It’s springtime, and that means mud pies, bug bites and scraped knees—if you’re a preschooler. Or at least it used to. Health experts say small children should get at least an hour of physical activity a day. And studies have linked more time outside with motor development, better mental health, better behavior and, of course, more sun-supplied vitamin D. But a new study of nearly 9,000 U.S. children found that almost half of preschool-age children are not getting outside at least once a day with their parents. Girls were even less likely to be taken outside than boys, and some families studied not taking their young children outside more than a few times a month. The findings are in Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine. Kids who had daycare were subtly less likely to get the time outside with a parent. They were also unlikely to get the recommended minimum one-hour of outdoor activity while at daycare. So researchers recommended checking in with care providers about time outside. One hour out of 24 isn’t too much to ask, right?
-
Solution
It's springtime, and that means mud pies, bug bites and scraped knees—if you're a preschooler. Or at least it used to. Health experts say small young children should get at least an hour of physical activity a day. And studies have linked more time outside with motor development, better improved mental health, better behavior and, of course, more sun-supplied vitamin D. But a new study of nearly 9,000 U.S. children found that almost half of preschool-age children kids are not getting outside at least once a day with their parents. Girls were even less likely to be taken outside than boys, and some families studied reported not taking their young children outside more than a few times a month. The findings are in Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine. Kids who had daycare were subtly slightly less likely to get the time outside with a parent. They were also unlikely to get the recommended minimum one-hour of outdoor physical activity while at daycare. So researchers recommended checking in with care providers about time outside. One hour out of 24 isn't too much to ask, right?
Learning a new language can grow one’s opinion . Now scientists find that learning languages grows parts of the brain. Scientists researched the brains of students in the Swedish Armed Forces Interpreter Academy, who are required to learn new languages at an very fast rate. Many must become fluent in Arabic, Russian and the Persian dialect Dari in just 13 months. The researchers contrast the brains of these students to the brains of medical students who also have to learn a tremendous amount in a very short period of time, but without the focus on linguistics . The brains of the language learners exhibited significant new growth in the hippo campus and in parts of the cerebral cortex. The medical students’ brains showed no big growth. The study was in the journal Neuro Image. Interestingly, the amount of growth in the brains of the linguists correlated with better skills— so those with better language skills also exposed more growth in the hippo campus and areas of the cerebral cortex that relate to language. For other students who had to work harder to improve their language skills, the scientists got greater growth in the motor area of the cerebral cortex. Where and how much change take place in the brain are linked to how easily one picks up a language. But it remains to be seen why this is.
-
Solution
Learning a new language can grow one's opinion perspective . Now scientists find that learning languages grows parts of the brain. Scientists researched studied the brains of students in the Swedish Armed Forces Interpreter Academy, who are required to learn new languages at an very fast rate. Many must become fluent in Arabic, Russian and the Persian dialect Dari in just 13 months. The researchers contrast compared the brains of these students to the brains of medical students who also have to learn a tremendous amount in a very short period of time, but without the focus on linguistics languages. The brains of the language learners exhibited significant new growth in the hippo campus and in parts of the cerebral cortex. The medical students' brains showed no big observed growth. The study was in the journal Neuro Image. Interestingly, the amount of growth in the brains of the linguists correlated with better skills— so those with better language skills also exposed experienced more growth in the hippo campus and areas of the cerebral cortex that relate to language. For other students who had to work harder to improve their language skills, the scientists got found greater growth in the motor area of the cerebral cortex. Where and how much change take place in the brain are linked to how easily one picks up a language. But it remains to be seen why this is.
For a brief moment, it was the robot king of Mars. Then it closed down unexpectedly and was lost for good. Back in 1971 the Soviet lander Mars 3 scored the first soft landing on the Red Planet. But it existed for only about 15 seconds and then failed. Since that time, Mars 3 has been little more than an historic interplanetary paperweight, its exact resting spot unknown. Now a team of amateur researchers may have located the defunct lander. Using imagery taken by NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter in 2007, the searchers found an object that could be Mars 3. Nearby they also turned up what may be the lander’s descent module and energy shield, as well as an unusually bright spot that could be the parachute. All four items are in the expected launching area. A follow-up photo of the region acquired by the NASA orbiter in March has strengthened the case. But the researchers will keep poring over the available imagery to make sure. Unfortunately there’s no method to get a closer look. Because the current robot king of Mars, the Curiosity rover, is thousands of kilometers away.
