Channel
@Science_News_Facts_Updates_daily
On this record: Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry
13,390subscribers
-25 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 10,000–31,623.
| Telegram ID | -1001280271845 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @Science_News_Facts_Updates_daily |
| Description | 🔮Science Updates Daily! 🔮Every post with Source Link! 🔮This is 24/7 Working Channel! 🔮Each post is shared from Renowned Websites! Buy ads: https://telega.io/c/Science_News_Facts_Updates_daily admin : @The_Lawliet |
| Created | 4 January 2018 — measured — cross-checked against a third-party dataset (TGDataset) |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 17 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 11 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 17 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/Science_News_Facts_Updates_daily |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 17 Aug 2026, 12:53 | 13,390 | -1 |
| 16 Aug 2026, 02:24 | 13,391 | +1 |
| 14 Aug 2026, 15:48 | 13,390 | -1 |
| 13 Aug 2026, 05:14 | 13,391 | +2 |
| 12 Aug 2026, 06:08 | 13,389 | -9 |
| 11 Aug 2026, 07:15 | 13,398 | +2 |
| 10 Aug 2026, 10:22 | 13,396 | -7 |
| 8 Aug 2026, 13:42 | 13,403 | +1 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 10:44 | 13,402 | -2 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 08:40 | 13,404 | -11 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 05:03 | 13,415 | first reading |
184 posts held, back to 5 August 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 21 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate. It is computed over the 81 of 184 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 17 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 184 (5 August 2026 – 17 August 2026) |
| Views total | 31,864 |
| Reactions total | 187 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 17 Aug 2026, 19:26 UTC |
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
Lifetime counters from Telegram’s own channel header, read 17 August 2026 — not the date at the top of this page, which is when the subscriber count was last read. A count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints these counters in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈142,000 means somewhere between 141,500 and 142,499.
156 reactions across 68 posts, in 38 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 12.2% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 💩 | 19 | 12.2% | |
| ❤ | 14 | 8.97% | |
| 🥱 | 14 | 8.97% | |
| 💯 | 12 | 7.69% | |
| 🤯 | 11 | 7.05% | |
| 👍 | 9 | 5.77% | |
| 👀 | 7 | 4.49% | |
| 😢 | 7 | 4.49% | |
| 🤡 | 7 | 4.49% | |
| 🗿 | 4 | 2.56% | |
| 🤣 | 4 | 2.56% | |
| 🤨 | 4 | 2.56% | |
| 🌚 | 3 | 1.92% | |
| 👾 | 3 | 1.92% | |
| 😱 | 3 | 1.92% | |
| 🤔 | 3 | 1.92% | |
| 🥴 | 3 | 1.92% | |
| 🐳 | 2 | 1.28% | |
| 🔥 | 2 | 1.28% | |
| 😁 | 2 | 1.28% | |
| 18 further kinds | 23 | 14.7% |
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 81 of the 184 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 187reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 184 most recent posts we hold, published 5 August 2026 to 17 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
✈️ A study published August 17 in JAMA Internal Medicine found that flight attendants and pilots have the highest proportions of radiation-related cancer deaths among over 500 U.S. occupations. 🔬 The research, using data from 2020-2024 covering nearly 13 million deaths, revealed that 6.9% of flight attendant deaths and 6.7% of pilot deaths were from radiation-related cancers, significantly higher than other professi…
Of more than 500 occupations in the United States, flight attendants and pilots have the highest and second-highest proportion of radiation-related cancer deaths, a new study has found. Read Full Article #RadiationRisk #AviationHealth #OccupationalCancer
🥤 Daily consumption of one or more sugar-sweetened beverages is linked to a 2.45 times higher risk of gastric cancer, according to a study of over 112,000 participants by Mass General Brigham Cancer Institute. 📈 Artificially sweetened beverages, however, showed no association with increased gastric cancer risk in the same study. 👨🔬 Researchers found higher total fructose intake, the primary sweetener in these drin…
Study Finds People Who Consumed Sugar-Sweetened Beverages on a Daily Basis Had Higher Risk of Stomach Cancer Read Full Article #SugarBeverages #StomachCancerRisk #NutritionScience
📸 Taking screenshots may actually make you more likely to forget information, according to Binghamton University research published in the journal Memory & Cognition. The "photo-taking impairment effect" degrades memory unless the images are actively reviewed later. 🧠 The study, led by Sophia Fabrizio, suggests mechanisms like divided attention, cognitive offloading (relying on external storage instead of internal m…
Digital amnesia. Taking screenshots makes you more likely to forget information. Many of us take more photos and screenshots than we can use — around 20 photos a day, with around 2,000 photos stored on the average smartphone, according to estimates. Read Full Article #DigitalAmnesia #PhotoOverload #MemoryScience
🚗 A new study suggests major album releases, like Taylor Swift's "Midnights," coincide with a 15.1% increase in US traffic fatalities on release days, equivalent to approximately 182 deaths for 10 albums studied between 2017-2022. 📱 Researchers believe the phenomenon is linked to distracted driving, as accessing new music on smartphones involves multiple steps requiring visual attention, especially for younger male …
Top album releases linked to rise in fatal crashes as ‘distracted’ drivers access music | Harvard study finds traffic fatalities increase by 15% on release dates compared with similar days either side Read Full Article #TrafficSafety #DistractedDriving #MusicReleaseRisks
🙉1
🤰 New Mass General Brigham study reveals adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) in Black and Latina women are linked to greater social needs, including education, transportation, and financial strain. 🏥 Researchers suggest integrating social needs assessment into postpartum care could improve long-term maternal health and reduce health disparities. 📈 The study found that the rate of APOs increased with higher burdens of…
🌚2
Women Who Experienced Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes Had Higher Health-Related Social Needs, Such as Inadequate Food, Employment and Education Among Black and Latina Women Read Full Article #MaternalHealth #HealthEquity #ReproductiveJustice
🌚1
Attention can regulate acute inflammation in humans. The findings raises the possibility that our subjective experience of what is happening in the body is not only a passive process, but may be actively contributing to how physiological responses are regulated Read Full Article #MindBodyConnection #Inflammation #AttentionScience
💰 Negotiation Gap Fuels Inequality: A new PNAS study reveals people from lower social classes negotiate less for workplace benefits and face harsher social penalties when they do. This "double bind" perpetuates economic disadvantages and the "class ceiling." ⚖️ Power & Backlash Drive Behavior: Lower-class individuals report a weaker sense of power and a greater fear of social backlash when negotiating, contributing…
Showing the 12 most recent of 184 posts we hold for @Science_News_Facts_Updates_daily. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Citation-graph rank — 329,141 of 1,480,975entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Named by 1 registered channel — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
The reverse of the list above, and a different kind of signal. This does not require this channel to have ever been asked about directly — each row below is a channel we DID ask Telegram about, whose Telegram-generated list happened to include this one. A channel can appear here with an empty list above it, because being named by someone else’s query is independent of having been queried itself.
This channel appears in 3 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 17 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Science News” (@Science_News_Facts_Updates_daily), 13,390 subscribers as measured 17 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/Science_News_Facts_Updates_daily.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.