Birds might not be able to get a driving license (boo)‚ but as it happens‚ some of them have found another way to get about whilst doing minimal exercise: soaring. At one point or another‚ they do have to flap their wings – but which one can go the longest without doing so?To find out‚ we have to head to the Andes‚ home to the absolute unit that is the Andean condor. And when we say unit‚ we’re not joking – this thing can weigh up to a whopping 15 kilograms (33 pounds)‚ making it the world’s heaviest soaring bird.It might seem like something that heavy couldn’t get up in the air in the first place‚ but Andean condors also have an impressive wingspan of up to 3.2 meters (10.5 feet). Their weight is also part of the reason they soar; flapping a lot would be too energy expensive for such a big bird‚ so instead they utilize hot air currents to stay in the air.It feels appropriate‚ then‚ that researchers have found the Andean condor spends the least time flapping during flight out of the soaring birds.A team from Swansea University and the National University of Comahue tracked eight Andean condors over the course of five years‚ tagging them with a GPS device and a recording unit that could log their wingbeats.From this data‚ they found that the condors flapped their wings for only 1 percent of their flight time. That means they only just clinch the title from wandering albatrosses‚ who can spend up to 14.5 percent all the way down to just 1.2 percent of their flight time slowly flapping their wings‚ according to one study. Similarly to albatrosses‚ much of the time that the condors in the study spent flapping was during takeoffs – more than 75 percent‚ in fact. The rest of the time‚ they successfully avoided flapping their wings by making the most of wind and air currents‚ to the point where one bird even managed to go five hours without flapping‚ covering 172 kilometers (just under 107 miles) in that time.That being said‚ weather didn’t seem to have much of an impact on whether or not the condors flapped their wings. “This suggests that decisions about when and where to land are crucial‚ as not only do condors need to be able to take off again‚ but unnecessary landings will add significantly to their overall flight costs‚” explained study author Dr Hannah Williams in a statement at the time.Thankfully for the younger birds‚ that decision-making ability doesn’t seem to be something that only comes with age – all of the condors in the study were immature. “Our results demonstrate that even inexperienced birds can cover vast distances over land without flapping‚” the authors write.It’s an impressive feat‚ but it’s not just the big birds that are capable of such record-breaking flight tricks – the title for the longest time a bird can fly without landing‚ for example‚ goes to a much smaller feathered friend.

A lot of space debris is simply dropped down towards Earth‚ where the friction of the atmosphere should burn it up and destroy it before it can reach us. However‚ that is not always the case‚ and NASA is now investigating whether a piece of a battery pallet released in 2021 came crashing down through the roof of a home in Naples‚ Florida on March 8.The batteries had been used on the International Space Station (ISS) for years‚ and once they were no longer useful‚ a whole pallet of them was dropped from the ISS. It was going to orbit Earth for a while‚ but the air friction with the most tenuous layers of the atmosphere would eventually slow it down enough and make it come down.“Mission controllers in Houston commanded the Canadarm2 robotic arm to release an external pallet loaded with old nickel-hydrogen batteries into Earth orbit on Thursday morning. It is safely moving away from the station and will orbit Earth between two to four years before burning up harmlessly in the atmosphere‚” NASA wrote in a statement back on March 11‚ 2021.Best laid plans‚ am I right? The nine batteries were packed on the HTV9 cargo ship that visited the ISS between May and Aug 2020. Despite expectation that the pallet was going to burn‚ it became clear as it got lower that about half a tonne of the original 2.6 would survive the atmospheric burn‚ as astronomer Jonathan McDowell reported on Twitter.   Details were also shared by the European Space Agency which was tracking this object.“The total mass of the batteries is estimated at 2.6 metric tonnes‚ most of which may burn up during the reentry. While some parts may reach the ground‚ the casualty risk – the likelihood of a person being hit – is very low‚” a statement said.It was on a follow-up to McDowell’s first tweet that Alejandro Otero reported that what he believed was a piece of the pallet had crashed through the roof and two floors of his house‚ almost hitting his son. McDowell assisted Otero‚ who got in touch with the Aerospace Corporation‚ and NASA then got in touch.       IFLScience is not responsible for content shared from external sites."NASA collected an item in cooperation with the homeowner‚ and will analyze the object at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida as soon as possible to determine its origin‚" NASA told AFP on Tuesday. "More information will be available once the analysis is complete."It is unclear if anyone including NASA is liable for damage. The space station was issued a fine for littering when bits of Skylab fell in a town in Australia‚ but they didn’t pay it.

