A new paper has outlined potential problems we may face in contacting advanced alien civilizations: the potential existence of "fishbowl worlds".If you haven't heard of the Fermi Paradox‚ it goes something like this: given the vastness of the universe‚ the sheer amount of time it has gone on for‚ and the septillion stars out there‚ how come we can see no signs of alien civilizations‚ and why haven't they got in touch? We have found many exoplanets in the brief time we've been looking. Surely there must be someone else out there who‚ like us‚ desperately wants to find others?Since it was posed in 1950 by Enrico Fermi‚ there have been a range of answers‚ from the benign to the absolutely terrifying. Recent suggestions have included the "oxygen bottleneck"‚ the idea that intelligent aliens could be forever trapped in the stone age without sufficient oxygen for combustion.In a new paper‚ Elio Quiroga‚ who is a professor at the Universidad del Atlántico Medio in Spain‚ outlines a few other scenarios in which alien species could be intelligent‚ but unable to leave their own planet or communicate with others‚ which he has termed "fishbowl worlds".The simplest of these are worlds that are simply too big‚ making it impossible for alien civilizations to escape their planet's gravity. In order to escape our own planet‚ we need to be moving at around 11 kilometers per second (almost 7 miles per second)‚ or 40‚270 kilometers per hour (25‚000 miles per hour). That's our escape velocity. Therefore‚ we require an enormous amount of fuel to get anything to leave the planet‚ let alone a sizeable payload.This doesn't just have implications for physically leaving the planet and finding other species‚ but for technological progression. A civilization that can't leave its planet does not have satellite communications‚ and they are not peering back at us with their version of the JWST. Just as we base our assumptions in finding life elsewhere on our own experiences‚ intelligent species on these planets "might see space travel‚ even suborbital‚ as perhaps unconceivable"‚ according to Quiroga.Another‚ even more fishy fishbowl world could be ocean planets‚ or hycean worlds. On these planets‚ creating electrical equipment to enable long-distance communication may be near impossible‚ if these aliens felt the need to develop the technology at all."In an underwater world imbued into a fluid‚ such as water or liquid methane‚ where sound signals can be heard hundreds of kilometers away‚ communication between individuals could be feasible without the need for communication devices‚" Quiroga explained in the paper.  "Telecommunications technology might never emerge on such a world‚ even though it could be home to a fully developed civilization."Other possible fishbowl worlds are proposed‚ including binary systems where it is always daylight and the stars cannot be seen‚ or a world constantly covered in thick cloud. On these worlds‚ just like the Krikkit planet in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy‚ caught in a giant cloud of dust‚ they may not develop the desire to explore outside of their own planet. Let's hope it doesn't end like it does with the Krikkit if they ever find out we're out there.The paper is published in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society.

In school‚ you were probably taught that to make a baby you need an egg cell and a sperm cell – and if we’re talking about human reproduction then you would be correct. However‚ in the wider animal kingdom‚ this isn’t necessarily the case. Plenty of animals reproduce asexually‚ and a select few experience what’s known as parthenogenesis‚ aka “virgin” births.What is parthenogenesis?The word parthenogenesis literally means “virgin creation” in Greek. It is a form of asexual reproduction whereby an embryo develops without the need for an egg's fertilization. Because of this‚ the body must compensate for the missing genes not provided by the absent sperm.To kick things off‚ females must produce an egg that starts to develop into an embryo without any outside input. This can happen in a couple of ways. First‚ in a version of parthenogenesis called automixis‚ the egg can merge with cells called polar bodies‚ which are leftovers from the egg production process. This generates offspring that are similar to the mother but not exact clones. They are generally all female. Alternatively‚ parthenogenesis in plants can occur by apomixis‚ which involves reproductive cells duplicating their chromosomes via mitosis. In this case‚ offspring are genetically identical to their parent.What triggers parthenogenesis in the first place is not fully understood‚ but it’s thought to be linked to environmental stresses in some cases.How rare is parthenogenesis?It may surprise you‚ but virgin births in the animal kingdom are not all that rare. For small invertebrates‚ such as bees and tardigrades‚ parthenogenesis is actually relatively common. And‚ while it’s definitely not the norm among vertebrates‚ it’s not as rare as you might think either. In fact‚ it’s been observed in over 80 taxa.The phenomenon is also known to occur in plants and algae. What types of animals reproduce by parthenogenesis?Various insects‚ fish‚ reptiles‚ and even birds have been found to undergo parthenogenesis.Females of some species‚ including some lizards and snakes‚ exclusively reproduce through asexual means. These are known as obligate parthenogens. Then there are species that experience spontaneous parthenogenesis‚ generally reproducing sexually but occasionally throwing out a curveball and giving asexual reproduction a try. This is best documented in animals in captivity. Most recently‚ a female stingray in a North Carolina aquarium became pregnant with no male stingray involvement. Despite claims of a “shark-ray hybrid”‚ this is most likely a case of spontaneous parthenogenesis. Similar examples have been observed in zoo crocodiles and various species of aquarium sharks‚ among other animals.Parthenogenesis has even been induced artificially in some species that would otherwise reproduce sexually – fruit flies‚ for example. Parthenogenic mice have also been made in the lab.However‚ without this helping hand‚ mammals are incapable of parthenogenesis.Parthenogenesis in humansIt will come as little surprise then that humans are not able to reproduce by parthenogenesis. As with all mammals‚ an important genetic process called imprinting throws a spanner in the works.Imprinting involves specific markers‚ sort of like a molecular stamp‚ which are inherited from our parents and can affect how certain genes are expressed. Some genes may be switched on‚ and others off‚ by this process. If we were to only have one parent‚ as is the case during parthenogenesis‚ some essential genes wouldn’t get activated at all‚ rendering offspring unviable.That said‚ occasionally‚ spontaneous parthenogenetic development of an oocyte can occur‚ which is thought may result in the formation of a teratoma in the ovary – but definitely not a little parthenogenetic prince or princess.All “explainer” articles are confirmed by fact checkers to be correct at time of publishing. Text‚ images‚ and links may be edited‚ removed‚ or added to at a later date to keep information current. 

