A poonado of epic proportions may have saved some sperm whales from a fatal interaction with a pod of orcas off Western Australia’s southern coast. The highly scatological wildlife encounter was the first time this year that sperm whales had been seen in the area‚ and they put on a display nobody was expecting.The perilous event was witnessed by marine biologist Jennah Tucker on board a Naturaliste Charters trip with other whale watchers and photographers. They were observing a pod of orcas when the group started surging forward in a way that indicated they were pursuing something.The object of the hunt was a pod of sperm whales. One of the four was much smaller than the others‚ and the group appeared exhausted and distressed as they huddled closely. As predators in their own right‚ and big ones at that‚ it was thought at one time that sperm whales weren’t vulnerable to orca predation. However‚ orcas have since been spotted attacking sperm whales‚ seeming to favor females with young calves.    The sperm whales were thrashing their tails against the orcas' advances as the team looked on. Then‚ “a large dark bubble rose to the surface amongst the huddle‚ believed at the time to have been blood‚” explained Tucker in a blog post shared with IFLScience.That cloud was later confirmed to be whale poop based on the photos and videos that were captured during the dramatic encounter. An explosive defense mechanism that sperm whales are known for.“Sperm whales are known to defecate when threatened‚ referred to as emergency or defensive defection‚” explained Tucker. “The cloud of diarrhoea created when the whale waves its tail through its poo acts to deter predators and in this case‚ seemed to work! Given their faeces appear reddish in colour‚ due to their diet consisting of 90% squid‚ it’s no surprise it was easily mistaken for blood.”The whales were in distress‚ so they unleashed a poonado.Image courtesy of Naturaliste ChartersIt's no mean feat to pursue the ocean’s largest toothed predator into the shallows‚ and the orcas put up a good fight. Whatever dirty tactics they’re open to exploring‚ however‚ don’t seem to include getting a face full of feces.The orcas involved in the fray were actually sighted carrying some kind of mystery meat in their mouths‚ but it remains unclear if their hunt was successful. They may have been stealing chunks of giant squid from the sperm whales‚ something that’s been documented among these animals before. As for the events of this fateful first return for sperm whales? The only thing that we know went down with absolute certainty is a shit-ton of whale poop.

Astronomers have confirmed the existence of a new trojan asteroid in the orbit of Mars. This new companion of the Red Planet precedes Mars in its orbit‚ but unlike other trojan asteroids‚ this one might be in an unstable orbit‚ which suggests intriguing possibilities about its past.Trojan asteroids are located in the same orbit as a planet and move together with it. There are five points around two gravitational bodies (in this case the Sun and a planet) where much smaller objects can be placed in such a way that they orbit just like the planet. They are known as Lagrangian points. One of them is on the opposite side of the orbit‚ one is between the planet and the Sun‚ and one is slightly behind the planet. Then there are two on the orbit‚ preceding at 60° (that’s L4)‚ and following also at 60° (that’s L5).Earth has only two known trojans but it is difficult to study them. Mars has 17‚ most of them in the following camp. In the preceding camp‚ there is only one other asteroid‚ 1999 UJ7‚ and researchers have considered that the newly confirmed object‚ 2023 FW14‚ might have some relationship to it."While the orbital evolution of the 16 previously known Trojans shows long-term stability‚ the orbit of the new one is not stable‚" led author Raul de la Fuente Marcos‚ from the Universidad Complutense de Madrid‚ said in a statement. "There are two possibilities for its origin: it could be a fragment of the Trojan 1999 UJ7‚ or it may have been captured from the population of asteroids close to the Earth which cross the orbit of Mars."The confirmation of the asteroid as belonging to the Martian trojan comes from the Gran Telescopio Canarias (GTC). The instrument was also used to collect the light spectrum of the object. The spectrum allows astronomers to study the composition of celestial objects at a distance. And in the case of 2023 FW14‚ it provides important insights into its origin."Although the spectrum of 2023 FW14 obtained with the GTC is somewhat different from that of the other L4 Trojan 1999 UJ7‚ both of them belong to the same composition group‚ they are asteroids of a primitive type‚ in contrast to the L5 Trojans‚ all of them rocky and rich in silicates‚" added Julia de León‚ an IAC researcher‚ and co-author of the article.The trojans at L5 appear to be all related to the largest body there‚ the asteroid Eureka‚ which is less than 2 kilometers (1.25 miles) across. The idea that objects at L4 might also share some similarities is not out of the realm of possibilities‚ but the team believes this to be a Mars-crossing asteroid temporarily captured as a trojan.Trojan asteroids were imagined in math before they were actually discovered. They were found as scientists attempted to solve the notorious three-body problem. And their existence provides valuable information about our understanding of celestial mechanics."Studying real Trojans rather than only those predicted mathematically allows us to test the reliability of our theoretical models‚" added de la Fuente Marcos.The study is published in the journal Astronomy &; Astrophysics.

