The science news of the week: In communication, it is necessary to know the measure. It is well known that sociable people feel better and live longer than unsociable types. But has anyone ever wondered if we’re overdoing this communication to the point where it’s doing more harm than good? This was done for us by researchers at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, who found a strange linear relationship between social contact and health. They have already used the accumulated material on 350 thousand respondents in 37 countries and found that this formula worked everywhere, but only up to a certain limit – a few contacts per month. From this level to the level of daily meetings, the frequency of communication did not bring any special advantages. But when they looked at another group of 50,000 people, a much more frightening pattern emerged: increasing contact from month to week, or from week to day, increased the risk of death. The researchers themselves were surprised to find that seeing relatives every day was as bad as not seeing them at all. We explain quickly, simply, and clearly what happened, why it matters, and what happens next.
The number of offers should remain: Episodes The end of the story. Advertising Podcasts. And the best indicators of longevity were shown by those who communicated moderately (once a month) with their relatives. But why is close communication so dangerous? Researchers have come up with several theories. At first, they assumed that sick or dying people needed more frequent and closer contact. But it soon became clear that, on the contrary, the sick try to avoid communication. Another explanation was that too much communication distracts from other health-promoting activities. In addition, sometimes a person just needs to be alone, which improves their mood and psychological state. Moreover, sometimes social interaction itself can cause stress, and stress is known to be detrimental to health. Moreover, close communication does not always mean quality communication, but many people try not to avoid such contacts simply out of a sense of duty. “The results of our research show that frequent communication is not necessarily beneficial – the authors conclude – therefore moderate communication on a weekly or even monthly basis is considered optimal and will bring noticeable health benefits. On the other hand, too much contact, for example daily, increases the risk of death”. Scientists also advise everyone to determine their level of comfort with communication and not to exceed it in favor of established social norms.
Tyrannosaurus Stan The skeleton of a 67-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex nicknamed Stan was sold at a Christie’s auction in New York for nearly $32 million. From the auction house’s perspective, this is an absolute record (in 1997, a Chicago museum bought the skeleton of a dinosaur named Sue for $13.5 million in today’s money), but many paleontologists were disappointed that Stan was purchased by an unknown buyer and may now disappear from sight forever, while many scientific institutions that want to display fossils simply do not have enough money to buy them. Normally, the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) opposes the sale of such fossils at auction. But Stan had no chance of avoiding the gavel, as it was being sold due to a court order. The skeleton was found in 1987 by amateur paleontologist Stan Sacrisson at the famous Hell Creek dinosaur site near the town of Buffalo, South Dakota. After learning of the discovery, BHI, a company that supplies fossils to scientific and research institutions and museums, spent 300,000 hours excavating the site and recovered a nearly complete, 40-foot (12-meter) Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton, which they named Stan. Stan became the star of the world exhibition that opened in Japan in 1995, and since then his example has been studied to understand the motor skills of dinosaurs and the strength of their bite. Along the way, it was discovered that Stan had a rough life: he participated in terrifying fights, had his ribs and bones broken, was bitten on the head, and once even had his neck broken. But he healed, just like a dinosaur. And then the owner of the company had a dispute with one of his shareholders, and as payment for the share he owed, he was ordered by the court to sell Stan. And while the SVP has asked the auction house to restrict the sale of Stan to such organizations or individuals representing them, in order to keep the skeleton available for observation and study, it is still unclear who exactly has become the new owner of the Tyrannosaurus. “If Stanton did not buy a museum, but a private individual, then science most likely lost,” says Adam Larson, volunteer curator of the Dinosaur Museum in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Museums play a critical role in the preservation of fossils because they employ scientists who know how to properly handle the material. In addition, museums provide access to specimens for specialists and exhibit skeletons to the general public, whereas private collectors are not required to do so. “They could sell Stan in parts to other collectors, or store him in such a way that Stan deteriorates, or even grind his bones into a ‘magic stew’ – Larson is horrified and suggests that legislation be urgently passed to protect such rare specimens as Stan.
