Sinking Cities, Waving Cuttlefish and Falling Spacecraft
08:17 Share

The Hoover Dam wasn't built in a day. And the GMC Sierra lineup wasn't built overnight. Like every American achievement, building the Sierra 1500 heavy-duty and EV was the result of dedication. A dedication to mastering the art of engineering. That's what this country has done for 250 years.

Hey, listeners. Rachel here. It's been a year since I started hosting Science Quickly, and because of that, I have a quick favor to ask. We would love to get your feedback on how Science Quickly has been doing and how you might like to see us evolve.

That's why we're putting out a listener survey. If you complete it this month, you'll be eligible to win some awesome Scientific American swag. You can find the survey at sciencequickly.com slash survey, or we'll also have that link in our show notes. It would mean a lot to us if you took a few minutes to complete the survey. We promise it won't take too much of your time. Again, you can find the survey at sciencequickly.com slash survey. Thanks in advance for letting us know your thoughts.

Happy Monday, listeners. For Scientific American Science Quickly, I'm Rachel Feltman. Let's catch up on some of the science news you may have missed last week. ♪

First, a space junk update. By the time you listen to this, a Soviet-era spacecraft may or may not have crash-landed on Earth. Cosmos 482, which the USSR launched back in 1972, was meant to follow the successful probes Venera 7 and Venera 8 in landing on and studying Venus. But a suspected engine malfunction meant that Cosmos 482 never achieved enough velocity to escape Earth's orbit. It's been orbiting our planet ever since and losing altitude along the way.

Some of Cosmos 482 already fell back down to Earth decades ago, but one last big chunk has held on for more than half a century. Last week, researchers said Cosmos 482 would probably make its uncontrolled descent over the weekend. Its potential landing zone stretched from 52 degrees north to 52 degrees south latitude, which covers pretty much everywhere except for Antarctica and places where you can see the northern lights.

There's a chance that the 1,000-dish-or-so-pound lander, which was designed to withstand Venus's atmosphere, will hit Earth in one piece. That could be bad if it happens to crash in a populated area, but it's statistically more likely to hit the ocean or some uninhabited patch of land. And there's still a chance the craft will break up into smaller pieces and the friction of our atmosphere, or even burn up entirely.

We'll update you on how everything went down next week, or you can check ScientificAmerican.com for the latest space news. Now, the sky may not be falling, but our cities are sinking. A study published last Thursday in the journal Nature Cities found that all of the 28 most populated cities in the U.S. are sinking, regardless of how far inland they are. In 25 of those cities, the researchers say, at least two-thirds of their respective area is losing height.

The researchers called out Houston as the fastest-sinking city, with more than a third of its area going down by upwards of 5 millimeters each year. Around 12 percent of the city is sinking twice as fast as that, and some spots are dropping by 5 whole centimeters a year. While natural forces and the sheer heft of buildings can play a role, according to the researchers, the extraction of groundwater is largely responsible for all of this sinkage.

The researchers tied the removal of groundwater for human use to as much as 80% of the sinking they observed. They noted that in Texas, gas and oil extraction likely exacerbates this problem.

One obvious consequence of a city sinking is that it makes the area more prone to flooding. But the study also sounds the alarm on the unique risks brought on by uneven sink rates within a city. If some areas are sinking faster than others, that raises the likelihood that structures like building foundations and rail lines will start to tilt.

The researchers noted in a press release that increases in water needs and population, along with climate change-induced droughts, are expected to add to the problem, making it crucial that cities start adapting to these risks now.

If you're looking for someone to blame for that — for the climate change-related part, anyway — consider your millionaire or billionaire of choice. A study published last Wednesday in Nature Climate Change concluded that the wealthiest 10% of the global population is responsible for two-thirds of climate change-related warming as a result of their consumption and investments. And the top 1% of people are responsible for one-fifth of all warming on their own.

If you're in that top 10%, you're an estimated six times more responsible for droughts in the Amazon than the average person is. According to a recent article in Forbes, a net worth of at least $970,000 puts you in that percentile in the United States, while 1%ers have net worths of at least $11.6 million.

If you're fortunate to be looking at your own robust bank account and feeling a little hot under the collar about this study, it does point out a major area for improvement: investments. The authors concluded that the richest among us primarily contribute to climate change through investments tied to high-carbon industries. So if you haven't cleaned up your stock portfolio, now's a great time to do so.

As long as you're not, say, flying a private jet everywhere, or worse, taking jaunts into space for fun, then that should make a big difference. And hey, if you are doing those things, girl, stop. We'll wrap up with a fun story that takes us under the sea.

In an unpublished study recently posted to the preprint surfer BioRxiv, scientists claim that cuttlefish waved to one another to communicate. The researchers observed four distinct arm waves: up, side, crown, and roll. These movements are a bit more complicated than our one- or two-armed human dusters. In the roll move, the cuttlefish tucks all of its arms beneath its head as if it's about to try to somersault forward. The side signal has it move its arms to one side of its body.

The crown looks a bit like someone steepling their fingers if their fingers were several squishy tentacles. The up sign is complicated, with some arms extending up and others twisting in front of the cuttlefish. The scientists observed cuttlefish trading these signals back and forth and occasionally responding to one signal with a different one. That makes them suspect these moves are a form of communication.

What's even wilder is that when the scientists recorded cuttlefish signing with an underwater microphone and played the same vibrations for another cuttlefish, that second individual would start signing too. So the creatures could be sensing the vibrations of the sign language in addition to seeing visual cues. Researchers will have to directly connect these signals with certain behaviors or actions to prove that this is actually communication. But for now, it is pretty cute.

That's all for this week's News Roundup. Before I let you go, I just wanted to plug our ongoing listener survey real quick.

We're looking to learn more about you, yes, you, so we can keep making this show better and better. You can find the survey at sciencequickly.com slash survey. It should only take you a couple of minutes, and folks who submit their answers this month will be entered to win some Scientific American swag. More importantly, you'll really be helping out me and the rest of the Science Quickly team. So make sure to check out sciencequickly.com slash survey whenever you get the chance.

Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Naima Marci, and Jeff Dalvisio. This episode was edited by Alex Sagiara. Shana Poses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news. For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. Have a great week! ♪