Signs of Subsurface 'Alien' Life Found In Antarctica 106
astroengine writes: An airborne survey of a presumably dry Antarctic valley revealed a stunning and unexpected interconnected subsurface briny aquifer deep beneath the frozen tundra, a finding that not only has implications for understanding extreme habitats for life on Earth, but the potential for life elsewhere in the solar system, particularly Mars. The briny liquid — about twice as salty as seawater — was discovered about 200 miles underground in a region known as Taylor Valley. The aquifer is widespread, extending from the Ross Sea's McMurdo Sound more than 11 miles into the eastern part of valley. A second system was found connecting Taylor Glacier with the ice-cover Lake Bonney. But the survey, which covered 114 square miles, may have just uncovered the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
I've seen 'The Thing' - I know what's next... (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously - don't dig those things up...
Re:I've seen 'The Thing' - I know what's next... (Score:4, Funny)
Little chance of that: "200 miles underground". Unless the summary got meters and miles confused, but Slashdot editors wouldn't make such a mistake.
200 miles underground is really deep! (Score:1)
Re:200 miles underground is really deep! (Score:5, Funny)
You even might be able to find Congress' popularity down there....
Re:200 miles underground is really deep! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Every nation gets the government it deserves
- Joseph de Maistre
Re: 200 miles underground is really deep! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Challenge accepted!
Who wants to go in halvers on a backhoe?
Re:200 miles underground is really deep! (Score:5, Informative)
far deeper in fact, than we've ever cored. That number must be wrong -- I'm guessing it should read 200m. It's in the original story, I know, but it just can't be right.
Re:200 miles underground is really deep! (Score:5, Insightful)
Credulous writer interpreting "m" as miles would be my guess.
Re:200 miles underground is really deep! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:200 miles underground is really deep! (Score:5, Informative)
far deeper in fact, than we've ever cored. That number must be wrong -- I'm guessing it should read 200m. It's in the original story, I know, but it just can't be right.
It's worse than that. The origional article [nature.com] says 350m. 200 miles is about 350 kilometers, so I think they confused m and km and then converted to miles.
Re: (Score:3)
Why bother converting it at all?
Americans who have even a passing interests in real science knows about the metric system of measurement.
Are able to do at least rough conversions enough to get the idea of scale.
A Meter is about a Year.
A Kilometer is about 6/10 of a mile.
A Centimeter is about 1/2 inch
For understanding science stories this level of rough accuracy is good enough for them to get an understanding of scale.
Of course if you are using real science.
A. You wouldn't use Discovery News as a source.
B. Y
Re:200 miles underground is really deep! (Score:4, Funny)
Somebody should tell him...
Re:200 miles underground is really deep! (Score:5, Funny)
Somebody should tell him...
Hey, I made the Kessel run in 12 parsecs...
Re: (Score:3)
Man, no wonder Americans can't figure out metric ... people like you keep confusing the crap out of them.
And it's "metre" not "meter" .. another Americansism which is incorrect.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I suspect it's yet another tragic autocorrect.
And sonny, when you're in MY yard, it's "meter".
Re: (Score:2)
OK, you cal lit meter, I'll call it Americow. :-P
Re: (Score:3)
Really. You've lived long enough to learn to write somewhat articulately, and still don't understand about dialects and different spelling of words in different countries? Do you call all cultures not your own "ignorant"? Let's hope you don't have to deal with a global economy.
Silly Americans and their "meter" (Score:5, Funny)
Silly Americans. "Metre" is of course the correct spelling. It rathre annoys me when they write it in that othre mannre. By the way, I love your leathre jacket. Just be careful though in rainy weathre - you might get watre stains.
Re: (Score:1)
In all honesty, Americans don't get vote on how to spell a measurement they don't use.
The meter of your diction isn't measured in metres.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, but metres are used all over the place in the US. They're not the measure used by trade, but they ARE the measure used by science. This is why NASA ran into trouble: they're an organisation where science meets trade.
Re: (Score:1)
You should give up on this notion of the "One True English." It varies around the world. The most common spoken version of English by far is bad English, used by people speaking it as a second or third language.
Besides, it was French. (Score:2)
You should give up on this notion of the "One True English."
What does this have to do with English? "Metre" is the name of the international standard unit of length. If you wish you refer to measurements in the international standard unit of length, you use the name "metre". This is regardless of the particular language or sub-language variant you are using at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
If you wish you refer to measurements in the international standard unit of length, you use the name "metre"
SI standard units can also be expressed in your own language. In German, they say "Kilogramm" for instance.
Re: (Score:1)
And then of course there's Kb vs KiB -- the second is the SI standard, but the first is commonly used in its place (even though it really means something slightly different).
Re: (Score:2)
kB (not Kb) if you are referring to 1000 bytes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that we don't know how to say fraunce, it's that it is called frAnce here.
Re: (Score:2)
Man, no wonder Americans can't figure out metric ... people like you keep confusing the crap out of them.
And it's "metre" not "meter" .. another Americansism which is incorrect.
This,
A metre is a measurement, a meter is something you measure with.
Re: (Score:3)
A Meter is about a Year.
With this conversion, I conclude that Han made the Kessell run in about 3.7x10^17 years. That doesn't sound too impressive after all.
