest in the first place.

Sources

National Geographic’s “How a 5-Ounce Bird Stores 10,000 Maps in Its Head” (Robert Krulwich, 2015), drawing on the research of biologists Stephen Vander Wall, Russell Balda, Diana Tomback, and psychologist Alan Kamil.

Audubon magazine’s “Better Know a Bird: The Clark’s Nutcracker and Its Obsessive Seed Hoarding,” including reporting on Diana Tomback’s whitebark pine research and seed-cache figures.

“An Experimental Analysis of Cache Recovery in Clark’s Nutcracker,” Vander Wall and Balda’s 1982 study in Animal Behaviour, the original landmark-manipulation experiment establishing spatial memory as the recovery mechanism.

Explore more: More wild animal tales.

Clark’s Nutcracker FAQs

How many hiding spots can a Clark’s nutcracker actually remember?

Estimates vary by study, but researchers generally put it around 10,000 cache locations an individual bird can track at once, out of tens of thousands of seeds it buries each fall.

How do scientists know it’s memory and not smell?

In experiments by Stephen Vander Wall and Russell Balda in the late 1970s and early 1980s, shifting the landmarks around a cache site caused nutcrackers to dig in the wrong spot nearby, in line with the moved landmark — proof they were navigating by remembered visual cues, not scent.

Why does this bird matter for forests?

Clark’s nutcrackers are essentially the only way whitebark pine gets planted, since the tree’s seeds are wingless and can’t disperse on their own. The caches the birds forget become new trees.

Tales You Can Hold

Fun-facts books for curious kids, personalized books that star your child, and more from the FYI Tales Bookstore. Visit the Bookstore.

Photo: Polinova / CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

The post The Bird That Remembers 10,000 Hiding Spots appeared first on FYI Tales.

The color really does come from your immune system doing something specific and real. What it doesn’t do, according to the researchers who’ve actually tested the claim, is reliably tell you whether bacteria are involved at all.

Quick answer

Snot color mostly tracks how hard your immune system is working, not whether a virus or bacteria caused the problem. Green and yellow come from an iron-containing enzyme released by white blood cells as they fight off any invader — so a bad viral cold can turn snot just as green as a bacterial sinus infection.

The enzyme behind the green

In 2010, science writer Valerie Ross went looking for an answer to a question kids ask constantly, and got it from Dr. Harry Malech, a neutrophil specialist at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Neutrophils are the immune cells that rush toward infection or irritation and start engulfing whatever’s causing trouble. To do that, they’re packed with an enzyme called myeloperoxidase — and myeloperoxidase happens to be loaded with iron.

‘Myeloperoxidase has a lot of iron in it, and in the environment provided by the surrounding snot, the iron turns a green color,’ Malech told Ross. It’s the same basic chemistry that makes blood red: iron-containing proteins tint fluid when they’re released in bulk. When neutrophils have been working for a while, they break down and spill their myeloperoxidase into the mucus, and the green gets more vivid the longer the immune response runs.

Then someone actually tested the belief

The trouble is that neutrophils show up for viral infections too — colds, flu, even allergic inflammation can summon them. So researchers started asking a more useful question: if you actually measure it, does mucus color predict bacteria? A pooled analysis of six multicentre studies (over 4,000 sputum samples), published in the European Respiratory Journal, found that green or yellow sputum was about 95% sensitive for bacterial presence — meaning if bacteria really were there, discolored mucus almost always showed it. But specificity was only around 15%. That’s the number that trips people up: it doesn’t mean colored mucus fails to rule bacteria out. It means colored mucus is bad at ruling bacteria in. A huge share of green or yellow samples showed up in people with no bacterial culture at all, so seeing the color tells you almost nothing about whether antibiotics would actually help.

In 2016, University of Adelaide microbiologist John Turnidge tackled the myth head-on in The Conversation, writing plainly that green or yellow mucus meaning bacterial infection ‘isn’t true.’ The color, he explained, is just a normal stage of inflammation — your immune system doing its job on a virus, most of the time — and antibiotics ‘provide no benefit’ for the colds, acute bronchitis, and sinus infections where the myth usually gets invoked.

The part most people miss

The part almost nobody clocks: you’re most contagious during the boring, clear, runny stage of a cold — not once the green, gunky, alarming-looking stuff shows up. By the time neutrophils have flooded in and turned things green, Turnidge noted, viral shedding has usually already dropped off. So the exact moment people start worrying they’re spreading germs is often the moment they’re least likely to be doing so. Where the myth itself came from is murkier — Turnidge suggests it’s a leftover mix-up with pus, which genuinely does signal bacterial infection in things like boils and abscesses, bleeding over into an assumption about mucus that never held up to testing.

