Seeing the Changes 1497

A Knot grass (Arantica rumicis) larva scuttled on the cycle track at Penclacwydd.

Soya Milk and Soya Milk

When I first saw this story about Marks and Spencer banning soya for its milk production, I thought they were banning soya milk (drank by vegans and by people with lactose intolerance). It appears, actually, that they are attempting to be seen as reducers of rainforest clearance (such as happens in Brazil) to grow soya as a feed for cattle (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/30/marks-and-spencer-cuts-soya-production-milk-deforestation). So, their intention is encourage 'their' dairy farmer suppliers to use material, such as sugar beet, as an alternative additional feed. Of course, the traditional food for cows is grass but this is deemed inadequate. There will, of course, still be environmental problems associated with the production of milk and dairy products (e.g. methane production and the inevitable production of calves). It is unclear whether they will try a similar ban on beef producers (where soya is used more intensively than in dairy). I suspect that they will continue to sell soya milk.

No Use Crying Over Spilt Oil?

The oil released from grounded tankers has devastated coastal areas in many parts of the planet, causing damage to tourism and wildlife (especially marine birds and cetaceans). Until now, the mechanisms for dealing with spills have been quite primitive. They have included the use of booms to prevent the oil moving into new areas, scooping the sludge from the water surface and spraying with chemical surfactants (which often, themselves, cause damage to the organisms living in the location). Workers at North-Western University, Illinois are developing a new approach (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/29/robots-and-magnetic-soap-scientists-rethink-oil-spill-clean-ups). They have devised a special sponge with a coating of magnetic nanostructres and a carbon-based surface. The sponge attracts oil but repels water. It can, apparently, hold 30 times its own weight of oil and retains this material even when subjected to vigorous wave action. The sponge material can then be collected from the water surface by robotic means without damaging organisms in the area.

Forgotten Fungi?

Headlines on a report from Kew Gardens, suggests that 40% of the World's plants are in immediate danger of extinction (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/30/world-plant-species-risk-extinction-fungi-earth). The actual report talks about plants and fungi. These are, of course, actually separate Kingdoms of Eukaryotic (with their DNA in a defined nucleus) organisms. Human survival and the 'health' of the planet are certainly strongly linked to plants. They are major removers of atmospheric carbon dioxide by photosynthesis; supply many of our food substances (such as grains, fruits, nuts, pulses and leaves etc); feed many of our domesticated animals and supply materials (e.g. wood, rubber, matting, drugs and pigments etc) useful to people. Having said that, we have clearly not fully explored the possibilities available in the Plant Kingdom (and the dangers of relying on monocultures that are prone to disease are all too evident). Reducing the range and variety of species in which we can exploit (and we do exploit them!) seems to be a bad move. I am, however, more concerned about the Kingdom of Fungi being added to the list, as what appears to be an after-thought (are they regarded as 'only' another group of non-animal multicellular organisms?). Everyone is aware that some fungi (mushrooms and their relatives) are eaten. The general public, however, seems less knowledgable about their roles in brewing and production of some cheeses. They appear to know next to nothing about the Kingdom's important role in biogeochemical cycling. Fungi, are of fundamental importance in the recycling of dead organic matter. Some are also essential to plants needing to fix nitogen into their tissues. They are also components of lichens which are often the first colonisers of rocks. I think we should be, at least, as concerned about the loss of fungal species. This is all the more so because their disappearance will, in many cases, be less obvious to humans. We might ask, "Where have all the flowers gone?" but we rarely enquire "Where have all the hyphae gone?". They are simply not on the same visual 'radar'.

How Feasible is the Planetary 'Safety Net'?

A group of scientists have put together a 'safety net' to protect the planet from the interdependent challeges of biodiversity loss and climate change (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2020/sep/29/planetary-safety-net-could-halt-wildlife-loss-and-slow-climate-breakdown-aoe). They have simply added together 1. The exising protected areas; 2. Unprotected areas that are home to rare species; 3. Areas that house distinct clusters of species; 4. Areas where the largest mammals (that often follow long-distance migrations) live; 5. Locations having the most intact ecosystems, least disturbed by human impact and 6. Areas that should be added to prevent further climate breakdown. The whole total comes to a fraction over half of the Earth's land mass and it overlaps with the world's largest natural carbon stores. They note that their ambition is greater than the current 30% of lands and oceans is advocating. They deem the UN figure inadequate. I think it's a nice idea (if, a bit land and large mammal orientated) but I feel that the authors are wildly optimistic when they suggest that the plan could (because the UN is 'too slow') be pushed through by collectives of environmental scientists, indigenous leaders and Greta Thunberg's, showing the old folk how to 'get their heads around it'. Don't they realise how concerned about themselves and their immediate families people can be? I expect there would be considerable resistence in many locations from politicians, environmental exploiters and ordinary people who live where i is hoped to create the safety net.