Pasteurization is right up there with hand-washing and vaccines as one of the greatest public health achievements in human history. But just like the other things on that list‚ it has its detractors. Loud ones. Fact-checking organization Full Fact recently responded to an Instagram post that has totted up over 70‚000 likes at the time of writing‚ one of many espousing the bullshit disputed idea that unpasteurized “raw” milk is a health food. So‚ we felt the time was ripe for a reminder of why science tells us that chugging untreated pints of the white stuff is often a very bad idea.What is pasteurization?Named for French scientist Louis Pasteur‚ who demonstrated that applying heat could prevent wine and beer from going bad in the 1860s‚ pasteurization is the process of heat-treating milk to kill harmful microbes and increase shelf-life.There are a few different methods‚ but all involve the milk being heated to specific temperatures and held there for a predetermined period of time‚ which has been calculated as sufficient to kill the bacteria‚ like Mycobacterium tuberculosis‚ that can be hiding inside.You may also have seen products labeled as “UHT”‚ which stands for ultra-heat treated. This is a more extreme form of pasteurization involving higher temperatures and sterile packaging‚ allowing these kinds of products to be stored out of the fridge for months at a time. Milk is not the only foodstuff that gets pasteurized. Other examples of foods that can be heat-treated include fruit juices‚ flour‚ and Pasteur’s original research subject‚ alcoholic beverages.Why do some people drink raw milk?Almost as soon as pasteurization became standard practice‚ the controversy began. According to the Science History Institute‚ some local media organizations were asking questions about “cooking” milk as far back as the early 20th century‚ and the skepticism from some quarters has never really gone away.   Over the decades‚ many claims have been made about the supposed benefits of unpasteurized dairy products. Here are a few of them.“It tastes better.”Some people simply say they prefer the flavor of raw milk. There are also some artisanal cheeses that are traditionally made with raw milk‚ which connoisseurs may be tempted to sample.This is one that’s difficult to disprove with scientific research. Suffice it to say‚ even if you do think it tastes a bit better‚ most would agree the risks of raw milk (see below) significantly outweigh this.“It’s easier to digest.”Some have claimed that treating milk with heat to kill the bad bacteria has a knock-on effect of killing probiotic organisms that secrete lactase‚ the enzyme that breaks down lactose and that those with lactose intolerance are lacking.There is no scientific evidence to back up this claim. Raw milk still contains lactose and there’s no indication it contains lactase. The pasteurization process is also not the cause of lactose intolerance‚ which we know from genetic evidence has been around for thousands of years. “It’s healthier.”Some suggest that the pasteurization process negatively affects the nutritional profile of the milk by degrading nutrients like calcium‚ essential for healthy bone development. There have also been claims about the supposed immune benefits of raw milk.Much of this is also tied in with wider skepticism around consuming processed foods‚ or supposedly “unnatural” products.The evidence suggests that pasteurization does not alter the nutritional content of milk in any significant way. Even where some studies have found decreases in the levels of certain vitamins after heat treatment‚ these are not vitamins that are found at particularly high levels in milk and thus can be obtained from other‚ more important dietary sources. There is some evidence that children raised on farms have a lower incidence of some allergies and autoimmune conditions‚ and improved immune function‚ which some have attributed to raw milk consumption. Importantly‚ though‚ even these studies agree that there would need to be a better way of mitigating the very real risks from raw milk before more widespread consumption could be recommended.“It’s fine as long as it’s tested/organic/from a clean farm.”Some believe that as long as they trust the farm where their raw milk comes from‚ it is safe to consume.However‚ in reality‚ there is no way to completely remove the risk. Even farms that regularly test for microbes in their milk may miss low levels of contamination that can still get you sick. Organic farming practices can’t prevent contamination either‚ and even the healthiest animals can harbor bacteria that pose a threat to humans.What are the risks of drinking raw milk?As well as citing evidence that largely debunks the claims made by the anti-pasteurization league‚ health authorities like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have repeatedly warned about the dangers of consuming raw milk. The most obvious‚ and the reason pasteurization was adopted in the first place‚ is the risk of foodborne illness. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) explain that raw milk can carry several different bacteria that pose a risk to human health‚ including Campylobacter‚ Brucella‚ and Listeria. In fact‚ they say raw milk is “one of the riskiest foods” to consume.Infection with any of these species could see you saddled with days of diarrheal misery‚ but there are some potentially serious consequences too‚ particularly for those who may be more vulnerable such as children and pregnant people. It’s not unheard of for humans to contract bovine tuberculosis from raw milk‚ and some of these other infections can cause complications including kidney failure.It's because of these risks that raw milk is illegal to purchase in several US states‚ and cannot be sold in high street stores in the UK. The verdict? Pasteurized milk is much safer and no less healthyIn a world where some people genuinely debate the utility of good hand hygiene‚ it’s probably not surprising that raw milk has so many staunch supporters. But all the evidence suggests that consuming unpasteurized dairy is‚ at best‚ no better for you and‚ at worst‚ a one-way ticket to the ER. If only there were an easy way to drastically reduce all the risks…All “explainer” articles are confirmed by fact checkers to be correct at time of publishing. Text‚ images‚ and links may be edited‚ removed‚ or added to at a later date to keep information current. The content of this article is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice‚ diagnosis‚ or treatment. Always seek the advice of qualified health providers with questions you may have regarding medical conditions. 

