Latest news with #TechnicalUniversityofDenmark
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Sound of Earth's Flipping Magnetic Field Is an Unforgettable Horror
Earth's magnetic field dramatically flipped roughly 41,000 years ago. We can now experience this epic upheaval, thanks to a clever interpretation of information collected by the European Space Agency's Swarm satellite mission. Combining the satellite data with evidence of magnetic field line movements on Earth, geoscientists mapped the Laschamps event and represented it using natural noises like the creaking of wood and the crashing of colliding rocks. The resulting compilation – unveiled in 2024 by the Technical University of Denmark and the German Research Center for Geosciences – is unlike anything you've ever heard. Generated by the swirling liquid metals in our planet's core, Earth's magnetic field reaches tens to hundreds of thousands of kilometers into space, protecting us all by deflecting atmosphere-stripping solar particles. As the iron and nickel inside our planet shift, so does Earth's magnetic field, meaning the North (and South) Poles are also constantly on the move. Recently, the position of the magnetic North Pole was officially changed, as it continues its shift away from Canada and towards Siberia. In its current orientation, the magnetic field lines form closed loops that are directed south to north above the planet's surface, and then north to south deep within it. Yet every so often the field randomly flips its polarity. Were this to happen again today, our north-pointing compasses would point to the South Pole. The last such cataclysmic event occurred about 41,000 years ago, leaving a signature in the Laschamps lava flows in France. As the field weakened to only 5 percent of its current strength the reversal process allowed a surpluss of cosmic rays to pass into Earth's atmosphere. Ice and marine sediment preserve isotopic signatures of this higher-than-normal solar bombardment, with levels of beryllium-10 isotopes doubling during the Laschamps event, according to a study published last year. These altered atoms are formed when cosmic rays react with our atmosphere, ionizing the air and frying the ozone layer. With global climate change being a potential consequence, it's speculated the extinction of Australia's megafauna as well as changes in human cave use may have been associated with this event. "Understanding these extreme events is important for their occurrence in the future, space climate predictions, and assessing the effects on the environment and on the Earth system," German Research Center for Geosciences geophysics Sanja Panovska explained at the time. It took 250 years for the Laschamps reversal to take place and it stayed in the unusual orientation for about 440 years. At most, Earth's magnetic field may have remained at 25 percent of its current strength as the north polarity drifted to the south. Recent magnetic field anomalies like the weakening over the Atlantic ocean have led to questions about an impending reversal today, but recent research suggests these anomalies are not necessarily connected to flipping events. The South Atlantic anomaly is, however, exposing satellites in the area to higher levels of radiation. Since 2013, ESA's Swarm constellation has been measuring magnetic signals from Earth's core, mantle, crust, oceans, ionosphere, and magnetosphere so we can better understand our planet's geomagnetic field and predict its fluctuations. An earlier version of this article was published in October 2024. World-First Study Reveals How Lightning Sparks Gamma-Ray Flashes The Universe Is 'Suspiciously' Like a Computer Simulation, Physicist Says Seismic Waves From Intense Storms Can Ripple Through Earth's Core
Business Mayor
28-04-2025
- Health
- Business Mayor
This is how much meat you can eat without damaging the planet
Sign up for our free Health Check email to receive exclusive analysis on the week in health Get our free Health Check email Meat consumption equivalent to less than two chicken breast fillets per week can be considered sustainable for the planet, a new study estimates. Researchers have been calling for reducing meat consumption and increasing legume intake to meet one's protein needs for years now as livestock is estimated to be responsible for nearly 15 per cent of the global greenhouse gas emissions. They have been urging people to adopt a plant-based 'flexitarian' diet in which meat is eaten less than once a week. But how exactly much meat consumption is recommended weekly has remained unclear. 'Most people now realise that we should eat less meat for both environmental and health reasons. But it is hard to relate to how much 'less' is and whether it really makes a difference in the big picture,' said Caroline Gebara, an expert in sustainable development from the Technical University of Denmark. The latest study, published in the journal Nature Food, puts this number at about 255 grams, or 9 ounces, of meat per week. 