Everyone in Japan will have the same surname by 2531‚ according to a simulation run at the Tohoku University research center.Japan‚ where same-sex marriage is still illegal‚ currently requires couples to choose between their surnames when they get married. Ninety-six percent choose to go with the man's name. According to Professor Hiroshi Yoshida at Tohoku University's Research Center for Aging Economy and Society‚ if the law is not changed this will lead to a situation where every Japanese citizen will have the family name "Sato" in a little over 500 years.As of 2023‚ Sato was the most popular surname in Japan‚ shared by 1.529 percent of the population. That seems low considering that the claim is that shouting "Sato" in 2531 Tokyo will result in just about every local citizen looking in your direction. However‚ the surname Sato grew by 1.0083 times from 2022 to 2023.Continuing this growth rate (a huge assumption)‚ everyone becomes Sato by 2531. "From a general probability perspective‚ there are many cases of people marrying into a group with a major surname‚" the paper explains‚ "and if this process is repeated over a long period of time‚ there is a possibility that they will be absorbed into the Sato surname and converge."If‚ however‚ Japan changes the law to allow for separate surnames‚ by that year only 7.96 percent of Japan's citizens will be named Sato (assuming that 39.3 percent choose to continue to select one surname‚ the proportion of people who said they would do so in a 2022 survey). Under this scenario‚ we would still reach the Sato totality by 3310. "However‚ according to 'Japan's Future Population Projections' 2023.4‚ the Japanese population in 2120 is estimated to be 41‚229‚000. If this pace continues‚ the Japanese population is estimated to be 281‚866 in 2‚531 and 22 in 3310‚" the paper adds. "In other words‚ even if 100 percent adoption of the Sato surname is postponed for 800 years‚ there is a high possibility that the Japanese people themselves will become extinct before that due to the declining birthrate."Of course‚ it's probably not going to play out like that. The research was put together at the request of the Think Name Project‚ which aims to pressure the government into allowing married couples to have separate names‚ and was meant to highlight an absurd scenario if the law is not changed. Which is a shame for anybody who wants to know the surname of everybody in Japan‚ but only wants to learn one name.[H/T: The Guardian]

The Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) Camera is now complete. It will soon travel to the Vera C. Rubin Observatory where it will provide an incredible new eye on the southern sky and help us better answer fundamental questions about the nature of dark matter and dark energy.The LSST camera is a technical marvel. It is 3‚200 megapixels and it weighs 3‚000 kilograms (6‚600 pounds). The images produced by the camera are so large that to screen them properly it would take 378 4K ultra-high-definition televisions in a grid to screen them properly. What a device!“With the completion of the unique LSST Camera at SLAC and its imminent integration with the rest of Rubin Observatory systems in Chile‚ we will soon start producing the greatest movie of all time and the most informative map of the night sky ever assembled‚” Director of Rubin Observatory Construction and University of Washington professor eljko Ivezić‚ said in a statement.       The camera itself has two lenses. The first one is 1.5 meters (5 feet) across‚ making it the largest ever lens constructed for such a purpose. The second one is 90 centimeters (3 feet) wide‚ which is also not exactly small. Both are custom-designed‚ and the second one is used to seal the focal plane of the lens‚ which is kept in a vacuum.The focal plane is the beating heart of the camera. It is made of 201 CCD sensors – similar to what you find in a usual digital camera – but these are custom-made. Each pixel is 10 microns wide and the focal plane is so flat that its surface doesn’t vary by more than one-tenth of the width of a human hair. All together‚ you have a revolutionary resolution.“Its images are so detailed that it could resolve a golf ball from around 25 kilometers (15 miles) away‚ while covering a swath of the sky seven times wider than the full Moon. These images‚ with billions of stars and galaxies‚ will help unlock the secrets of the Universe‚” said SLAC professor and Rubin Observatory Deputy Director and Camera Program Lead Aaron Roodman.The Rubin Observatory will study how galaxies and clusters of galaxies have changed over billions of years‚ providing insights into the evolution of galaxies and the distribution of dark matter. It will measure supernovae‚ providing insights into the expansion of the universe and its cause: dark energy. It will also help study the solar system by spotting never-seen-before asteroids.The first light for the observatory is expected in January 2025.

Newsmax host Chris Plante took a look at how woefully unprepared President Joe Biden has left America with his forced green economic transition. On the April 1 edition of Chris Plante The Right Squad‚ Plante pointed out that the Biden administration had spent a fortune on electric vehicle chargers‚ but had almost nothing to show for it. “It’s been nearly two and a half years now since Joe Biden signed the bipartisan infrastructure law that allocated -- listen to this now -- $7.5 billion American taxpayer dollars to build electric vehicle charging stations across the country. And The Washington Post reported today that‚ to date as of today‚ just seven EV charging stations with a total of 38 spots in four states are now operational‚ according to the Federal Highway Administration‚” Plante said. He summed up the brutal statistics: “So $7.5 billion  — two-and-a-half years — they've got seven charging stations and 38 plugins at I believe $197 million each.” Yikes.   One of Plante’s guests also went after the Biden EPA. Spectator Political Reporter Matthew Foldi told Plante that this slow rollout isn’t the first EV humiliation for the Biden Administration. “Remember Jen Granholm‚ the energy secretary's failed road trip? She couldn't charge. The cops were called‚” Foldi said‚ before adding‚ “The Wall Street Journal reported on how EVs and other digital-controlled products open extra access to the grid‚ which enemies can exploit. There are huge problems.”  Foldi brought up the ridiculous dichotomy of the Biden Administration pushing the nation towards electric vehicles while failing to take into consideration the possibility of enemy threats. “There are huge problems we're not even thinking about if you make a massive push towards vehicle electrification‚ which they're sprinting to‚ but failing to do‚” Foldi concluded. The Post reported that the $7.5 billion in funding ought to support “20‚000 charging spots or around 5‚000 stations‚” rather than the 38 charging spots and 7 stations that have been created in reality. The newspaper‚ true to its leftist form‚ mourned that “the sluggish build-out could slow the transition to electric cars.” At the same time that the Biden Administration is failing at building electric chargers‚ the Biden Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) still plans to implement Biden’s destructive and tyrannical electric vehicle mandate. In a post on X‚ Forbes Media chairman and editor-in-chief Steve Forbes called out the Biden administration for its push to ban Americans’ preferred vehicles through emission regulations: “Make no mistake‚ @EPA’s rule will ultimately ban gas-powered cars by mandating 50% EV sales by 2032.” Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News at 818-460-7477‚ CBS News at 212-975-3247 and NBC News at 212-664-6192 and demand they hold Biden and his cronies accountable for attempting to restrict fossil fuel production and Americans’ choices.