People who are unable to generate any mental imagery are less capable of recalling key events from their life history‚ new research has revealed. After scanning the brains of volunteers with aphantasia – a condition characterized by a lack of a "mind’s eye" – the study authors found that this impaired autobiographical memory is underscored by abnormal connectivity between the hippocampus and the visual cortex.It’s thought that around one in 50 people may have some degree of aphantasia‚ meaning they struggle to form images in their imagination. While the phenomenon is still poorly understood‚ it’s likely to be mediated in some way by the hippocampus‚ which plays a key role in generating mental images.Interestingly‚ the hippocampus is also one of the brain’s major memory hubs. This led the study authors to wonder whether an inability to imagine places‚ people‚ or events from the past might also result in poorer autobiographical memory among aphantasics.To investigate‚ the researchers recruited 14 people with aphantasia and 16 non-aphantasic controls and asked them to recall events from five different periods of their lives: early childhood‚ adolescence‚ early adulthood‚ middle age‚ and the past year. "We found that people with aphantasia have more difficulty recalling memories‚” explained study author Merlin Monzel in a statement. “Not only do they report fewer details‚ but their narratives are less vivid and their confidence in their own memory is diminished.” “This suggests that our ability to remember our personal biography is closely linked to our imagination‚" he said.Intriguingly‚ aphantasic participants often explained that they knew how a particular place “felt”‚ but could not recreate that space in front of their mind’s eye. For instance‚ one individual described the experience by saying “I can put my consciousness in my kitchen at home and feel all around but there is no visual image attached to this feeling.”During the next phase of the study‚ the researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to observe the brain activity of participants as they attempted to recall life events. "This showed that the hippocampus‚ which plays an important role in recalling vivid‚ detailed autobiographical memories‚ is less activated in people with aphantasia‚" said study co-author Pitshaporn Leelaarporn.More specifically‚ she explained that "the connectivity between the hippocampus and the visual cortex correlated with the imagination in people without aphantasia‚ whereas there was no correlation in those affected." In other words‚ reduced connectivity between these two brain regions may be responsible for the lack of mental imagery in aphantasics‚ and may also contribute to a decreased ability to recall life events.“Our results indicate that visual mental imagery is essential for detail-rich‚ vivid [autobiographical memory]‚ and that this type of cognitive function is supported by the functional connection between the hippocampus and the visual-perceptual cortex‚” conclude the study authors.Based on this observation‚ they speculate that offering training in visual imagination may help people suffering from Alzheimer’s and other memory-related disorders to improve their long-term recall. Whether or not this truly is the case is something that future studies will need to assess.The study is published in the journal eLife.

