Prehistoric 'Graveyard' Uncovered In Florida Sinkhole
500,000 years ago, a group of armadillo-like mammals, horses, and sloths met their untimely end after plunging into a sinkhole in what is now the Big Bend region of Florida. For thousands of years, sediment concealed their remains - until two hobby fossil hunters made the discovery.
In June 2022, Robert Sinibaldi and Joseph Branin were scouring the Steinhatchee River, hoping to stumble upon fossils. The conditions were far from ideal.
"It's like diving in coffee," Sinibaldi admitted.
After a fruitless search, Branin suddenly spotted something remarkable - a set of horse teeth. Digging deeper, the pair unearthed a hoof core, a tapir skull, and dozens more fossils -many in extraordinary condition.
"It wasn't just quantity, it was quality," Sinibaldi recalled. "We knew we had an important site, but we didn't know just how important."
Now, their find - 552 fossils in total - has been officially documented in a newly published scientific study. Palaeontologists at the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville quickly realised these fossils were no ordinary find. The remains belonged to a period known as the middle Irvingtonian North American land mammal age, a crucial but little-understood stage of the Pleistocene Ice Age.
"The fossil record is missing data from this time period - not just in Florida, but everywhere," said Rachel Narducci, a vertebrate palaeontology collections manager at the museum.
Until now, only one other site in Florida had produced fossils from this obscure era. The Steinhatchee River itself likely played a role in exposing the bones, shifting its course over thousands of years until it eroded the ancient sinkhole, washing the fossils into the riverbed.The fossils provide a rare glimpse into how certain Ice Age creatures evolved over time. Among them is Holmesina, a now-extinct genus of giant armadillo-like mammals.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
2 days ago
- Hamilton Spectator
‘Forever chemicals' like PFAS found in eco-friendly branded menstrual products: new study
The results of a new study are disappointing for those choosing to be eco-friendly when it comes to their menstrual products. The study found 'forever chemicals,' also known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), were observed in some reusable menstrual pads and panties. According to researchers with Paul H. O'Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs and the University of Notre Dame, 59 reusable personal hygiene products from North America, South America and Europe were tested. It included pads, liners, underwear and incontinence underwear from North American companies like Knix, Jockey, Diva Cup, Aisle, Bambody, Cariona, MeLuna, Thinx, Uniqlo and more. Nearly 30 per cent of the samples were positive for PFAS, researchers found. 'Since reusable products are on the rise due to their increased sustainability compared to single-use products, it's important to ensure that these products are safe,' associate professor Marta Venier said in a press release . 'This is crucial, especially for adolescents and young women, who are more vulnerable to potential negative health effects. 'Feminine hygiene products stay in contact with the skin for extended periods of time, and the risks from the dermal absorption of PFAS, especially neutral PFAS, are not well understood.' As part of the study, 22 one-time use products were also included from various countries, with pads, panty liners and incontinence products tested from brand names like The Honest Company, Always, Kotex, O.B., Equate, Depend, TENA and Stayfree. In some cases, the products advertise they are 'natural,' 'organic,' 'non-toxic,' 'sustainable' or made using 'no harmful chemicals.' The authors chose not to identify PFAS concentrations by brand, but said more research is needed. This isn't the first time menstrual products have been under the PFAS microscope. A 2023 study has already shared PFAS chemicals are in some one-time use products like tampons, along with reuseable period underwear. 'Most surprising to the researchers was the presence of total fluorine in the wrappers for numerous pads and some tampons, as well as the outer layers of some of the period underwear,' the 2023 study noted. Researchers speculated PFAS was used in wrappers to keep the tampons dry prior to use, and they were in the outer layer of the period underwear to prevent leaks. 'Of course, you're concerned for the wearer, but we're also concerned about the ecological impact because PFAS are 'forever chemicals,'' principal investigator Dr. Graham Peaslee said in a press release . 'Once these products are thrown away, they go to landfills and decay, releasing PFAS into groundwater. And we, or later generations, could end up inadvertently ingesting them.' PFAS are made up of over 12,000 compounds that have stick, stain and water-resistant properties, the American Chemical Society said in the 2023 study. These forever chemicals are often found in many household products, including some food and food packaging and containers, non-stick pans, household cleaning products, some cosmetics and shampoo, and in fire extinguisher foam and carpets. PFAS are linked to serious health risks, Venier said. But not every product tested had the 'forever chemicals.' 'While further studies are needed to define the risk of PFAS exposure to human skin, the study's finding that at least one sample per category showed no intentional presence of these chemicals suggests that safer and healthier alternatives can be manufactured without them,' Vernier added. More people experiencing periods today are choosing eco-friendly products 'to combat the environmental impact of disposable products,' this study has found. Yet eventually, even reusable products will likely end up in landfills. 'Consumers should know that not everything that is in a product is listed on the package,' Venier said. 'Increased transparency from manufacturers would help consumers make informed decisions about what they're purchasing for themselves and their families.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
