Strange, unexplained signals detected from Antarctic ice: Here's what scientists say
The transmissions were caught from 30 degrees below the ice surface- a phenomenon quite uncommon for neutrinos. Stephanie Wissel, an astrophysicist at Penn State University and part of the team, said in her results journal, 'It's an interesting problem because we still don't actually have an explanation for what those anomalies are, but what we do know is that they're most likely not representing neutrinos.'
According to the team's calculations, neutrino signals are highly unlikely to be detected despite their widespread availability. The signals would have had to pass through thousands of kilometers of rock before being recorded, which makes the possibility incredibly low. 'You have a billion neutrinos passing through your thumbnail at any moment, but neutrinos don't really interact. So, this is the double-edged sword problem. If we detect them, it means they have traveled all this way without interacting with anything else. We could be detecting a neutrino coming from the edge of the observable universe,' Wissel added.
Given its secluded location and minimal interference from other signals, the Antarctic was picked as the backdrop of this study. Speaking about how the ANITA works, Wissel said, 'We have these radio antennas on a balloon that flies 40 kilometers above the ice in Antarctica. We point our antennas down at the ice and look for neutrinos that interact in the ice, producing radio emissions that we can then sense on our detectors.'
After cross-referencing the data picked up by ANITA with two other independent detectors namely the IceCube Experiment and the Pierre Auger Observatory, the team found that the results didn't match. The signal has now been described as 'anomalous' and confirmed not to be a result of neutrino activity.
'My guess is that some interesting radio propagation effect occurs near ice and also near the horizon that I don't fully understand, but we certainly explored several of those, and we haven't been able to find any of those yet either,' Wissel noted. 'So, right now, it's one of these long-standing mysteries, and I'm excited that when we fly PUEO, we'll have better sensitivity. In principle, we should pick up more anomalies, and maybe we'll actually understand what they are. We also might detect neutrinos, which would in some ways be a lot more exciting.'
Several plausible theories to explain the incident have been provided with some suggesting the existence of dark matter and unknown radio wave behavior due to the ice and proximity to the horizon. However, no concrete answer has been reached.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
26-07-2025
- India.com
What will happen if a nuclear war breaks out? Chilling findings from study reveals...
While the world is still grappling with the threat of nuclear war, a new study has raised new alarm bells. The study indicated that even a small nuclear war could be a dangerous threat to humanity. It could lead to a breakdown of global supply chains and a loss of crops, resulting in famine in many parts of the world. A study led by researchers at Penn State University, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, emphasized that whether a nuclear war is regional or global, its impacts would be significant enough to plunge the planet into darkness and create catastrophic famine. According to a report from Firstpost, this study is especially important at a time of rising geopolitical instability and nuclear weapons taking on new prominence in global geopolitics. The study provides a detailed model for how a nuclear war could impact global agriculture. The study explores how the expulsion of soot from a nuclear war would block sunlight on Earth, disrupting various climatic systems, which would then produce disastrous effects for food production across the world. At the core of this study is the assumption that nuclear firestorms, in particular, those started in burning cities and industrial areas, would inject enormous concentrations of soot into the atmosphere. The soot would spread throughout the atmosphere globally. Thus, it will be a major blocking layer (essentially a dark haze) at the upper bounds of the troposphere, preventing any sunlight from penetrating the Earth's surface. Such a blocking layer could persist for a number of years. This will lead to dropping temperatures. changing weather patterns, and potentially eliminating food security for a vast portion of the world. In the event of a large nuclear conflict, such as one between Russia and the United States, the amount of light hitting Earth's surface could decrease so drastically that worldwide corn production would drop by as much as 80 percent, according to Firstpost. Such a colossal collapse in agricultural output would destroy food security for much of the planet, leading to famine and instability on a global level. To assess what the potential impacts might be, the team used a model called the Cycles agroecosystem model, a sophisticated simulation of agriculture developed at Penn State University. This model integrates climate-specific daily weather, soil chemistry, crop growth, and the movement of nitrogen and carbon to predict how crops would react to different combinations of climate and agricultural practices. For this study, the model was calibrated specifically for nuclear winter – with a diminished sunlight exposure, lower global temperature, and increased exposure to harmful UV-B radiation from ozone layer depletion. When would agriculture begin to recover—if at all? 