Simulation allows our learning errors to not be at the expense of real lives. Don't underestimate the breadth of what these simulators can do. I first saw simulated bodies for trauma-training at I/ITSEC in 1999. At the time they were expensive (probably still are), somewhat limited compared to those described in the article, and tied to additional hardware. Nevertheless they could be programmed with a wide variety of responses. The eyes could dilate as needed, the pulse could be detected in the normal ways and be programmed to respond, injected drugs were detected by the system and the physiological response programmed, body panels could be substituted to simulate cuts and burns, etc. The programing could include an adverse reaction to a drug, for which the trauma team had to detect the response, provide response to counter the reaction, and provide an alternate to treat the original problem. There were two companies providing these simulators for demonstration and one point the program included a panel discussion. I remember a lady from the audience, dressed in military officer clothing, stand and ask whether the programming range included the sometimes quite-different physiological response of the female body. In response, one of the panel members explained "I don't know about the other one, but ours has been pregnant twice already." These modern ones appear much more portable and powerful. I have no doubt that trauma teams that have the opportunity to be trained using them are much more prepared for the real experiences that they encounter.

I wonder how this book's information compares or differs to Alton Brown's books, or "How to Read a French Fry", or "What Einstein Told his Cook", all of which deal with Kitchen science. Are you (the reviewer, jsuda) familiar with them?

Exactly as it should be. Physicists are first, observers. They see something (and like it best when there is some sort of measure that they can put to it). Then next, they are curious; what could this mean?, how could this happen?, what could cause this? Sometimes simultaneous with that, sometimes after, comes; is this real?, are there other causes for this observation or set of observations? Meanwhile, the reporting takes an avenue of speculation; sometimes one possible explanation of several gets the most attention because it is the easiest to express verbally, and most of us reading the reports take it as if true, or at least likely, if there is any credibility to it in our minds. But the community overall keeps looking to see if another (better?) explanation comes to mind or if there is some test that can be examined to strengthen or weaken any such conclusion. Over time, the explanation with the most credibility to the scientific community becomes the one generally accepted.