The Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress has found itself back in the spotlight after the January 26 debut of the AppleTV+ miniseries Masters of the Air. Produced by Steven Spielberg‚ Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman—who were also behind the series Band of Brothers and The Pacific—and based on the book by Donald L. Miller‚ the nine-part series tells the story of the 100th Bombardment Group—the “Bloody 100th”—during World War II. The group flew the B-17 ‚ and the big four-engine Boeings should share top billing with human stars Austin Butler‚ Callum Turner and Barry Keoghan‚ even if most of the airplanes are the product of computer-generated imagery (CGI)‚ along with three modern replicas. (The series should include a disclaimer that state‚ “No real B-17s were harmed during the making of this series.”) The United States produced nearly 13‚000 B-17s during the war. Today only 45 remain and only a handful of those are in flying condition. Two have crashed in recent years‚ the Commemorative Air Force’s Texas Raiders destroyed after an inflight collision with a P-63 Kingcobra at an airshow in 2022 and “Nine-o-Nine‚” owned and operated by the Collings Foundation‚ in 2019. A B-17 of the 365th Bombardment Squadron of the 305th Bombardment Group flies in formation over England in February 1944. The B-17 flights in MOTA‚ as it’s known‚ are brutal‚ violent and intense. That’s not at all the experience I had when I got to fly in a B-17 some years ago. I flew in Yankee Lady‚ the B-17G operated by the Yankee Air Museum of Belleville‚ Michigan. This B-17 was one of the last built‚ too late to see combat. It flew for the Coast Guard for a while after the war and then was converted for fire-fighting. The museum received it in 1986‚ when it needed a complete nine-year restoration before it could return to the air. It was briefly grounded in the spring of 2023 when the Federal Aviation Administration issued an airworthiness directive regarding an issue with wing spars but has resumed flying. Yankee Lady prepares for flight. My flight went off without incident. There was no flak‚ no fighters‚ no blood‚ no worries about hypoxia or frostbite‚ no spent shell casings littering the fuselage interior. But I did experience the ear-pounding noise generated by the four Wright R-1820-97 engines. On the runway they idled with a loud throaty purr‚ but when the pilot pushed the throttles forward and Yankee Lady began its takeoff run‚ the entire airplane vibrated to the roar of the engines. I was sitting in the bombardier’s station in the nose of the bomber‚ watching as the trees as the end of the runway got closer and closer…and then we lifted up and soared over them. The view from the front. It was a thrill to fly in the venerable Boeing. Maybe I didn’t get a sense of air combat‚ but I did get a sense of the airplane‚ which was not nearly as big—at least from the inside—as I expected. I’m sure it felt even more cramped for aircrew wearing bulky heated suits to protect them from the subzero temperatures at altitude. I’m glad I got my chance to fly in a B-17 but I’m even happier that I didn’t have to experience what their crews did during the war. There’s not a lot of elbow room in the cockpit. Just in case. Two of the four Wright R-1820-97 engines. Safe on the ground.

Biden Nominee to Be U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Is a 'Slap in the Face' to Veterans After Afghanistan Withdrawal Disaster

Hezbollah to Retreat While Hamas Reconsiders?

