76
27
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by InevitableSwing@hexbear.net to c/science@hexbear.net
77
11

Most of the data we have looks at the health effects of radiation like gamma rays and X-rays, which cause damage across the body in a “uniform, spray-bottle kind of pattern,” explained radiation biologist Greg Nelson, who advises NASA on radiation health research. But galactic cosmic rays move through the body in a straight line, like a track. “So you concentrate damage on a microscopic scale, and that damage, because it’s so concentrated, is much more difficult for the body to repair,” Nelson said.

This type of space radiation isn’t like the low-dose exposure of a chest X-ray. Instead, imagine a charged particle traveling at nearly the speed of light, firing straight through your brain, perturbing 10,000 cells all in a row, all within a microsecond. It’s not necessarily damaging those cells, but it is activating them in a highly unusual way. And we don’t yet know what that does.

“It’s that feature, that we would call track structure, that lends itself to the possibility of new and different effects occurring,” Nelson said.

While most radiation on Earth can cause cancer by breaking apart DNA, the latest research suggests these charged particles could be damaging the brain in an entirely different way, such as by disrupting the connections between neurons or the mitochondria within

78
39
submitted 5 months ago by RNAi@hexbear.net to c/science@hexbear.net
79
13
Prevention of HIV (www.science.org)
submitted 5 months ago by git@hexbear.net to c/science@hexbear.net
80
41
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by iie@hexbear.net to c/science@hexbear.net
81
12
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by iie@hexbear.net to c/science@hexbear.net

Abstract

Recent research has demonstrated that extreme waves, waves with crest to trough heights of 20 to 30 meters, occur more frequently than previously thought. Also, over the past several decades, a surprising number of large commercial vessels have been lost in incidents involving extreme waves. Many of the victims were bulk carriers. Current design criteria generally consider significant wave heights less than 11 meters (36 feet). Based on what is known today, this criterion is inadequate and consideration should be given to designing for significant wave heights of 20 meters (65 feet), meanwhile recognizing that waves 30 meters (98 feet) high are not out of the question. The dynamic force of wave impacts should also be included in the structural analysis of the vessel, hatch covers and other vulnerable areas (as opposed to relying on static or quasi-dynamic analyses).

Introduction

Recent research by the European Community has demonstrated that extreme waves—waves with crest to trough heights of 20 to 30 meters—occur more frequently than previously thought (MaxWave Project, 2003). In addition, over the past several decades, a surprising number of large commercial vessels have been lost in incidents involving extreme waves. Many of the victims were bulk carriers that broke up so quickly that they sank before a distress message could be sent or the crew could be rescued.

There also have been a number of widely publicized events where passenger liners encountered large waves (20 meters or higher) that caused damage, injured passengers and crew members, but did not lead to loss of the vessel. This is not a new phenomenon; there are well-documented events dating back to at least the early 1940s.

These two facts, vessel losses combined with knowledge that waves larger than previously considered likely may be encountered, suggest that reviewing vessel design criteria may be necessary. (Smith, 2006).

82
122
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by Dirt_Owl@hexbear.net to c/science@hexbear.net

Even professors in higher education teach this wrong. It's dangerous, backwards and just plain incorrect.

I need to get this off my chest. Often natural selection is presented on an individual level. We are presented with two offspring. One has lots of babies, the other has none." Which is the fittest? We are told "Well obviously it's the one who passed on its genes!"

Some errors are made here. One error made is forgetting that all species share most of their genes. Meaning that it's the nearly the entire species genealogy being passed on, not simply the individuals.

Another error is assuming those who do not have offspring are not fit for the survival of the species. In social species, these individuals without offspring may have traits that allow them to care for the offspring of other members of their species. "It takes a village to raise a child" after all. The childless members of the species may have more time to search for food and build shelter, etc. They ensure the fitness of the species by increasing the survival rate of the species as a whole.

The majority of bees and ants, for example, cannot have children, and this is integral for the species survival.