Sadly‚ the virulently anti-Israel pockets of the White House press corps took center stage on Tuesday during the first briefing since what appeared to have been a horrible‚ tragic accident in which Israeli airstrikes killed seven World Central Kitchen aid workers in Gaza. Naturally‚ numerous reporters took the opportunity to claim without evidence that the ever-unrepentant Israel purposefully targeted these innocents in defiance of international law.     ABC’s Selina Wang was first to stray into this territory‚ though she was nowhere near as explicit as the others.  After first asking Kirby for his “reaction to” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying these kinds of tragedies happen in war (and Kirby saying the U.S. will look forward to a full investigation from Israel)‚ Wang shot back by implicitly opining Netanyahu can’t be trusted and questioned why the U.S. “continue[s] to send aid to Israel without any conditions.” Kirby hit back at this take by noticing “we’ve had this discussion‚ you and me‚ quite a bit” and “you want us to hang some sort of condition over their neck”. He also told her Israel’s “still under a viable threat of Hamas” and the U.S.‚ like Israel‚ believes another October 7 can’t “happen again”. To throw a bone to the anti-Israel left‚ Kirby reiterated “[t]hat doesn’t mean we’re — whistling past graveyard” and “not paying attention to — to the civilian casualties or the civilian suffering” in Gaza. Unlike Wang‚ The Hill’s Niall Stanage has been more explicit in his hate of Israel. He’s also from Northern Ireland‚ so it’s never been all that surprising when he tees off:  Just wanted to follow up with a question that came from the front row about the conditions of military aid and you said that the questioner wanted you to hang some conditions over their necks‚ that [of] the Israelis‚ and your tone suggested you wouldn’t do that. Why not? Kirby had to have recognized Stanage as a frequent flier as he showed a tinge of attitude as he replied in part “I’ve already answered this question a whole bunch of times”. Stanage then flew off the handle by arguing without evidence Israel engaged in premeditated murder of the World Central Kitchen workers in “violation of international humanitarian law”. As any sensible person would‚ Kirby wasn’t having it and slammed Stanage for claiming with “no evidence” this “was a deliberate strike” (click “expand”): STANAGE: But on the point of conditions‚ the President‚ on February 8‚ issued a memo and it said — you already know this‚ but just for context — it said that it was the policy of this administration to prevent arms transfers that risk facilitating or otherwise contributing to violations of human rights or international humanitarian law. Is firing a missile of people who live in food and killing them not a violation of international humanitarian law? KIRBY: Well‚ the Israelis have already admitted that this was a mistake that they made. They’re doing investigation. They’ll get to the bottom of this. Let’s not get ahead of that. Your — your question presumes‚ at this very early hour‚ that it was a deliberate strike‚ that they knew exactly what they were hitting‚ that they were hitting aid workers and did it on purpose and there’s no evidence of that. I would also remind you‚ sir‚ that we continue to look at incidents as they occur. The State Department has a process in place and‚ to date as you and I are speaking‚ they have not found any incidents where the Israelis have violated international humanitarian law. And‚ lest you think we don’t take it seriously‚ I can assure you that we do. We look at this in real time. STANAGE: They have never violated international humanitarian law — ever — in the past five to six months? KIRBY: I’m telling you the State Department has looked at incidents in the past and has yet to determine that any of those incidents violate international humanitarian law. Always willing to openly promote Hamas propaganda‚ an angered Nadia Bilbassy of Saudi-funded Al Arabiya came next and had the gall to condemn Israel for killing Hamas leaders. She argued that Israeli strikes on Hamas officials in Lebanon and Syria‚ along with the World Central Kitchen tragedy “debunk[s]” his “theory and defense of Israel that it is difficult for them” to completely avoid civilian casualties “because Hamas embedded with the civilian population where they can go after Hamas leaders in the heart of the civilian population[s]”. While Jean-Pierre‚ Jake Sullivan‚ or Biden might budge‚ Kirby largely didn’t by saying he’s “talked about this for months now that fighting in an urban‚ high — highly populated‚ condensed environment like that’s tough” and the IDF has “successfully taken strikes against Hamas leaders in Gaza”‚ but an investigation will get to the bottom of what went wrong this time. Fast-forward to the end of the Kirby block and The Independent’s Andrew Feinberg demanded Kirby refute the assertion that‚ based on reporting from the left-leaning Israeli newspaper Haaretz‚ the three strikes that hit the World Central Kitchen convoy were proof the workers “were targeted with the intent of killing everyone in that convoy.” Kirby remained level-headed as Feinberg twice pushed the claim this was intention and Israel should face “criminal penalties” (click “expand”): KIRBY: First of all‚ there’s an investigation going on‚ so why don’t we let it get done and why don’t we see what they find in terms of the decision making process that led to this terrible outcome? Prime Minister and the IDF have noted that it was their error. If you don’t like the word mistake‚ their error. They’re investigating it. Let ‘em do that work and let ‘em see what they come up wit and then we’ll go from there. FEINBERG: Sorry‚ one — one more‚ John. Two years ago‚ the IDF killed an Al Jazeera journalist. They said that that was a —a mistake‚ that she was wearing a mark press vest. She was shot anyway in that. KIRBY: They investigated it and they released the findings — their investigation which found that they were at fault. Go on. FEINBERG: They did‚ but my — my question‚ sir‚ is — in that case‚ these Israelis did not initiate any criminal proceeding. In this case if it’s found that marked convoy was deliberately targeted‚ if not with the first shot‚ but the second two shots‚ would the U.S. support criminal penalties? KIRBY: As I said‚ we would expect that‚ should there be a need for accountability‚ that account — accountability be properly put in place for whoever may be responsible for this‚ but again‚ that’s going to — a lot of that’s gonna depend on the investigation. To see the relevant transcript from the April 2 briefing‚ click here.

