Russia's Krasheninnikov volcano erupts for the first time in 600 years
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
30 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Strong calf muscles linked to better chances of living a healthy life
If you want a leg up in the longevity stakes, start working on those calf muscles. Scientists say they can be a predictor of cardiovascular risk factors, nutritional status - and even mortality. Experts say muscular calves are a strong indicator of physical performance, especially among the elderly. Muscle decline, known as sarcopenia, generally accelerates after the age of 60 and it can lead to various health problems, including decreased mobility, increased risk of falls and fractures and reduced physical function. Sarcopenia is estimated to affect 10 to 16 per cent of the elderly worldwide and is linked to a higher likelihood of developing multiple other health issues. It is also associated with a significantly increased risk of death, with some studies reporting a 364 per cent higher risk for centenarians with sarcopenia compared to those with normal muscle mass. However, health experts say calf circumference can indicate overall health and disease risk, including sarcopenia, because it is correlated with muscle mass and fat distribution in the body. Some studies suggest looking at calf circumference compared to the circumference of a person's waist. This is because it takes into account both obesity (excess abdominal fat) and muscle mass, making it potentially a better indicator of overall health risks than BMI or waist circumference alone. To calculate your own waist-to-calf ratio (WCR), divide your waist circumference by your calf circumference. Both measurements should be taken in the same units (eg, centimeters or inches). Experts say a healthy WCR is generally around 2.4 or less, in whichever unit you are measuring in. A WCR within this range suggests a healthy balance between middle and lower body fat distribution. Ratios above 2.4 are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular and circulatory diseases, while those below this range are considered healthy. One study by scientists at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Fuwai Hospital in Beijing looked at data from 37 studies involving 62,736 participants over the age of 18. From their analysis, they found that for each 1 cm (0.4 inches) increase in calf circumference, the risk of death was reduced by five per cent. In another study, led by researchers at the Catholic University of Sacred Heart in Italy, scientists discovered that calf circumference was directly linked to strength elsewhere in the body. They evaluated the relationship between calf circumference and frailty, physical performance, muscle strength, and functional status in people 80 and older. The calf circumference was measured independently at the point of greatest circumference as opposed to in ratio with a person's waist. They found physical performance and muscle strength 'significantly improved' as the calf circumference increased. They also measured the frailty of participants by grading them based on their walking speed, strength, weight, energy levels and levels of exhaustion. When the frailty grades were matched with calf circumference, they found the 'frailty index score was significantly lower among subjects with higher calf circumference'. The experts concluded that their findings support the notion that calf circumference can be an indicator of muscle mass, and potentially strength and overall fitness. They did not state if participants were overweight. Obesity can lead to larger calf circumference measurements simply due to the accumulation of fat, even if the underlying muscle mass is low. This can result in false-normal calf circumference values, potentially masking sarcopenia (age-related muscle loss) or a decline in muscle strength that would otherwise be indicated by a smaller circumference. Last year, another study out of Italy investigated the link between calf circumference and diabetes. The researchers found after analyzing data from 8,900 participants that the WCR values were higher among those with diabetes than in those without diabetes, which affects more than 37 million Americans. Further analyses were conducted to compare the average WCR among subjects with diabetes, pre-diabetes, and no diabetes. The results showed 'significant differences' in the mean values of WCR across the groups, with an average WCR of 2.4 in individuals without diabetes, 2.6 in individuals with pre-diabetes, and 2.7 in diabetic individuals. The researchers concluded: 'Muscle mass plays a crucial role in glucose metabolism and overall metabolic health. 'Indeed, sarcopenia has been linked to insulin resistance and an increased risk of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular complications.' Additionally, one 2022 study out of China suggests that WCR could also be used as an indicator for cognitive impairment in older adults, which is often considered a precursor to dementia. Researchers recruited 3,312 participants who were free of cognitive impairment and then in a follow-up test more than three years later, they found that 565 of these recruits had developed a decline in mental abilities that affected thinking, memory, and decision-making. From looking at their WCR they found a 'relatively stronger association with cognitive impairment compared with each circumference, suggesting maintaining both higher lean mass and lower central fat in older adults for the prevention of cognitive impairment.' Experts say that strong calf muscles, particularly the soleus muscles, play a role in pumping blood back up to the heart. This contributes to healthy blood pressure and blood flow to the brain, which are crucial for optimal cognitive function.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Snail's ability to regrow eyes raises hope for blind humans
