Scientists Intrigued to Discover That Human Brains Are Glowing Faintly
Scientists have some exciting news: your brain is likely glowing, whether you can see it or not.
The news comes from researchers at Algoma University in Ontario, who found evidence that the human brain, of all things, possesses luminescent properties.
Essentially, they found that as the brain metabolizes energy, it releases super-faint traces of visible light. Called ultra-weak photon emissions (UPEs), the flashes of light are emitted when electrons break down and lose momentum, letting go of their protons.
As Popular Mechanics notes, UPEs don't technically count as bioluminescence, a chemical process found in organisms like fireflies and anglerfish. Nor does it count as phosphorescence, which refers to energy released in the form of a faint light, as in glow-in-the-dark toys.
And before you ask, it also isn't thermal radiation, the electromagnetic energy released by thermal motion.
The findings on UPEs came as researchers dug into the left occipital lobe, the visual processing center of the brain, along with the right temporal lobe, the center of nonverbal communication.
Their task was to test whether UPE flashes from those parts of the brain could be distinguished from other brain signals.
While earlier studies have explored the broader human body's ability to glow, this one zeroed in on the brain specifically, yielding the exciting results.
Beyond the fun fact that we literally do have bright ideas, the test results have some implications for medical technology. For example, UPEs could help doctors analyze neurological conditions in the future.
"Because UPEs are related to oxidative metabolism, the most immediately relevant applications might include the detection of budding brain tumors, excitotoxic lesions, mild traumatic injuries, and neurotoxic insults," said Hayley Casey, the lead researcher.
This could all be possible, the researchers say, without invasive testing methods like PET and MRI scans, which have the potential to interfere with brain activity.
All that said, the next time you have a brilliant idea, just know your brain's literally lighting up the room.
More on Science: Physicists Say We Were Completely Wrong About How Gravity Works
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
24 minutes ago
- Medscape
Tool Predicts if Seniors with Cancer Can Stay Home Post Op
TOPLINE: A novel predictive model named STAYHOME effectively estimated the risk of losing the ability to live at home among older adults after cancer surgery, demonstrating good calibration with minimal deviation from observed risks. The model predicted a 2.4% and 3.4% risk for admission to a nursing home at 6 months and 12 months, respectively. METHODOLOGY: Older adults prioritize long-term functional independence, and the ability to return and stay at home after cancer surgery remains a key concern. However, current prognostic tools focus on short-term outcomes, lacking individualized long-term risk estimates. To estimate the risk of losing the ability to live at home post-surgery, researchers developed and internally validated a risk prediction model, named STAYHOME, among 97,353 community-dwelling older adults (median age, 76 years) who underwent cancer surgery between 2007 and 2019. The predictive model included preoperative variables such as age, sex, rural residence, previous cancer diagnosis, surgery type, frailty, receipt of home care support, receipt of neoadjuvant therapy, cancer site, and cancer stage. The primary outcome was the inability to stay at home after cancer surgery, defined as the time to admission to a nursing home, and was measured at 6 months and 12 months. TAKEAWAY: Overall, 2658 patients (2.7%) at 6 months and 3746 (3.8%) at 12 months were admitted to a nursing home post-surgery. The mean predicted risk of not staying home was 2.4% at 6 months and 3.4% at 12 months. The STAYHOME tool demonstrated a strong predictive capability, with areas under the curve of 0.76 and 0.75 for 6- and 12-month predictions, respectively. The tool also demonstrated minimal deviation from the observed risk for 6-month (0.33 percentage point on average; calibration slope, 1.27) and 12-month (0.46 percentage point on average; calibration slope, 1.17) predictions. The model's calibration was excellent for most predictors at 6 months and 12 months, with a deviation of < 0.8 percentage points from the observed probability; only age older than 85 years (1.13%), preoperative frailty (1.16%), and receipt of preoperative home care support (1.25%) exceeded the deviation of 1 percentage point at 12 months. Across risk deciles, deviations between predicted and observed probabilities were 0.1%-1.5% at 6 months and 0.1%-1.9% at 12 months, reflecting good calibration. The deviation for the slight overestimation at or above the seventh decile remained under 2% for both timepoints. IN PRACTICE: 'The STAYHOME tool demonstrated good discrimination and was well calibrated. Thus, it may be a useful tool to identify a specific group of individuals at risk of not remaining home,' the authors wrote. '[The tool] used information readily available to patients, care partners, and healthcare professionals and may be implemented to provide them with individualized risk estimates and improve surgical oncology care delivery and experience for older adults,' they concluded. SOURCE: This study, led by Julie Hallet, MD, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, was published online in JAMA Surgery. LIMITATIONS: The STAYHOME tool showed slightly reduced discrimination for predictor levels of preoperative frailty, preoperative home care use, receipt of neoadjuvant therapy, and having stage IV disease. The model was also less well calibrated at the extremes of the risk distribution, with a slight overestimation in higher-risk categories. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by operating grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Ontario Cancer Research Institute, and ICES. One author reported receiving speaker fees from Ipsen, outside the submitted work. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Scientists Detect Radio Burst From Deepest Space, Then Realize It's Just A Satellite, Then Realize The Satellite Was Signaling From Beyond The Grave
