Patterns and universals of mate poaching across 53 nations : the effects of sex, culture, and personality on romantically attracting another person’s partner

As part of the International Sexuality Description Project, 16,954 participants from 53 nations were administered an anonymous survey about experiences with romantic attraction. Mate poaching--romantically attracting someone who is already in a relationship--was most common in Southern Europe, South America, Western Europe, and Eastern Europe and was relatively infrequent in Africa, South/Southeast Asia, and East Asia. Evolutionary and social-role hypotheses received empirical support. Men were more likely than women to report having made and succumbed to short-term poaching across all regions, but differences between men and women were often smaller in more gender-egalitarian regions. People who try to steal another's mate possess similar personality traits across all regions, as do those who frequently receive and succumb to the poaching attempts by others. The authors conclude that human mate-poaching experiences are universally linked to sex, culture, and the robust influence of personal dispositions.peer-reviewe

Are men universally more dismissing than women? Gender differences in romantic attachment across 62 cultural regions

The authors thank Susan Sprecher (USA), Del Paulhus (Canada), Glenn D. Wilson (England), Qazi Rahman (England), Alois Angleitner (Germany), Angelika Hofhansl (Austria), Tamio Imagawa (Japan), Minoru Wada (Japan), Junichi Taniguchi (Japan), and Yuji Kanemasa (Japan) for helping with data collection and contributing significantly to the samples used in this study.Gender differences in the dismissing form of adult romantic attachment were investigated as part of the International Sexuality Description Project—a survey study of 17,804 people from 62 cultural regions. Contrary to research findings previously reported in Western cultures, we found that men were not significantly more dismissing than women across all cultural regions. Gender differences in dismissing romantic attachment were evident in most cultures, but were typically only small to moderate in magnitude. Looking across cultures, the degree of gender differentiation in dismissing romantic attachment was predictably associated with sociocultural indicators. Generally, these associations supported evolutionary theories of romantic attachment, with smaller gender differences evident in cultures with high–stress and high–fertility reproductive environments. Social role theories of human sexuality received less support in that more progressive sex–role ideologies and national gender equity indexes were not cross–culturally linked as expected to smaller gender differences in dismissing romantic attachment.peer-reviewe

Terrestrial Very-Long-Baseline Atom Interferometry:Workshop Summary

This document presents a summary of the 2023 Terrestrial Very-Long-Baseline Atom Interferometry Workshop hosted by CERN. The workshop brought together experts from around the world to discuss the exciting developments in large-scale atom interferometer (AI) prototypes and their potential for detecting ultralight dark matter and gravitational waves. The primary objective of the workshop was to lay the groundwork for an international TVLBAI proto-collaboration. This collaboration aims to unite researchers from different institutions to strategize and secure funding for terrestrial large-scale AI projects. The ultimate goal is to create a roadmap detailing the design and technology choices for one or more km-scale detectors, which will be operational in the mid-2030s. The key sections of this report present the physics case and technical challenges, together with a comprehensive overview of the discussions at the workshop together with the main conclusions

Modern-day mining: Queensland’s uranium re-launch

The Queensland State Government recently announced it would take up uranium mining again, writes Barry Noller in The Conversation. . The topic of uranium mining often raises concern about environmental risk. While past uranium mining in Queensland led to environmental damage, changes to regulation in the intervening years should ensure Queensland won’t face similar problems this time. Thirty years ago, the Australian Government’s three-mine policy banished uranium mining to two sites in the Northern Territory and one site in South Australia. Before this, uranium mining existed throughout Queensland, notably at Mary Kathleen and Rum Jungle in the Northern Territory. The practices applied during this time, extending from the 1950s to the late 1970s, left a legacy of dispersed tailings, reactive waste rock and affected downstream aquatic ecosystems from heavy metals and acidity associated with the mining. There were no sustained health effects to the population from these operations. By the 1980s, far more rigorous mining practices were adopted. The change was propelled by enquires such as the Fox Report, which resulted in tighter regulation by the Northern Territory government. It meant better managed processes at sites such as Ranger, Nabarlek and Jabiluka under the watchful eye of the Supervising Scientist watchdog. Subsequently the mining of uranium at Ranger and Nabarlek proceeded without any serious incidents or long term effects to the environment. This can be credited to the advances made in expertise and an increased understanding of the mining process, but primarily to the increased regulation. The tailings and evaporated residues from storage dams have been returned to the mined out pits that are essentially geologically-stable structures. Some waste rock has been stabilised above ground. The mining process In terms of rehabilitation practices, uranium mining uses similar methods to other kinds of metal mining. Waste rock has to be removed before the uranium can be mined. The properties and composition of the waste rock can result in acid formation (as happened at Rum Jungle) if it isn’t neutralised. This acid can then find its way into aquatic ecosystems.At Ranger and Nabarlek there was no acid-producing waste rock. Most of the mined material is crushed and ground before being extracted with sulfuric acid. It is then processed to concentrate the uranium, which is concentrated and shipped overseas, leaving behind processed tailings. Tailings are neutralised to increase their pH and transferred to a repository for storage. The repository is usually an above–ground dam or mined-out pit. This storage pit is generally considered geologically stable as the original uranium deposit was about the same age as the earth. Dealing with radiation Tailings contain the decay products of natural uranium, particularly radium 226 which has a half life of 1600 years and emits radon gas, which can build up in confined spaces if not vented. Uranium mining waste is generally classified as low level radioactive waste (while the activation products from reactors are classified as high-level waste). Uranium is primarily an alpha radiation emitter and is only a health hazard when dust is inhaled or ingested. Therefore prevention of dust dispersion by covering prevents this pathway of exposure to uranium. Drinking water supplies are carefully monitored and have not exceeded drinking water guidelines, apart from some naturally occurrences associated with natural mineralisation. The radiation effects from uranium itself are minimal. They are essentially only a hazard to workers, and only if they are exposed to uncontrolled inhalation of dust. As a heavy metal, uranium has some toxicity. It’s about the same as other metals and is usually at environmentally low levels compared with other heavy metals such as cadmium, copper, lead and zinc. In tailings, uranium may get into groundwater if seepage is alkaline. These are long term processes that require good design features to minimise seepage and also to control the spread of dust which may contain radium. Proper tailings dam construction and storage will minimise the dispersal of uranium and other heavy metals. Mining regulation Modern mining practices minimise the events that led to the environmental effects observed at Rum Jungle and Mary Kathleen in the past. Modern mining is well described in the Australian Government series on Leading Practices in Mining. Radiation must be specifically monitored, and miners must adhere to stringent guidelines typically set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection and the World Health Organization. The best examples of responsible uranium mining with minimal environmental effects are the operations in the Northern Territory at Ranger and Nabarlek. These have demonstrated track records of success based on good design and sound regulatory practices. This is in contrast to the public perception that uranium can’t be beneficial or mined safely. Australia’s decision to not mine uranium from more than a selected few deposits has delayed further uranium mining in Queensland. It did not stop uranium mining and generation of profits elsewhere in the world, such as Canada. It did prevent Australia and Queensland in particular from receiving the mining income. This situation now looks likely to be rectified. The best prospects for development are deposits with higher grades and an absence of sulfide mineralisation with polymetallic features. Barry Noller received funding from ARC. Barry Noller is affiliated with Xstrata Copper for the Lead Pathways study at Mount Isa. This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article. Image: Flickr / matty_