Migrant Gang in New Jersey Human Trafficking Over Canadian Border

The world has warmed more since the start of the Industrial Revolution than previously acknowledged‚ new evidence indicates‚ with the world already exceeding 1.5°C (2.7°F) above pre-industrial conditions. If so‚ it means the limits the world agreed on in the 2015 Paris Accord have already been exceeded. However‚ some climate scientists have expressed skepticism about the claim.The rise in global temperatures is expressed compared to pre-industrial conditions‚ but determining quite what those conditions were is a challenge. Even after the invention of the thermometer‚ for centuries direct measurements of air temperature were confined to cities in small parts of the planet. We didn’t start systematically recording water temperatures until the mid-19th century‚ and even then only on well-trafficked shipping routes.A wide variety of proxy data has been used to construct an estimate of global temperatures before industrialization took off‚ but a new sample taken from Eastern Caribbean sea sponges suggests conditions were colder than previously acknowledged. If the new data is right‚ the baseline we are comparing ourselves has been set too high‚ making the rise half a degree greater than existing estimates.Naturally‚ there is considerable skepticism around the idea that results from just one location are more accurate than those collected‚ albeit patchily‚ around the globe. “A single new paleo record off the coast of Puerto Rico is a valuable addition to the large evidence of warming‚" Professor Malte Meinshausen of the University of Melbourne‚ who was not involved in the study‚ commented. "But it is just that‚ one study among hundreds. The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] IPCC's findings still stand strong.”However‚ in a media conference‚ two of the authors of the new paper made the case for why their sample should be considered the new standard. Most proxy temperature data is collected on land in the form of tree rings or stalactites‚ and therefore subject to extreme local variation so that many data points are required to smooth things out. Even corals‚ the primary marine temperature proxy‚ experience considerable fluctuations.The team used sclerosponges collected 33-91 meters (110-300 feet) below the surface‚ part of what is called the Ocean Mixed Layer. These sponges grow very slowly so some specimens date back 300 years. Like corals‚ the temperatures of the water in which the sponges live leaves a record in the amount of strontium incorporated into their calcium carbonate skeletons. “The dominant source of variability in Caribbean [sea temperatures] is atmospheric forcing‚” lead author Professor Malcolm McCulloch of the University of Western Australia said at the media conference. “There’s very little influence from other variable sources such as [ocean currents]. We’re also looking at the mixed layer‚ which has much less variability.”Comparing the temperature changes the sponges experienced since 1960 with global conditions‚ which the authors noted have been precisely recorded over that period‚ shows a very close match. This leads McCulloch and colleagues to conclude their sample should also be a good indicator of global climatic conditions in earlier times when other sources are less reliable. “There is good physical oceanographic reasons why it should be able to get a global average and empirically we've demonstrated it."Establishing pre-Industrial temperatures is complicated by the fact that between 1790 and 1840 a series of large volcanic eruptions produced substantial temporary cooling. Proxy data for this period is considered a poor guide to general pre-industrial conditions. This study’s sponges reveal this cooling‚ but they also provide a guide to temperatures between 1700 and 1790‚ and from 1840 to 1860‚ which the authors argue should be considered the true pre-industrial baseline. From the mid-19th century‚ the effects of human activity become clear‚ with warming rates accelerating since 1960.“Thus‚ the opportunity to limit global warming to no more than 1.5°C by emission reductions alone has now passed and at current emission rates‚ the 2°C threshold for [global marine surface temperatures] will be reached by the late 2020s‚” the authors write. If they’re right‚ temperatures in the 18th century were half a degree cooler than the IPCC has estimated. Modern temperatures therefore are already more than 1.5°C warmer‚ even if you smooth out extreme years like 2023.McCulloch acknowledged that the 1.5°C target is somewhat arbitrary for the point where unsafe warming will kick in. It is based on observations of the effects of the warming we have seen‚ and if that warming has been miscalculated we may expect to see the impacts predicted for 1.5°C‚ 2°C‚ or 3°C at somewhat higher points. Nevertheless‚ McCulloch says “We’re going to experience more serious impacts than we may have anticipated‚” adding‚ “From the policy perspective it should be a very simple thing of getting emissions down as soon as possible.”Despite the authors’ confidence in their findings‚ few climate scientists are likely to consider proxies from one location definitive. The obvious first step for verification would be to explore sea sponges from similar depths elsewhere in the world. However‚ the authors note the species they used (Ceratoporella nicholsoni) is not found in the Pacific‚ so a suitable counterpart will have to be identified.The study is published in Nature Climate Change. 