Who said the Earth was the best place to live? Yes, yes, you can speculate all you want, but no one is offering an alternative planet. And yet they exist! Well, or could exist… A group of scientists led by Professor Dirk Schulze-Makuch of Washington University, who published their research in the journal Astrobiology, has provided detailed characteristics of potential “super-habitable” planets that could be older, slightly larger, slightly warmer and more humid than Earth. And if they also rotate a little slower around their younger sun, that could also help life flourish. In the search for suitable candidates, Schultz-Makuha and his colleagues studied about 4500 known exoplanets outside our solar system. However, he emphasizes that this does not mean that these planets are habitable, only that the conditions there may be suitable for life. Since our Sun has a relatively short life span of only 10 billion years, with the first 4 billion used to form life on Earth, researchers have focused primarily on planetary systems with relatively young and cold stars of the same G class as the Sun, as well as K dwarfs, which have less mass and brightness but a much longer life span of up to 70 billion years. In such planetary systems, there may be planets older than Earth on which complex forms of life could have formed. However, planets that are too old can also be detrimental, because they can deplete geothermal heat and lose their protective geomagnetic fields. Scientists say that the ideal age for the planet to support life is a period of 5 to 8 billion years. Size also matters, and the most suitable planet is considered to be about 10% larger than Earth, as it would retain the necessary heat in its core for a longer period of time, and its greater gravitational force would better sustain the atmosphere. Scientists consider water in its liquid state to be the key element, and in their opinion, increased humidity and cloudiness, combined with a temperature 5 degrees above average, would only be beneficial. As an example, they cite tropical forests, where biodiversity is much higher than in temperate climates. As a result, Schulze-Makuch and his colleagues have compiled a list of 24 candidates for the role of the best “Earth”. However, all of them are more than 100 light-years away from us, and none of the candidates meet all the criteria for an ideal life-supporting planet. “Explaining the principle of a superhabitable planet is not easy because we a priori believe that our planet is the best,” explains a geobiologist. “We have a variety of complex and diverse life forms, many of which are able to survive in extreme conditions. And indeed, such adaptability is wonderful. But that doesn’t mean that everything is best for us.
Tooth of a megalodon and a great white shark, one of the largest predatory sharks of our time. Feel the difference. The megalodon – a gigantic prehistoric shark that reached 15 meters in length – was too big even for its fellow creatures. According to researchers led by Professor Kensu Simada, a paleobiologist at DePaul University in Chicago, as published in the journal Historical Biology, the king of all sharks stands out not only compared to modern species, but even within its own order Lamniformes, being 7 meters longer than the largest shark. The largest of today’s predatory sharks is the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), which at 6 meters is like a kitten compared to the megalodon (Otodus megalodon). Even the largest of all existing fish, the whale shark (Rhincodon typus), measures an average of 10 meters from nose to tail tip. In fact, scientists know of a whale shark specimen that reached 19 meters in length, but these giants do not have teeth. By the way, it was the teeth that allowed specialists to determine that Megalodon was much larger than its contemporaries. The thing is that sharks have no bones, their skeleton consists of cartilage, which usually does not fossilize, and over millions of years only teeth have remained from the giants of the past, but what teeth and how many of them! As sharks grow, the teeth of today’s sharks continue to renew themselves and increase in number. The same thing happened to their distant ancestors. Based on the body proportions and tooth size of modern members of the order Lamniformes (13 species have successfully survived to the present day), scientists led by Professor Simada derived a formula that determines the size of a shark based on the size of its teeth and applied it to extinct species. As it turned out, Megalodon’s relatives were also quite large. According to Simada, such gigantism was most likely explained by a rather alarming (but evolutionarily successful) practice in which hatched shark embryos began to eat their siblings while still in the womb. In this way, the small sharks acquired the necessary skills and energy reserves before birth, so that they could enter the world as fully formed predators. But this does not explain why Megalodon was so much larger than other members of its order. Nor does it answer the question of why these giants, which had no rivals in the sea, became extinct about 15 million years ago. But maybe that’s for the best…