Sources

The Conversation, ‘Health Check: does green mucus mean you’re infectious and need antibiotics?’ by John Turnidge, Affiliate Professor, University of Adelaide (August 15, 2016).

Scienceline, ‘What Makes Snot Turn Green?’ by Valerie Ross, quoting Dr. Harry Malech of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (February 1, 2010).

European Respiratory Journal, pooled analysis ‘Sputum colour and bacteria in chronic bronchitis exacerbations,’ reporting 94.7% sensitivity and roughly 15% specificity for sputum color as a marker of bacterial presence.

Explore more: more true stories about how your body actually works.

snot color FAQs

Does green or yellow mucus mean I need antibiotics?

Not on its own. A large pooled study found colored mucus shows up in about 95% of cases where bacteria are present, but it also shows up constantly when bacteria aren’t — its specificity is only around 15%. So seeing color doesn’t confirm a bacterial infection, and most colds, bronchitis, and sinus infections clear up without antibiotics regardless of color.

Why does mucus turn green in the first place?

White blood cells called neutrophils release an iron-rich enzyme, myeloperoxidase, as they fight off infection or irritation. The iron tints the mucus green, the same way iron in blood makes it red.

When is a cold actually most contagious?

Usually during the early, clear, runny-nose phase — before mucus turns colored, not after. By the time green mucus shows up, viral shedding has often already declined.

When should mucus color actually worry me?

See a doctor if symptoms last more than about 10 days, keep worsening after initially improving, or come with high fever or facial pain — those patterns matter more than color alone.

Tales You Can Hold

Fun-facts books for curious kids, personalized books that star your child, and more from the FYI Tales Bookstore. Visit the Bookstore.

Photo: see source / CC BY 2.5, via Wikimedia Commons.

The post Why Green Snot Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Does appeared first on FYI Tales.

Bénédictus was curious enough to ask why. The answer sat in an old, unwashed flask, a lucky accident, and a habit most chemists would have ignored. What happened next took six more years, a newspaper story about a car crash, and a fair amount of competition from a rival inventor most people have never heard of — before that flask turned into the safety glass in your car windshield today.

Quick answer

Laminated safety glass traces to 1903, when French chemist Édouard Bénédictus dropped a glass flask that had been coated in a residue of cellulose nitrate (the plastic film left behind after a solution called collodion evaporated). The flask cracked but didn’t shatter apart, which gave him the idea for glass bonded to a plastic interlayer — a product he patented in 1909 and sold under the name Triplex.

A flask that refused to fall apart

The flask that fell off Bénédictus’s shelf wasn’t ordinary glassware. It had previously held a solution of collodion, a syrupy mix of cellulose nitrate (a plastic derived from treated cotton) dissolved in alcohol and ether — the same stuff used at the time to dress wounds and coat early photographic plates. Nobody had rinsed it out. Over time, the solvent evaporated and left behind an invisible, thin plastic film clinging to the inside of the glass.

So when the flask hit the floor, it broke the way glass always breaks: countless fine fracture lines racing across the surface. But that thin film held the fragments in place, like a pane of glass with an internal skeleton. Most chemists would have swept it up without a second thought. Bénédictus, who kept detailed lab notebooks, wrote the incident down and moved on to other work — for years, that’s where it stayed, a curiosity and nothing more.

The newspaper story that changed his mind

What pulled the idea off the shelf, according to Bénédictus’s own later account, was a newspaper report about an automobile accident in which flying glass badly injured people in the crash. Cars were new, roads were rough, and windshields were plain glass that shattered into knife-like shards on impact — a real and growing hazard as automobiles spread across France in the early 1900s.

Bénédictus reportedly returned to his lab, remembered the flask, and built the first sheet of what he called Triplex: two layers of glass sandwiching a thin film of cellulose nitrate, pressed and bonded together. He filed his patent in 1909 and, in 1911, founded the Société du Verre Triplex to manufacture it. The timeline from accident to patent ran roughly six years — a reminder that most ‘eureka’ moments are really ‘eventually’ moments.

Triplex didn’t take over the automotive world overnight. Manufacturing laminated sheets by hand was slow and expensive, so the earliest large-scale customer wasn’t the car industry at all — it was the military, which used laminated glass in gas mask eyepieces during the First World War. Automakers came around more gradually; Ford is credited with putting laminated safety glass into production windshields starting in 1929, with British manufacturers following in the early 1930s.

