Close
today i learned (til)

All About the April 2024 Eclipse

April 19, 2024

Eclipses are captivating astronomical phenomena that occur when the alignment of celestial bodies results in one object obscuring another, either partially or entirely. This article explores the two main types of eclipses – lunar and solar – and delves into the scientific principles behind them. It also examines the recent eclipse event in April, highlighting its unique characteristics compared to past occurences.

What is an Eclipse?

NASA considers an eclipse to be when a heavenly body, such as a planet, star, or nebula, moves into the shadow of another. There are two types of eclipses: lunar and solar. A lunar eclipse occurs when the Earth is between the Moon and the Sun. The Moon blocks light from the Sun and casts a shadow on Earth. Lunar eclipses can either be Total or Partial. On the other hand, a solar eclipse occurs when the Moon is between the Earth and the Sun. Solar eclipses can either be Total, Partial, or even Annular. 

 

The 2024 Solar Eclipse

The total eclipse in April serves as a recent example of this celestial phenomenon. This eclipse offered some unique characteristics compared to previous events.

Wider Path of Totality

The path of totality, the region of Earth where the Moon entirely covers the Sun, was significantly wider in 2024 compared to the 2017 eclipse, encompassing a larger geographical area.

Increased Visibility

The wider path resulted in the eclipse being observable by a larger population, with an estimated 31.6 million residents residing within the path of totality ocmpared to 12 million in 2017.

Extended Totality Duration

The 2024 eclipse offered a longer period of totality, lasting approximately 4 minutes and 28 seconds, compared to 2 minutes and 42 seconds in 2017.

Heightened Solar Activity

The 2024 eclipse coincided with a period of heightened solar activity, with the Sun approaching solar maximum. This potentially increased the visibility of solar prominences and coronal streamers during totality.

 

What was the perspective from Atlanta, Georgia?

Atlanta experienced ~82% of the eclipse’s totality with the peak viewing time at 3:04 PM.

Many Georgia Tech students were outside to view the solar eclipse (including myself). Not many people had access to eclipse glasses, but those who did shared them with people around them. Some students also used a colander to view the eclipse indirectly.

We had students travel to see the eclipse as well. 50 of GT’s Astronomy Club traveled to Ozarks, Missouri on April 7 – 9 to see the eclipse in the path of totality.

Viewing the Eclilpse Safely

You can’t look directly at an eclipse because the concentrated solar rays will burn through any other filter (camera lens, telescope, binoculars) and cause serious eye energy. Your pupils are more dilated as the eclipse occurs, allowing more harmful rays to enter your eyes than on a normal sunny day.

If you decide to view an eclipse without safety gear, you risk the following:

  1. Acute solar retinopathy (eye retina is severly damaged by looking straight at the Sun)
  2. Blurry Vision
  3. Headache
  4. Blind Spot
  5. Increased Sensitivity to Light
  6. Distorted Vision
  7. Dyschromatopsia

If you would like to view the eclipse safely, use safe solar viewing glasses or safe handheld solar viewers. To verify that you have the appropriate safety gear, make sure it complays with the ISO 1231202 international standard.

 

When’s the next eclipse?

The next total solar eclipse is on August 23, 2044. The next total lunar eclipse will be on Marh 14, 2025. Remember, make sure you keep your eyes safe when you’re looking at these amazing scientific phenomenons!

 

References

“Eye Safety During a Total Solar Eclipse.” NASA, n.d., https://science.nasa.gov/eclipses/future-eclipses/eclipse-2024/safety/

“What is an eclipse?” The European Space Agency, n.d., https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/What_is_an_eclipse

“Why is a solar eclipse dangerous to look at without proper eyewear? What to know.” NBC Chicago, April 8, 2024, https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/why-is-a-solar-eclipse-dangerous-to-look-at-without-proper-eyewear-what-to-know/3404331/

Bressler, Neil M. “Safely Viewing a Solar Eclipse.” JAMA Ophthalmology, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2024.0401.

Fulco, Charles. “Eclipses and Eye Safety: Dispelling Myths about Viewing Eclipses.” Science and Children, vol. 54, no. 7, 2017, pp. 58–61.

Interrante, Abbey. “How the 2024 Total Solar Eclipse Is Different than the 2017 Eclipse.” NASA, Jan 30, 2024, https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/skywatching/how-is-the-2024-total-solar-eclipse-different-than-the-2017-eclipse/

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
Astronomy of the Ancient Skies
today i learned (til)
Overcoming Depression at the Level of the Brain
today i learned (til)
‘Fun’nett Squares: Gene-tic-tacs Activity Booth
today i learned (til)
Vertigo: Living like you’re on a perpetual rollercoaster

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.