NBC’s Today anchor Savannah Guthrie traveled to CBS and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Tuesday to promote her new book‚ but before that‚ Colbert couldn’t help but ask about Ronna McDaniel-gate.  Guthrie claimed that the NBC brass “acknowledged a mistake” in hiring the former RNC chairwoman because “there’s a line and the line is truth.” A half-sincere‚ half-joking Colbert asked‚ “Well‚ one of the big stories about NBC and about NBC News recently was the hiring of and firing of Ronna McDaniel‚ who used to be head of the RNC‚ and so my question for you is why did you‚ Savannah Guthrie‚ personally make that decision to hire her? I want you to answer for your crimes. Why did you think that was the best idea?”     After some crosstalk and jests where Guthrie insisted she was still employed by NBC and therefore not going to say anything too crazy‚ she recalled‚ “No‚ I mean‚ look‚ it was an unpleasant few days at our network. No question about it.” Colbert followed up by wondering‚ “Did you know this was going to happen?” After Guthrie replied “absolutely not‚” he repeated himself‚ “So‚ there was no‚ like‚ company-wide email saying 'oh‚ heads-up‚ tomorrow we're going to announce this?'” Guthrie recalled‚ “No‚ no‚ no‚ I was not in the know. I knew nothing about it and‚ look‚ the bosses made a decision‚ they reversed that decision‚ they acknowledged a mistake‚ and we moved on‚ and the only thing I'll say about it is number one‚ I didn't have anything to do with it.” Paying lip service to the idea that outlets like NBC should have a variety of voices‚ Guthrie continued‚ “But look‚ I think the instinct to try to have a diversity of opinions and a diversity of perspectives and voices as we cover an election is the right instinct‚ and it's complex‚ and it's made more complex by the politics that we have right now‚ but‚ you know‚ I went to law school. In law school‚ we learned that if you didn't engage the counterargument‚ if you didn't know what all sides were saying‚ your own position was quite weak.” However‚ she was still glad to see that McDaniel was eventually let go‚ “So‚ I feel that particularly in mainstream media‚ we need to include an array of voices. But there's a line‚ and the line is truth. The line is facts and the line is you have to be someone upholding our democracy and that’s to me where the line is.” That would be more credible if NBC/MSNBC followed up by hiring at least one consistent conservative voice or didn't spread false information on a regular basis‚ if the media didn’t routinely freak out about conservative hires‚ or didn’t play nice with Democratic election deniers. The Late Show‚ meanwhile‚ never has any conservative voices unless Colbert ends up getting more than he bargained for when speaking to Liz Cheney. Here is a transcript for the April 2 show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 4/3/2024 12:06 AM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: Well‚ one of the big stories about NBC and about NBC News recently was the hiring of and firing of Ronna McDaniel‚ who used to be head of the RNC‚ and so my question for you is why did you‚ Savannah Guthrie‚ personally make that decision to hire her? SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: I’m glad that you— COLBERT: I want you to answer for your crimes. Why did you think that was the best idea?  GUTHRIE: I'm glad you have given me this platform— COLBERT: Thank you. GUTHRIE: Let me see if I can make this as boring as possible‚ this answer and I do still work there‚ you know that‚ right?  COLBERT: Sure‚ yeah. I do. I do. GUTHRIE: Do you have any openings around here? COLBERT: Yeah. So‚ yeah. GUTHRIE: No‚ I mean‚ look‚ it was an unpleasant few days at our network. No question about it. COLBERT: Did you know this was going to happen?  GUTHRIE: Absolutely not.  COLBERT: So‚ there was no‚ like‚ company-wide email saying “oh‚ heads-up‚ tomorrow we're going to announce this?” GUTHRIE: No‚ no‚ no‚ I was not in the know. I knew nothing about it and‚ look‚ the bosses made a decision‚ they reversed that decision‚ they acknowledged a mistake and‚ we moved on‚ and the only thing I'll say about it is number one‚ I didn't have anything to do with it.  But look‚ I think the instinct to try to have a diversity of opinions and a diversity of perspectives and voices as we cover an election is the right instinct‚ and it's complex‚ and it's made more complex by the politics that we have right now‚ but‚ you know‚ I went to law school. In law school‚ we learned that if you didn't engage the counterargument‚ if you didn't know what all sides were saying‚ your own position was quite weak.  So‚ I feel that particularly in mainstream media‚ we need to include an array of voices. But there's a line‚ and the line is truth. The line is facts and the line is you have to be someone upholding our democracy and that’s to me where the line is. 