The part most people miss

Here’s the twist that gets left out of most retellings: Bénédictus wasn’t actually the first person to patent laminated glass. An English solicitor named John Crewe Wood filed a British patent in 1905 — four years before Bénédictus — for a very similar idea: glass layered with a transparent plastic interlayer, in Wood’s case bonded with Canada balsam, a natural tree resin long used to cement optical lenses together. Wood even started a company, the Safety Motor Screen Company, to sell his version as an automobile windshield. It’s why some serious histories of the technology, including academic accounts of the chemistry, list Wood’s patent as the earlier filing even while Bénédictus remains the name attached to the popular origin story. Wood’s product ran into manufacturing problems and never scaled, while Bénédictus’s cellulose-nitrate version, backed by a real company and eventually big industrial licensees, became the version the world actually adopted — and remembered. It’s a pattern that shows up again and again in invention history: the person credited with ‘inventing’ something is often the one who commercialized it successfully, not necessarily the one who thought of it first.

Sources

Wikipedia’s entry on Édouard Bénédictus and laminated glass, which lays out the flask accident, the 1909 patent, and the founding of the Société du Verre Triplex.

McGill University’s Office for Science and Society, ‘What is Safety Glass?’, which corroborates the collodion-flask story and traces the material’s evolution from cellulose nitrate to cellulose acetate to modern polyvinyl butyral interlayers.

Glassonweb.com’s history of PVB laminated glass in the automotive industry, by Luc Moeyersons, which documents John Crewe Wood’s earlier 1905 patent and the Safety Motor Screen Company alongside Bénédictus’s later, more successful commercialization.

Explore more: more accidental inventions.

safety glass FAQs

Who really invented safety glass?

French chemist Édouard Bénédictus is generally credited with inventing laminated safety glass after a 1903 lab accident and a 1909 patent, though English solicitor John Crewe Wood filed a similar laminated-glass patent in 1905, four years earlier.

What caused the original safety glass accident?

A glass flask that had once held a cellulose nitrate solution (collodion) was dropped in Bénédictus’s Paris laboratory in 1903. The solvent had evaporated and left an invisible plastic film coating the inside of the flask, which held the broken glass together on impact.

When did safety glass become standard in cars?

Laminated glass saw its first major use in gas mask eyepieces during World War I, well before cars adopted it widely. Ford began installing it in production windshields starting in 1929, with other automakers following through the 1930s.

Tales You Can Hold

Fun-facts books for curious kids, personalized books that star your child, and more from the FYI Tales Bookstore. Visit the Bookstore.

Photo: Tysto / Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

The post How a Shattered Lab Flask Invented Safety Glass appeared first on FYI Tales.

Eleanor died the next day. What happened afterward is the part that made researchers sit up: over the following days, several other elephant families came to visit her body, most with no close kinship tie to her at all. They sniffed her, touched her with their trunks and feet, and lingered. It’s one of the best-documented cases behind a claim you’ve probably heard repeated as fact: that elephants mourn their dead. The real story, once scientists tested it properly, turned out to be stranger and more humble than the legend — and the twist is that elephants may not be singling out their own relatives at all.

Quick answer

Yes — elephants reliably investigate, touch, and linger near dead elephants, including old bones, far more than they do around the remains of other species. But controlled research has found elephants show this intense interest toward strangers’ remains almost as readily as toward family, which is why scientists are cautious about calling it ‘mourning’ exactly the way humans experience it.

A matriarch falls in Samburu

The Eleanor case became a landmark because it was witnessed almost from the start and written up formally. Iain Douglas-Hamilton, founder of the conservation group Save the Elephants, and colleagues published the account in 2006 in the journal Applied Animal Behaviour Science, titled ‘Behavioural reactions of elephants towards a dying and deceased matriarch.’ It’s rare in animal behavior research: a natural death that happened to unfold in front of scientists who were already tracking the herd.

What struck the researchers wasn’t just Grace’s attempt to lift Eleanor — elephants had been seen trying to raise fallen companions before. It was who showed up in the days after. Several visiting families had little or no kinship tie to Eleanor’s group, the First Ladies. They came anyway, investigated her body with their trunks, and some lingered over her before moving on.

Scientists put the ‘family only’ theory to the test — and it didn’t hold up

Eleanor’s story wasn’t a one-off, and it eventually pushed researchers to ask a sharper question: is this specifically about kin, or about elephants in general? In 2006, biologist Karen McComb, along with Lucy Baker and Cynthia Moss — who has run the Amboseli Elephant Research Project in Kenya continuously since 1972 — published the first controlled experiment on this in Biology Letters, titled ‘African elephants show high levels of interest in the skulls and ivory of their own species.’