Finally, genes are not the only thing that are passed between the individuals of a species. Again, the tool using methods of a childless member of a chimp troop may be passed on to the entire troop through observation, and carried on through generations. Orcas teach each other survival techniques that pass on throughout the whole pod.

Anyway, I believe the way we teach about the natural world is poisoned by this old fashioned fascist idea of "families not society" and as our community structures are stripped away and people find themselves too poor and overworked to have kids, the social aspect of our survival becomes clearer than ever.

83
22
submitted 5 months ago by Tychoxii@hexbear.net to c/science@hexbear.net
84
16
85
14
86
93
submitted 5 months ago by realitista@lemm.ee to c/science@hexbear.net

cross-posted from: https://lemmit.online/post/3567461

Younger generations are facing a higher risk of cancer than their parents. Each successive generation born during the second half of the 20th century has faced a higher risk of 17 cancers, accordi...

This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/science by /u/mvea on 2024-08-01 06:59:55+00:00.

Original Title: Younger generations are facing a higher risk of cancer than their parents. Each successive generation born during the second half of the 20th century has faced a higher risk of 17 cancers, according to a US study. 10 of these cancers are linked to obesity.

87
15
submitted 5 months ago by yogthos@lemmygrad.ml to c/science@hexbear.net
88
42
89
31
submitted 6 months ago by Dirt_Owl@hexbear.net to c/science@hexbear.net

A fantastic example of the often poorly understood interconnected nature of our ecosystems

90
37
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by Dirt_Owl@hexbear.net to c/science@hexbear.net

HEY FUCKFACE, READY TO LEARN ABOUT BIRDS?! bird-screm-2

WELL TOO BAD GET READY FOR SOME BORD FACTS YOU MILK DRINKING PISSBABY!

Say hello to the world's largest owl, the Blackiston's Fish Owl. This fluffy motherfucker is native to Russia, China and Hokkaido Japan. But for some reason we use a name some English loser gave it in the 1800s even though I'm sure the cultures in Russia, China and Japan had already studied it. British imperialism is a shit.

Blakiston's fish owl is the largest living species of owl. A pair field study of the species showed males weighing from 2.95 to 3.6 kg (6.5 to 7.9 lb), while the female, at up to 2.95 to 4.6 kg (6.5 to 10.1 lb), is about 25% larger.

They also get fluffy as FUCK

LOOK AT THESE ROUND ASS NERDS.

These guys need big tree hollows and rivers that don't freeze completely in winter because these FAT FUCKS eat nothing but fish. That's why it's called a fish owl, stupid. They eat salmon, lamprey and even pikes, which is metal but not very vegan but I'll forgive them because owls have tiny brains and also it's the harsh frozen wild and you gotta do what you gotta do when you're tiny brained obligate carnivore. Sometimes they even eat frogs, crabs and crayfish, wow.

They are the largest bird that uses tree hollows so STOP CUTTING DOWN TREES YOU DICK.

91
20
Pigbutt (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 6 months ago by Makan@lemmygrad.ml to c/science@hexbear.net

Finally, some good fucking news.

92
95
submitted 6 months ago by Makan@lemmygrad.ml to c/science@hexbear.net

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/5089915

Jesus, the comments here are abysmal from what I can tell.

I'm no doomer, but we need to do something about this, even on the grassroots level.

93
65
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by Dirt_Owl@hexbear.net to c/science@hexbear.net

Why do bother watching nature documentaries? I know they're rubbish and yet each time I'm like "maybe this one won't suck"

Right off the bat it's projecting vicious intent onto nature. Nature isn't just shit that happens, oh no, it's A BRUTAL WAR OF DYNASTIES!!!!1!!! soypoint-2

"Look at this centipede from the Devonian, but invertebrates wouldn't be the ones to win the game of survival" WHAT DO YOU MEAN? WHAT GAME? INVERTS ARE STILL HERE, THEY'RE THE MOST COMMON AND THRIVING LIFEFORM ON THE PLANET.