Bramble sharks are incredibly camera-shy. Typically found lurking at the bottom of the seafloor‚ this elusive species is scarcely ever seen alive in its natural habitat. So‚ you can imagine the surprise when researchers from OceanX managed to stumble across an individual while exploring the deep waters off the coast of the United Arab Emirates‚ a pocket of the world where they’ve never been observed before. The footage (below) was captured in December 2023 by OceanX while cruising around the Gulf of Oman in a submersible vehicle at depths of around 850 meters (~2‚800 feet).“It was super cool. On that dive‚ we hadn't really seen much up until that point‚ so we were just exploring around and hoping to see something‚” Cassidy Nelson‚ a Junior Editor at OceanX who captured footage‚ told IFLScience. “When we saw it‚ we were actually eating lunch‚ so we were kind of caught off guard. It just emerged out of nowhere and then was hanging around us. It gave us a good amount of time to look at it‚ get some good shots‚ and talk to those who were in mission control‚” she added.                    Given their obscurity‚ little is known about bramble sharks. They have been spotted in deep waters across the world (except for the Western Pacific) but their true extent and scarcity are not fully understood. “It's all very mysterious. OceanX capturing footage of a live bramble shark in its natural habitat is extremely rare‚” added Jeriylah Kamau-Weng‚ Research Analyst at OceanX.Most knowledge about the species comes from specimens that have been accidentally caught by the trawl nets of commercial fishers‚ suggesting the little-known species is being impacted by human activity.“Most of the specimens that people have from around the world are either dead or dying. Usually‚ when you see deep-sea organisms near the shallow regions‚ it's usually because they're about to die or they have some kind of sickness‚” Kamau-Weng explained. “Based on the fact that they come up in trawl nets a lot‚ I believe that the main threat to their existence is bottom trawling and unsustainable fishing practices that have to do with the deep sea‚” she added. Another shot of the bramble shark cruising around the Gulf of Oman.Image courtesy of OceanXOceanX is keen to understand how climate change is affecting the planet’s deep-sea environments. The deep ocean absorbs vast amounts of heat and carbon dioxide from Earth’s atmosphere‚ providing a much-needed buffer to some global warming. However‚ evidence is emerging that even the deep sea is feeling the strain of warming temperatures. “In the face of climate change‚ this work is especially important because there's a thought called the 'deep sea refugia hypothesis'. Basically‚ as organisms start facing the pressures of climate change in the shallows‚ they start going towards the depths‚” Kamau-Weng told IFLScience.“It's especially important to not only discover and explore these regions‚ but also to record them so that we have enough data to provide to policymakers to enact the policies that will allow for conservation measures to protect these unique and fragile habitats‚” she concluded. 