Welcome to the wonderful world of underwater creatures. From seals to sharks‚ and whales to whale sharks‚ we break down just what is swimming beneath the ocean waves and where they fit in with those animals that are much happier gallivanting about on land.Why are sharks not mammals?To start with‚ let's address a common mistake. Sharks are not mammals‚ they are fish. In taxonomic terms there are two broad classes of fish. There's Osteichthyes or the bony fish‚ which includes fish species like goldfish‚ trout‚ and piranhas. The second big class is Chondrichthyes. These are known as the cartilaginous fish; they have jaws and skeletons made of cartilage not bone. This is the class that all sharks belong to‚ and Australian Museum has a helpful diagram that lays it all out. There are roughly 500 species of shark swimming in the oceans and occasionally the lakes of the world‚ according to the International Fund For Animal Welfare. Ocean mammalsAll whales‚ dolphins‚ porpoises‚ and seals are marine mammals. The first three belong to the infraorder of Cetacea‚ meaning that they are all somewhat closely related. By contrast‚ seals belong to the infraorder Pinnipedia‚ which also includes sea lions and walruses.Whale sharksZoologists can be quite confusing when it comes to naming animals. The whale shark is a prime example of this. Whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) are not whales and therefore not mammals‚ but are sharks and by extension fish. They can reach lengths of around 12 meters (40 feet) and weigh as much as 20.6 tons according to National Geographic. In fact they are the world's largest fish species‚ beating great white sharks and basking sharks to the title. The world’s largest animal‚ however‚ is a blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus)‚ which can be as long as 24 meters (78 feet) and weigh 150 tons. Since we now know that whales are mammals‚ they're also the world’s largest mammal.The key differencesThe main differences that can help you tell if an animal is a fish or a mammal are quite obvious once you know what to look for. The first has to do with breathing. Whales breathe oxygen through the blow holes on their heads‚ which means that they must break the surface of the water to breathe in the oxygen before closing the blowhole and diving beneath the surface. They have lungs that the air is passed into in the same way as a human. When whales get stranded‚ because they can still breathe‚ they can often be rescued and refloated back out to sea. Sharks do not have blow holes and do not breathe air like a whale. Instead they have gills that filter oxygen from the seawater and take waste carbon dioxide from the blood back into the ocean. They do not have lungs. Typically‚ if a large shark were to be stranded out of the water it would not survive‚ because they cannot breathe directly from the air; however‚ some species can survive for longer without water‚ like the "walking" shark.The other key difference is in reproduction. Whales‚ seals‚ and dolphins all reproduce by internal fertilization and give birth to live young that they then care for‚ feeding them milk that is produced in the mother’s body. Sharks‚ however‚ depending on species have a whole range of reproductive options‚ including live young and laying eggs‚ but never feed their young milk. Another fun difference between sharks and mammals is that while sharks never have hair‚ whales occasionally do. 

Between its oxygen-free atmosphere‚ exposure to radiation‚ and the lack of nutrients‚ Mars is a hostile place for human life. However‚ it might not be quite so unfriendly to the microbe we bring with us – including some we’d really rather didn’t flourish too much.Three years ago‚ astrobiologists noted the presence of sugar in meteorites and revealed some bacteria would grow when fed on a space candy diet. That’s probably not a problem‚ since other conditions would probably prevent microorganisms from making themselves at home on any future asteroid bases. The same may not be true for Mars‚ however‚ so a team led by German Aerospace Venter PhD student Tommaso Zaccaria decided to see how some local microbes would go in a simulated Martian environment. Rather well‚ as it turns out‚ quite possibly too well.One thing we know about missions to other worlds is that we will be taking hitchhikers. Even the best efforts to disinfect spacecraft come up short‚ as the survival of bacteria outside the ISS proves. When humans are involved‚ the process of keeping everything clean becomes orders of magnitude harder. We depend on beneficial bacteria‚ particularly in our gut‚ so some of these cosmic travelers will be welcome. Others should be fairly neutral‚ unless Mars turns out to have life on its own that doesn’t get along with what we bring. However‚ future astronauts would rather avoid cases of sepsis or dysentery caused by unwelcome companions from home.The authors placed four examples of bacteria (Burkholderia cepacia‚ Klebsiella pneumoniae‚ Pseudomonas aeruginosa‚ and Serratia marcescens) in media with air‚ soil chemistry‚ and UV radiation exposure like those our rovers have encountered.The bacterial species’ responses varied. For example‚ B. cepacian apparently cannot grow in the presence of sodium perchlorate – common in Martian brines – unless fed with glucose. On the other hand‚ sodium perchlorate doesn’t seem to bother K. pneumoniae. Repeated desiccation to simulate the typical lack of water on Mars cut species numbers down quite sharply. Nevertheless‚ all four species survived (at least to some extent) for days or weeks‚ and did better when fed with imitation Martian regolith (soil) than sugar alone.The ultimate test was the response to a suite of Martian conditions: dealing with the light‚ the soil‚ the air‚ and the water at once. S. marcescens in particular appears to be ready for everything Mars can throw at it‚ even when encountered simultaneously – and that’s even without time for evolution to do its work. Commonly seen in hospital-acquired infections‚ S. marcescens is known for urinary tract infections and turning wounds septic.“At the beginning‚ we thought that the regolith would have a toxic effect on the cells so it would limit their growth‚” Zaccaria told Sciencenews. “But instead‚ we saw that it was the opposite.” The authors suspect this may be because the soil particles offer a place to hide from the UV light and other threats to bacterial survival.When (not if) pathogens accompany humans to Mars in our guts or on our skin‚ some can be expected to make it into the soil around the base. This work suggests they may grow whenever they get access to water‚ no matter how salty. Without a healthy ecosystem to control them‚ the danger of these pathogens infecting other astronauts is high‚ which represents a major concern for someone further from the nearest hospital than any human has ever been.The finding was not entirely surprising. A 2022 study found a type of yeast could survive in the salty Martian water on the rare occasions it unfreezes. Various extremophiles have also been found to be likely to flourish on Mars. However‚ the fact that these four species are not only likely to accompany humans‚ but could be a serious problem for us once there‚ makes the implications much more serious.The results are published in the journal Astrobiology.