A snail's ability to regrow its eyes after they have been cut off could one day see humans create a cure for some forms of blindness. The apple snail has the unique ability to regenerate its eyes, which are a complex organ like those of people. Scientists studying the regrowth process discovered the gene likely responsible for the optical revival in the mollusc is called pax6 and is also found in humans. 'Our studies reveal that, akin to humans, pax6 is indispensable for eye development in apple snails, establishing this as a research organism to unravel the mechanisms of camera-type eye regeneration,' the scientists write in their study. 'This work expands our understanding of complex sensory organ regeneration and offers a way to explore this process.' The scientists hope to study this gene in further detail to see if the gene could offer routes to future therapies in people to treat humans with eye injuries causing sight issues in the future. Snails have been known to regrow their heads since the 18th century but the latest work is the first to fully identify the eye-specific regeneration of the animal. The apple snail is the only animal with a camera-type eyeball that is known to be able to regenerate the sight organ. This type of eye has a cornea, a lens and a retina and are found in all vertebrates as well as spiders, squid and some snails. 'We did a lot of work to show that many genes that participate in human eye development are also present in the snail,' said study author Dr Alice Accorsi, assistant professor of molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Davis. 'After regeneration, the morphology and gene expression of the new eye is pretty much identical to the original one.' The study found that the snails regrew the eye components in 15 days and then these matured for several more weeks, but Dr Accorsi said there is no conclusive evidence the snails can actually see through the new eye. Future work will try and confirm if they can. The study found the pax6 gene to be key in how eyes develop, and a follow up will see if it is also instrumental in regeneration. 'If we find a set of genes that are important for eye regeneration, and these genes are also present in vertebrates, in theory we could activate them to enable eye regeneration in humans,' Dr Accorsi said.
Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Daily Mail
How will you die? Scientists reveal the odds of being killed by everything from an asteroid strike to an elephant attack
From asteroid impacts to elephant attacks, there are plenty of nasty ways to die that might keep you up at night. Now, scientists have revealed just how much you need to worry about each of these potential disasters. The bad news is that death by asteroid strike is much more likely than you might have thought. According to physicists from the Olin College of Engineering, the average person is significantly more likely to be killed by a space rock than to be struck by lightning. Using the latest NASA data, physicists from the Olin College of Engineering found that there are 22,800 near-earth objects (NEOs) measuring 140 metres or larger. Assuming that an impact will kill one in 1,000 people, your odds of being dying in a collision with a space rock are one in 156,000. By contrast, the odds of being killed by a lightning strike are just one in 163,000. However, if it is any comfort, scientists say you are far more likely to be killed in a car crash long before that ever happens. Scientists have worked out exactly how likely you are to die to everything from asteroid impacts to elephant attacks. This table shows how likely these events are to happen, and how likely you are to die as a result The bad news is that you are much more likely to be killed by an asteroid impact than by a lightning strike. Although car crashes are far more deadly on average According to the researchers, each year there is a 0.0091 per cent chance that a 140-metre or larger asteroid will slam into the Earth. That means there is a staggeringly high one in 156 chance of the Earth being struck by an asteroid within any given person's lifetime. If that were to happen, the blast could be thousands of times larger than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. In the worst-case scenario, a large enough asteroid could produce global events on a civilisation-ending scale. In their pre-print paper, soon to be published in the Planetary Science Journal, the researchers write: 'The dust lofting alone has the potential, in some cases, to obscure the sun to the point of stopping photosynthesis, which would then cause a mass extinction.' However, a 140-metre asteroid might land harmlessly in the ocean and cause no deaths, or slam into a populated city