In the next selection of interesting science news of the week:
Who is a Viking? Your imagination will probably paint a picture of a skilled sailor, a ruthless invader, an explorer with an axe in his hand and a horned helmet on his head. Well, of course, he will be a typical Scandinavian: fair-haired, blue-eyed, with pale skin. And here is no, say archaeologists who conducted a genetic analysis of the remains of over 400 Vikings scattered across Europe. It turns out that many of them were not Scandinavian at all. “It’s time to rewrite the history books again,” says study leader Esko Villerslev, a Danish specialist in evolutionary genetics. “The Vikings were not at all who we thought they were.”
Analysis of DNA from the bones of men, women, and even infants from burial sites dating from the late 8th to mid-11th centuries (scientists are certain that this is the Viking period) in Scandinavia itself, as well as in Ireland, Iceland, Greenland, Russia, Britain, and many other remote places they reached, has shown that during this period, Scandinavian blood was mixed with a significant amount of Southern European, British, and even Eastern blood.
The burial of the Vikings in the county of Dorset. “So forget about the blond Vikings,” Villerslev advises, “many of them were brunettes, or even fiery brunettes, and some even had very dark skin. But by raiding, the Vikings also shared their genetic material. After all, it wasn’t all about fighting; there was also trade and romance. For example, Viking DNA can be found in 6% of the population of Great Britain and in 10% of Swedes today. A new study has also shown that to be a Viking, you did not have to be born one. In Scotland, for example, skeletons were found in a typical Viking grave that had no ethnic connection to Scandinavians – only Scottish and Irish genes were present. And yet they were Vikings. The Vikings were carriers of a new language, technology, skills, beliefs, and cultural customs, and they willingly created new socio-political structures in new places. In other words, researchers believe that being a Viking was determined not so much by ethnicity, but rather by occupation and way of life.
What does an ordinary person do when a string of failures comes into his life? They become discouraged, silently curse their fate, but overall understand that this is life and there is no one to blame.
We explain quickly, simply, and clearly what happened, why it matters, and what will happen next. Episodes End of story Podcast advertising But such a person is not one who has a psychological attitude of “everyone owes me. These “chosen ones” (that’s what they really think of themselves) have a hard time dealing with failure, and they easily get angry. According to a group of scientists who published their work in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, such individuals consistently expect things to go their way, and when things go wrong, they perceive it as a form of personal injustice against them. At the same time, they experience less satisfaction with life in general, less pleasure in communicating with loved ones, and, of course, frequent outbursts of anger – because things often go wrong in life. Interestingly, during the experiments, all participants were equally irritated when a specific person was responsible for treating them unfairly. But when there was no one to blame, the less demanding people were willing to accept the situation, while the chosen ones became even more heated. Finally, in situations in which the advantage was alternately given to the experimenter and then to his or her neighbor, the “chosen ones” became angry when they were left out and did not respond at all when their neighbor experienced failure. Moreover, the more angry they were at their own failure, the less sympathetic they were to their neighbor’s failure. And if the task of the scientists was only to prove that a person who believes that everyone owes him something becomes angry when he fails, then we can only draw our own conclusions…
What does an e-cigarette smoker exhale: smoke or vapor? Strictly speaking, it is neither smoke nor vapor, which is a harmless cloud of water in a gaseous state. In addition, scientists insist that the word “par” (vapor) is completely inappropriate and even misleading to smokers. They say it would be more accurate to call it an aerosol cloud. It may seem trivial: cigars, smoke, aerosols-what’s the point of such scientific pedantry? But a group of researchers led by Matthew Rossheim of George Mason University in Virginia, who published their findings in the Journal of American College Health, found that perceptions of the risks associated with tobacco products depend heavily on their labeling. Surveying nearly 800 university students, they found that the term “pair” was associated with a reduced risk of smoking. But when the words “chemical” or “aerosol” were mentioned, they immediately evoked the concepts of “harm” or even “great harm”. Since 2012, the number of American universities where smoking is banned has tripled, but electronic cigarettes are still allowed on one in six college campuses. And this, according to scientists, is a serious problem – electronic cigarettes, although safer, still emit (let’s call it) nicotine, heavy metals, ultrafine particles, volatile organic compounds and other toxic elements. Today, electronic cigarettes are the most common form of tobacco use among young people. This is largely because they are presented as a safe alternative to traditional cigarettes. Many people who use electronic cigarettes do not even consider themselves smokers. Meanwhile, recent studies show that smokers (and they still remain smokers) of such cigarettes, in addition to other negative effects, are more susceptible to the risk of contracting coronaviruses. In this regard, the scientists insist that legislation on electronic cigarettes should be reviewed in the interest of public health, and that tobacco companies should not be able to hide behind names and labels and continue to mislead the public about the harms of their products.
10 years ago, the whole world (or at least the 190 member countries of the Convention on Biological Diversity) developed a 20-point plan to preserve this very diversity on our planet. These included phasing out fossil fuels, protecting habitats to save the world’s fish stocks, and many other useful measures. In other words, the goals were clear, the tasks were set, but the comrades never got to work. Moreover, as the World Wildlife Fund report states, in the last half century, humanity has managed to degrade three-quarters of the Earth’s territory and exterminate 70% of all fish, bird, and animal species. “At the moment, we are systematically wiping out all living things,” claims Anna Larigoderi, Executive Director of the Intergovernmental Scientific-Political Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), who claims that humans are the most dangerous species on Earth. Despite the failure of previous plans, the KBR report outlines ways to remedy the situation over the next 10 years, including the need to drastically change agricultural practices, reduce food losses, and limit consumption of commodities. The key issue is the preservation of the traditions and environment of indigenous peoples, who account for 80% of the world’s biodiversity. To achieve this, it is proposed to invest in local communities and significantly expand their land rights, which would help conserve large ecosystems. “This proven solution to the problem would help save the health of the planet and its inhabitants,” the KBR report states.