Click to Skip Ahead Factors That Affect Litter Usage Frequently Asked Questions Cats are great pets and relatively easy to care for‚ though‚ of course‚ you still need to feed them and provide them with a litter box. Cat food has portions listed on the package‚ which enables you to determine how much you will need each month. The same isn’t usually true for cat litter. While most cat owners will use about 30 pounds of cat litter per month‚ that amount can vary significantly among owners and even monthly. If you want to find out exactly how much litter you will need each month‚ keep reading as we discuss the influencing factors. Factors That Affect Litter Usage Cat’s Personality Cats can be picky about the litter box and often won’t use it if it’s dirty. If you spend a great deal of time at work‚ you might be better off with multiple litter boxes that require you to use more litter‚ at least at first. Most experts recommend having one litter box for each cat‚ plus one. You should also have at least one on each floor to which your cat has access. Image Credit: New Africa‚ Shutterstock Cat’s Age and Size Kittens and small cats use less litter‚ while large cats require more to ensure their comfort. The age and size of your cat play a significant role in determining how much litter you should use. Litter Box Type The type of litter box that you choose can impact litter usage. Open-top‚ covered‚ automatic‚ or self-cleaning litter boxes have unique requirements‚ and some will require more litter. Naturally‚ a larger litter box will also require more litter than a smaller one‚ but it’s important to choose one at least 1.5 times the length of your cat. Number of Cats You’ll need to adjust your litter usage if you have multiple cats‚ as each cat will use some of the litter every time they visit the box. Image Credit: Zoran Photographer‚ Shutterstock Indoor or Outdoor Cat Outdoor cats won’t use the litter box as frequently as indoor cats‚ and you won’t need as much litter. However‚ outdoor cats face many dangers and can also cause a great deal of environmental damage‚ so it’s best to keep your cat inside. Litter Type The type of litter that you use will be one of the biggest factors determining how much you use each month‚ as it can vary in absorbency and clumping abilities‚ which affects how much you will need to replace each time your cat uses the box. Clumping vs. Non-clumping Clay Litter The better the litter clumps‚ the less you will use because the clumping action will keep the cat’s urine in place‚ so it’s easy to scoop out. Non-clumping litter will enable the urine to spread out farther‚ contaminating more litter. The soiled litter will also be harder to scoop out of the box‚ and doing so might contaminate even more litter. Owners typically use 28–40 pounds of clumping cat litter per month‚ while those that use non-clumping clay litter will often use as much as 60 pounds per month. Image Credit: Karnstocks‚ Shutterstock Clay vs. Natural Cat Litter While natural cat litter that uses recycled paper‚ crushed walnut shells‚ or pine can be better for the environment than clay‚ they don’t clump and are usually not that absorbent. You often have to change this litter more frequently than clay‚ and you might use as much as 100 pounds per month. Modern Litter Some newer litter types‚ like silica gel and diatomaceous earth‚ are more absorbent than clay but don’t clump. They will perform better than non-clumping clay litter‚ and some brands claim that they work even better than clumping litter‚ but they can be quite expensive‚ especially if you have several cats. No matter what kind of litter you use‚ bad smells often linger. That's where an effective litter additive like Hepper's Advanced Bio-Enzyme Cat Litter Deodorizer can make a big difference. Hepper Advanced Bio-Enzyme Cat Litter Deodorizer Powder Bio Enzymatic Cat Litter Freshener - Smart formulation uses natural ingredients eliminating cat...Save Money - Stuff for cats isn’t the cheapest. With this litter box odor eliminator‚ you’ll...Every Litter‚ Every Surface - Are you afraid this additive won’t work on your litter? Fear not!... Check Price on Amazon This biodegradable deodorizer is fragrance-free and safe for all ages of cats and types of litter. It uses bio-enzymes to naturally get rid of odors and help your litter last longer.  At Pet Keen‚ we've admired Hepper for many years‚ and decided to take a controlling ownership interest so that we could benefit from the outstanding designs of this cool company! Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) How Much Litter Do Cats Use? Small cats and kittens usually use about 7–10 pounds per week of cat litter‚ equaling 28–40 pounds per month. Large cats will use more litter and can reach 12 pounds per week or 48 pounds per month. Image Credit: Seika Chujo‚ Shutterstock How Much Does Cat Litter Cost Per Month? Most clay litters cost around $1 per pound‚ so you can expect to spend as much as $48 monthly on each of your cats. Natural and silica-based litter will be even more expensive. However‚ most cats will likely use less than 12 pounds per week‚ so this estimate is likely on the higher side. Will Two Cats Use Twice The Litter? Since the litter will absorb the urine and cover the feces‚ each cat will use about 1 pound daily‚ if not a little more. Tips for Efficient Litter Usage Experiment with different litter materials to find the best one for your cat. Scoop the litter box daily to remove waste and maintain a clean environment for your cat‚ which will help keep your pet happy and extend the life of the litter. Choose a high-quality cat litter that offers excellent absorbency and odor control. It may cost more up front‚ but it can save you money in the long run by reducing the need for frequent refills. Any changes in your cat’s litter box behavior can indicate health issues. Monitor your cat’s habits‚ and consult a veterinarian if you notice significant changes. Dispose of used litter in an environmentally friendly way when possible. You can compost certain types of litter or even recycle it‚ reducing your environmental impact. When refilling the litter box‚ measure the litter depth carefully to avoid overfilling. Using too much litter increases usage and makes it less comfortable for your cat. Most experts recommend 2–3 inches for the best results. Summary If you use clay litter like most cat owners‚ you can expect to go through 28–48 pounds of litter each month at approximately $1 per pound for each cat that you own. Other types of cat litter‚ like natural litter and silica-gel-based litter‚ can be better than clay in many ways‚ but you will likely use more of it‚ and it will be more expensive. Clean the litter box frequently to help promote a longer litter life‚ and experiment with different brands to find what you and your cat like best. Featured Image Credit: Oleg Opryshko‚ Shutterstock The post How Much Cat Litter per Month Should I Use? Usage Facts &; FAQ appeared first on Pet Keen.