It’s the 21st century‚ but conspiracy theories about a “long-lost race of giants” still live strong (honestly‚ you wouldn’t believe how many messages we receive about it). Rumors about one such colossus have recently emerged in South America where it’s said a huge humanoid skeleton has been uncovered. However‚ armchair archaeologists should take this wild claim with a giant-sized pinch of salt.In a new study‚ anthropologist Nicholas Landol looks into the claim that archaeologists recently found the skeleton of a giant in a quiet Ecuadorian village. While it’s true an old skeleton was recovered here‚ Landol concludes that estimates of the individual's height have been grossly overblown. The so-called “Julcuy giant” was unearthed in early 2019 by geologist Theofilos Toulkeridis and archaeologist Florencio Delgado near the village of Julcuy in Ecuador’s Manabí province. It's estimated the individual lived at some point during the Manteño-Huancavilca culture (1200 to 1600 CE). Much of the physical remains had been lost‚ but the duo managed to recover the individual's left ulna‚ left radius‚ both of their humeri‚ both femurs‚ and fragmented parts of their lower leg bones. Later that year‚ a documentary series Code of the Wild aired an episode called “Lost Race of Giants‚” in which Delgado and Toulkeridis were interviewed about their discovery. The hosts claimed that the individual stood approximately 2.1 meters (7 feet) tall when alive‚ which would have been remarkably tall for a person over five millennia ago. They go on to interview local Indigenous Salasaca people who recite their oral tradition of cannibalistic giants.However‚ there is good reason to suspect the height estimation in the 2019 documentary was massively exaggerated. Landol spoke to Delgado‚ the archaeologist who made the discovery‚ who explained the bones were measured using a “rudimentary technique” involving only a tape measure."Given the amount of disarticulation an individual's remains can experience via taphonomic processes‚ such a technique can prove problematic‚” writes Landol.The documentary showed an on-screen graphic that suggest the femur was almost 61 centimeters (24 inches) long‚ much longer than the average male's femur of less than 45 centimeters (17.7 inches). However‚ this appears to have been an assumption based on the individual's alleged height‚ because Delgado confirmed they never made any such measurement of the femur.In a terrible stroke of bad luck‚ most of the Julcuy individual’s remains were destroyed and displaced during the 2023 rainy season‚ meaning a full-blown scientific investigation of the bones is no longer possible. Fortunately‚ the individual's left femur was recovered‚ completely intact except for a few scratches.A reevaluation of the leg bone suggests it was a maximum length of 40 centimeters (15.7 inch)‚ which is slightly shorter than the average man. Based on the bone length‚ the new report concludes that the Julcuy individual likely stood between 153.34 centimeters and 162.37 centimeters (5 feet to 5 feet 4 inches) while alive – not quite a giant. In fact‚ that’s pretty much the height you’d expect from an Indigenous American man born at least 400 years ago. The study is published in the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology.

Regardless of your own personal views on the morality of eating meat and fish‚ the facts are clear: humanity’s current habits are not great for the environment‚ our health‚ or animal welfare. And if you know all this‚ it can be hard to justify continuing with a meat-based diet‚ rather than switching to full veganism.Of course‚ there’s a convincing counterargument to that: being vegan is hard. Or gross‚ or emasculating‚ or any number of other undesirable things – which is why some people choose instead to simply limit their meat consumption to fish or seafood only.But does that decision really resolve the ethical problems it’s meant to answer? Kind of no‚ actually. So why is it so popular? A recent study delved into the reasoning behind 10 pescatarians’ dietary choices to figure out the secret – and the results were downright paradoxical.What is the pescatarian’s paradox?Before we can understand the pescatarian’s paradox‚ we need to do a little background research. Now‚ if you’ve ever embraced ethical vegetarianism‚ you’re probably already familiar with the meat paradox – the conflict between liking or even loving animals‚ while at the same time endorsing an industry that intrinsically depends on their suffering and death.And we can go further. There’s also the cheese paradox‚ employed by those same ethical vegetarians every time they consume eggs or milk: a juxtaposition of claiming to care for animals and their welfare‚ while simultaneously relying on some pretty horrific practices to get their dairy fix.With that in mind‚ you can probably work out the pescatarian’s paradox: it’s the problem somewhere in the middle‚ facing those fence-sitters who eschew most meat but allow fish or seafood into their diet. To many‚ this position is a sensible compromise‚ cutting out the worst aspects of the meat industry without going too extreme with their diet. But philosophically speaking‚ it’s perhaps the thorniest stance of all: despite what many believe‚ fish probably can feel pain; they can be depressed‚ they can get stressed out‚ and they can love and care for their little fishy families.Neither is the fish industry particularly “kind” to the environment – another common justification for forgoing meat from terrestrial animals. It’s well-known‚ for example‚ that animal agriculture produces nearly 15 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions worldwide‚ including some two-thirds of global nitrous oxide emissions – a gas whose global warming potential is nearly 300 times as much as carbon dioxide. But commercial fishing is also hugely impactful in this regard: according to calculations from 2021‚ bottom trawling alone – that is‚ catching fish using heavy nets that drag across the seabed – emits roughly the same amount of harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as the entire aviation industry.And here’s the thing: ethical pescatarians must know about these problems. At the very least‚ they presumably do accept that animals can suffer‚ and believe that they should be spared pain. They’re even willing to completely overhaul their diet to account for that. And yet‚ that’s definitely a dead animal on their plate. So why don’t fish count?Why your diet makes you uncomfortableAt the core of all of these conundrums is the concept of cognitive dissonance: the oh-so-human ability to hold two conflicting beliefs at the same time‚ and the psychological discomfort that this provokes. So‚ let’s say you’re an animal lover – but you also eat meat. Well‚ there’s no getting around it: you want animals to die. Every time you eat a BLT‚ for example‚ you’re enjoying the fact that somebody killed a pig. So how can you say you love animals?It’s not nice to think about‚ is it? That’s why our minds rebel‚ generally choosing one of three options to resolve the psychological tension: we can change our values‚ and decide we don’t actually love animals all that much; we can change our behavior‚ and go vegan or vegetarian; or – and this one is generally the most popular choice – we can carry on as we are‚ and invent some kind of excuse as to why everything is fine‚ actually.With the meat paradox‚ these excuses have traditionally been summarized as the “Four Ns” – the name stands for Natural‚ Normal‚ Necessary‚ and Nice – and if you want to see examples of them‚ just take a look at the comments section right now. Eating meat may cause pain‚ suffering‚ and death to billions of animals every year‚ adherents argue‚ but not eating it is simply unfeasible in the real world – it’s unhealthy‚ or difficult‚ or even just not as yummy to go vegan.The cheese paradox is evaded slightly differently: it’s often justified by abstraction. Not for nothing is there a trend in Western countries towards less liquid milk consumption and higher cheese consumption: as one paper from last year put it‚ “the further a product [is] removed from its animal origin‚ the more willingly people [consume] it.”So‚ which tack do the pescatarians take?Defending your dinnerAccording to the study‚ there are three main ways pescatarians justify their dietary ethics – and the first one is something we’re already familiar with. It’s the idea that pescatarianism is simply a practical compromise on the carnist to vegan spectrum: yes‚ eating meat is bad‚ study participants would agree‚ but cutting all of it out would be too