The US Air Force possesses a novel technology that can rapidly sink a ship before your eyes. Their research lab has even released footage of the cutting-edge weapon‚ aptly named QUICKSINK‚ showing it obliterate a vessel in the Gulf of Mexico.The Air Force Research Laboratory and Eglin’s Integrated Test Team first carried out the QUICKSINK test on April 28‚ 2022. Using an F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jet‚ a single bomb was dropped on the empty shipping vessel and – bang! – just like that‚ the ship is sunk in under 30 seconds. In a second video‚ the ship is shown on the seabed effectively ripped into two halves.        The Air Force was understandably vague on details about the technology and how it works so effectively. However‚ they do reveal that QUICKSINK involves a modified 907-kilogram (2‚000-pound) Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)‚ a piece of technology that converts unguided bombs‚ or "dumb bombs"‚ into precision-guided “smart” munitions capable of hitting targets with accuracy.JDAM systems can allow free-falling bombs to hit a target with an accuracy of 5 meters (16.4 feet) or less if GPS data is available. Even if GPS data isn’t there‚ it can hit a target within a 30-meter (98-foot) margin of error.        Torpedoes‚ underwater missiles fired from ships or submarines‚ are the most common means of sinking enemy vessels. This new technology‚ however‚ offers the military a more effective way to destroy ships from the skies. Furthermore‚ it is significantly cheaper than a torpedo and can be deployed over a much larger area of sea.“Heavy-weight torpedoes are effective [at sinking large ships] but are expensive and employed by a small portion of naval assets. With QUICKSINK‚ we have demonstrated a low-cost and more agile solution that has the potential to be employed by the majority of Air Force combat aircraft‚ providing combatant commanders and warfighters with more options‚” Major Andrew Swanson‚ 85th TES division chief of Advanced Programs‚ said in a statement.“A Navy submarine has the ability to launch and destroy a ship with a single torpedo at any time‚ but the QUICKSINK JCTD aims to develop a low-cost method of achieving torpedo-like kills from the air at a much higher rate and over a much larger area‚” explained Kirk Herzog‚ AFRL program manager.