'Using maize (Zea maize L.) as a sentinel crop, we found that annual maize production could decline from 7% after a small-scale regional nuclear war with 5 Tg soot injection, to 80% after a global nuclear war with 150 Tg soot injection, with recovery taking from 7 to 12 years. UV-B damage would peak 6–8 years post-war and can further decrease annual maize production by 7%. Over the recovery period, adaptive selection of maize maturity types to track changing temperatures could increase production by 10% compared to a no-adaptation strategy,' reads the statement in the abstract section of the study. The researchers applied the model to follow the effects over ten years, specifically to witness how maize (corn), being one of the world's most important staple food crops, would respond to the extreme and stressful conditions. The researchers analyzed six hypothetical nuclear war scenarios, and one of the more horrifying findings was that recovery of global food systems could take longer than a decade after the conflict. In essence, once a nuclear war happens, the fallout from it will last for decades. The unequivocal conclusion from the study is that a nuclear war would involve far more than military or political disaster. It would cause an ecological and humanitarian collapse. A nuclear war of any scale would create a famine across the world, with consequences that could adversely affect the future of mankind for centuries to come. Researchers analyzed six possible nuclear war scenarios corresponding to the amount of soot injected into the atmosphere. The soot injections ranged from 5 teragrams (Tg) representing a regional conflict between India and Pakistan, to a full-scale nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia with soot injections of 150–165 Tg. What happens to crops if sunlight disappears? The differences are stark: the global war scenario would inject 30 to 33 times more soot than the regional one with far worse global cooling, extreme reductions in sunlight, and widespread crop failures of historic proportions. What is nuclear winter, and why is it dangerous? Probably the most astonishing aspect is how long the effects of nuclear winter would last. It is also important to note that it is not a normal incident or a transitory natural disaster in which agriculture might recover quickly. Recovery after a nuclear war will take almost a decade or longer to go back to productive agricultural conditions. The destruction occurs from the first years and after, and indeed there is still considerable and persistent damage at year 12. As such, food systems would not have time to stabilize or recover during this 'prolonged onslaught of destruction. This study shows that adaptation strategies like dynamic tailoring of maize maturity types can improve food production by 10% over a 13 year recovery period compared with static approaches under a global nuclear war scenario,' reads the statement in the conclusion section of the study.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
25-07-2025
- First Post
What happens if nuclear war strikes? Sun blocked, crops fail, famine unleashed
With nuclear war making it to geopolitical debates, a major new study warns that even a limited atomic conflict could trigger global food security and plunge the Earth into darkness for days read more It was just a coincidence that new research on how a nuclear winter could devastate agriculture appeared around the same time The New York Times published a recent review serving as a timely reminder to read Nuclear War: A Scenario by Annie Jacobsen, a gripping and sobering non-fiction narrative published last March that imagines, in minute-by-minute detail, what could happen if a nuclear missile were launched at the United States. Based entirely on real-world protocols, interviews with military and civilian experts and declassified documents, the author argues that nuclear deterrence is an illusion sustained by dangerous assumptions that technology is infallible, that decisions can be made perfectly under pressure and that all actors will behave rationally. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Through this realistic yet terrifying scenario, she urges readers and policymakers to recognise how little time stands between peace and unthinkable devastation and to reconsider the policies that make nuclear war possible with just one miscalculation. At its core, her book is a warning. And the new scientific study published in Environmental Research Letters by researchers at Penn State University too delivers a chilling warning: a nuclear war — whether regional or global — could plunge the planet into darkness, collapse food systems and unleash unprecedented global famine. As geopolitical conflicts intensify and nuclear sabre-rattling returns to the global stage, this research takes on urgent significance. It presents the most comprehensive modelling to date of how nuclear war could impact global agriculture by simulating how firestorm-generated soot would block sunlight, disrupt climate systems and devastate crop production. Soot, smoke and a shroud over the Earth At the core of the study is the projection that soot from nuclear firestorms, particularly from burning cities and industrial areas, would be lofted into the stratosphere, forming a sun-blocking layer that could linger for years. In the case of a large-scale nuclear conflict, such as one between the United States and Russia, sunlight reaching Earth's surface could decline so sharply that global corn yields would plummet by as much as 80 per cent. That level of collapse would obliterate food security for much of the world. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Should we trust this study? To understand how bad the effects could be, the researchers used a tool called the Cycles agroecosystem model. This is an advanced farming simulation developed at Penn State. It uses daily weather data, soil chemistry, how plants grow and how carbon and nitrogen interact to predict how crops will respond to different farming methods and climate conditions. For this study, the model was adjusted to show what would happen during a nuclear winter—a time with less sunlight, colder global temperatures and more harmful UV-B rays due to damage to the ozone layer. The researchers ran the model over ten years to see how maize (corn), one of the world's main crops, would do under these extreme conditions. What all could happen in nuclear wars The researchers examined six potential nuclear war scenarios, each modelled according to the amount of soot that would be released. These ranged from a 5-teragram (Tg) soot injection—representative of a regional India-Pakistan conflict—to a 150–165 Tg scenario, representing a full-scale US-Russia nuclear exchange. The difference is vast: the global war scenario would inject 30 to 33 times more soot than the regional conflict, drastically intensifying global cooling and crop failures. Food may become scarce Even in the smallest modelled scenario, where about 5 Tg of soot is introduced into the atmosphere, the results are alarming. Corn yields decline globally by approximately 7 per cent, enough to strain food supply chains and cause spikes in food prices, especially in vulnerable countries with high import dependence. The regional war scenario would still block 20 to 35 per cent of incoming sunlight and reduce global surface temperatures by 2°C to 5°C — enough to disrupt climate systems such as the South Asian monsoon, with serious consequences for rice and wheat harvests. Under the full-scale global nuclear war scenario, however, the damage becomes existential. With 150–165 Tg of soot darkening the skies, the study predicts a catastrophic 80 per cent global decline in corn production. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This would not be a temporary setback. Nuclear winter conditions would persist for seven to twelve years, with global temperatures plunging and crop-growing seasons shortened to the point where staple crops could not mature. The sun would be blocked to such a degree that most agricultural regions would become temporarily unviable. It could be a perfect storm The Cycles model simulated not only cooling and sunlight reduction but also the intensification of UV-B radiation, due to ozone layer destruction from soot-induced atmospheric changes. UV-B is known to damage plant tissues and impair growth. In the scenarios studied, UV-B peaks six to eight years after detonation, during which time even recovering climate conditions would be undermined by elevated radiation. This further reduces potential yields and delays the recovery of agricultural systems. Why this all matters While the seven per cent drop in corn under the India-Pakistan war model may appear modest, the global food system is tightly interconnected. A shortfall in one region — particularly in maize, wheat or rice — can ripple across continents through disrupted trade networks, hoarding, price inflation and access inequality. In the regional scenario, billions could face hunger, especially in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The 80 per cent yield loss in the full global war model, however, represents nothing short of a planetary food collapse. If other staple crops like wheat, rice and soybeans experience similar declines (as past nuclear winter studies suggest), widespread famine would become nearly inevitable. Such an outcome would overwhelm international aid systems, incite civil unrest and result in deaths numbering in the hundreds of millions, if not billions. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Seven to 12 years of darkness and hunger One of the most startling findings is the duration of the nuclear winter effects. Unlike a temporary natural disaster, the recovery of agricultural conditions after a nuclear war would take close to a decade — or more. The damage peaks in the early years but remains significant through year 12, meaning food systems would not have time to stabilise or self-correct. Recovery is not linear and the compound stresses of sunlight loss, UV-B radiation and global trade breakdown would delay return to normalcy. How we can survive The study also explores adaptation strategies that could provide some degree of protection. One approach is the use of short-season crop varieties, particularly maize types that mature quickly