Click to Skip Ahead Why Are Onions Bad for Dogs? Signs of Toxicity How Much is Toxic to Dogs? Diagnosis Treatment What to Do For many people‚ the aroma of onions or garlic simmering in a pan can be hard to resist. We also know how well they go in burgers‚ soups‚ pasta‚ and other common meals. That aroma is tempting for dogs‚ too‚ whose sense of smell is at least 10‚000 times better than ours. Unfortunately‚ onions and other members of this herb family are very toxic to dogs and cause life-threatening anemia. If your dog has ingested onions (particularly if it’s a large amount)‚ urgent veterinary attention is warranted.  This article will explore onion toxicity in dogs‚ while answering some questions you might have about why it’s so bad and what can be done about it.   Why Are Onions Bad for Dogs? There is a very destructive component of onions (and similar species) that causes red blood cells to burst. This component is an organic sulfide molecule that causes oxidative damage to red blood cells—think of this as the opposite of antioxidants. This results in anemia‚ or a reduced number of red blood cells in the body. Red blood cells are vital for carrying oxygen around the body‚ so when dogs ingest too much onion and become anemic‚ different tissues in the body do not receive enough oxygen. This can be life-threatening.  It is not just onions that can cause anemia in dogs. Onions are part of a family of plants called the Allium species‚ which also includes leeks‚ chives‚ garlic‚ and shallots. All members of the Allium species are toxic to dogs and capable of causing severe anemia.  Image Credit: Bukhta Yurii‚ Shutterstock What Are the Signs of Onion Toxicity? Initially‚ onion ingestion may cause no signs of illness at all. Some dogs will have gastrointestinal inflammation or “gut upset” on the first day following ingestion‚ resulting in vomiting‚ diarrhea‚ and sometimes abdominal pain. Anemia following onion ingestion can take days to develop. Signs to look for: Weakness and lethargy Reluctance to exercise Labored breathing Pale gums Dark/discolored urine How Much Onion is Toxic to Dogs? In general. data suggests that as little as half a percent of a dog’s body weight in onions can cause toxicity. As an example‚ a 20-pound dog would only need to eat 1.5 ounces of onion to suffer its toxic effects.  The amount of onion required to cause toxicity in dogs seems to be variable. While some dogs may tolerate a tiny amount of onion without any issues‚ other dogs appear much more sensitive to its effects. Cooked or rotten onion appears to be just as toxic as fresh onion. Additionally‚ some Japanese breeds of dog such as the Spitz appear to be particularly vulnerable to the effects of onions due to unique genetic factors. How Can Onion Toxicity Be Diagnosed? Onion toxicity can be diagnosed using a combination of history-taking‚ physical examination‚ and several blood tests. This will include a total red blood cell count‚ as well as an examination of red blood cells under the microscope to look for physical (“oxidative”) damage. Sometimes‚ imaging studies such as X-rays and ultrasound may be required to rule out other potential causes of anemia. There is no specific blood test to check for the presence of onion in a dog’s system.  How Is Onion Toxicity Treated? This depends in part on how severe the signs of illness are. If only a small amount of onion was ingested‚ resulting in vomiting and diarrhea‚ but the risk of anemia is deemed low‚ management at home may be warranted. This may involve activated charcoal‚ anti-nausea medications‚ and probiotics. Dogs experiencing anemia due to onion ingestion require more intensive and aggressive treatment. This may include fluids via a drip to correct dehydration‚ blood transfusions‚ oxygen supplementation‚ supportive medications (as above)‚ and monitoring at a vet hospital.  Image Credit: Jeab Ploykrachang‚ Shutterstock My Dog Just Ate Onions – What Should I Do? If your dog has just gotten into some onions‚ or if you’ve fed them to your dog unaware of their potential harm‚ arrange an urgent visit to your veterinarian. Vets will often give dogs medication to make them vomit‚ which should rid the stomach of onions and prevent the risk of anemia developing in a few days.  If your dog ate onions a few days ago and is now showing signs of being unwell‚ you should also arrange an urgent visit to your veterinarian‚ as diagnostics and treatment may be required.  Conclusion Dogs are very susceptible to onion poisoning‚ and the anemia caused by onions can be life-threatening. Thankfully‚ vets can induce vomiting early to get rid of the onions from the stomach; treatment for anemia is also possible and usually gets dogs back into good health. As always‚ early veterinary intervention gives your canine companion the best chance of a positive outcome.  In the meantime‚ keep any onion-containing meals away from your dog‚ and if they like vegetables‚ consider cucumber or carrots instead.  Sources VCA Hospitals DVM 360 MSD Vet Manual VCA Hospitals PetMD PDSA UK Featured Image Credit: Shutterbug75‚ Pixabay The post My Dog Ate Onions – What Should You Do (Vet Answer) appeared first on Pet Keen.