and kill up to one million people. To reflect this, the researchers say that the risk of death by asteroid ranges from essentially zero to near certainty based on a number of factors. To help put the odds of an asteroid death in perspective, the researchers also worked out how likely you are to die in a host of other ways. In their study, the researchers calculated both how likely it is that these events will happen to someone in their lifetime and how likely they are to die in that scenario. Their calculations suggest that the odds of being struck by lightning are just one in 16,300, which is only fatal in around one in 10 cases. Likewise, according to a study conducted in Nepal, the odds of being attacked by an elephant are about one in 14,000. Since those attacks are fatal around two-thirds of the time, your odds of being killed by an elephant are a surprisingly high one in 21,000. This analysis also reveals that, compared to the risk of an asteroid impact, many parts of our everyday lives are absurdly dangerous. The researchers found that the average person has a roughly one in 66 chance of suffering carbon monoxide poisoning, and a one in 714 chance of dying as a result. Likewise, the flu is much more likely to kill you than an asteroid impact, lightning strike, or elephant attack. Killing roughly one in 1,000 people, the flu is about as deadly as an impact from a 140-metre asteroid, but you are almost guaranteed to catch it at some point in your life. How likely is it that someone will be killed by space junk? Researchers calculated that the chance of a piece of rocket body hitting a plane was one in 430,000 each year. Given that there are around 200 people per plane, this gives a fatality risk of one in 2,200. Previous studies have estimated a higher risk due to debris breaking up and satellites falling to Earth. The Aerospace Corporation says the risk of someone being killed by space debris while on a plane is one in 1,000. Other studies estimate that the chances of one or more people being killed on the ground by falling space debris in the next ten years is one in 10. Yet it is driving that turns out to be one of the biggest risks to our lives, with a third of people being involved in an injury-causing crash at some point in their lives. Given that those crashes are deadly in around one in 100 cases, the odds of being killed in a car crash are roughly one in 273. You are, therefore, more than 500 times more likely to be killed in a traffic accident than by a deadly asteroid. On the other hand, some seemingly terrifying risks turn out to be hardly a threat at all. Death by rabies, for example, is almost entirely preventable through a vaccine called post-exposure prophylaxis. Of the 800,000 Americans who sought treatment for rabies following an animal bite, only five died - four of whom did not seek rabies post-exposure prophylaxis treatment. Of course, these probabilities are dependent on where you live and what kind of life you lead. If you don't live near elephants or refuse to jump out of a plane, you are very unlikely to die in an elephant attack or skydiving accident. Likewise, the researchers point out that someone who regularly checks their carbon monoxide alarms has a much lower chance of being killed by carbon monoxide poisoning. The point of doing these morbid calculations is that asteroid impacts are, like rabies deaths, entirely avoidable in theory. The researchers write: 'The asteroid impact is the only natural disaster that is technologically preventable.' In 2022, NASA's DART mission showed that humanity can knock an approaching asteroid off course by hitting it with a fast-moving satellite. However, these missions require years of planning and huge amounts of investment. By comparing the risk posed by asteroids to threats we face every day, we can decide if it is worth investing millions in a new space defence program or whether we should be more worried about improving road safety. WHAT COULD WE DO TO STOP AN ASTEROID COLLIDING WITH EARTH? Currently, NASA would not be able to deflect an asteroid if it were heading for Earth but it could mitigate the impact and take measures that would protect lives and property. This would include evacuating the impact area and moving key infrastructure. Finding out about the orbit trajectory, size, shape, mass, composition and rotational dynamics would help experts determine the severity of a potential impact. However, the key to mitigating damage is to find any potential threat as early as possible. NASA and the European Space Agency completed a test which slammed a refrigerator-sized spacecraft into the asteroid Dimorphos. The test is to see whether small satellites are capable of preventing asteroids from colliding with Earth. The Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) used what is known as a kinetic impactor technique—striking the asteroid to shift its orbit. The impact could change the speed of a threatening asteroid by a small fraction of its total velocity, but by doing so well before the predicted impact, this small nudge will add up over time to a big shift of the asteroid's path away from Earth. This was the first-ever mission to demonstrate an asteroid deflection technique for planetary defence. The results of the trial are expected to be confirmed by the Hera mission in December 2026.