difficult‚ or too extreme.Is it a logical argument? Not really – as the authors point out‚ “feasibility is a subjective perception that can neither be proven nor disproven by objective arguments.” But is it effective? Certainly: “the participants of this study were able to provide a multitude of justifications for their current consumption of aquatic animals‚” the study notes‚ defending their behavior by pointing to things like a lack of cooking skills‚ time constraints‚ a desire to fit in socially‚ health concerns‚ or enjoyment of the taste.If those excuses sound familiar‚ they should: it’s basically a rehashing of the Four N’s of carnist cognitive dissonance. Perhaps that’s surprising – after all‚ by rejecting terrestrial meat‚ a pescatarian is presumably not swayed by these arguments – but there’s another psychological trick that resolves any problems here: fish‚ some pescatarians in the study argued‚ don’t exactly matter as much as other animals.“When asked why participants continued to eat aquatic animals but not terrestrial ones‚ limited cognitive abilities and an incapacity to feel pain were consistently cited as reasons for their decision‚” the authors report – before pointing out that “evidence of cognitive abilities and pain perception in fish is mounting.”That wasn’t the only strategy deployed by participants to distance themselves from fish. Some pointed to the perceived evolutionary distance between ourselves and aquatic non-mammals; others claimed that they could probably kill a fish on their own‚ “view[ing] this as a conclusive argument justifying their consumption of pre-processed marine animals‚” the study says (this particular tack could be taken to some strange conclusions‚ such as the participant who said they would not eat “one of those fishes that’s like a hundred years old and huge.”)For others‚ the psychological distance stemmed from actual‚ physical distance. Cows and sheep‚ the researchers discovered‚ were seen as having personalities; they could be friendly faces that study participants saw each day and bonded with. Fish‚ on the other hand‚ were virtually invisible‚ both literally – participants were unlikely to see fish being farmed or living in the wild‚ and were therefore rarely faced with the reality of their diet – and metaphorically‚ with many subjects reluctant to investigate or interrogate their choices too closely. In other words: cognitive dissonance? Just don’t think about it.But it’s the last tactic that might seem most baffling: when faced with the mismatch between their values and their behavior‚ some pescatarians chose to – well‚ sort of deny that they eat meat at all.“Despite asking for self-identifying pescetarians‚ most participants appeared less confident in their identity as pescetarians than anticipated‚” the authors found. “This was expressed through the interchangeable usage of the words ‘vegetarian’ and ‘pescetarian’ […] Some participants even likened their dietary practices to predominantly plant-based ones‚ despite their consumption of various animal products.”It’s a strange tactic‚ but not an uncommon one: as many as one in four self-identifying vegetarians admit to eating fish‚ despite… well‚ you know. It may not even be entirely dishonest – seven out of the 10 participants expressed a desire to go vegetarian or vegan at some point‚ even if those plans were‚ let’s say‚ less than firm. But ironically‚ adopting this stance may be precisely what is delaying that professed goal. “[The] comparison might allow pescetarians to socially distance themselves from meat eaters and thus‚ makes their choice to consume only marine animals appear more ethical‚” the authors point out. “This is a potentially advantageous comparison that functions to alleviate cognitive dissonance by creating a more positive and moral self-construct.”In other words: aspiration is more important than action. “[Participants’] commonly expressed values of caring about animal welfare and environmental impact hold more significance to them than whether they consumed a tuna sandwich for lunch‚” the researchers conclude.So‚ how to solve the pescatarian’s paradox? It’s simple. It turns out‚ there are no pescatarians – only a bunch of vegans who eat fish.Isn’t that a relief? The study is published in the journal Qualitative Research in Psychology.

