Where I Am Found

August 15th, 2008

Wondering where you can catch my programs or how to get in touch with me? Well, here is all the info you need…

My Programs:

  • This Week in Science (aka TWIS) – airs live as a video broadcast on Thursdays from 7:30-8:30pm PT on TWiT.tv, is broadcast in pre-recorded audio on Tuesdays from 8:30-9:30 am PT on KDVS 90.3 FM in Davis, CA, and can be streamed from our website or downloaded through iTunes or any other RSS directory.
  • Dr. Kiki’s Science Hour – airs live as a video broadcast on Thursdays from 4-5 pm PT on TWiT.tv, and can be downloaded from our website or through iTunes or any other RSS directory, including the Roku and Boxee Boxes. Additionally, you can view it through YouTube.
  • Green Tech Today – airs as a video broadcast on Mondays from 1-1:30 pm PT on TWiT.tv, and can be downloaded from our website or through iTunes or any other RSS directory, including the Roku and Boxee Boxes. Additionally, you can view it through YouTube.
  • The Science Chat – airs live as a video broadcast on Fridays from 12-1 pm PT on Justin.TV. Broadcasts can be watched after the fact at the same website.

 My Social Media:

If you are interested in contacting me for interviews, media bookings, or general inquiries, please email me:d r k i k i at d r k i k i d o t t v.

14 Responses to “Where I Am Found”

  1. brother on September 1, 2008 9:38 pm


    using rat neurons to control machine. great. as if the robot dog wasn’t disturbing enough. i am sooooo tired

  2. Chris Johnson on January 13, 2009 7:17 pm

    Regarding plastics leaching chemicals in The Science Word 08_12_02 — this is old news. If the University of Alberta lab mentioned in the video only just discovered this problem in 2008, they have not been paying attention. Estrogen mimicking chemicals were found leaching out of plastic as far back as 1988. See Ana Soto and Carlos Sonnenschein, Tufts Medical School, Boston, 1987 through 1989, published 1991. Similarly, David Feldman and a team at Stanford ran down bisphenol-A in lab flasks and published in 1993.

  3. Dennis M. Senchuk on October 6, 2010 1:09 pm


    Google misled me to the extent of my supposing I might find out here what sort of brains avian species might have.
    Does anyone know where I can get an authoritative account? One expert source, a human brain scientist, suggested that birds lack a cerebrum; another suggested otherwise. I need more info lest I appear to be a birdbrain myself in a philosophical manuscript I’m writing on human “personal” identity.

  4. Kirsten Sanford on October 8, 2010 3:54 pm

    Dennis —

    Have you seen this NOVA webpage? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3214/03-brain.html

    A lot of Erich Jarvis’ work deals with the classification of bird brain structures to specific functions; mainly with regard to the song system, but generally as well.

    Don’t listen to the human brain scientists when it comes to bird research. Most of them are quite behind on the recent avian neuro-anatomical reclassifications that have taken place, and would probably find themselves very surprised at the results.

  5. Dennis M. Senchuk on October 19, 2010 7:00 pm

    Thanks for the info! (It didn’t dawn on me that there might be classificatory issues of the magnitude Jarvis’ work suggests.

  6. DAVID YTREUS on February 21, 2011 3:36 pm
  7. Chad Vieth on April 6, 2011 7:39 pm

    Love the site, I have to really catch up. Great Interviews, thanks for posting them.

  8. Tim Trott on April 20, 2011 8:54 pm

    Thorium can solve many Nuclear concerns.
    Thorium is the most energy-dense substance on Earth, and enough exists to power civilization for millennia.

    REF: ThoriumEnergyAlliance.org

    Interview Guest Bookings:
    John Kutsch, Executive Director, Thorium Energy Alliance
    Phone: 312-303-5019

    Thorium Energy Conference May 12 – Washington DC –REQUEST PRESS CREDENTIALS NOW

    FOLLOW UP TO #84

  9. Brian Fishburn, BA aka BrionG on August 6, 2011 4:54 am

    Earth’s two moons? It’s not lunacy, but new theory

    Wed Aug 3, 7:11 PM EDT

    WASHINGTON — In a spectacle that might have beguiled poets, lovers and songwriters if only they had been around to see it, Earth once had two moons, astronomers now think. But the smaller one smashed into the other in what is being called the “big splat.”

    The result: Our planet was left with a single bulked-up and ever-so-slightly lopsided moon.

    The astronomers came up with the scenario to explain why the moon’s far side is so much more hilly than the one that is always facing Earth.

    The theory, outlined Wednesday in the journal Nature, comes complete with computer model runs showing how it might have happened and an illustration that looks like the bigger moon getting a pie in the face.

    Outside experts said the idea makes sense, but they aren’t completely sold yet.

    This all supposedly happened about 4.4 billion years ago, long before there was any life on Earth to gaze up and see the strange sight of dual moons. The moons themselves were young, formed about 100 million years earlier when a giant planet smashed into Earth. They both orbited Earth and sort of rose in the sky together, the smaller one trailing a few steps behind like a little sister in tow.

    The smaller one was a planetary lightweight. The other was three times wider and 25 times heavier, its gravity so strong that the smaller one just couldn’t resist, even though it was parked a good bit away.

    “They’re destined to collide. There’s no way out. … This big splat is a low-velocity collision,” said study co-author Erik Asphaug, a planetary scientist at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

    What Asphaug calls a slow crash is relative: It happened at more than 5,000 mph, but that’s about as slow as possible when you are talking planetary smashups. It’s slow enough that the rocks didn’t melt.

