100 Men vs. 1 Gorilla: An Expert's Take on Viral Debate - CNN 5 Good Things - Podcast on CNN Audio
100 Men vs. 1 Gorilla: An Expert's Take on Viral Debate CNN 5 Good Things 16 mins
When disaster struck in California, these young robotics engineers refused to quit, and their hard work paid off. A primatologist weighs in on the viral 100 men vs. silverback gorilla debate. After losing a loved one to drunk driving, the Montana Bar Fairies helped pass a new state law. An Australian miniature dachshund survived over a year in the wild. Plus, could we grow food in space?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
How far you walk may be more important than speed to fix chronic back pain
While walking is beneficial for reducing the risk of lingering chronic low back pain, experts say that it is how you walk that really matters. Walking more is a bigger factor than how fast you walk, Norwegian researchers said on Friday. 'Our findings suggest that daily walking volume is more important than mean walking intensity in reducing the risk of chronic lower back pain,' they wrote in a study published in the journal JAMA Network Open. The authors also found that walking for more than 100 minutes a day -- or an hour and forty minutes -- was associated with a 23 percent lower risk of chronic low back pain compared with walking fewer than 78 minutes a day. Walking 125 minutes or more daily also lowered the risk by 24 percent. The study included data from more than 11,000 patients aged 20 years and older, who were a part of the Trøndelag Health Study. Their health was first assessed during the years from 2017 to 2019. The authors later followed up from 2021 to 2023. Participants did not have chronic low back pain at the start of the study. To measure their walking, they wore accelerometers. Following just over four years, 1,659 participants reported experiencing chronic low back pain. They noted that participants with a higher walking volume tended to exercise more often and that the reduction in risk of chronic low back pain leveled off beyond walking for 100 minutes a day. Still, they urged that these findings could inform policy related to the costly condition going forward. The findings come after previous research that also identified being active as a way to alleviate chronic low back pain. Back pain affects more than a quarter of Americans. Another study last year found that people with chronic low back pain who walked 30 minutes a day for five days a week went twice as long without a recurrence as those who did not walk, according to UCLA Health. Approximately 70 percent of individuals experience a recurrence of low back pain within 12 months following recovery from an episode, Australian researchers found. Walking can help to strengthen the muscles that support the spine, and increase circulation and joint mobilization, according to Healthline. It is the sixth-most costly condition in the U.S. and can be incredibly debilitating, making even standing up or sitting at work a struggle. 'If confirmed by future research, these results could inform public health strategies aimed at preventing chronic low back pain, as well as complementing current guidelines that solely report on physical activity as a secondary prevention tool,' they said.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
The science behind the smell of rain
You know the smell. It's there every time the first fat raindrops hit the ground—a distinctive, earthy scent that suffuses the air, an aroma that speaks of the changing seasons and promises relief from stifling summer heat. There's a name for the smell of rain, too: 'petrichor,' a poetic portmanteau of the Greek words 'petros' (stone) and 'ichor' (the blood of the gods in Greek mythology). Petrichor: the smell of rain. But what causes it? The name 'petrichor' was coined by Australian scientists Isabel Bear and Dick Thomas in 1964, in a paper that constituted perhaps the first serious scientific attempt to explain the phenomenon. The duo used the word to refer to an oil that they distilled from samples of soil and vegetation that were left for up to a year exposed to air and daylight but shielded from rain. They found that the oil contained a complex mixture of volatile organic compounds. One question left unanswered by Bear and Thomas was the origin of these compounds, and subsequent research has focused on one particular compound, a volatile bicyclic alcohol called geosmin. The compound was isolated a year after Bear and Thomas's paper, and its name literally means 'earth smell.' Along with another volatile organic compound called 2-methylisoborneol or 2-MIB, geosmin is primarily responsible for the characteristic smell of earth—and both contribute greatly to the smell of rain. Ryan Busby, an ecologist at the US Army's Corps of Engineers, tells Popular Science that these compounds exist in soil the world over, and that they're spritzed into the air whenever soil is disturbed. '[The compounds] accumulate in the pore spaces in the soil,' Busby explains. 'There might be some binding to soil particles. [And] research has shown that that impact with the soil surface causes the volatiles to be released into the atmosphere.' So where do geosmin and 2-MIB come from? Busby says that while the source of both compounds remains the subject of plenty of active research, the current scientific consensus is that they are released by soil-dwelling bacteria. Differing ratios of the two compounds may explain why the smell differs subtly from place to place. 'Geosmin is pretty consistent across the environment, while 2-MIB is more variable. [Where 2-MIB is present], it is released in much higher concentrations, so you get areas where there's huge concentrations, and then areas where there's none,' Busby says. The other components that make up petrichor—a myriad less powerful plant-related volatiles, and also perhaps the distinctive acrid smell of ozone that accompanies lightning—vary from location to location. Humans are remarkably sensitive to the smell of geosmin, in particular. In water, it can be detected at concentrations as low as 4 ng/L, which equates to about one teaspoon in 200 Olympic swimming pools. Busby says there are several theories for why this might be. 'One [theory] is finding water sources,' he explains. 