They gave elephant families a choice of objects to investigate: elephant ivory, elephant skulls, and, for comparison, the skulls of rhinos and buffalo, plus plain wood. The elephants spent far more time at the ivory and elephant skulls, confirming they can recognize the remains of their own species. But when the team ran the sharper test — offering the skull of an elephant’s own dead matriarch against the skull of an unrelated matriarch — there was no meaningful preference. The families didn’t linger longer at the bones of their own relative. The authors concluded that elephants probably aren’t singling out specific kin; they’re just so strongly drawn to elephant remains in general that they’d be highly likely to encounter their relatives’ bones anyway, simply by living in the same range.

The part most people miss

The popular version of this story — elephants hold funerals, elephants cry, elephants have a secret ‘graveyard’ where they go to die — outruns the evidence. There’s no verified elephant graveyard; that legend is best explained by old or sick elephants gravitating toward the same reliable water and soft ground near rivers, where remains simply accumulate over time. And the fluid that streams from an elephant’s temporal glands during stressful or excited moments — sometimes cited as elephant ‘tears’ — is a physiological stress response, not weeping. Even the more careful, science-backed version of the story has a wrinkle most retellings skip: the McComb, Baker, and Moss experiments found elephants don’t actually pick out their own dead relatives’ bones over a stranger’s. The recognition runs at the species level, not the personal one. That’s arguably the more interesting finding — it suggests whatever elephants are doing around remains isn’t a targeted vigil for one lost relative so much as a deep, species-wide response to death itself, one so strong it just happens to sweep up family members along the way.

Sources

Iain Douglas-Hamilton et al., ‘Behavioural reactions of elephants towards a dying and deceased matriarch,’ Applied Animal Behaviour Science (2006), documenting the death of the matriarch Eleanor in Samburu National Reserve, Kenya, and Save the Elephants’ own published account, ‘The Death of Eleanor.’

Karen McComb, Lucy Baker, and Cynthia Moss, ‘African elephants show high levels of interest in the skulls and ivory of their own species,’ Biology Letters (2006), the controlled Amboseli experiment testing (and failing to confirm) preference for kin remains over non-kin remains.

Shifra Goldenberg and George Wittemyer, ‘Elephant behavior toward the dead: A review and insights from field observations,’ Primates (2019), a review of documented elephant encounters with carcasses across Africa, published via Save the Elephants and colleagues.

Explore more: More true wild animal tales.

elephant mourning FAQs

Do elephants really mourn their dead?

They reliably show intense interest in dead elephants — touching, guarding, and revisiting remains — far more than toward other species’ remains. But researchers are cautious about calling this ‘mourning’ exactly as humans experience it, since it happens almost as readily toward elephants they didn’t know as toward relatives.

Do elephants specifically recognize and return to a dead relative’s bones?

Not according to the controlled evidence. A 2006 Amboseli experiment by Karen McComb, Lucy Baker, and Cynthia Moss found elephants strongly prefer elephant skulls and ivory over other objects, but showed no significant preference for a relative’s skull over an unrelated elephant’s skull.

Who was Eleanor the elephant?

Eleanor was a matriarch in Kenya’s Samburu National Reserve whose collapse and death in October 2003 were documented by Save the Elephants founder Iain Douglas-Hamilton, becoming one of the most detailed published records of elephant behavior around death.

Is there really such a thing as an ‘elephant graveyard’?

No — it’s a myth. The idea likely comes from old or sick elephants gravitating to the same water sources and soft ground near rivers, where remains naturally accumulate over time.

Tales You Can Hold

Fun-facts books for curious kids, personalized books that star your child, and more from the FYI Tales Bookstore. Visit the Bookstore.

Photo: Steve Evans from Citizen of the World / Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

The post The Elephant Who Wouldn’t Let Her Friend Die Alone appeared first on FYI Tales.

That changed in 2002, when a team working for a Japanese food company found the actual machinery inside onion cells that manufactures the gas that makes you cry—and discovered it wasn’t an accident of chemistry at all. It was a dedicated, purpose-built weapon, and finding it overturned decades of assumptions.

Quick answer

Cutting an onion ruptures cells and mixes sulfur-containing compounds with an enzyme called alliinase, forming an unstable sulfenic acid. A second enzyme, lachrymatory-factor synthase, immediately rearranges that acid into a volatile gas called syn-propanethial-S-oxide. The gas drifts up into your eyes, where it activates the same pain-sensing nerve channels (TRPA1) that respond to mustard and wasabi, triggering the reflex tears that flush it back out.

