Jump to content

Science News Thread (for articles that don't relate to ongoing discussions)


Recommended Posts

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/18/earth-six-ronnagrams-new-prefixes-big-and-small

Quote

In a vote at the General Conference on Weights and Measures in Versailles on Friday, the International System of Units (SI) embraced four new prefixes with immediate effect, marking the first such changes in more than 30 years.

At the top end of the scale are the new prefixes ronna, which stands for a billion billion billion, and quetta, which is a thousand times larger still. At the bottom end is ronto, meaning a billionth of a billionth of a billionth, and quecto, which is a thousand times smaller than that.

The arrival of the new prefixes means the Earth can now be said to weigh six ronnagrams, and Jupiter about two quettagrams. An electron weighs about a rontogram, and a single bit of data stored on a mobile phone adds about 10 quectograms to its mass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HebaruSan said:
  Quote

In a vote at the General Conference on Weights and Measures in Versailles on Friday, the International System of Units (SI) embraced four new prefixes with immediate effect, marking the first such changes in more than 30 years.

At the top end of the scale are the new prefixes ronna, which stands for a billion billion billion, and quetta, which is a thousand times larger still. At the bottom end is ronto, meaning a billionth of a billionth of a billionth, and quecto, which is a thousand times smaller than that.

The arrival of the new prefixes means the Earth can now be said to weigh six ronnagrams, and Jupiter about two quettagrams. An electron weighs about a rontogram, and a single bit of data stored on a mobile phone adds about 10 quectograms to its mass.

Just to stay up-to-date.

Spoiler

640px-US_National_Debt_crop.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw a blurb on this the other day and was intrigued.  Unfortunately much of what I wanted to read was paywalled.  Then I stumbled on this:

People don't mate randomly – but the flawed assumption that they do is an essential part of many studies linking genes to diseases and traits (msn.com)

 

"Scientists use the findings from genetic correlation analyses to figure out the potential shared causes of [various]traits... Here, geneticists investigate whether the genes associated with a given trait are associated with other traits or diseases by statistically analyzing large samples of genetic data. Over the past decade, genetic correlation analysis has become the primary method for assessing potential pleiotropy across fields as diverse as internal medicine, social science and psychiatry.

However, just because a gene is correlated with two or more traits doesn’t necessarily mean it causes them.

 

Virtually all the statistical methods researchers commonly use to assess genetic correlations assume that mating is random. That is, they assume that potential mating partners decide who they will have children with based on a roll of the dice. In reality, many factors likely influence who mates with whom. The simplest example of this is geography – people living in different parts of the world are less likely to end up together than people living nearby.

We wanted to find out how much the assumption of random mating affects the accuracy of genetic correlation analyses. In particular, we focused on the potential confounding effects of assortative mating, or how people tend to mate with those who share similar characteristics with them. Assortative mating is a widely documented phenomenon seen across a broad array of traits, interests, measures and social factors, including height, education and psychiatric conditions."

...without accounting for cross-trait assortative mating, using genetic correlation estimates to study the biological pathways causing disease can be misleading. Genes that affect only one trait will appear to influence multiple different conditions. For example, a genetic test designed to assess the risk for one disease may incorrectly detect vulnerability for a broad number of unrelated conditions.

 

I've cut & pasted parts from the article somewhat out of order to give an idea of what the authors write.

 

If you are interested in genetics and heritability, this is a pretty good article!

Link to the study itself: Cross-trait assortative mating is widespread and inflates genetic correlation estimates | Science

 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

1. At least somebody to look at from beneath,

2. Next study subject: "The correlation between the female partner height and male partner bald patch."

2 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

. The simplest example of this is geography – people living in different parts of the world are less likely to end up together than people living nearby.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/04/18/new-app-helps-icelanders-avoid-accidental-incest/2093649/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_disease#Genetics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_genetics_of_Jews

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't a 'news article' per se - but rather an interesting dive into the current state of Fusion Research. 

The author focuses on three promising companies (he did a different video about a 4th MIT linked startup, linked in this video).  He also talks about the current investment picture and shows why a certain amount optimism may be warranted. 

One of the companies is doing a SX-analog of rapid iteration - where they are already working on the 7th and 8th generation while testing and learning from the 6th... A marked departure from the traditional 'one-step-at-a-time-report-request funding - repeat' cycle of past efforts. The others are also prototyping and taking some novel, non-tokamak approaches. 

Enjoy! 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20221124_37/
 

This happened at the end of October/start of November but didn’t get reported widely at all apparently. ALMA (Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array) was disabled in a cyberattack and will not resume operations until “before the end of the year”.

Why would anyone want to do this to a telescope facility? Hospitals and pipelines are understandable, they’ve got loads of money to extort, but are not science organizations some of the most “poor” public entities in the world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

I recall having multiple eruptions, some somewhat severe and with property loss, Over the past decade?   

The other island (Oahu) - this is The Big Island (Hawaii) whoops! 

The other volcano on Hawaii.  Kilauea.  This is Mauna Loa. 

You are probably remembering 

https://www.usgs.gov/volcanoes/kilauea/recent-eruption

This was very exciting not long ago 

 

 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me clear up my own confusion.  Oahu is considered 'dead'. 

https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/oahu-eruptions.html

The big island is the active volcano over the hot spot. There are 4 volcanoes on the island.  There is also an active volcano on Maui, and an active sea mount. 

https://www.usgs.gov/observatories/hvo/active-volcanoes-hawaii

 

 

 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...