    And because the smaller moon was more than 600 miles wide, the crash took a while to finish even at 5,000 mph. Asphaug likened the smaller moon to a rifle bullet and said, “People would be bored looking at it because it’s taking 10 minutes just for the bullet to bury itself in the moon. This is an event if you were looking at, you’d need a big bag of popcorn.”

    The rocks and crust from the smaller moon would have spread over and around the bigger moon without creating a crater, as a faster crash would have done.

    “The physics is really surprisingly similar to a pie in the face,” Asphaug said.

    And about a day later, everything was settled and the near and far sides of the moon looked different, Asphaug said.

    Co-author Martin Jutzi of the University of Bern in Switzerland said the study was an attempt to explain the odd crust and mountainous terrain of the moon’s far side. Asphaug noticed it looked as if something had been added to the surface, so the duo started running
    computer simulations of cosmic crashes.

    Earth had always been an oddball in the solar system as the only planet with a single moon. While Venus and Mercury have no moons, Mars has two, while Saturn and Jupiter have more than 60 each. Even tiny Pluto, which was demoted to dwarf status, has four moons.

    The theory was the buzz this week in Woods Hole, Mass., at a conference of scientists working on NASA’s next robotic mission to the moon, said H. Jay Melosh of Purdue University.

    “We can’t find anything wrong with it,” Melosh said. “It may or may not be right.”

    Planetary scientist Alan Stern, former NASA associate administrator for science, said it is a “very clever new idea,” but one that is not easily tested to learn whether it is right.

    A second moon isn’t just an astronomical matter. The moon plays a big role in literature and song. And poet Todd Davis, a professor of literature at Penn State University, said this idea of two moons — one essentially swallowing the other — will capture the literary imagination.

    “I’ll probably be dreaming about it and trying to work on a poem,” he said.

    Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  10. Dalton on September 12, 2011 5:24 pm

    Your email link to some email service here doesn’t work.


  11. Mike Thomas on November 10, 2011 12:05 pm

    Last week’s TWIS show about Prof. Muller and his recent research on global warming fails to report on the controversy over the reported findings of this research that actually run counter to the article’s claims. Justin’s attack on a highly regarded climate scientist because she don’t share his beliefs was also without justification

    It was hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all and provides irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilization as we know it. Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and his colleagues from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team (BEST) claimed to have shown that the planet has warmed by almost a degree centigrade since 1950 and is warming continually….or is this all wrong?

    The co-author of the same BEST research papers with Prof. Muller is Prof Judith Curry, chairman of the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, has come forth and says the study findings presented by Prof Muller are not what they found in their research but rather his statements are intentionally misleading and hide the true findings of their studies. Yes, this is the same Judith Curry who was formerly one of the most staunch man-made global warming advocates and was such a believer that she was nicknamed by her peers as the “high priestess of global warming”. After several years of her own research and reviewing the work of others, she has now changed her position on this topic and now believes that man-made global warming is grossly misunderstood, overstated and likely not material to global climatology.

    Prof Curry said, the BEST project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties and this finding is consistent with several other recent findings by other international researchers (the scientists at CERN have also taken a position lately based upon their research saying solar radiation is the major driver of global warming). Prof. Curry has also made available to the public and media the data she and Prof. Muller developed which confirms her statements. When pressed by the Daily Mail newspaper, Prof Muller continued to assert that temperatures are rising despite the fact his own data says otherwise – surprisingly, Prof. Muller then goes on to admit that temperatures have not risen for the last 13 years. I would like to interject that It is proper to ask whether 13 years is too short a period of time from which to draw conclusions and it is, but the changing trend line has another important insight of more immediate importance

    The lack of continuing upward temperature levels undermines the man-made global warming hypothesis espoused by Prof Muller and a rapidly declining group of scientists who believe that rising CO2 levels have resulted in rising temperature levels. With global CO2 output levels still rising, according to global warming supporters then temperature levels should be rising accordingly – but this has not been the case and this underscores the fact that no scientist yet has proven a causal relationship exists between CO2 and temperature levels.

    NASA, CERN and other top researchers have finally come to realize that we still have a lot to learn about the causes of global temperature changes and that they are likely more attributable to solar radiation, cloud formations and geophysical events than they are to CO2 levels. Many global climate researchers in light of these recent findings are reworking their climate models to reflect a changing reality that further challenges man-made global warming theorists.

    Mike Thomas

    * Having worked in this subject area, I must take exception to your comments that anyone who is a skeptic is on someones payroll while implying that warming advocates are not…..have you forgotten about the major funding provided by Big Government, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Enron, etc.? James Hansen of NASA it is reported to have made nearly $1 million from his global warming advocacy through nearly 1,400 articles, speeches and interviews he has given in the last several years (despite his claims he was being muzzled by Bush during most of this period).

    There is a separate conversation that could be had over how this whole topic arose following Freeman Dyson’s research into the matter in the 70’s upon NASA’s request when he found no evidence of man-made global warming and how Enron’s energy trading desk played a major role (and still does) and “developed” research to push their man-made global warming agenda forward over the protests of their own staff scientists.

  12. Jay Salsburg on May 11, 2012 12:36 pm

    Hello Dr. Sanford. I watch you on TWIT.TV. You were talking about Solar Activity, May 10. I have developed an instrument to detect the impact of Solar Mass Ejections on the upper Atmosphere. My Receiver also is very effective detecting Meteor activity in the upper Atmosphere.


  13. Burt on June 16, 2018 9:18 pm

    To Brain & Beauty ( you)
    You make me challenge the world around.
    Thank you!

  14. Kirsten Sanford on July 2, 2018 2:26 pm

    Thank you! What a wonderful compliment.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Email (required)


Speak your mind