I first encountered the Twitter account “Slime Mold Time Mold” after seeing a viral thread about the chemical causes of the American obesity epidemic. The next thing I knew‚ the people behind the account were running experiments around “all-potato” diets — I even had friends who participated in them. Seriously‚ friends who bought pounds of potatoes a week and even ate them‚ all because of a research project they learned about on Twitter. SMTM is nothing if not a cultic figure in a certain corner of the web. But what exactly are they? Who are they? Is it all a big performance‚ or are they DIY scientists? Or are they institutional scientists hiding behind an anonymous account? I reached out to them to learn more … though‚ you might be left with more questions than answers. Katherine: What is “Slime Mold Time Mold”? Who’s behind it? SMTM: We are mad scientists who are gathering in the spaceship MOLD TIME. We will play freely without fear of risky things. They must create new dreams and findings by breaking traditional styles. Katherine: Very Parliament. You were put on my radar thanks to your viral thread about the mysteries of obesity. For people who aren’t already familiar with that thread‚ what are the eight mysteries? SMTM: The first mystery is the epidemic itself. For most of history‚ the obesity rate was about 1% to 3%‚ even when people had all the food they wanted. Today‚ many countries have a 40% obesity rate or higher. Even in “lean” countries like Italy‚ France‚ and Sweden‚ the obesity rate is around 20%. The second mystery is how quickly the shift occurred. In 1975‚ there wasn’t a single country on earth with an obesity rate higher than 15%. The third mystery is that obesity rates haven’t stopped climbing since 1980 and show no sign of slowing down. Obesity in the U.S. increased more than twice as much between 2010 and 2018 than it did between 2000 and 2008. After 40 years‚ this seems normal‚ but historically it is bizarre. Mystery four is that hunter-gatherers almost never become obese. Different hunter-gatherer groups eat very different diets. Some have diets that are extremely varied. Some survive largely off just two or three foods. But they almost never become obese or even overweight. This can’t be explained by the amount of food available or by physical activity‚ because many groups have more food than they can eat and partake in very little exercise. Mystery five is that zoo animals‚ domestic pets‚ and wild animals are becoming more obese as well. This can’t be the result of changes in their diets‚ because lab animals live in contained environments with highly controlled diets and are also becoming more obese. Even wild deer seem to be getting fatter and fatter. Mystery six is that there seems to be something especially fattening about processed human foods. Animals quickly become overweight on a diet of human snack foods but tend to remain lean on a diet of animal chow‚ even when the chow is also high in fat and nutritionally matched. Mystery seven is that people who live at higher altitudes have lower rates of obesity. Colorado is the highest-altitude U.S. state and has the lowest rate of obesity. Mississippi has the highest rate of obesity and is only a few hundred feet above sea level. This isn’t limited to the U.S. — we see the same altitude-obesity relationship in countries like China‚ Spain‚ Tibet‚ and Iran. Mystery eight is that diets don’t cause reliable weight loss. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in different meta-analyses published over the last decade. On pretty much every diet‚ people lose a little weight at first but gain most of that weight back within a year. Though the jury’s still out on the potato diet; we have to wait another year to see if people keep the weight off since we just got the first results. These are the eight mysteries we described in Part I of our series "A Chemical Hunger‚" and you can check out that post for more detail on all eight. There are also two more mysteries that we would have included if we had written the series today. Mystery nine is that some countries are much more obese than others‚ and no one knows why. The most obese countries in the world are all tiny island nations in the South Pacific‚ some of them with obesity rates of more than 50%. The most obese region in the world isn’t North America; it’s the Middle East‚ where most countries have obesity rates above 30%. Kuwait is more obese than the United States and has been for a long time. There are a lot of weird patterns like this. Finally‚ mystery ten is that different professions have very different rates of obesity. Truck drivers‚ firefighters‚ mechanics‚ and some health care professions are much more obese than average. Surveyors‚ designers‚ researchers‚ and a whole different set of health care professions are much less obese than average. This doesn’t have to do with class or income level — research by the CDC consistently finds little or no relationship between obesity and income. Katherine: What inspired that thread? How did you vet what you found? SMTM: We’re detectives. We noticed a bunch of mysteries and figured we should write about them‚ and then it got a little out of control. Next thing we knew‚ we had several thousand words on the subject. Whoops. We vetted what we found by reading primary sources and using our brains. We also emailed some of the authors of the papers we read to get more detail. And we asked our smart friends what they thought. Then we put it on the internet and saw what people on the internet said. Hey‚ it worked for Linux. Katherine: Why do you think some people aren’t susceptible to obesity? SMTM: It seems clear that the differences are largely genetic. Twin studies‚ for example‚ point clearly to genetic differences. We think this explains most of why some people are susceptible to obesity and others aren’t. Beyond that‚ there are geographic differences — people living in Colorado are going to be less susceptible than people living in Mississippi‚ and people living in Thailand will be less susceptible than people living in Kuwait. So far no one has done an experiment to show that this geographic relationship is causal‚ but there are a lot of anecdotes that suggest it is. It also looks like there are some big by-profession differences. Something