Latest news with #scientificstudy
The Sun
3 days ago
- Science
- The Sun
Cannibals ‘cooked & ate' humans 6,000-years-ago in bizarre rituals as human bones found riddled with bite marks
A HUGE family was slaughtered, skinned, cooked and eaten in a cave nearly 6,000 years ago, a new study reveals. Neolithic cannibals in what's now northern Spain feasted on at least 11 people - including kids - their remains show. 4 4 4 Bones discovered at the El Mirador cave showed clear evidence of cannibalism, including cut marks, human bite marks and fractures for marrow extraction. The bones also showed signs of being boiled, according to a study published on Thursday in the journal Scientific Reports. The gruesome event is believed to have occurred over a few days during the final phase of the Neolithic - or New Stone Age - occupation of the cave. Researchers believe the cannibalism was a result of violence between groups - not ritual or famine. "This was neither a funerary tradition nor a response to extreme famine," said study co-author Francesc Marginedas, who is an IPHES evolutionary anthropologist and quaternary archaeologist. "The evidence points to a violent episode, given how quickly it all took place - possibly the result of conflict between neighbouring farming communities," he added. Based on radiocarbon dating, the bones were found to be between 5,573 and 5,709 years old. A chemical analysis revealed that the individuals were local to the region and likely a nuclear or extended family, with ages ranging from under seven to over 50. The analysis also confirmed suspicions they had been killed over a short period of time. The discovery has captured the attention of historians studying the Neolithic period as it offers rare evidence of conflict-driven cannibalism. The Neolithic period, which lasted till around 2000 BC, is understood to have been marked by upheaval and conflict. Humanity shifted from nomadic foraging and hunting to settled farming and animal domestication - sparking new social hierarchies and competition over land and resources. "Conflict and the development of strategies to manage and prevent it are part of human nature," said study co-author, archaeologist and IPHES researcher Antonio Rodríguez-Hidalgo. "Ethnographic and archaeological records show that even in the less stratified and small-scale societies, violent episodes can occur in which the enemies could be consumed as a form of ultimate elimination." In the early 2000s, archaeologists found the remains of six people with similar marks at El Mirador cave. "Taphonomic analysis revealed the existence of cutmarks, human toothmarks, cooking damage, and deliberate breakage in most of the remains recovered, suggesting a clear case of gastronomic cannibalism," wrote the authors of the study published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. The remains are younger than the recently discovered ones, dating to the early Bronze Age - about 4,600 to 4,100 years old. Meanwhile, human remains recently found in Maszycka Cave in Poland suggest victims of cannibalism during an act of war. A study published in Scientific Reports in February analysed 53 bones belonging to at least 10 people, six adults and four children. The 18,000-year-old bones show signs of butchering and were hard to distinguish from the animal bones they were found alongside. Cut marks and fractures reveal the attackers cracked open skulls and scooped out brains. The pattern indicates they targeted the most calorie-rich parts - the brains, bone marrow and muscles - shortly after death.