Scientists researching the complex habitats of Utah’s Great Salt Lake sediments had a hunch that the nematodes also known as roundworms lived in these spaces but no one had ever found them – until now. This new discovery suggests there could be a whole web of hidden life within the Great Lake.A professor and a postdoc student armed with a hammer took to the microbialites‚ reef-like structures made of calcium carbonate mounds that cover around a fifth of the lakebed‚ and discovered thousands of tiny worms living there. The breaking of this microbialite revealed several species of worms adding to the only two known multicellular animals to live in the extremely salt waters: brine shrimp (Artemia sp.) and brine fly larvae (Ephydra sp.).Nematodes are known for their diverse ability to survive in pretty much any habitat and represent one of the world’s most abundant animals with 250‚000 species. The Great Salt Lake in Utah has around 15 percent salinity in the southern arm while the northern arm is around 30 percent salinity‚ making it one of the saltiest water bodies on Earth. The salinity of where the nematodes were discovered is around 20 percent‚ making it the most saline environment in which nematodes have ever been found.“Just what is the limit of animal life? What environments can animals actually survive? That captures some imagination about looking at other planets where we might find complex multicellular life‚” senior author Prof Michael Werner said in a statement.       To test just how resilient the worms are in their saltwater habitat the team fed half a group their usual diet while feeding the other half bacteria from the lake. The bacteria live in part of the lake that is 50 times more salty than the worms' environment. After 24 hours the worms that had eaten the bacteria were still alive while those who had eaten the usual diet were dead very shortly after eating. “We didn’t expect it to work‚ but it did!” Werner exclaimed. This suggests that bacteria can help nematodes adapt to highly saline conditions‚ but more research is needed to identify the mechanisms at play.The team thinks the nematodes feed on bacteria that form on the microbialites. They also found a slight positive correlation between the presence of arsenic and the abundance of nematodes. They suggest that the nematodes also gain protection from UV exposure and dehydration. “Even today we're discovering these amazing things about this lake that's been sitting on our doorstep for 170 years‚” Brigham Young University biologist Byron Adams‚ a leading expert in nematodes and consult for the study marveled. “It’s an amazing system that Michael has worked to better understand.”The paper is published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences.

We suspect that many icy moons in the Solar System host a liquid ocean buried deep within their crusts. Plans to get to those oceans with drilling robots have been put forward‚ but new research suggests something even simpler could provide information about the possibility of life in those oceans. All you need is a single ice grain.The underground oceans of both Europa and Enceladus deliver the occasional release into space‚ where material from the ocean is frozen in a spray of ice crystals. Research in the lab has shown that life is present in these ocean worlds‚ and current technology can detect it in minimal quantities.“For the first time we have shown that even a tiny fraction of cellular material could be identified by a mass spectrometer onboard a spacecraft‚” lead author Dr Fabian Klenner‚ from the University of Washington‚ said in a statement. “Our results give us more confidence that using upcoming instruments‚ we will be able to detect lifeforms similar to those on Earth‚ which we increasingly believe could be present on ocean-bearing moons.”         The team picked a simple bacterium to simulate the possible life forms inside the ocean of Europa. They used Sphingopyxis alaskensis‚ a bacterium that is found in the waters of Alaska – so it can survive the cold well‚ and can cope with few nutrients.The team envisions how bacteria might reach the surface of the buried ocean and bubble off where the cracks connect it to the surface. Those bubbles can carry biomaterial (like the ocean scum on sea spray) and those molecules are trapped in ice grains.An artist’s rendition of Saturn’s moon Enceladus‚ depicting hydrothermal activity on the seafloor and cracks in the moon’s icy crust that allow material from the watery interior to be ejected into space.Image credit: NASA/JPL-CaltechInstruments on NASA’s Europa Clipper‚ which launches in October‚ have the ability to detect such material‚ in particular lipids. These fat molecules could make up the membranes of these alien lifeforms and‚ as molecular structures go‚ they are a lot more stable than DNA.“With suitable instrumentation‚ such as the SUrface Dust Analyzer on NASA’s Europa Clipper space probe‚ it might be easier than we thought to find life‚ or traces of it‚ on icy moons‚” added senior author Frank Postberg‚ a professor of planetary sciences at the Freie Universität Berlin. “If life is present there‚ of course‚ and cares to be enclosed in ice grains originating from an environment such as a subsurface water reservoir.”The study is published in Science Advances.