This article first appeared in Issue 16 of our free digital magazine CURIOUS. The hitchhiker seen above‚ a female paper nautilus‚ is carrying precious cargo: an egg case that can house up to 170‚000 eggs‚ which she’ll tote around until they hatch. The egg sac itself can act as a flotation device‚ but a jellyfish is the perfect ride because its stinging cells protect the nautilus and her many offspring from predation.This photo was taken by Renee Capozzola‚ who scooped the Ocean Portfolio Award in Oceanographic magazine’s Ocean Photographer of the Year 2023.“This image shows a female paper nautilus with egg case riding a small jellyfish and was shot with a 60mm macro lens during a blackwater dive in Anilao‚ Philippines‚” Capozzola told Oceanographic.“These unique cephalopods come up towards the surface at night to feed and aerate their eggs‚ and were mostly unknown to people except the local fishermen until blackwater diving became popular in the area.”Subscribe to our newsletter and get every issue of CURIOUS delivered to your inbox free each month. Jellyfish aren’t the only ocean residents that paper nautiluses attach themselves to either. According to Florida Atlantic University marine biologist Dr Chelsea Bennice‚ who goes by “Octo Girl” on social media‚ female paper nautiluses have been spotted "hitching-a-ride on jellyfishes‚ attached to floating seaweed‚ or attached to each other forming a “cephalo-chain” of up to 20-30 individuals.”CURIOUS magazine is a digital magazine from IFLScience featuring interviews‚ experts‚ deep dives‚ fun facts‚ news‚ book excerpts‚ and much more. Issue 19 is out now.