-
Solution
For a brief moment, it was the robot king of Mars. Then it closed shut down unexpectedly and was lost for good. Back in 1971 the Soviet lander Mars 3 scored the first soft landing on the Red Planet. But it existed operated for only about 15 seconds and then failed. Since that time, Mars 3 has been little more than an historic interplanetary paperweight, its exact resting spot place unknown. Now a team of amateur researchers may have located the defunct lander. Using imagery taken by NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter in 2007, the searchers found spotted an object that could be Mars 3. Nearby they also turned up what may be the lander's descent module and energy heat shield, as well as an unusually bright spot that could be the parachute. All four items are in the expected launching landing area. A follow-up photo of the region acquired by the NASA orbiter in March has strengthened the case. But the researchers will keep poring over the available imagery to make sure. Unfortunately there's no method way to get a closer look. Because the current robot king of Mars, the Curiosity rover, is thousands of kilometers away.
Our universe has long passed for a 13.7-billion-year-old, but it turns out it’s really a bit more elderly. So says new source from the European Planck satellite. “Compared to the previous best performance , the universe is a little older, 13.8 billion years.”U.S. project scientist Charles Lawrence of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in a March 21st press briefing. “It’s growing a little more slowly. There’s more matter, both the kind that we’re made of that we can see and the dark kind that we can’t see, but that has strength to pull things around.” The Planck satellite maps the cosmic microwave background, the faint after glow of the big bang. And that lets divert look back to the very dawn of the universe.” The variations from place to place in the map that Planck has made tell us new things about what emerged just 10 nano-nano-nano-nanoseconds after the big bang when, in a gazillion times less time than it takes me to say this, the universe grew by 100 trillion trillion times.” It’s been said that ” the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.”
-
Solution
Our universe has long passed for a 13.7-billion-year-old, but it turns out it's really a bit more elderly. So says new source data from the European Planck satellite. "Compared to the previous best performance measurements, the universe is a little older, 13.8 billion years."U.S. project scientist Charles Lawrence of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in a March 21st press briefing. "It's growing expanding a little more slowly. There's more matter, both the kind that we're made of that we can see and the dark kind that we can't see, but that has strength gravity to pull things around." The Planck satellite maps the cosmic microwave background, the faint after glow of the big bang. And that lets divert cosmologists look back to the very dawn of the universe." The variations from place to place in the map that Planck has made tell us new things about what emerged happened just 10 nano-nano-nano-nanoseconds after the big bang when, in a gazillion times less time than it takes me to say this, the universe grew expanded by 100 trillion trillion times." It's been said that " the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
Flaming cauldrons of molten metal have long been the preliminary venues for steel production. But blast furnaces require a lot of coal, which means greenhouse gas position . In fact, worldwide, steel making is responsible for 5 percent of annual emissions. But scientists working on a way to harvest oxide from the iron oxide in lunar soil for future moon bases realized that they happened on a better way to make feel here on Earth. The trick? Produce steel the way we make aluminum: use electricity rather than flame. To make steel the old-fashioned way, you blast iron ore with heat and purify the resulting melted metal with oxygen. The process removes carbon from the steel, but produces carbon dioxide. Making a ton of steel releases partly two tons of CO2— and the world uses a lot of steel in cars, buildings and other infrastructure. The new method involves passing a current through a molten pool of iron oxide, which drives off the originally sought-after oxygen. The by-product is steel. And depending on the source of the electricity, the proceed could be nearly CO2-free, which, as far as the atmosphere is concerned, would be very cool.
-
Solution
Flaming cauldrons of molten metal have long been the preliminary (primary ) venues for steel production. But blast furnaces require a lot of coal, which means greenhouse gas position (pollution). In fact, worldwide, steel making is responsible for 5 percent of annual emissions. But scientists working on a way to harvest oxide (oxygen) from the iron oxide in lunar soil for future moon bases realized that they happened on a better way to make feel steel here on Earth. The trick? Produce steel the way we make aluminum: use electricity rather than flame. To make steel the old-fashioned way, you blast iron ore with heat and purify the resulting (melted) molten metal with oxygen. The process removes carbon from the steel, but produces carbon dioxide. Making a ton of steel releases partly (roughly) two tons of CO2— and the world uses a lot of steel in cars, buildings and other infrastructure. The new method involves passing a current through a molten pool of iron oxide, which drives off the originally sought-after oxygen. The by-product is steel. And depending on the source of the electricity, the proceed (process) could be nearly CO2-free, which, as far as the atmosphere is concerned, would be very cool.