Today the President of the US will award the Medal of Honor to Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta. The Stars and Stripes has a book excerpt that describes the details of his heroism.

He saved a Platoon from certain death by reacting so quickly under heavy fire he was able counterattack. Despite facing an L-shaped flood of bullets and rockets Giunta took only a few seconds to gauge the situation and then lead a response, which rescued a captive soldier, as detailed on the Army site.

Intelligence and training are credited for these actions; bravery is cited as well, but the book seems to suggest bravery is really in the eye of the beholder:

One of the most puzzling things about fear is that it is only loosely related to the level of danger. During World War II, several airborne units that experienced some of the fiercest fighting of the war also reported some of the lowest psychiatric casualty rates in the U.S. military. Combat units typically suffer one psychiatric casualty for every physical one, and during Israel’s Yom Kippur War of 1973, frontline casualty rates were roughly consistent with that ratio. But Israeli logistics units, which were subject to far less danger, suffered three psychiatric cases for every physical one. And even frontline troops showed enormous variation in their rate of psychological breakdown. Because many Israeli officers literally led from the front, they were four times more likely to be killed or wounded than their men were — and yet they suffered one-fifth the rate of psychological collapse. The primary factor determining breakdown in combat does not appear to be the objective level of danger so much as the feeling — even the illusion — of control. Highly trained men in extraordinarily dangerous circumstances are less likely to break down than untrained men in little danger.

Why do we ignore the danger of driving at 65 mph even though only a few generations ago it was considered suicide? We build a feeling of normalcy, otherwise known as control, through training. The training affects our perception of risks, which makes danger a relative condition.

It is dangerous to drive down a twisty, steep hill, but training builds up a sense of control from practice that changes our perception as well as ability. While in control, intelligence can have room to make decisions. The danger may actually increase yet we may also operate with less fear and thus with more reason.

With this in mind, what really stands out for me in this story is a split-second when Giunta was shot and his mind immediately factored ballistic geometry.

Giunta gets hit in his front plate and in his assault pack and he barely notices except that the rounds came from a strange direction. Sheets of tracers are coming from his left, but the rounds that hit him seemed to come from dead ahead. He’s down in a small washout along the trail where the lip of packed earth should have protected him, but it didn’t. “That’s when I kind of noticed something was wrong,” Giunta said. “The rounds came right down the draw and there are three people — all friends — in the same vicinity. It happened so fast, you don’t think too hard about it, but it’s something to keep in mind.”

That fraction of a second — in control of the situation (thanks in part to a technical control called a front plate) — was apparently the instant when he grasped the situation enough to react; he launched forward with a response that saved the Platoon and rejoined him with the men ahead, saving them from capture.

Updated to add: Several people have asked me about the name Giunta. I do not think this story is about differences or heritage. The book excerpt emphasizes that his Platoon worked together best as a unit; individuals were not far from others in purpose, like close friends or a well-oiled machine. That being said, there is a region in Sicily called Giunta. Given his first name is Salvatore, that would be my best guess. His heritage, like his personality, may add flavor to the story but it should not detract from the message that training generated a unity that overcame great adversity.

The 2009 Seamounts cruise blog says they have discovered another two new species of squid. Amazing what still can be found in the wild:

More than 70 species of squid have been identified from the seamounts [six week] cruise samples thus far. Incredibly, this represents in excess of 20% of the global squid biodiversity!

The IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) press release gives more detail on how squid are differentiated:

“For ten days now 21 scientists armed with microscopes have been working through intimidating rows of jars containing fishes, squids, zooplankton and other interesting creatures,” says Alex Rogers, Principal Scientist and Marine Biologist at the Zoological Society of London. “Many specimens look similar to each other and we have to use elaborate morphological features such as muscle orientation and gut length to differentiate between them.”

Einstein proved in 1905 that a photon of light can activate metal oxide (photocatalytic oxidation or PCO). Studies in the US have shown the process can create toxic side-effects, yet a company in the Czech Republic says they have created a powerful air-cleansing paint for indoor use

In a small, rather dilapidated factory on the outskirts of Prague, a company called Advanced Materials is putting titanium dioxide to use in something called photocatalytic paint, an incredibly clever, virtually translucent paint that actually cleans the air in your living room of everything from bacteria to cigarette smoke.

“Even in a concentration of one cigarette per cubic metre, you see very high degradation rate,” said Jan Prochazka, Advanced Materials’ co-owner. In one hour, he said, a cubic meter box used to test the paint is clean of cigarette smoke.

“We say [the paint will oxidize] ninety percent of all contaminants in 24 hours, but it’s much faster. It’s just to stay on the safe side,” Prochazka added.

There are two risks to this kind of solution. First, the paint has to sit on a base that can resist it and second, the byproduct of the paint has to be non-toxic.

Air-Cleansing cement for outside use has been available for nearly ten years and paint was introduced five years ago.

In 2002, after 7000 square metres of road surface in Milan, Italy, were covered with a catalytic cement, residents reported that it was noticeably easier to breathe – with the concentration of nitrogen oxides at street level cut by up to 60 per cent. […] The paint could cover a much greater surface area than cement, since every building and piece of street furniture could be painted with it. Photocatalytic cements and paving slabs are already used in Japan, where the market for such building materials is growing.

These outdoor solutions have proven the first risk has been controlled. The second risk, however, is not settled. Science labs in the US report increases in formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. They propose air-ducts or standalone units be setup with PCO, instead of used as an indoor paint, so the flow of air is controlled and then filtered with “chemisorbent oxidizer—sodium permanganate—downstream of the PCO device”.

Small, stand-alone active PCO units are available commercially, but Destaillats warns buyers that the performance of current products is uncertain. It is possible that some units produce harmful aldehydes and that catalysts become deactivated.

Berkeley Lab’s current research addresses only the large systems that can be incorporated into a building’s HVAC system. These systems are still in the experimental phase. Ideally, in-duct air cleaners should include several stages (such as the use of a chemisorbent after the PCO), but the cost of a multi-stage system may be cost-prohibitive for some.