Fugu is a Japanese delicacy made out of sliced pufferfish. As alluring as it be may for adventurous gastronauts‚ this dicey dish can prove deadly with just one wrong slip of the knife. What is fugu?Fugu is made of chopped pufferfish served in a sashimi style. Chefs will often arrange the thinly sliced flesh in the shape of an innocent-looking flower. Different species of pufferfish can be used‚ but Takifugu rubripes‚ aka the Tiger puffer‚ is the most sought-after – and the most poisonous. The history of eating pufferfish in Japan goes back more than 4‚000 years. Back then‚ however‚ fugu was most likely eaten out of necessity‚ rather than fancy dining trends. While the flesh is perfectly edible and safe to eat‚ many parts of the pufferfish – such as the eyes‚ blood‚ liver‚ ovaries‚ and intestines – contain tetrodotoxin (TTX)‚ said to be “one of the most potent neurotoxic poisons found in nature.” TTX is estimated to be 1‚200 times more toxic than cyanide and just 2 milligrams can be sufficient to kill a person. It attacks the body by interfering with the transmission of signals from nerves to muscles by blocking sodium channels‚ resulting in the paralysis of muscles.To prepare the dish‚ chefs must be extremely careful not to accidentally slice any areas where TTX is present in high concentrations otherwise the meat can be contaminated with the neurotoxin – and become lethally poisonous.Fugu poisoningFugu was blasted into the American consciousness by a beloved episode of The Simpsons in which Homer orders the dish at a sushi restaurant. It's believed he consumed the fugu's poison and he's given 24 hours to live (well‚ 22 hours actually because the doctor left him waiting for so long). As ever‚ the Simpsons wasn't too far wrong‚ although 24 hours might be a fairly generous timespan for fugu poisoning – toxicity symptoms can emerge within 10 minutes to six hours after the ingestion. People who consume ill-prepared fugu will first notice a tingling sensation and numbness of the tongue‚ lips‚ and face. As a result of muscle paralysis‚ they will go on to experience difficulty swallowing‚ walking‚ speaking‚ and breathing. Most mild cases resolve within 24 hours‚ but In severe instances‚ the person may present with respiratory depression‚ circulatory failure‚ and death.Japan’s Health Ministry states that up to 50 people fall sick with pufferfish poisoning each year. While their statistics don’t specify the death rate‚ they say “a few” people die annually and note that fugu “accounts for the majority of food poisoning deaths in Japan”. In most of these cases‚ amateur cooks had attempted to prepare the fish themselves at home.The Japanese health authority adds that there’s currently no effective treatment or antidote for puffer fish poisoning‚ so once the tell-tale symptoms occur‚ doomed diners must ride the storm and hope they didn’t guzzle down a lethal dose.Feeling hungry? Three Takifugu pufferfish caught by fishermen.Image credit: junrong/Shutterstock.comWhat does fugu taste like?Fugu is said to taste mild and fairly light. New York Magazine's food critic Adam Platt describes the experience of eating fugu as a "letdown‚" explaining that "it tastes flavorless and gummy‚ like a cross between… fluke and day-old squid.” That said‚ he notes that the fish’s TTX neurotoxin adds a “pleasing numbing sensation when eaten in tiny amounts.” How appetizing! Is fugu legal?Given its evident dangers‚ the consumption of fugu is tightly controlled and banned in many parts of the world. For instance‚ the sale of any Tetraodontidae pufferfish is totally banned in the European Union.Fugu is available to eat at some prestige restaurants in the US‚ although the Food and Drug Administration does have some pretty tight regulations around its marketing and importation. As of 2007‚ the only acceptable source of imported puffer fish is from the New York-based food importer Wako International.It is legal in Japan‚ although the law only allows highly trained chefs and licensed restaurants to serve the dish. It was outlawed in the country for several centuries between 1570 and 1870 due to the high number of deaths associated with the formidable fish.How to become a fugu chef In JapanGetting your hands on a fugu license in Japan requires intense dedication‚ skill‚ and knowledge. As the New York Times explains‚ chefs must first receive two years of specialized training. Wannabe fugu masters must then pass a paper test in which they have to determine different species of pufferfish by sight and label the specific parts of the body that act as reservoirs of TTX. Lastly‚ the chef must prepare fugu in front of a master. If a single drop of blood is shed‚ it’s an instant failure.

Dr. Michael Wolf‚ a former government scientist‚ had come forward with shocking revelations about the US government’s involvement in extraterrestrial research‚ cover-ups‚ and violations of treaties with extraterrestrial beings. Dr. Wolf claimed that he worked for 25 years in various secret projects related to alien life forms‚ technologies‚ and interactions. He stated that he was part of a group called the Alphacom Team‚ composed of 12 scientists from different disciplines‚ who had direct access to extraterrestrial information and communication. He also mentioned personally meeting and befriending several alien species‚ such as the Zeta Reticulans‚ the Pleiadians‚ and the Nordics. According… This premium content is for PLUS+ members only. Visit the site and log in/register to read. The post Extraterrestrial Research and Cover-Ups according to Dr. Michael Wolf appeared first on Anomalien.com.