How FDA panelists casting doubt on antidepressant use during pregnancy could lead to devastating outcomes for mothers
At a meeting held by the Food and Drug Administration on July 21, 2025, a panel convened by the agency cast doubt on the safety of antidepressant medications called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, in pregnancy. Panel members discussed adding a so-called black box warning to the drugs – which the agency uses to indicate severe or life-threatening side effects – about the risk they pose to developing fetuses. Some of the panelists who attended had a history of expressing deep skepticism on antidepressants. SSRIs include drugs like Prozac and Zoloft and are the most commonly used medicines for treating clinical depression. They are considered the first-line medications for treating depression in pregnancy, with approximately 5% to 6% of North American women taking an SSRI during pregnancy. We are a psychologist certified in perinatal mental health and a reproductive psychiatrist and neuroscientist who studies female hormones and drug treatments for depression. We are concerned that many claims made at the meeting about the dangers of those drugs contradict decades of research evidence showing that antidepressant use during pregnancy is low risk when compared with the dangers of mental illness. As clinicians, we have front-row seats to the maternal mental health crisis in the U.S. Mental illness, including suicide and overdose, is the leading cause of maternal deaths. Like all drugs, SSRIs carry both risks and benefits. But research shows that the benefits to pregnant patients outweigh the risks of the SSRIs, as well as the risks of untreated depression. The panel did not address the safety of SSRIs following delivery, but numerous studies show that taking SSRI antidepressants while breastfeeding is low risk, usually producing low to undetectable drug levels in infants. The biology of maternal brain health Pregnancy and the months following childbirth are characterized by so many emotional, psychological and physical changes that the transition to motherhood has a specific name: matrescence. During matrescence, the brain changes rapidly as it prepares to efficiently take care of a baby. The capacity for change within the brain is known as 'plasticity.' Enhanced plasticity during pregnancy and the postpartum period is what allows the maternal brain to become better at attuning to and carrying out the tasks of motherhood. For example, research indicates that during this period, the brain is primed to respond to baby-related stimuli and improve a mother's ability to regulate her emotions. These brain shifts also act as a mental buffer against aging and stress in the long term. On the flip side, these rapid brain changes, fueled by hormonal shifts, can make people especially vulnerable to the risk of mental illness during and after pregnancy. For women who have a prior history of depression, the risk is even greater. Clinical depression interferes with brain plasticity, such that the brain becomes 'stuck' in patterns of negative thoughts, emotions and behaviors. This leads to impairment in brain functions that are essential to motherhood. New mothers with depression have decreased brain activity in regions responsible for motivation, regulation of emotion and problem-solving. They are often withdrawn or overprotective of their infants, and they struggle with the relentless effort needed for tasks that arise with child-rearing like soothing, feeding, stimulating, planning and anticipating the child's needs. Research shows that SSRIs work by promoting brain plasticity. This in turn allows individuals to perceive the world more positively, increases the experience of gratification as a mother and facilitates cognitive flexibility for problem-solving. Assessing the risks of SSRIs in pregnancy Prescription drugs like SSRIs are just one aspect of treating pregnant women struggling with mental illness. Evidence-based psychotherapy, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, can also induce adaptive brain changes. But women with severe symptoms often require medication before they can reap the benefits of psychotherapy, and finding properly trained, accessible and affordable psychotherapists can be challenging. So sometimes, SSRIs may be the most appropriate treatment option available. Multiple studies have examined the effects of SSRIs on the developing fetus. Some data does show a link between these drugs and preterm birth, as well as low birth weight. However, depression during pregnancy is also linked to these effects, making it difficult to disentangle what's due to the drug and what's due to the illness. SSRIs are linked to a condition called neonatal adaption syndrome, in which infants are born jittery, irritable and with abnormal muscle tone. About one-third of infants born to mothers taking SSRIs experience it. However, research shows that it usually resolves within two weeks and does not have long-term health implications. The FDA-convened panel heavily focused on potential risks of SSRI usage, with several individuals incorrectly asserting that these drugs cause autism in exposed youth, as well as birth defects. At least one panelist discussed clinical depression as a 'normal' part of the 'emotional' experience during pregnancy and following birth. This perpetuates a long history of of women being dismissed, ignored and not believed in medical care. It also discounts the rigorous assessment and criteria that medical professionals use to diagnose reproductive mental health disorders. A summary of the pivotal studies on SSRIs in pregnancy by the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Women's Health discusses how research has shown SSRIs to not be associated with miscarriage, birth defects or developmental conditions in children, including autism spectrum disorder. The risks of untreated mental illness Untreated clinical depression in pregnancy has several known risks. As noted above, babies born to mothers with clinical depression have a higher risk of preterm birth and low birth weight. They are also more likely to require neonatal intensive care and are at greater risk of behavioral problems and impaired cognition in childhood. Women who are clinically depressed have an increased risk of developing preeclampsia – a condition involving high blood pressure that, if not identified and treated quickly, can be fatal to both mother and fetus. Just as concerning is the heightened risk of suicide in depression. Suicide accounts for about 8% of deaths in pregnancy and shortly after birth. Compared with these very serious risks, the risks of using SSRIs in pregnancy turn out to be minimal. While women used to be encouraged to stop taking SSRIs during pregnancy to avoid some of these risks, this is no longer recommended, as it exposes women to a high chance of depression relapse. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that all perinatal mental health treatments, including SSRIs, continue to be available. Many women are already reluctant to take antidepressants during pregnancy, and given the choice, they tend to avoid it. From a psychological standpoint, exposing their fetus to the side effects of antidepressant medications is one of many common reasons for women in the U.S. to feel maternal guilt or shame. However, the available data suggests such guilt is not warranted. Taken together, the best thing one can do for pregnant women and their babies is not to avoid prescribing these drugs when needed, but to take every measure possible to promote health: optimal prenatal care, and the combination of medications with psychotherapy, as well as other evidence-based treatments such as bright light therapy, exercise and adequate nutrition. The panel failed to address the latest neuroscience behind depression, how antidepressants work in the brain and the biological rationale for why doctors use them in the first place. Patients deserve education on what's happening in their brain, and how a drug like an SSRI might work to help. Depression during pregnancy and in the months following birth is a serious barrier to brain health for mothers. SSRIs are one way of promoting healthy brain changes so that mothers can thrive both short- and long-term. Should the FDA, as a result of this recent panel, decide to place a black-box warning on antidepressants in pregnancy, researchers like us already know from history what will happen. In 2004, the FDA placed a warning on antidepressants describing potential suicidal ideation and behavior in young people. In the following years, antidepressant-prescribing decreased, while the consequences of mental illness increased. And it's easy to imagine a similar pattern in pregnant women. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Nicole Amoyal Pensak, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Andrew Novick, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus Read more: Risk of death related to pregnancy and childbirth more than doubled between 1999 and 2019 in the US, new study finds US preterm birth and maternal mortality rates are alarmingly high, outpacing those in all other high-income countries Study shows an abortion ban may lead to a 21% increase in pregnancy-related deaths I receive royalties for the sales of my book RATTLED, How to Calm New Mom Anxiety with the Power of the Postpartum Brain. Dr Novick has a career development award from the National Institute of Child Health and Development (K23HD110435) to study the neurobiology of hormonal contraception. This funding was not used to support the preparation or publication of this article. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent those of the National Institutes of Health or the University of Colorado School of Medicine. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
'Monster' earthquake in Russia was one that some seismologists were anticipating
As earthquakes go, this was a monster. At 8.8 on the magnitude scale, it's up there with the most powerful ever recorded. It's also one some seismologists were anticipating. The quake, in Russia's Far East, occurred on a fault line running along the Kuril-Kamchatka Trench - a scar on the seabed caused by the Pacific tectonic plate diving beneath the North American and Okhotsk plates. Called a subduction zone, it's one of a series around the Pacific's notorious "Ring of Fire". The friction from shifting plates fuels volcanoes but is also notorious for causing "megathrust" earthquakes and resulting tsunamis. The last major earthquake on the Kamchatka peninsula was in 1952, just 30km (18 miles) from this latest quake's epicentre. The US Geological Survey estimates that six metres-worth of tectonic movement had built up along the Kuril Kamchatka trench since then. A series of "foreshocks," including a 7.4 magnitude earthquake on the 20th of July, suggested those seven decades of stress were being transferred along the fault, indicating a major quake near the 1952 epicentre may have been imminent. But the moment an earthquake strikes is always impossible to predict, so too is the size or spread of a resulting tsunami. A massive earthquake, doesn't always correspond to a massive tsunami. Read more:What we know so farWhat are the strongest ever earthquakes? A host of factors, including the amount of movement on the sea floor, the area over which the movement spreads, and the depth of the ocean above, all play a role. From the limited information so far, even in areas close to the epicentre, the tsunami wave was sustained, but nowhere near as large as the one that struck Japan in 2011. The 9.1 magnitude earthquake that caused the Tohoku tsunami generated a wave nearly 40 metres high in places. The combined impacts of the earthquake and tsunami claimed nearly 20,000 lives. According to the Kremlin, no fatalities have been reported in Russia so far. It's a very sparsely populated area, meaning casualties will almost certainly be lower than in comparable-sized quakes in Japan and Indonesia. It's also possible that the foreshocks that preceded the Kamchatka quake may have helped save lives. Following the 20 July earthquake in Kamchatka, local tsunami alerts warned people to head to higher ground. When this latest quake struck, with more than 10 times more power than the last, people may have acted even before the warnings came.