'Geosmin seems to be more prevalent in moist, fertile soils.' The presence of moist soil means the presence of water, and it's easy to see how being able to catch a whiff of geosmin on the wind and follow it to a source of water would provide a valuable evolutionary advantage. It's not just humans who appear to be able to rely on the scent of these volatile compounds to find water, Busby says. 'Camels can detect geosmin and find oases in the desert from 50 miles away. Mosquitoes use it to find stagnant ponds for laying eggs, and raccoons use it to find turtle nests and buried eggs.' But while the smell of geosmin and 2-MIB are appealing to us, their taste is the complete opposite. 'It's kind of funny,' muses Busby. 'We love the smell, but we hate the taste.' In water, these compounds are responsible for the musty, moldy taste that indicates that water isn't safe to drink. Busby says, 'Any time you drink water and you think, 'Oh, this, this tastes like lake water,' it's because those compounds are dissolved in what you're drinking.' Again, there's most likely an evolutionary reason for this: it's one thing for the soil around a water source to smell of bacteria, but if the water itself carries the distinctive musty odor of geosmin and 2-MIB, it also most likely carries the potential for gastrointestinal unpleasantness. Busby says that this explains why geosmin and 2-MIB are 'the primary odor contaminants of drinking water globally.' There's one unanswered question here, though: why are geosmin and 2-MIB there in the first place? As Busby points out, while it's clear that 'there are a number of uses for geosmin for us, we're not sure exactly why [bacteria] produce it in such quantities. It's a [large] energy cost to produce a chemical like that.' So why do soil-borne bacteria pump out geosmin and 2-MIB? What's in it for them? A paper published in Nature Microbiology in 2020 suggested a possible answer. The study examined interactions between Streptomyces—one variety of geosmin- and 2-MIB-producing bacteria—and small creatures called springtails. (Springtails are one of three varieties of six-legged arthropods that are not considered insects, and they have a taste for bacteria.) Crucially, the researchers found that in the bacteria studied, geosmin and 2-MIB were produced only by colonies that were also producing reproductive spores. In fact, they can only be produced by those specific colonies: 'The genes for geosmin and 2-MIB synthases are under the direct control of sporulation-specific transcription factors, constraining emission of the odorants to sporulating colonies,' the paper explains. Springtails are attracted by geosmin and 2-MIB, so unsurprisingly, upon arrival at the odor-emitting colonies, they helped themselves happily to a tasty microbial snack. In doing so, they also consumed the bacterial spores. The spores were then able to pass through the springtail's digestive tracts and emerge ready for action from the other end. Busby says this might also explain why the smell of rain is strongest when it comes from rain hitting dry soil. 'As soil dries out, the bacteria are going to go dormant, and there seems to be a flush of release [at that point]. So from that respect, [the compounds] are a way to attract something that maybe will carry [the bacteria] to a more conducive environment for growth.' It might feel like the poetic appeal of petrichor is diminished somewhat by discovering that the oh-so-evocative smell of rain most likely exists to encourage a bunch of tiny arthropods to poop out bacterial spores. But ultimately, it's another example of nature finding a way—a co-evolutionary relationship that recalls bees and pollen, and one that extends its benefits to the rest of us. So the next time the rain hits dry soil, think about the tiny bacteria that both lead us to water and stop us drinking from sources that might harm us. This story is part of Popular Science's Ask Us Anything series, where we answer your most outlandish, mind-burning questions, from the ordinary to the off-the-wall. Have something you've always wanted to know? Ask us.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Experts encourage innovative method to combat invasive fish devastating local ecosystems: 'It's a real natural, sustainable solution'
Invasive tilapia have been threatening endangered cod populations in Australia's Mary River, but experts say the cod are biting back, the Australian Broadcasting Corp. reported. Conservationists from Burnett Mary Regional Group performed a routine survey in April, which involved catching and testing some of the region's Mary River cod. Researchers were pleased to discover traces of tilapia in two of the cods' mouths and also documented an 80-centimeter (31.5-inch) cod eating a 40-cm (15.75-in) tilapia. In other words, despite the fact that the tilapia are not native to the area and the cod haven't evolved to eat them, the endangered native fish have adapted and are eating them anyway. "There was always the hope and suspicion that [the cod] were eating everything," BMRG CEO Tom Espinoza said. "It's provided a lot of hope for people that are invested in healthy cod populations across the board. … Hopefully in 10, 15, 20 years' time, we've got a population of large cod that can do the rest of the job themselves. It's a real natural, sustainable solution." This is encouraging news, because as matters stand, the tilapia are a serious problem. They're invasive — meaning they came to the area from another region and thrived so well that it's damaging the ecosystem — and they eat the eggs and young of not only cod but also other endangered species such as the "bum-breathing" Mary River turtle, Australian lungfish, and white-throated snapping turtle. Because the tilapia have spread to 26 of Queensland's 67 catchments, it's considered impossible for humans to eradicate them. Left unchecked, they could destroy the native species in the river, damaging the ecosystem that both people and wildlife rely on. However, steps have been taken to control the population. For example, tilapia are being harvested to use as fertilizer for native plants. Now that it appears cod are also eating the tilapia, there's a chance to achieve a new healthy balance. Should we be actively working to kill invasive species? Absolutely It depends on the species I don't know No — leave nature alone Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