about being a truck driver or a mechanic seems to make you much more susceptible to obesity. It might be something about working around vehicles or heavy machinery since transportation workers are also unusually obese. Katherine: What is the least satisfying explanation for obesity? What about the most? SMTM: Willpower is the least satisfying common explanation in our opinion. There are real differences in willpower between individuals‚ but it’s not like everyone’s willpower started suddenly getting worse 50 years ago or that people have astronomically less willpower in Kuwait than they do in Thailand. People in the 1920s had ice cream and “lard-based diets”; there were plenty of calories around‚ but very few people got obese. In the words of Stephen Guyenet‚ “This model seems to exist mostly to make lean people feel smug since it attributes their leanness entirely to wise voluntary decisions and a strong character. I think at this point‚ few people in the research world believe the CICO model.” We think the contamination hypothesis is the most satisfying explanation so far‚ though the jury is still out on what contaminant or contaminants are responsible. Of the contaminants we’ve considered‚ right now we think there’s the most evidence for lithium. But that doesn’t mean we’ve dismissed other contaminants. It really might be more than one — for example‚ we’re currently doing some analysis of publicly available CDC data to see if we can find more evidence for or against PFAS. Katherine: I’ve always thought that the “threat” of body positivity is overblown — it’s for people who are already obese — but many people on the center and rightwards think that it perpetuates obesity‚ as opposed to validating existing life choices. Do you have any strong opinions on the role culture plays? SMTM: Culture is all about signals. When the environment changes‚ things become easier or harder‚ or they take on a new context and new meaning‚ and that changes culture. When being low-class meant working in the field and it was hard to keep your skin fair‚ having fair skin was a good way to convey that you were upper-class. When fabric was expensive‚ styles with pleats‚ trains‚ and many layers were a good way to convey that you were rich. Now that fabric is cheap and poor people work in dimly lit warehouses (to a first approximation)‚ high-class and wealthy people must find new ways to show off. Things that encourage people to move to Kuwait or get jobs as truck drivers may perpetuate obesity. Other than that‚ we’re not sure culture plays any role at all. If anything‚ obesity perpetuates weird cultural stuff. We’ve tried shaming people about obesity for the last couple of decades and it clearly doesn’t work‚ not to mention that it’s mean. We think it’s most important to be excellent to each other. Katherine: Why do you think obesity is such a sensitive topic these days? SMTM: Is it? People like having control over their health and appearance. Katherine: For people who read your thread and might be scared — how can they protect themselves from contaminants? SMTM: Honestly‚ there's not much you can do. We discuss this at some length in Part X of our series. The best advice we can give is: No grocery store sheet cakes. Seriously‚ who knows what’s in those things? Or we do know‚ and trust us‚ you don’t want to know. Don’t eat them. Besides this‚ there are a few things. You can change professions‚ since some professions are much heavier than others. You can move to a less obese region‚ like Colorado‚ or a less obese country‚ like Thailand. If moving isn’t an option‚ you can spend a long vacation there; that might help. But these would only protect you against the contaminants that cause obesity (assuming contaminants cause obesity). If you move to Thailand‚ you may be getting exposed to more of other things. You could also try eating more potatoes. We don’t know why the potato diet leads to so much weight loss‚ but it clearly does‚ at least in some people. Possibly it does something to clear your system of the contaminants that cause obesity. But if it’s not that‚ it’s something else. Katherine: Are you black-pilled on fixing human food and water sources? SMTM: No‚ we’re pretty optimistic. We fixed lead in our gasoline and figured out how to do public sanitation and stuff. We think that if we can pin down what contaminants are a problem‚ remediation will be pretty straightforward. It's not impossible; the worst part about these things is just that they take time‚ and it’s hard to figure out what’s going on in the first place. The real problem is that there isn’t much effort being put into unknown problems. Water treatment engineers are on top of the known contaminants‚ but there aren’t many people focusing on figuring out if there are unknown contaminants we should be concerned about. When people do focus on unknown contaminants‚ progress seems to be easy. We’ve raised a bit of money to do some larger projects‚ which will be coming out in the next few months‚ but everything you’ve seen from us so far has been on a total budget of zero dollars. It’s kind of like Thomas Kuhn’s distinction between paradigm shifts and what he called “normal science.” If we’re right‚ then this is a minor paradigm shift in obesity research. Paradigm shifts are hard. But once a paradigm shift is complete‚ you can pass the new paradigm off to normal science‚ filled with people who are exceedingly good at what Kuhn calls puzzle-solving — developing new techniques for measuring these compounds in food and water‚ detecting them in the human body‚ and removing them from the environment. This system already exists and is well geared to solve puzzles once people like us discover the right paradigm. Katherine: What’s the potato diet? Why potatoes? What would you say to someone who thought you were crazy after reading that? SMTM: The potato diet is a diet where you get most or even all of your calories from potatoes. Perhaps surprisingly‚ this is easy for many people to stick to‚ and people who stick to it for 28 days lose an average of 10.6 pounds. We decided to study it because there were a few really impressive case studies‚ and we figured it would be nice to have more data. We would say: They’re right; we are crazy. They call it mad science for a reason.