'Savings' Flushed Down the Pan?

The dual-flush system was added to UK toilets with the intention of saving water (something that may well prove progressively more important with time). A report from Waterwise suggests, however, because the system is more likely to leak than the 'old' design (effectively, in many cases, running slowly all day and night), it loses much more water than it saves. They estimate that some 400m litres of water leak from UK toilets each day (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/29/dual-flush-toilets-wasting-more-water-than-they-save). That is an awful lot of water, so the design clearly needs to be improved- pronto! This is especially bad news for people with water meters.

Parking the Problem?

There is an interesting account of the multiple uses of a park in Leeds (https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2020/sep/29/joggers-and-drinkers-what-a-day-in-the-life-of-a-leeds-park-tells-us-about-modern-britain). That park is used for socialising, exercise and contemplation, all things that are of fundamental importance to people in our Covid-19 affected country. The park is used by a wide variety of age groups and at different times of the day (from early morning to the evening) Parks are, of course, of particular importance to people who live in an urban location but who don't have access to a garden. The ease of getting to the nearest park also varies widely across the country. Most people, living in London, are within a 10 minute walk from their nearest green space but the situation is much worse in some Northern cities. Although the utility of having access to a park is very clear, local councils (already under severe financial pressures) are not legally required to provide access to such places. In deed, the provision of parks can be one of the first things to go when local economies are needed. It seems obvious that our current parks need to be protected and new ones created (as standard) across all areas of the UK. It's the only thing that is keeping some people sane and reasonably healthy.

Leave it to Super-Enzyme!

Plastic-eating bacteria were discovered on a Japanese rubbish tip. The enzymes, that the bugs used to munch on plastics, have now been bioengineered so they can destroy this waste material six times faster (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/28/new-super-enzyme-eats-plastic-bottles-six-times-faster). It seems very likely that the super-enzyme can be utilised to efficiently recycle plastics rather than incinerating them or putting them in landfill. There are even plans to combine the enzyme with another that digests cotton. This would enable clothing, combining natural fibres and plastics to be recycled. Currently, such clothing is an impossible problem for recycling and has to be simply burn't (increasing the release of greenhouse gases) or dumped. It might even be a partial solution to 'fast fashion' (cheaply made clothing, often from 'sweat-shops', that is worn a few times before being discarded).

Hitting Covid-19 in Poor Countries

There seems to be a useful development with the setting up of the ACT accelerator (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/28/covid-19-tests-that-give-results-in-minutes-to-be-rolled-out-across-world). This is a mechanism, involving the World Health Organisation, the European Commission, the Gates Foundation and the French Government, to make 120m rapid antigen tests available to low and middle-income countries. The tests (from 2 suppliers) take only 15-30 minutes and will cost £3.90 each or less. The provision of these tests should greatly reduce the currently unsustainable deaths of frontline medical workers in these countries. It is also necessary to control the virus in such locations, if the world is ever going to manage to eradicate Covid-19 more widely. Interestingly, these tests (which, in appearance, are similar to pregnancy tests) are faster than those currently employed in the UK.

