You know how they say you’re more likely to (insert something really rare here) than get attacked by a shark? Well, a new study says that soon, it’ll be even more uncommon to even SEE a shark … or eat one for breakfast - and I was so enjoying my finn and coffee to start my day.
A new study by Stanford University shows that there are fewer than 3,500 great white sharks prowling in the ocean. The deadly predators, which can grow up to 20 feet in length and weigh up to 5,000 pounds, are now officially rarer than tigers. “Until recently, people thought sharks were bad and there was no urge to save great whites,” said Dr. Ronald O’Dor, a senior scientist at the Census of Marine Life who has seen the findings. “Now people are beginning to understand that they are rare and that they are a wonderful species.” The study, which was conducted by tracking sharks with radio transmitters, also found that great whites travel incredible distances, sometimes swimming 12,000 miles in nine months.
(Daily Mail)
My favorite part of this story is that some scientist had to catch a shark, tranq it and then put a radio transmitter into it’s head before letting it go … most badass scientist ever.
Well, leave it to the Austalians to doom us all…
Humanity’s tenuous position atop the evolutionary ladder has been threatened once again as the existence of a tool-using octopus has been confirmed by Australian scientists. Amphioctopus marginatus, the veined octopus, was filmed by Julian Finn and Mark Norman of Museum Victoria in Melbourne, as it picked out two halved coconut shells from the sea floor, emptied them, and assembled them into a spherical home. Though it’s not the first time octopodes have used foreign objects as places of residence, the veined octopus’s homebuilding is remarkable due to the extensive preparation, transportation, and fabrication involved. For Finn and Norman, this counts as tool use, and would make it first documented case of such behavior in invertebrates. (The Associated Press)
That’s one pretty awesome octopus, but come back to me when you’re fifty feet tall and attacking unsuspecting ships at sea - then I’ll be impressed.
Got a sweet tooth? You’re also more likely to be a criminal - at least, according to one study. I bet those researchers are just angry because their mothers wouldn’t let them eat chocolate as kids.
Add this to the list of reasons to take candy machines out of schools. A recent study by British researcher Simon Moore of Cardiff University suggests that children who eat a lot of candy are more likely to become violent criminals, Time magazine reports. The study took data from the British Cohort Study, a long-term survey of 17,000 people born during one week in April 1970. Moore plumbed the data and discovered that 69 percent of people convicted of a violent act by age 34 ate candy almost every day as children, while only 42 percent of non-criminals reported the same. Moore said that he then adjusted the figures “parental permissiveness, economic status, whether the kids were urban or rural. But the result remained.” It’s unclear whether sweets contain compounds promoting antisocial and aggressive behavior or whether undisciplined children tend to eat sweets to excess, evidencing a lack of impulse control that carries through into adulthood. “This study really raises more questions than answers,” Moore said. (TIME)
Candy causing crime? Come on. Look, candy does a lot of things - makes movies more enjoyable, puts Hersey, PA on the map, gave Willy Wonka a job - but linking it with criminals is just nonsense.