and are less dependent on long, warm growing seasons. Adjusting planting calendars, improving nutrient management and selecting crop types more tolerant of cold and UV-B radiation are other possibilities. In model simulations, such adaptive measures resulted in up to 10 per cent higher yields compared to non-adaptive scenarios, especially in the post-peak years of the nuclear winter. However, these adaptations face significant real-world barriers. Most notably, access to seeds of shorter-maturity crops and the infrastructure to distribute them would likely be disrupted in a post-nuclear world. Recognising this, the study recommends the creation of 'agricultural resilience kits' which means pre-stocked packages of adaptive seeds, tools and guidance tailored for different regions. These kits could be distributed preemptively or stored for rapid deployment after a disaster, providing a lifeline to struggling farming communities. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Maybe, it's time for real action The conclusion of the study is unequivocal. A nuclear war would be far more than a military or political catastrophe. It would be an ecological and humanitarian collapse. Even a limited regional exchange could trigger dangerous global agricultural shocks. A full-scale nuclear conflict would bring about a planetary famine, with long-term consequences for civilisation itself. The Penn State researchers emphasise the importance of preparedness and diplomacy, noting that the current level of planning for such a scenario is vastly inadequate. This study deepens our understanding of the far-reaching impacts of nuclear weapons not just in terms of immediate loss of life, but through the slow, cruel scenario of starvation and ecological collapse. It serves as a scientific imperative to reduce the risk of nuclear war and to invest in climate-resilient agricultural systems that can withstand global-scale disruptions. People refer to Hiroshima or Nagasaki as nuclear catastrophe in wars. But that happened 80 years ago. Nuclear technology has vastly improved, and bombs become a thousand times more powerful. While some intensify nuclear sabre-rattling, the rest of the world hopes that sanity prevails as geopolitical games look increasingly chaotic.
Hindustan Times
01-07-2025
- Hindustan Times
Secret to cutting calories is hiding in your spice rack: Study spills the beans
Concerned about weight gain? According to a new study, the secret to naturally reducing your calorie intake might already be in your kitchen. Research led by Paige Cunningham at Penn State University found that adding hot peppers to your meals can naturally cut food intake by up to 18%. Also read | Love spicy Indian food? Endocrinologists reveal if having more chillies can help weight loss or slow it down Adding hot peppers to your food can help in reducing calorie intake.(Unsplash) The study suggests that spicy foods not only make meals more enjoyable but also help you eat less. This is thanks to capsaicin, the compound in hot peppers that creates a burning sensation on the tongue, encouraging people to feel satisfied and finish their meals sooner. The study authors selected 130 adults for the study and separated them into groups. Each group was given identical meals to consume with one key difference - some contained regular sweet paprika, while others used hot paprika that created a noticeable burning sensation. The researchers noticed that people who consumed the spicy version of the meal naturally started consuming less by taking smaller and slower bites of their food. They bodies, when confronted with the spice, naturally reacted and changed their consumption pattern, without any conscious efforts from their end. Also read | Is spicy food unhealthy? Dietitian says, not really A compound in hot peppers can slow down your food intake.(Unsplash) How spice can reduce your food intake When the body encounters capsaicin, it naturally slows down consumption speed, giving more time to process the mouthful. People having spicy food take small and less frequent bites, reducing their calorie intake. Eating slower helps in consuming fewer calories, thus fast tracking the weight loss journey. Spicy food helps in achieving this eating pattern without much conscious effort or behaviour modification. In the paper, the study authors noted, 'Properties of food can be strategically modified to influence oral processing behavior and slow eating, which in turn can reduce food and energy intake. Specifically, we show across different foods that increasing the oral burn of a meal by adding dried chili pepper not only influences oral processing, but that it also decreases consumption.' Also read | Is eating spicy food causing you mental health issues? Doctor explains how it affects your brain and gut health Note to readers: This article is for informational purposes only and not a substitute for professional medical advice. Always seek the advice of your doctor with any questions about a medical condition. Catch every big hit, every wicket with Crick-it, a one stop destination for Live Scores, Match Stats, Quizzes, Polls & much more. Explore now!. Catch your daily dose of Fashion, Taylor Swift, Health, Festivals, Travel, Relationship, Recipe and all the other Latest Lifestyle News on Hindustan Times Website and APPs.