The Long and Short of It

There seems to be a debate taking off about a new treatment for achondroplasia. Achondroplasia is one of the inherited conditions of 'dwarfism', that has a particular effect on bone growth. It, not only restricts stature, but causes the legs to be bowed and the arms shortened. So, it has a number of features, that can make life difficult for individuals with the condition. There have now been successful treatments of children with achondroplasia with a new drug, vosoritide. In controlled investigations, it produced a more than 50% increase in the rate of growth and corrected many of the skeletal 'defects' (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/sep/28/there-is-a-fear-that-this-will-eradicate-dwarfism-the-controversy-over-a-new-growth-drug">). It's early days, so things like when treatment should be optimally started, how long it should go on for and whether there are any averse consequences in adulthood, need to be evaluated. So far, so good. Another 'cure' of an inherited disorder (in the same way that one might treat Cretinism)? There has, however, been a pushback from groups of 'little' people (especially in the USA), who see the drug as potentially making them 'extinct'. They claim that, because achondroplastic children are often produced by parents of normal stature, this pressurises the child to conform by accepting the treatment. This is a difficulty, as treatment must commence before the child's bones mature. I personally think that, with appropriate medical help, parents should be able to guide their offspring appropriately. Having a treatmant for the condition, should not be construed, in my view, as an attack on people with a particular physical characteristic.

Having a Flutter?

There is sometimes no pleasure in being proved right. For some time, my local casual observations have been totally at variance with predictions in the media that the UK's hot and sunny summer of 2020 would lead to a 'bumper' butterfly count. I have seen only small numbers of many what were formerly common species. Nettles, in many places, have largely gone uneaten by larvae of Red admiral, Peacock and Small tortoiseshell. Butterfly bush flowers, largely went unvisited by adult butterflies. The largest ever, Big Butterfly Count conducted in July and August, this year has largely confirmed my impression (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/28/record-low-number-british-butterflies-baffles-scientists-annua-big-butterfly-count). Seventy-five percent of the almost 60 species of UK butterflies are in apparent decline, when conditions should have been favourable to them. The 3 species with nettle-eating caterpillars listed above are down 33,42 and 41%, respectively. The only species that seem to have done well, are the Large and Small whites as well as the Common blue. It's difficult to work out reasons for some of the many declines but I don't think it can simply be due to 'global warming'. The count was UK wide so, if temperature was a factor, they would just be seen in another area of their range.

There Are Trees and There Are Trees!

The UK government have been urged to offer inducements to farmers to plant more trees (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/28/support-uk-farmers-climate-targets-ministers-told). This is because trees are a valuable means of sequestering carbon from the atmosphere (largely in the form of wood), reducing greenhouse gases and limiting rampant climate change. They have, of course, other benefits as they provide shelter and are also much-utilised by wildlife. The only problem that I have with the current dialogue is that it seems to be largely couched in the terms of 'crops'. It is pointed out that growing trees, represents a long-term 'investment', before the rewards can be realised. It seems to me, that this kind of talk, encourages the planting monocultures of rapidly growing pine species (that are easy to section). This is commercial forestry rather than an intervention to improve the environment. I have been noted repeatedly, that other tree species are much better in terms of their impact on carbon dioxide levels. Woodlands of mixed species are also a) more disease resistant and b) support a much wider array of other animals, fungi and plants.

Fine Words?

Ahead of a UN summit, 64 'world leaders' have signed a pledge to put wildlife and controlling climate change 'at the heart of post Covid recovery plans' (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/28/world-leaders-pledge-to-halt-earth-destruction-un-summit). This is welcome but there is an element of 'motherhood and apple pie' (things everyone can feel positive about) concerning the announcement, as they don't detail how each of them are going to fulfill their considerable obligations. Although they don't say how they will get there, they will apparently arrive in this Nirvana by 2050 (which might well be on the late side for climate change and loss of biodiversity). The general public overwhelmingly recognise (it's seen in surveys) that we have an urgent problem. It is claimed, however, that one reason, why they feel individually powerless to do anything about it, is that other, bigger 'players' are not doing their part (or are, in some cases, counteracting what could be achieved). It is notable that Australia, Brazil, China, India, Russia and the USA are not signatories> These populous countries include all the really big polluters and/or destroyers of natural environments (often for claimed 'growth' and 'economic' reasons). I think we can only start to get a little more confident about having a viable planet when a) the big six sign up (and everyone actually means it and will not renege on 'agreements' a few years down the line, following changes of government); b) a proper plan of actions is put in place and c) the 'end date' is brought forward by at least 20 years. In a real sense, we are 'all in it together' as we share the same planet.