Vogue Arabia
27-07-2025
- Health
- Vogue Arabia
Drinking Water is Not the Best Way to Stay Hydrated, According to a Scientific Study
Skip to main content We have been told that we need to drink 2.5 litres of water a day to stay well hydrated. Yet, there is a drink that seems to perform this function even better. A scientific study reveals what it is July 22, 2025 Photo: Iuliia Pilipeichenko Milk hydrates more than water, a study confirms. Here's why we should drink more of it, especially in summer When it comes to hydration, water always seems to be the obvious answer. We know how much water we need to drink per day, but is there an alternative that can bring more hydration to the body other than just water? A scientific study reveals this to us: among the various beverages analysed, milk – both whole and skimmed – was found to be among the most hydrating, even surpassing mineral water in some conditions. But how is this possible? The explanation is to be found in the nutritional composition of milk. Milk or water: which hydrates more? A study changes the rules A study from theUniversity of St. Andrews in Scotland, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, compared different beverages in terms of hydration by analysing fluid retention levels in the hours after drinking. The result? Milk scored higher on the hydration index than water. "Milk contains natural sugars, proteins and fats. These nutrients slow the emptying of the stomach, helping the body retain fluids longer," the researchers explain. Why does milk hydrate more than water? Here's what makes milk a great hydrating drink: High electrolyte content (such as sodium and potassium), which help the body retain fluids Presence of protein and carbohydrates, which slow digestion, prolonging the presence of water in the body Balanced osmolarity, which promotes water absorption by cells When does drinking milk help to hydrate? Although water always remains the most recommended drink under normal conditions, there are times when milk can be an even more effective choice, for example: After strenuous physical activity, to replenish fluids and nutrients In children and the elderly, to promote more complete hydration In periods of mild dehydration, when fluids need to be better retained Milk is therefore also a useful beverage for hydration, particularly in specific situations where retaining more fluid is important. It is certainly not a substitute for water, but it can be added to it intelligently if the need arises. Beware if you are milk intolerant It should be remembered that not everyone can drink milk. Those who are lactose intolerant or have special digestive conditions should consult their doctor. Alternatively, some plant-based drinks (such as soy or oat milk) may offer a good compromise, but they do not achieve the levels of hydration that cow's milk has.
%3Amax_bytes(150000)%3Astrip_icc()%2FTAL-lead-image-POPCORNBEACH0725-98738a9469e64b08bccfbcccbe8779e3.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
Travel + Leisure
21-07-2025
- Science
- Travel + Leisure
This Surreal Beach in Spain Has 'Popcorn Sand'—How to Visit
You've heard of white-sand beaches, black-sand beaches, and even beaches covered in pebbles or rocks—but did you know there's a beach in Spain covered in popcorn-like 'sand'? If you venture to Playa del Bajo de la Burra (which loosely translates to 'beach of the donkey's underbelly') on the northern coast of Fuerteventura, the second largest of the Canary Islands, you'll get to experience this natural phenomenon in person. Notably, there are also other beaches nearby, like Playa del Hierro, that have similar 'popcorn' features. Commonly referred to as 'Popcorn Beach,' Playa del Bajo de la Burra has repeatedly gone viral for its photo-worthy sand, which, at first glance, looks just like the iconic movie theater snack, albeit without a hefty dose of butter. Unlike the edible version, however, this popcorn should not be eaten. And as tempted as you may be to bring a bit of it home as a souvenir, it's best to leave it where (and how) you found it. A close-up of popcorn-like sand. Playa del Bajo de la Burra's popcorn sand isn't your typical sand. According to Canary Islands Tourism, it's made of a combination of 'calcareous algae and white sand over a period of at least 50 years.' These formations are also known as rhodoliths, which, thanks to weathering and the sun, are porous and relatively hard. The site also notes that rhodoliths grow underwater at a rate of one millimeter per year, and some are over 4,000 years old. A 2022 scientific study that appeared in Frontiers in Marine Science explained their appearance in the following way: 'Rhodoliths occur extensively around the shores of Fuerteventura Island in the Canary Archipelago, with Lithothamnion cf. corallioides being the most prominent species. A large number of rhodoliths end up washed onshore, the debris from which contributes to the formation of sediments constituting modern beaches.' The authors also added that 'the growth, geographic distribution, and sustainability of rhodoliths are controlled by several factors, of which light, temperature, sedimentation, hydrodynamic regime, existence of marine barriers, and abundance of corals are vital.' Waves crashing on Playa del Bajo de la Burra, also known as Popcorn remember, there's a very important reason why you shouldn't remove any of the sand from the beach. 