The Caspian Sea is the largest inland body of water in the world‚ but due to certain peculiarities‚ there is not agreement on whether it is really a sea or actually a bloody large lake. But while it may appear to be a trivial problem‚ the answer has significant geopolitical implications which make it a delicate matter.The Caspian... ocean?The Caspian Sea is located at a point between Europe and Asia and is straddled by several states‚ including Azerbaijan‚ Iran‚ Kazakhstan‚ Russia‚ and Turkmenistan. The water expands over 745 miles (1‚200 km) and has a surface area of around 371‚000 square miles (143‚200 square miles). This gives it a surface area that is almost as big as the country of Japan.According to ancient Greek and Persian sources‚ the sheer size of the body of water suggested it was an ocean‚ which contributed to its name. This argument is further bolstered by the fact that it has a high salinity (salt content)‚ though more so in the south than in the north where freshwater enters from the Volga River. In addition‚ the water becomes deeper as you travel towards the south. And this is quite a contrast. The northern part of the water can drop to depths of about 5 to 6 meters (16 to 20 feet)‚ but in the south‚ things can drop to a staggering 1‚000 meters (3‚000 feet).The Caspian... freshwater lake? All these features may make you think we are definitely describing a sea‚ but it really is a tricky case. The Caspian Sea has some unique features that throw us off a bit. Firstly‚ there is the simple case that it is completely landlocked and very much inland. The only way to access it‚ via water‚ is by the Volga River which flows through Russia‚ as well as some canals that connect it to the Black Sea‚ the Baltic Sea and the Sea of Azov.Although it does have a high salt content‚ it does not receive this from the open sea and it is actually fed freshwater from several rivers other than the Volga‚ including the Ural and Kura. But then again‚ despite this constant flow of freshwater‚ the sea maintains an average salinity level of about 12 parts per thousand (ppt). This means the waters are saltier than freshwater‚ but much less so than a typical sea (which usually has a salinity level of around 35 ppt).These unique qualities have also made the Caspian Sea a home for various species that have adapted to its brackish conditions. These include the Caspian sturgeon‚ whose eggs form the much sought-after caviar. Then there is also the adorable-looking Caspian seal‚ which is only found around these waters and is the smallest member of the earless seal family.However‚ the Caspian Sea is under threat from pollution and overfishing. And this is where the definition issue comes into play.Rich resources and geopolitics muddy the waters Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991‚ the Caspian Sea has become a key geopolitical issue for the surrounding states due to the presence of oil and gas resources in and around the waters. Each state has been involved in various ongoing disputes over territorial waters and the drawing-up of exclusion zones‚ all of which have been playing out at the cost of the environment.Each country has invested significant amounts of money in exploiting the natural resources in the area for their own economic purposes. At any given time‚ patrol boats from the different states lurk along the agreed boundaries of their allotted portions of the water to protect their interests.At the same time‚ local fishing communities and the tourist industry continue to trade and operate on the waters‚ which provide for their livelihoods.This is why the tricky classification issue‚ whether the Caspian Sea is actually a sea or a lake‚ is significant. Without a formal internationally recognized agreement on this matter‚ the geopolitical issues have been allowed to play out in more traditional geopolitical lines‚ including coercion‚ and negotiations led by power politics‚ rather than international laws.However‚ if the state became more involved within the international community‚ a definition of the Caspian Sea as a legitimate sea would allow the waters to be protected under the same international instruments that protect the world’s oceans‚ as well as dividing the rights and responsibilities for explosion‚ protection‚ and management of the marine ecosystems.Unfortunately‚ the states bordering the waters have increasingly withdrawn from international conventions in recent years‚ in fact even more so than they had just after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Imagine a scene straight out of a fairy tale‚ unfolding in the picturesque coastal town of Martigues‚ France. Here‚ the boundary between the human world and the aquatic realm blurs in a captivating encounter. A pregnant woman emerges from the sea‚ accompanied by an unexpected companion—a baby octopus clinging to her belly. This magical moment‚... The post Pregnant woman emerges from water shocked to find creature clinging to belly appeared first on Animal Channel.

Two twin baby cows‚ separated from their mom for a whole year‚ finally get to hug her again. This touching narrative unfolds at a sanctuary farm‚ a place deeply committed to bringing animal families back together. The twins‚ once turned away by dairy farmers for not meeting expectations‚ discover a fresh start and a chance... The post Twin baby cows line up at fence for reunion with long-lost mom that’s a year in the making appeared first on Animal Channel.