The wrong villain

Chemists had actually pinned down the identity of the tear-gas molecule itself decades earlier. Eric Block, a chemist now at the University at Albany, spent much of the 1970s and ’80s working out its precise structure—confirming it as syn-propanethial-S-oxide in its ‘syn’ (Z) configuration and, in a 1980 paper with colleagues Bazzi and Revelle, even characterizing the stable dimer it forms.

But knowing the molecule’s shape isn’t the same as knowing where it comes from. The standard explanation, repeated in textbooks for decades, was that it was simply a byproduct: onions store flavor precursors called amino acid sulfoxides, and when you cut the cell walls, the enzyme alliinase spills out of one compartment, meets them in another, and sloppily generates the irritant gas as a side effect of building the compounds responsible for onion flavor. Nobody had found any evidence of a separate, dedicated system for tear production—because nobody had gone looking hard enough to notice one enzyme couldn’t be doing both jobs.

A soup company finds the missing enzyme

The search fell, unexpectedly, to industry rather than academia. Shinsuke Imai and colleagues at the Somatech Center, a research arm of House Foods Corporation—a Japanese company best known for curry roux and tofu—were digging into onion biochemistry for commercial reasons. Using a hydroxyapatite column to separate onion proteins, they found something the flavor-byproduct theory couldn’t explain: they could isolate tear-factor production completely apart from alliinase activity.

That meant a second enzyme had to exist. Imai’s team tracked it down, cloned its gene, and expressed the protein in E. coli to confirm it alone could convert the intermediate compound into the tear-inducing gas. They named it lachrymatory-factor synthase. The findings ran in Nature on October 17, 2002 (volume 419, page 685), and they flipped the story: the sting in your eyes wasn’t a chemistry accident. The onion was manufacturing it deliberately, with its own dedicated enzyme.

The part most people miss

Once Imai’s team identified the gene, the obvious next question was whether it could simply be switched off—a tearless onion with full flavor intact. Researchers in New Zealand did exactly that in 2008, using RNA interference to silence the gene, and got onions that produced essentially zero lachrymatory factor. Separately, Bayer had already spent decades cross-breeding onion strains through conventional, non-GMO methods to suppress the same trait, a project that became the Sunion, sold in U.S. grocery stores since 2018.

But scientists who studied the discovery flagged a catch, and it’s the part that rarely makes it into the recipe blogs: the gas probably isn’t there for our benefit at all. Food scientist Kirk Parkin, at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and Eric Block both pointed out that the compound almost certainly serves the onion as a defense against insects and soil microbes—a chemical trip wire that happens to also work on the much larger mammal holding the knife. Breeding or engineering it away, they warned, could leave a tearless onion more vulnerable to the very pests it evolved to repel. What ruins your knife-work in the kitchen is, from the onion’s point of view, working exactly as designed.

Sources

S. Imai et al., “An onion enzyme that makes the eyes water,” Nature, vol. 419, p. 685 (October 17, 2002).

The Scientist, “The Crying Gene,” reporting on the House Foods Corporation discovery of lachrymatory-factor synthase.

Science News, “Less Crying in the Kitchen: Tasty, Tearfree Onions on the Horizon,” including comments from Kirk Parkin (University of Wisconsin–Madison) and Eric Block (University at Albany).

Wikipedia, “syn-Propanethial S-oxide,” for chemical structure and the biochemical pathway from isoalliin to lachrymatory factor.

Explore more: more Amazing Body stories.

onion tears FAQs

What chemical actually makes onions make you cry?

A volatile gas called syn-propanethial-S-oxide. It forms the instant you cut an onion, when a dedicated enzyme called lachrymatory-factor synthase converts a sulfur compound released from the ruptured cells.

Who discovered why onions make you cry?

Shinsuke Imai and colleagues at House Foods Corporation’s Somatech Center in Japan identified the enzyme responsible and published their findings in Nature in October 2002, decades after the tear-gas molecule itself had first been chemically characterized.

Is there a way to stop onions from making you cry?

Chilling the onion first, cutting it under running water or near ventilation, and using a very sharp blade all reduce how much gas escapes. Bred varieties like Sunions, and experimental gene-silenced onions, cut the lachrymatory factor dramatically at the source.

Tales You Can Hold

Fun-facts books for curious kids, personalized books that star your child, and more from the FYI Tales Bookstore. Visit the Bookstore.

Photo: Colin / CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

The post Why Onions Make You Cry (Blame a Chemical Weapon) appeared first on FYI Tales.