And of course the whole thing chooses to fixate on competition and ignore how much of nature revolves around cooperation and symbiosis.

I am begging the media (especially media that sells itself as educational) to stop speaking about nature the same way a 1930s German pseudoscientist would.

94
105
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by iie@hexbear.net to c/science@hexbear.net

October 28, 2009, Harvard University — Psychologists have found that the more a person appears to suffer when tortured, the guiltier they are perceived to be. According to the researchers, those complicit with the torture need to justify the torture, and therefore link the victim's pain to blame.

The full paper, which seems to have been published in 2010, even though the summary is from 2009(???), is: "Torture and judgments of guilt," by Kurt Gray and Daniel M. Wegner.

Full study is free to read here

So if you are ever arrested and mistreated, try to act stoic, I guess.

It's easy to see how this phenomenon could lead to spiraling sadism and abuse, as the abuser lashes out in hatred to bury their increasing guilt.

95
8
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by iie@hexbear.net to c/science@hexbear.net

July 10, 2024, University of Cologne — Researchers have achieved a significant breakthrough in quantum materials, potentially setting the stage for advancements in topological superconductivity and robust quantum computing.

The full paper, free to read: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-024-02574-1

96
16
97
28

spoilerResearchers studying sperm whale communication say they've uncovered sophisticated structures similar to those found in human language.

In the inky depths of the midnight zone, an ocean giant bears the scars of the giant squid she stalks. She searches the darkness, her echolocation pulsing through the water column. Then she buzzes – a burst of rapid clicks – just before she goes in for the kill.

But exactly how sperm whales catch squid, like many other areas of their lives, remains a mystery. "They're slow swimmers," says Kirsten Young, a marine scientist at the University of Exeter. Squid, on the other hand, are fast. "How can [sperm whales] catch squid if they can only move at 3 knots [5.5 km/h or 3.5mph]? Are the squid moving really slowly? Or are the whales stunning them with their vocalisations? What happens down there? Nobody really knows," she says.

Sperm whales are not easy to study. They spend much of their lives foraging or hunting at depths beyond the reach of sunlight. They are capable of diving over 3km (10,000ft) and can hold their breath for two hours.

"At 1000m (3300ft) deep, many of the group will be facing the same way, flanking each other – but across an area of several kilometres," says Young. "During this time they're talking, clicking the whole time." After about an hour, she says, the group rises to the surface in synchrony. "They'll then have their rest phase. They might be at the surface for 15 to 20 minutes. Then they'll dive again," she says.

At the end of a day of foraging, says Young, the sperm whales come together at the surface and rub against each other, chatting while they socialise. "As researchers, we don't see a lot of their behaviour because they don't spend that much time at the surface," she says. "There's masses we don't know about them, because we are just seeing a tiny little snapshot of their lives during that 15 minutes at the surface."

It was around 47 million years ago that land-roaming cetaceans began to gravitate back towards the ocean – that's 47 million years of evolution in an environment alien to our own. How can we hope to easily understand creatures that have adapted to live and communicate under such different evolutionary pressures to ourselves?

"It's easier to translate the parts where our world and their world overlap – like eating, nursing or sleeping," says David Gruber, lead and founder of the Cetacean Translation Initiative (Ceti) and professor of biology at the City University of New York. "As mammals, we share these basics with others. But I think it's going to get really interesting when we try to understand the areas of their world where there's no intersection with our own," he says.

Now, from elephants to dogs, modern technology is helping researchers to sift through enormous datasets, and uncover previously unknown diversity and complexity in animal communication. And Ceti's researchers say they, too, have used AI to decode a "sperm whale phonetic alphabet".

In 2005, Shane Gero, biology lead for Ceti, founded The Dominica Sperm Whale Project to study the social and vocal behaviour of around 400 sperm whales that live in the Eastern Caribbean. Almost 20 years – and thousands of hours of observation – later, the researchers have discovered intricacies in whale vocalisations never before observed, revealing structures within sperm whale communication akin to human language.