New research has analyzed tattoo inks from major and small American manufacturers and has found that 90 percent contained ingredients that were not listed on the label. In some cases‚ the unlisted ingredients are known to be harmful to humans.Tattooing is an established industry these days‚ and it's big business. Around the world‚ societal attitudes towards this type of art have shifted‚ which has been accompanied by a steep rise in the number of people getting them. For instance‚ in 2023‚ it was estimated that around 32 percent of US adults have at least one tattoo‚ while around 23 percent have more than one.Given the popularity of this form of body modification‚ you would think the contents of tattoo ink were well-known and‚ above all else‚ safe for use. However‚ new research suggests otherwise.Researchers at Binghamton University‚ in a lab run by John Swierk‚ Assistant Professor of Chemistry‚ were exploring the potential impact light can have on tattoos and their chemical breakdown. During their initial work‚ Kelli Moseman‚ a doctoral student and the new paper’s lead author‚ noticed that tattoo inks contained substances that were not on the labels.This raised an important question: were these unlisted substances breakdown products from the interaction of light or were they always there?From there‚ Moseman and her colleagues analyzed tattoo inks from 9 manufacturers in the US – both major‚ global companies as well as smaller producers. The inks analyzed came in six colors.Of the 54 inks they examined‚ 45 (90 percent) had major discrepancies between their labels and their actual content‚ including different pigments than the ones listed or even unlisted additives.Significantly‚ more than half of the inks contained polyethylene glycol‚ a chemical that is used to treat constipation‚ but can cause organ damage through repeated exposure. 15 percent contained propylene glycol‚ which the authors say is a potential allergen (though the US FDA does deem it as “generally recognized as safe” within limits).Other in unlisted contents included Hexamethylenetetramine‚ an antibiotic often used to treat urinary infections‚ and 2-phenoxyethanol‚ an antimicrobial agent that can pose risks to nursing infants.Despite these ingredients not being on the product’s labels‚ it is not currently clear whether they were included intentionally or if the manufacturers were given the wrong labels. It is also possible that these extra ingredients could be due to the ink being contaminated."We're hoping the manufacturers take this as an opportunity to reevaluate their processes‚ and that artists and clients take this as an opportunity to push for better labeling and manufacturing‚" Swierk explained in a statement.In the US‚ the control of tattoo inks is significantly less strict than the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)‚ which regulates the European market. This is partially because until 2022‚ the former listed tattoo inks as "cosmetics" which were not regulated. That year‚ Congress passed the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (MoCRA)‚ which allowed the FDA to regulate tattoo inks for the first time."The FDA is still figuring out what that is going to look like and we think this study will influence the discussions around MoCRA‚" Swierk said."This is also the first study to explicitly look at inks sold in the United States and is probably the most comprehensive because it looks at the pigments‚ which nominally stay in the skin‚ and the carrier package‚ which is what the pigment is suspended in."The study only focused on substances at 2‚000 parts per million (ppm) or more‚ which is considered high. However‚ in Europe‚ substances in the 2 ppm range are also considered‚ which means there could be more substances in the inks that were not detected by the lab.The next step‚ Moseman explained‚ is to assess pigments banned in Europe to see if these same components are found in them. She is currently examining blue and green inks sold in Europe‚ which have particularly been targeted by the European regulators."Our goal in a lot of this research is to empower artists and their clients. Tattoo artists are serious professionals who have dedicated their lives to this craft and they want the best possible outcomes for their clients‚" Swierk said. "We're trying to highlight that there are some deficiencies in manufacturing and labeling."What is vegan tattoo ink?Despite Moseman and colleague’s concerning findings‚ people are increasingly cautious about the types of substances they put in their bodies. In particular‚ vegans have become worried that tattoo inks contain substances derived from animal parts.Although there are high-quality inks that are now vegan-friendly‚ there are still many that contain ingredients like glycerine‚ which is derived from animal fats. Glycerine is used as a stabilizer‚ often in conjunction with gelatine‚ which comes from animal bones‚ cartilage‚ and skin. Sometimes bone char is also used in black inks‚ as it can provide a stronger pigment.Aftercare and auxiliary equipment can also pose a problem for vegans. For instance‚ stencil paper can contain lanolin‚ which is derived from sheep’s wool‚ while balms and soaps for aftercare can also contain beeswax.  But despite these issues‚ there are still plenty of affordable options for people who want to avoid these substances. As with the findings of the above study‚ it is just important to know what it is we are consuming.The paper is published in the journal Analytical Chemistry.

With Epic Games seemingly disinterested in reviving the series‚ intrepid modders have taken it upon themselves to put together an Unreal RTX Remix mod to give the FPS game a modern makeover. It is still early days for the project‚ but while there are plenty of apparent issues‚ video capture of the mod in action does show promise nonetheless. Continue reading Iconic 90s FPS gets unreal ray tracing mod thanks to Nvidia RTX Remix MORE FROM PCGAMESN: GeForce RTX 4070 Super review‚ DLSS explained‚ Best graphics cards

How do you get Pacific Drive ThermoSap Crystals? This rare resource is vital for crafting mid to late-game equipment in Ironwood Studios’ off-beat driving sim‚ and neglecting to gather it can majorly slow down your progression. However‚ it’s so rare that you might not know where to even begin to look for it. Thankfully‚ we’ve got the answers. There are several ways to get your hands on ThermoSap Crystals in Pacific Drive‚ though some methods are easier than others in the crafting game. It’s also worth bearing in mind that many of the Fabrication Station upgrades that require ThermoSap Crystals also demand Pacific Drive Unstable and Corrupt Energy as well‚ so keep an eye out for them on your travels. Without further ado‚ here’s where to find Pacific Drive ThermoSap Crystals. Continue reading How to get ThermoSap Crystals in Pacific Drive MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Pacific Drive preview‚ Best survival games‚ Pacific Drive release date

Details on the Intel Core i9 14900KS continue to spill out onto the internet‚ making it one of the worst kept secrets in the PC space. Now‚ as retailers begin to populate listings for the CPU‚ it's all but confirmed that this processor will feature record breaking clock speeds. Continue reading Intel’s new CPU will have fastest ever clock speed‚ says retailer leak MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Core i5 14600K review‚ Best gaming CPU‚ Core i9 14900K review

The ads‚ shared exclusively with NR‚ will target 31 lawmakers‚ including incumbent Democratic senators in several key battleground states.