Re: (Score:2)
He started a long time ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Fifty years ago in public high school (Norwalk, CA) we learned the metric system in full detail. The assumption in that pro-science era was that we would be converting to it in some value of momentarily.
Re: (Score:2)
Fifty years ago in public high school (Norwalk, CA) we learned the metric system in full detail.
Thirty years ago we learned OSI networking, on the assumption that the awful clumsy hack that was TCP/IP would soon be replaced.
Life is full of disappointment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How big were the meters they were using to measure the depth? Given that information we can know how deep 100 meters are. Alternatively, give us the depth in metres.
Re: (Score:2)
How big were the meters they were using to measure the depth?
one meter.
Re: (Score:1)
Should have used a better unit of length (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think it was suppose to be 200 meters.
As the earths crust is only 30 miles thick.
Re:200 miles underground is really deep! (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, that would be well into the mantle. As we all know, the only thing that can live there is the Mole People.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, you'd think it would be molten rock at that depth, unlikely for any life-as-we-know-it-Jim
Re: (Score:2)
The Russian hole drilling had to stop because it go so hot that the drill was losing its hardness - at around 9 miles! I agree that the is probably meters VS miles.
Re: (Score:2)
The Russian hole drilling had to stop because it go[t] so hot that the drill was losing its hardness
Quite the opposite reaction to what most of our drills have. //smirk
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, timothy. Now can you just jump in it?
Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember this, and it ends with me being called an ugly bag of mostly water.
How is it 'alien' ? (Score:3)
The article doesn't reveal much about the type of life that is found, and why it is called 'alien'.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Worse even than that. The original article, Nature Communications (link somewhere below) only says they found anomalies in electrical resistance indicative of sub-surface lakes of briny water, "at temperatures well below freezing and considered within the range suitable for microbial life." No actual water seen, no actual life found. Nice innovative use of new technology, but evidently that isn't exciting enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Because 'extremophile' is too hard to spell.
Re: How is it 'alien' ? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they don't have Antarctican citizenship, do they?
Re: (Score:3)
Here is another article that actually mentions the life found: http://www.livescience.com/506... [livescience.com]
At Slashdot, we take things literally, so... (Score:2)
>> the survey, which covered 114 square miles, may have just uncovered the proverbial tip of the iceberg
An iceberg is 90% submerged, so...the survey only covered 10% of the total area? Or found only 10% of the stuff? Or which 10%?
A new standard (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, come now ... we can't suddenly start claiming that is true.
Wholesale copy-and-paste, typos and all, have been staples of /. articles for a very long time now.
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed. Headline: "Signs of Subsurface 'Alien' Life Found in Antarctica"
Summary of actual article:
Alien life? No
Any kind of life? No
Briny water? No
Anomalies in electrical resistance? Yes. "We interpret these results as an indication that liquid, with sufficiently high solute content, exists at temperatures well below freezing and considered within the range suitable for microbial life. These inferred brines ...."
But the original headline is much more click-bait-y than, you know, truth.
Metres not Miles (Score:4, Informative)
LInk to the original publication: Deep groundwater and potential subsurface habitats beneath an Antarctic dry valley [nature.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm.. the original article only seems to claim that the underground water is suitable for life, not that it was found.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm.. the original article only seems to claim that the underground water is suitable for life, not that it was found.
Given the m vs m confusion, I don't find that all that surprising
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm.. the original article only seems to claim that the underground water is suitable for life, not that it was found.
Here is another source that does actually mention the type of life found: http://www.livescience.com/506... [livescience.com]
They found a temple! (Score:2)
They even already have a documentary about it out.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt03... [imdb.com]
Re:They found a temple! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Beautiful movie.
Re: (Score:3)
I was thinking of a Lovecraft tale, At the Mountains of Madness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]
It seems quite clear to me that each plant's 'briny solution' is the real intelligence on the planet, and we are just playthings for them
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
200m? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm willing to throw in with the anti-meter spelling police if they will band together and join me in purging the internet of definately.
finite.definite.definitely.This has nothing to do with anyone named Nate.
Not Vostok (Score:2)
I was sure this was referencing life under Lake Vostok elsewhere on the continent, I just assumed it was until I saw Blood Falls mentioned.
nice article with pics 350Meter depth not miles (Score:1)
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150428/ncomms7831/full/ncomms7831.html
enjoy
near surface in my book
'Alien' life? (Score:4, Interesting)
another perspective (Score:1)
All these planets are yours... (Score:2)
"P.S. Also Earth."
Quit sensationalizing (Score:2)
Don't call this alien. It's not alien if it lives here. It's terrestrial.
Re: (Score:3)
So you're saying there are no illegal aliens in the US?
Water found at X, may mean life at Y! Come on... (Score:2)
The endless cascade of statements "Water found on Mars/Underground/Europa, etc, *might* mean life exists or existed there" is getting really annoying. Water, even liquid water, does not seem to be a rarity anymore. It may not even be a qualifier for life. Can we actually start looking for life, please?
Mars apparently had liquid water on the surface and may have liquid water underground now. Curiosity has detected methane outgasings and organics in the soils of Mars. Can we put a shovel in the ground, put s
Oh lord... (Score:2)
Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!
Cthullhu fhtagn (Score:2)
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Re: (Score:2)