'Rhodoliths are crucial for the establishment and maintenance of biodiversity and, thus, contribute to major ecosystem functions,' the study states, and the authors request 'a conscientious effort in the protection and maintenance of these valuable biological resources.' The study also cites the 'substantial amount of rhodoliths' that are 'removed from the beaches,' causing a 'threat to these ecosystems, as the debris of dead rhodoliths contributes greatly to the sediments that form the contemporary beaches.' So feel free to take plenty of photos, but not the rhodoliths themselves. The landscape of Popcorn beach on Fuerteventura, Spain. Alessandro Persiani/Adobe Stock Playa del Bajo de la Burra isn't the type of beach where you go to sunbathe and swim. There are no loungers or umbrellas, and the water isn't known to be particularly great for a dip; past travelers share that the waves can be rough and 'too dangerous' for swimming. Instead, you're limited to walks, scenic picnics, and, of course, capturing all the content. Once you've checked seeing the popcorn sand off your list, spend your time exploring the rest of Fuerteventura—or retreat to the tiny adults-only Casa Montelongo (a 30-minute drive from the northern coast). There's technically no bad time to visit Playa del Bajo de la Burra, but it's recommended to make the trek to the beach in the early morning if you want to avoid other tourists. The months of April to June and September to November are also when you'll typically experience good weather in the area. Corralejo, located in the municipality of La Oliva, is the closest town to Popcorn Beach. You can reach the beach on foot, and the journey will take you at least an hour, if not more. There's also the option to drive to Popcorn Beach, although many travelers who have completed the drive share that it's 'just a dirt road, so [it] might be a little bumpy ride until you reach the beach,' and 'access is tedious.'
Yahoo
20-07-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
Alabama Deep Sea Fishing Rodeo helps advance marine research
Dauphin Island, Ala. (WKRG) — Anglers hitting the water for the Alabama Deep Sea Fishing Rodeo aren't just fishing for a big catch, they're actually helping perform a scientific study. University of South Alabama professor Dr. Sean Powers has been judging the rodeo for 20 years, and he says there's a reason this specific event is so crucial to sea life studies here in South Alabama. 'Scientists aren't good fishermen,' Dr. Powers said. 'Just because we study it doesn't mean we're good fishermen. But these are the best fishermen.' While Dr. Powers weighs the fish he sees, he's also taking some notes. 'The science footprint is just as big as the tournament,' he said. 'So, we have 100 young scientists out here that we're training and collecting data that's very, very useful for fisheries, management, and also training.' With the help of University of South Alabama students, scientists are able to track all sorts of sea life patterns. 'We can also take that ear bone and run chemical analysis on it and see where that fish came from,' Dr. Powers explained. 'Did that fish come from Louisiana? That fish come from Florida, and all those things we can do because these fishermen are letting us sample their fish.' It's a partnership Dr. Powers said he is extremely grateful for. 'It just the opportunity we wouldn't get normally without spending a tremendous amount of money,' he said. 'So we call this 'Fishmas' because all of them are bringing us presents every day.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
Forbes
17-07-2025
- Science
- Forbes
To Save Sharks, We Need Smarter Fishing Rules
A recent global study reviewed over 160 scientific papers covering 147 shark species, focusing on ... More what happens after their release. Sleek and powerful, a single dorsal fin slices through deep blue waves before diving into deeper waters in search of its next meal. An evolutionary machine honed for millions of years, this young shark doesn't know that hundreds of meters above, a longline bristling with baited hooks dangles in the current. An invisible wall between it and survival. For many sharks, this is how the story ends. Even if they're not the intended target of a fishing trip, they still get hooked, hauled in, and tangled in nets. In the past, that meant a death sentence. But today, in many parts of the world, rules known as 'retention bans' say these sharks must be released back into the sea. It's a hopeful idea: catch, release, and let them swim free. But here's the catch — literally and figuratively. A growing body of research shows that being released doesn't always mean being saved. Sharks are some of the most threatened marine animals on Earth, facing steep population declines due to overfishing and bycatch. While some sharks are caught intentionally, more than half are caught incidentally and then discarded. This often happens in longline and gillnet fisheries that target other species like tuna. In