A scientific paper was recently published on Cornell University's arXiv describing a radio burst that lasted for a mere 30 nanoseconds. Maybe that doesn't sound too exciting, except that the signal was thought to come from another galaxy. But then it turned out it was just from a satellite. But then it turned out that the satellite had been dead for decades and couldn't actually produce a transmission like that. So now it's a story about a zombie satellite sending impossible messages from beyond the grave, in space. Interested yet? In June 2024, the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP) radio telescope detected what was thought to be a fast radio burst (FRB). Makes sense, as that was exactly what the telescope was trying to find. From reporting by FRBs remain something of a mystery even 20 years after their discovery, which of course just make scientists want to study them more. So detecting one was pretty great... until the team examining the find realized that the FRB made no sense at all. For one thing, the signal was too short — FRBs typically last micro- or milliseconds, not mere nanoseconds. Yes, those time frames are all incredibly small, but they are orders of magnitude apart. The radio telescope's image of it was also very fuzzy, which, like with a normal camera, indicated that the source was actually very, very close, not in a distant galaxy, where other FRB signals were from. What on Earth (or off it) was going on? Well, the answer turned out to be very boring, right before it got incredibly weird. Read more: These Cars Are Going To Age Terribly Once scientists had worked out the exact origin position of the signal, they realized that it was actually so close to Earth that it might well be a satellite, per New Scientist. They cross-referenced with known orbits, and sure enough, one popped up. Ah, darn, just a satellite then. No big deal — hey wait, is that satellite dead? Yes, and not just dead, but long dead. NASA's Relay 2 was in fact one of the first ever satellites, launched all the way back in 1964 at the dawn of the space age. Along with its sister Relay 1, these were experimental communications satellites intended to map the Van Allen radiation belt, per our friends at Gizmodo. Then in June 1967 (everything in this story happens in June, weird), the transponders failed, and that was the end of that. Except, now it isn't. Apparently the long-dead experimental communications satellite decided to get very experimental with its communications, since it sent out a radio burst all of a sudden. If you're wondering how a dead satellite can do that, you're not alone, because no one knows for sure. In fact, the on-board equipment is not even capable of transmitting a 30 nanosecond pulse. Rising from the grave to send impossible messages? What is this, space Ouija? In their scientific paper, the team theorizes one of two possible explanations, as lays out. First is that an electrostatic discharge (ESD) might have built up, causing a brief spark that caused a radio burst. Think of rubbing your hand along a carpet, then touching something metal. In space, the "carpet" would be ionized gas or plasma, so if Relay 2 passed through some of that, it might have sparked. This has actually been observed before, but again, at much longer timescales than 30 nanoseconds, which might count against this theory. If it does prove to be true, it actually has some practical value. ESDs are known to cause damage to satellites, but they are difficult to detect. Possibly, these scientists have stumbled on a way to detect them, making it easier to diagnose a faulty satellite. The second theory, as if this all couldn't get any better, was that the zombie satellite was actually hit by a teeny tiny micrometeorite traveling at 44,000 mph. This little hypothetical guy would only be a few micrograms, but if it struck Relay 2, it would create a puff of charged plasma, which is what the radio telescope would have detected. Both of these are still just theories, and really, nobody knows for sure. If you think that space necromancers must surely be involved, I wouldn't doubt it. It all just goes to show that space is a vast, weird place, and even our brightest minds are still only just scratching the surface of all it has to tell us. Want more like this? Join the Jalopnik newsletter to get the latest auto news sent straight to your inbox... Read the original article on Jalopnik.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Scientists Investigate What Happens If You Snort Moon Dust
Wondering whether snorting Moon dust will kill you? Don't worry: science is on it. A recent study conducted by a team of Australian researchers and published in the journal Life Sciences in Space Research found that lunar dust is probably way less dangerous than space science previously feared — and, actually, might be less dangerous for humans than Earthborne air pollution. (Or, if you will: Earth dust.) For the study, the scientists focused on fine dust particles, or specks of dust that are tiny enough to tunnel far into the lungs. Using state-of-the-art simulations of lunar dust and testing those fabrications on human lungs, researchers determined that, like any dust, the lunar stuff can be irritating, but it doesn't put astronauts at risk of long-term oxidative stress or inflammation akin to what we might see from toxic air pollutants here on Earth. "Our findings suggest that while lunar dust may cause some immediate irritation to the airways, it does not appear to pose a risk for chronic, long-term diseases like silicosis, which is caused by materials like silica dust," Michaela Smith, a graduate student at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) and the study's lead author, said in a statement. The research has been billed as a relief for the astronauts and researchers embarking — maybe? — on NASA's Artemis missions, which seek to establish a long-term human presence on the Moon. Which, of course, is already a difficult assignment, given that the Moon isn't naturally hospitable for human life (with the no-oxygen thing and everything.) If Moon dust — which is, uh, basically the whole lunar surface — were indeed toxic, that would be a seriously tricky hurdle for scientists to climb. "The results," study coauthor and UTS scientist Brian Oliver said in a statement, "contribute to the safety case for returning humans to the Moon." As for the question of whether actually snorting Moon dust Jordan Belfort-style would be a sound idea, the researchers say you probably could. But while it's unlikely you'd experience long-term illness as a result, you should be prepared for discomfort. "Any dust, if you inhale it, you'll sneeze, cough, and have some physical irritation," Smith's statement continued. "But it's not highly toxic like silica, where you end up with silicosis from being on a construction site for 10 years. It's not going to be something like that." As the adage goes: just because you can, doesn't mean you should. More on the Moon: Scientists Investigating Small Orange Objects Coating Surface of the Moon