'We have calculated a concrete figure – 255 grams of poultry or pork a week – which you can actually visualise and consider when you are standing in the supermarket,' Dr Gebara said. This is equivalent to about two chicken breast fillets, the limit of meat one person can consume weekly without harming the planet. Trays of beef for sale in a supermarket in McLean, Virginia, US (AFP via Getty) The figure applies only to poultry and pork. The study warns that even a 'modest consumption' of beef exceeds what the planet can sustain. 'Our calculations show that even moderate amounts of red meat in one's diet are incompatible with what the planet can regenerate of resources based on the environmental factors we looked at in the study,' Dr Gebara said. 'However, there are many other diets, including ones with meat, that are both healthy and sustainable.' The study calls for better political guidance and public frameworks to support sustainable food choices. The study considers environmental factors like carbon dioxide emissions, water and land use as well as the health impact of different diets. It examines over 100,000 variations of 11 types of diets and calculates their respective environmental and health effects. It concludes that even moderate amounts of red meat exceeded planetary sustainability limits. A pescetarian, vegetarian or vegan diet, on the other hand, is much more likely to be within the limits of what the planet can support, the study says. Mixed diets such as vegetarian, but with the addition of dairy or eggs, can also be sustainable. 'For example, our calculations show that it is possible to eat cheese if that is important to you, while at the same time having a healthy and climate-friendly diet,' Dr Gebara said. 'The same is true for eggs, fish, and white meat but the premise is of course, that the rest of your diet is then relatively healthy and sustainable. But it doesn't have to be either-or.'
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
Scientists 'Tattoo' Tardigrades in Nanotechnology Breakthrough
A new technique has allowed researchers to tattoo patterns onto the tiny bodies of living tardigrades. The aim wasn't to make the microscopic animals even cooler than they already are, if that is possible. Rather, it could help scientists make teeny-tiny biocompatible devices, such as sensors, integrated circuits, and even nanoscale living robots. Plus, the process sheds light on tardigrades' remarkable resilience: some, but not all, of the critters survived the experience, to waddle around all tatted up like tiny badasses. "Through this technology, we're not just creating micro-tattoos on tardigrades," explains optical engineer Ding Zhao of the Technical University of Denmark, "we're extending this capability to various living organisms, including bacteria." The ability to etch patterns onto tiny objects and surfaces is an important part of the development of nanotechnology. Great strides have been made in translating existing technologies to the nanoscale for material engineering, but putting high-resolution patterns on itty-bitty living organisms remains a bit of a challenge. To tattoo a tardigrade, Zhao and his colleagues adapted a nanofabrication technique called ice lithography. This is a form of electron-beam lithography, in which a beam of electrons is fired at a target to etch a nanoscale pattern onto a surface. On surfaces with very fine patterns, bare electron-beam lithography can introduce contamination or damage. Scientists figured out that putting a very thin layer of ice between the beam and the surface prevented this, allowing for etching down to scales smaller than 20 nanometers. The average human hair, for context, is about 80,000 to 100,000 nanometers wide. Tardigrades are up to around 500,000 nanometers. Tardigrades are famed for their near-indestructibility, and part of that has to do with their 'tun' state. When environmental conditions become untenable, the tardigrade dehydrates its body and enters a state of suspended metabolism called cryptobiosis, to revive when things return to normal. A tardigrade in a tun can survive extreme conditions, including freezing and boiling. Zhao's team started by inducing this state of cryptobiosis in their tardigrades, after which they were stored until it was their turn under the electron beam. Only one tardigrade was processed at a time, to reduce their exposure to the experimental conditions. Each tardigrade was placed on a sheet of carbon-composite paper in a vacuum chamber, which was then cooled to a temperature of -143 degrees Celsius (-226 Fahrenheit). A layer of anisole (a colorless liquid compound that smells like anise) was applied over the cooled tardigrade to serve as the ice protecting it from the electron beam. Where the beam fired, the anisole reacted, forming a new compound that stuck to the skin of the tardigrade. When the tardigrade warmed up in the vacuum chamber, the finely inscribed pattern remained, with details as small as 72 nanometers. Then, the scientists removed each tardigrade, rehydrated it, and attempted revival. Forty percent of the tardigrades survived the procedure and were able to move around as normal, sporting their new tattoos. The markings stayed in place even after being exposed to conditions such as stretching, soaking, rinsing, and drying. "This study successfully demonstrates in situ fabrication of micro/nanopatterns on living organisms using ice lithography," the researchers write in their paper. Now, tardigrades are better able than most organisms to survive whatever hardships are thrown at them; other lifeforms may not be able to withstand the process. However, the research is just a first step. Now that the scientists know that it's possible, they can tweak their technique to try to increase the survival rate. "In addition to tardigrades, our approach may also be applicable to other organisms with high stress resistance or those suitable for cryopreservation," the team concludes. "We anticipate that the integration of more micro/nanofabrication techniques with biologically relevant systems at the micro/nanoscale will further advance fields such as microbial sensing, biomimetic devices, and living microrobots." The research has been published in Nano Letters. A Strange Phrase Keeps Turning Up in Scientific Papers, But Why? Can We Trust Our Eyes Anymore? The Dark Side of Apple's New AI Clean Up Tool Fake Blood Vessels Mean Lab-Grown Chicken Can Now Be Nugget Sized
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Scientists Calculated How Much Meat You Can Sustainably Eat in a Week
When it comes to eating meat, it sometimes seems impossible to strike a balance between doing the right thing for your body, and for the planet. Now, a team of environmental scientists has calculated a sweet spot that we can actually write on our shopping lists. "Most people now realize that we should eat less meat for both environmental and health reasons. But it's hard to relate to how much 'less' is and whether it really makes a difference in the big picture," says lead author Caroline Gebara, an environmental scientist at the Technical University of Denmark. That's why she and her team calculated a tangible figure – 255 grams (9 ounces) of poultry or pork per week – that people can factor into stocking their fridges. That's roughly two chicken breasts. It's also six to ten times less meat than the average US or European citizen ate in 2021. And the study suggests red meat – especially beef – cannot be part of an environmentally sustainable diet. That's probably because a lot of land must be cleared to farm animals like cows and sheep, which then emit methane (a greenhouse gas 28 times more potent than CO2) and nitrous oxide (270 times more potent than CO2) through their waste and feed crops. "Our calculations show that even moderate amounts of red meat in one's diet are incompatible with what the planet can regenerate of resources based on the environmental factors we looked at in the study," Gebara says. "However, there are many other diets – including ones with meat – that are both healthy and sustainable." Humans have been eating animals and their byproducts for at least 2.6 million years, and we're not going to stop any time soon. But our hunger for meat is, to put it lightly, a bit out of control. The environmental footprint of our livestock comes largely from greenhouse gases emitted directly by the animals, damage to the land used to raise them, and the fuel burned in transporting them, turning them into meat, and getting that meat to our plates. One study estimated that greenhouse gases could stabilize for 30 years if animal agriculture, as it exists today, was rapidly phased out. That's an unlikely scenario, but it gives a sense of the industry's impact on our world. With all that in mind, Gebara and her team conducted literature reviews to identify constraints for both healthy diets – resulting in 32 key nutritional requirements – and ones which are environmentally sustainable – based on a number of key thresholds for planetary sustainability. All this came together to form a model that identified the amounts of different kinds of foods an individual could eat, per week, without putting undue strain on the planet's resources. "For example, our calculations show that it's possible to eat cheese if that is important to you, while at the same time having a healthy and climate-friendly diet," Gebara says. "The same is true for eggs, fish, and white meat, but the premise is of course that the rest of your diet is then relatively healthy and sustainable. But it doesn't have to be either-or." Models like this can really oversimplify different people's dietary needs and personal circumstances, which the authors acknowledge. The food characteristics used for the nutritional aspects of this study are based on US data, so they're more of a proxy for high-income countries than globally representative. It's also difficult to capture all the many and varied impacts that food systems have across the world in a study like this. The model also relies on impacts of food production across one year remaining consistent, which is not the case in the real world. Technologies can change environmental impacts of certain foods, so this model will need to be updated over time. "Our study focused on the biophysical limits of human nutrient intake and environmental impacts, but overlooked other aspects such as accessibility, affordability, and cultural acceptance," the authors write. "Achieving truly sustainable diets requires universal availability, which must be supported by policymakers at all levels." This research was published in Nature Food. 'Game Changer': Hot New Tech Turns Forever Chemicals Into Valuable Resource 'Bad Omen': Ancient Pyramid in Mexico Collapsed Into A Pile of Rubble Pet Dogs Are Great For Our Health But They Have a Dark Side Too
Business Mayor
23-04-2025
- Health
- Business Mayor
Woke scientists claim you should only eat two chicken breasts a WEEK to save the planet
While many of us try out best to limit our meat consumption, the temptation of a juicy burger or a succulent rack of ribs can be too much to resist. Now, a study reveals just how little meat you should be consuming if you truly want to have a sustainable diet. According to experts from the Technical University of Denmark, you can only eat 255g of chicken or pork a week without harming the planet. That's the equivalent of just two chicken breasts or one pork chop across the entire week. It's also bad news for fans of beef, veal, lamb or venison. Red meat is off the cards entirely if you want to stick within planetary boundaries, the experts say. 'Our calculations show that even moderate amounts of red meat in one's diet are incompatible with what the planet can regenerate of resources based on the environmental factors we looked at in the study,' said Caroline H. Gebara, lead author of the study. 'However, there are many other diets—including ones with meat—that are both healthy and sustainable.' According to experts from the Technical University of Denmark, you can only eat 255g of chicken or pork a week without harming the planet. That's the equivalent of just two chicken breasts or one pork chop across the entire week (stock image) In the study, the team set out to understand exactly how much meat you can include in your diet without harming the planet. 'Most people now realize that we should eat less meat for both environmental and health reasons,' saiid Ms Gebara. Read More Moon-bound Vulcan rocket successfully launches into space – video 'But it's hard to relate to how much 'less' is and whether it really makes a difference in the big picture.' The team's calculations took into account a range of environmental factors. This inculded carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the consumption of water, and land use. They also looked at the environmental and health benefits of more than 100,000 variations of 11 popular diets. Unfortunately for meat-lovers, their calculations show that a diet with any amount of red meat exceeds planetary limits. However, they say that a small amount of poultry or pork is OK. Unfortunately for meat-lovers, their calculations show that a diet with any amount of red meat exceeds planetary limits 'Based on the planetary boundaries, we have calculated a concrete figure—255 grams of poultry or pork per week—which you can actually visualize and consider when you are standing in the supermarket,' Ms Gebara said. At most UK supermarkets, a pack of two chicken breasts typically weighs around 300g, which is slightly over the limit set out by the experts. Meanwhile, a pack of two pork chops usually weighs around 500g, which means you can treat yourself to just over one chop per week. Pescatarians, vegetarians, and vegans, on the other hand, can indulge in most of their favourite meals guilt-free, according to the calculations. 'Our calculations show that it's possible to eat cheese if that is important to you, while at the same time having a healthy and climate-friendly diet,' Ms Gebara added. 'The same is true for eggs, fish and white meat, but the premise is of course that the rest of your diet is then relatively healthy and sustainable. But it doesn't have to be either-or.' The news comes shortly after scientists from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine revealed the exact amount of money you could save by going vegan. According to their calculations, changing to a low-fat, vegan diet could save you £1.44 ($1.80) per day. Over the course of the year, that's an impressive saving of £525 ($657).