many places, fishers are required to release certain shark species rather than keeping them; these retention bans aim to protect vulnerable sharks by reducing the number that are landed and sold. But some die before even reaching the boat (called at-vessel mortality or AVM) while others die after being released, known as post-release mortality (PRM). These deaths are often due to stress, injury, or exhaustion. A recent study, led by PhD candidate Leonardo Feitosa at UC Santa Barbara Bren - Bren School of Environment, looked at 160 previous studies across 147 shark species to understand how often this happens and to model the effects of retention bans on shark mortality. Using this data, the team built predictive models to estimate how many sharks die after being caught and released, especially from longline and gillnet fishing. They then applied these findings to simulate what would happen under two scenarios: keeping all caught sharks or releasing them under a retention ban. The results were mixed. On average, retention bans led to a three-fold decrease in fishing mortality for most shark species. But not all species benefited equally. Sharks that live in shallow coastal areas and tend to be smaller often died at higher rates before they could be released. On the other hand, larger sharks that live in deeper waters were more likely to survive until release but still faced significant risk of dying afterward. Even with retention bans, 18% of the species studied would still experience overfishing, especially those that reproduce slowly or are already heavily fished. Species like oceanic whitetip, threshers, hammerheads, and sand tiger sharks — all considered threatened by the IUCN — are particularly vulnerable. Their populations grow slowly, so even low levels of fishing mortality can be dangerous, and the data showed that for these species, simply banning their retention won't be enough to protect them. Some will continue to decline unless more is done to prevent their capture in the first place. That includes modifying fishing gear, changing where and when fishing happens, and improving how sharks are handled on board to increase their chance of survival after release. The researchers ran detailed simulations using their data, comparing two scenarios: one where all ... More sharks caught are kept, and one where they're released. They found that retention bans do help. On average, they cut shark deaths by about two-thirds. That's good news. But not all species benefit equally. There's also a big data gap. Most studies focus on industrial longline fisheries in deep ocean waters, where monitoring is more common. But in small-scale or nearshore fisheries, many vulnerable species like sawfish, guitarfish, and rays are caught and even more threatened than sharks. Yet they are rarely studied, and without better data on their survival after capture, it's hard to say whether current policies are doing much to help them. One issue is that most retention bans assume fishers will fully comply. But that's not always realistic. Retention bans only work if fishers follow them, and in places where shark meat is an important food source or source of income, fishers may be reluctant to release catch, especially if there's little oversight. In fact, some countries have less than 5% observer coverage on fishing vessels, making it difficult to monitor what's actually happening at sea. There are also challenges in enforcing bans in small-scale fisheries that supply local markets and coastal communities. In these settings, compliance may only happen for shark species with little commercial value. But even when the rules are followed to the letter, there's a problem: retention bans don't stop sharks from being caught in the first place. They don't address how or why sharks are getting caught in the first place, meaning they don't reduce how often sharks are hooked. That's why experts, like the team behind this new paper, argue that retention bans should be combined with other management tools like time-area fishing closures, shark-friendly gear modifications, and clear bycatch limits. For example, using circle hooks instead of J hooks can reduce the chances of a shark swallowing the hook and suffering internal injuries. Shorter soak times for fishing lines can also reduce both AVM and PRM. Training fishing crews to handle and release sharks safely can also make a big difference in whether the animals survive. Sharks have been swimming in Earth's oceans for over 400 million years. But in just a few decades, industrial fishing has pushed many species to the brink. Retention bans were a meaningful start, but they're not the finish line. Without additional efforts to reduce the actual capture of sharks and better monitor what happens after release, many threatened species will continue to decline. Protecting a species that plays a crucial role in our marine ecosystem will require a smarter, more coordinated approach that goes beyond just throwing them back. To make sure sharks are still swimming centuries from now, we need to rethink how we fish, where we fish, and who we're trying to protect. And that means designing fisheries with shark conservation in mind from the start.