Sperm whales live in multi-level, matrilineal societies – groups of daughters, mothers and grandmothers – while the males roam the oceans, visiting the groups to breed. They are known for their complex social behaviour and group decision-making, which requires sophisticated communication. For example, they are able to adapt their behaviour as a group when protecting themselves from predators like orcas or humans.

Sperm whales communicate with each other using rhythmic sequences of clicks, called codas. It was previously thought that sperm whales had just 21 coda types. However, after studying almost 9,000 recordings, the Ceti researchers identified 156 distinct codas. They also noticed the basic building blocks of these codas which they describe as a "sperm whale phonetic alphabet" – much like phonemes, the units of sound in human language which combine to form words. [video of the AI detecting vocalisation signatures]

Pratyusha Sharma, a PhD student at MIT and lead author of the study, describes the "fine-grain changes" in vocalisations the AI identified. Each coda consists of between three and 40 rapid-fire clicks. The sperm whales were found to vary the overall speed, or the "tempo", of the codas, as well as to speed up and slow down during the delivery of a coda, in other words, making it "rubato". Sometimes they added an extra click at the end of a coda, akin, says Sharma, to "ornamentation" in music. These subtle variations, she says, suggest sperm whale vocalisations could carry a much richer amount of information than previously thought.

"Some of these features are contextual," says Sharma. "In human language, for example, I can say 'what' or 'whaaaat!?'. It's the same word, but to understand the meaning you have to listen to the whole sound," she says.

The researchers also found the sperm whale "phonemes" could be used in a combinatorial fashion, allowing the whales to construct a vast repertoire of distinct vocalisations. The existence of a combinatorial coding system, write the report authors, is a prerequisite for "duality of patterning" – a linguistic phenomenon thought to be unique to human language – in which meaningless elements combine to form meaningful words.

However, Sharma emphasises, this is not something they have any evidence of as yet. "What we show in sperm whales is that the codas themselves are formed by combining from this basic set of features. Then the codas get sequenced together to form coda sequences." Much like humans combine phonemes to create words, and then words to create sentences.

So, what does all this tell us about sperm whales' intelligence? Or their ability to reason, or store and share information?

"Well, it doesn't tell us anything yet," says Gruber. "Before we can get to those amazing questions, we need to build a fundamental understanding of how [sperm whales communicate] and what's meaningful to them. We see them living very complicated lives, the coordination and sophistication in their behaviours. We're at base camp. This is a new place for humans to be – just give us a few years. Artificial intelligence is allowing us to see deeper into whale communication than we've ever seen before."

But not everyone is convinced, with experts warning of an anthropocentric focus on language which risks forcing us to view things from one perspective.

Young, though, describes the research as an "incremental step" towards understanding these giants of the deep. "We're starting to put the pieces of the puzzle together," she says. And perhaps if we could listen and really understand something like how important sperm whales' grandmothers are to them – something that resonates with humans, she says, we could drive change in human behaviour in order to protect them.

Categorised as "vulnerable" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), sperm whales are still recovering from commercial hunting by humans in the 19th and 20th Centuries. And, although such whaling has been banned for decades, sperm whales face new threats such as climate change, ocean noise pollution and ship strikes.

However, Young adds, we're still a long way off from understanding what sperm whales might be saying to each other. "We really have no idea. But the better we can understand these amazing animals, the more we'll know about how we can protect them."

98
54
submitted 6 months ago by lurkerlady@hexbear.net to c/science@hexbear.net
99
11
100
72
submitted 6 months ago by pooh@hexbear.net to c/science@hexbear.net

some-controversy

view more: ‹ prev next ›

Science

22818 readers
29 users here now

Welcome to Hexbear's science community!

Subscribe to see posts about research and scientific coverage of current events

No distasteful shitposting, pseudoscience, or COVID-19 misinformation.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS