See NASA's image of an intense X-class solar flare

NASA released a remarkable video from its Solar Dynamics Observatory of a flare erupting from the sun
NASA released a remarkable video from its Solar Dynamics Observatory of a flare erupting from the sun
NASA captured an image of an intense solar flare released by the sun on Tuesday evening.
The solar flare peaked at 5:49 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory said. It was an X-class flare — the most intense kind, NASA said. Solar flares are essentially "giant explosions on the sun" that send energy, light and high-speed particles into space, according to NASA.
An image captured by the Solar Dynamics Observatory shows the sun, colorized in teal to draw attention to the flare. The flare is visible as a bright flash at the center of the sun. The heat of a solar flare causes it to appear bright.
NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory captured this image of a solar flare — seen as the bright flash near the middle of the image — on June 17, 2025.
NASA/SDO
The energy from solar flares can be disruptive, NASA says on its website. Flares and solar eruptions can impact radio communications, electric power grids and navigation signals. They also can pose risks to spacecraft and astronauts.
Solar flares are also often associated with coronal mass ejections, or CMEs. CMEs are huge bubbles of coronal plasma that the sun occasionally ejects, NASA says online. Often, CMEs look like "huge, twisted ropes," NASA says, because they involve the sun's magnetic fields. Coronal mass ejections can also disrupt radio and satellite communications, and can also cause geomagnetic storms on Earth.
In May 2024, a powerful coronal mass ejection brought the strongest geomagnetic storm in over 20 years to Earth. During the CME, multiple X-class solar flares were recorded. The storm caused some radio blackouts. Another strong geomagnetic storm in October 2024 led to the northern lights being visible as far south as Florida and over bright areas like New York City and Chicago.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Fast Company

an hour ago

• Fast Company

Workplace mistreatment may affect observers as strongly as victims

Picture this: On your way out of the office, you notice a manager berating an employee. You assume the worker made some sort of mistake, but the manager's behavior seems unprofessional. Later, as you're preparing dinner, is the scene still weighing on you—or is it out of sight, out of mind? If you think you'd still be bothered, you're not alone. It turns out that simply observing mistreatment at work can have a surprisingly strong impact on people, even for those not directly involved. That's according to new research led by Edwyna Hill, coauthored by Rachel Burgess, Manuela Priesemuth, Jefferson McClain, and me, published in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Using a method called meta-analysis —which takes results from many different studies and combines them to produce an overall set of findings—we reviewed the growing body of research on what management professors like me call 'third-party perceptions of mistreatment.' In this context, 'third parties' are people who observe mistreatment between a perpetrator and the victim, who are the first and second parties. We looked at 158 studies published in 105 journal articles involving thousands of participants. Those studies explored a number of different forms of workplace mistreatment ranging from incivility to abusive supervision and sexual harassment. Some of those studies took part in actual workplaces, while others examined mistreatment in tightly controlled laboratory settings. The results were striking: We found that observing a coworker being mistreated on the job has significant effects on the observers' emotions. In fact, we found that observers of mistreatment may be as affected by what happened as the people actually involved in the event. These reactions fall along a spectrum—some helpful, others less so. On the encouraging side, we found that observers tend to judge perpetrators and feel empathy for victims. These reactions discourage mistreatment by creating a climate that favors the victim. On the other hand, we found that observers may also enjoy seeing their coworkers suffer—an emotion called schadenfreude —or blame the victim. These sorts of reactions damage team dynamics and discourage people from reporting mistreatment. Why it matters These findings matter because mistreatment in the workplace is disturbingly common, and even more frequently observed than experienced. One recent study found that 34% of employees have experienced workplace mistreatment firsthand, but 44% have observed it happening to someone else. In other words, nearly half of workers have likely seen a scenario like the one described at the start of this article. Unfortunately, the human resources playbook on workplace mistreatment rarely takes third parties into account. Some investigation occurs, potentially resulting in some punishment for the perpetrator and some support for the victim. A more effective response to workplace mistreatment would recognize that the harm often extends beyond the victim, and that observers may need support too. What still isn't known What's needed now is a better understanding of the nuances involved in observing mistreatment. Why do some observers react with empathy, while others derive pleasure from the suffering of others? And why might observers feel empathy for the victim but still respond by judging or blaming them? Answering these questions is a crucial next step for researchers and leaders seeking to design more effective workplace policies.

Fox News

an hour ago

• Fox News

Bill Gates reveals 'next phase of Alzheimer's fight' as he shares dad's personal battle

Bill Gates is speaking out about his personal experience with Alzheimer's — and his hope for progress in fighting the disease. In an essay published this week on his blog at the Microsoft co-founder and tech billionaire, 69, reflected on the difficulty of spending another Father's Day without his dad, Bill Gates Sr. The elder Gates passed away in 2020 at the age of 94 after battling Alzheimer's. "It was a brutal experience, watching my brilliant, loving father go downhill and disappear," Gates wrote in the blog post. Today, motivated by his own experience with the common dementia, Gates — who serves as chair of the Gates Foundation — is committed to working toward a cure for the common dementia, which currently affects more than seven million Americans, or one in nine people over 65. In his blog, Gates expressed optimism about the "massive progress" being made in the fight against Alzheimer's and other dementias. Last year, Gates said he visited Indiana University's School of Medicine in Indianapolis to tour the labs where teams have been researching Alzheimer's biomarkers. "I also got the opportunity to look under the hood of new automated machines that will soon be running diagnostics around the world," he wrote. "It's an exciting time in a challenging space." One of the biggest breakthroughs in Alzheimer's research, according to Gates, is blood-based diagnostic tests, which detect the ratio of amyloid plaques in the brain. (Amyloid plaques, clumps of protein that accumulate in the brain, are one of the hallmarks of Alzheimer's.) "I'm optimistic that these tests will be a game-changer," Gates wrote. Last month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first blood-based test for patients 55 years and older, as Fox News Digital reported at the time. "A simple, accurate and easy-to-run blood test might one day make routine screening possible." Traditionally, Gates noted, the primary path to Alzheimer's diagnosis was either a PET scan (medical imaging) or spinal tap (lumbar puncture), which were usually only performed when symptoms emerged. The hope is that blood-based tests could do a better job of catching the disease early, decline begins. "We now know that the disease begins 15 to 20 years before you start to see any signs," Gates wrote. "A simple, accurate and easy-to-run blood test might one day make routine screening possible, identifying patients long before they experience cognitive decline," he stated. Gates said he is often asked, "What is the point of getting diagnosed if I can't do anything about it?" To that end, he expressed his optimism for the future of Alzheimer's treatments, noting that two drugs — Lecanemab (Leqembi) and Donanemab (Kisunla) — have gained FDA approval. "Both have proven to modestly slow down the progression of the disease, but what I'm really excited about is their potential when paired with an early diagnostic," Gates noted. He said he is also hopeful that the blood tests will help speed up the process of enrolling patients in clinical trials for new Alzheimer's drugs. To accomplish this, Gates is calling for increased funding for research, which often comes from federal grants. "This is the moment to spend more money on research, not less," he wrote, also stating that "the quest to stop Alzheimer's has never had more momentum." "There is still a huge amount of work to be done — like deepening our understanding of the disease's pathology and developing even better diagnostics," Gates went on. "I am blown away by how much we have learned about Alzheimer's over the last couple of years." Gates pointed out that when his father had Alzheimer's, it was considered a "death sentence," but that is starting to change. "I am blown away by how much we have learned about Alzheimer's over the last couple of years," he wrote. For more Health articles, visit "I cannot help but be filled with a sense of hope when I think of all the progress being made on Alzheimer's, even with so many challenges happening around the world. We are closer than ever before to a world where no one has to watch someone they love suffer from this awful disease."

Medscape

2 hours ago

• Medscape

BMJ Investigation Increases Concerns About Ticagrelor Trials

An investigation by The BMJ is raising fresh concerns about the clinical studies that supported the approval of the antiplatelet drug ticagrelor (Brilinta, AstraZeneca), almost 15 years after the medication was first approved and as generic versions are set to hit the market. Peter Doshi, PhD, a senior editor at The BMJ , previously reported inconsistencies and omissions in data reporting from the 2009 PLATO study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine , which showed ticagrelor was superior to clopidogrel in treating acute coronary syndrome. Now a follow-up investigation of two supporting studies published in Circulation , ONSET/OFFSET and RESPOND, has revealed primary endpoints were reported inaccurately, data were missing from the submission to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and study centers may not have received adequate training. Doshi said the results of his investigations call into question the drug's approval and suggested that it should be revisited. 'The FDA's approval in 2011 went against the evidence according to its reviewers, and now, my investigations into PLATO, ONSET/OFFSET, and RESPOND, suggest that even the data presented to the FDA and reported in The New England Journal of Medicine and Circulation , is not trustworthy,' he told Medscape Medical News. The investigation identified several problems with data integrity in the two trials. The original primary endpoint results for RESPOND, which aimed to test whether ticagrelor could convert nonresponders to clopidogrel into responders, were statistically nonsignificant ( P = .157) but were subsequently reported in Circulation as significant ( P = .005) because of an undeclared change in its primary endpoint definition. For ONSET/OFFSET, which reported ticagrelor provided faster and greater inhibition of platelets than clopidogrel, the investigators now claim several patients were excluded from the analysis. However, those who remained were identified as the 'intention-to-treat' population, implying all patients were included. Implausible data points were also included in the analysis of the primary endpoint but were first transformed through an unpublished data analysis, Doshi claimed. Doshi also gained access to readouts from some of the platelet function test machines used in the trial. He found more than 60 of 282 readings were not present in the datasets submitted to the FDA, and the levels of platelet activity in those readings were significantly higher than those reported in Circulation . Victor Serebruany, MD, from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and one of the more high-profile critics of ticagrelor, told The BMJ the missing readings show 'there are episodes of skyrocketing rebound and profound platelet inhibition after ticagrelor, making patients prone to thrombosis or bleeding. If doctors had known what happened in these trials, they would never have started using ticagrelor.' The investigation also revealed oddities around the authorship of the publications. One active trial investigator was never identified as a study author, while one author told The BMJ he was not involved in the trial. The BMJ states that AstraZeneca, the journal Circulation , and many of the original investigators either declined to comment on the new claims or were unreachable. Ticagrelor has been under fire since the beginning. The drug failed in its first bid for FDA approval and was the subject of an investigation by the US Department of Justice in 2013 at the urging of Serebruany. That investigation was closed in 2014 with no further action. A review of several major trials of ticagrelor by Eric Bates, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and a co-author of the US guidelines that recommend ticagrelor, concluded 'the clinical conventional wisdom and clinical trial guideline support for…ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel may be overemphasized.' Bates is now calling for a review of ticagrelor's recommendation in guidelines, according to the earlier The BMJ report.