Testing, Testing

The Royal Statistical Society (RSS) is concerned about the lack of robust statistical evidence for evaluating the clinical and analytical performance of some of novel diagnostic tests for the Covid-19 virus or the immune response to that agent (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/27/uk-market-flooded-by-inadequate-covid-tests-experts-suggest). They have set up a working party, as some of the tests (that are sold to UK institutions), claim impressive sounding accuracy but seems based on 'dodgy' statistics. The working party will even test claims for the 'gold standard' PCR test (which detects the virus directly by 'magnifying' the RNA of the virus. Even this, can produce false negatives, when the swabbing technique used to obtain the sample fails to pick up sufficient virus from the nose and throat. It is pointed out that many countries do not allow patients out of isolation, until they have produced 2 negative swabs. It seems that authorities are more keen on counting the number of tests carried out, than worrying about their accuracy. Accuracy is, however, a fundamental requirement if test and trace is to work properly. The RSS working party should be able to tell us how confident we can be about the systems that are in place (they vary from location to location).

Das Capitalism?

The UK government has issued guidance to schools, requiring them not to use any material that can be perceived as being 'anti-capitalist' (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/sep/27/uk-schools-told-not-to-use-anti-capitalist-material-in-teaching). Schools are told that they should not use material from particular organisations (as yet unnamed), even if it is entirely legal and non-inflammatory, as it 'might imply support' for those bodies. The arrival of the internet, of course, makes it very difficult to control access to information (and we have already seen, in other areas, how prescribing information can actually make it a 'recruiting agent' for some young people). I worry, however, how the Education Department is going to define 'capitalism'. Is anyone who wants to curb environmentally-damaging consequences of industrial or commercial activities, 'anti-capitalist'? Would that make it educationally inappropriate for reference to a body that objects to destruction of the rainforest, creating new runways at an airport, polluting water bodies with the waste from farming, releasing massive amounts of 'greenhouse gases', mining or extracting oil in a protected area etc, etc 'anti-capitalist'? It is clear that the UK government has been irritated by some environmental organisations (such as Extinction Rebellion and Greenpeace). To use part of the actual Education Department document to schools, they are told not to use material from groups that show an "endorsement of illegal activity; and a failure to condemn illegal activities done in support of their cause". The government, of course, decides what is illegal and what is not (and there was an attempt by the police to put Extinction Rebellion on to a list of prescribed groups that included terrorists). It is perfectly easy (especially in the present circumstances) to make groups of a certain size illegal and to ban the carrying of placards. Non-violent protest, whilst it might be inconvenient to some people, is often the only way to make clear one's objections to certain actions or non-actions. If these same actions or non-actions are enacted to generate money for some people, does this make nonviolent protest 'anti-capitalism'? Surely we cannot be going down a route where the next generation are taught that any 'legal' means of making money is good but they must be 'protected' from any suggestions that this unfettered activity should, in some cases, be curbed? Perhaps we should revisit the debate about smoking and its link to lung cancer? Although the link is generally accepted now, if the Department of Education rules applied then, the anti-smoking lobby could have been labelled 'anti-capitalist'. It seems to me that children should be taught that there are always several sides to issues and the ability to make financial profits is only one of them.

UK Universities in a Covid-19 World

I am just finding it hard to work out why the people responsible for controlling the Covid-19 pandemic apparently didn't recognise that requiring students to 'return' to universities was going to add to the problem,of controlling viral transmission. University students are usually in their late teens and early 20's. This is an age group that is not particularily vulnerable to a Covid-19 infection. So they may feel less pressure to take actions to suppress viral transmission. It is also an age group that is often experiencing new conditions and new connections for the first time. Traditionally, students tend to aggregate, live and work in areas where 'crowding is relatively common. They are encouraged to question things and to explore their environment. Although lots of the face-to-face teaching (along with field courses and practical elements) have disappeared from the curriculum, students are still operating (in many cases) under unfamiliar circumstances. It is also clear that the 'test and trace' facilities, that students can access, is generally far from a) convenient, b) accurate and c) good at rapidly finding contacts. I suspect that many students will be worried by suggestions that they may not be allowed to return home at Christmas but should remain in their hall accommodation. The worry is that students returning home could 'seed' outbreaks throughout the UK. But this was always very predictable (many of the current new lockdowns seem linked to outbreaks occuring in universities). Why did it not occur to the policy planners that a) encouraging people back to work, b) requiring the schools to commence face-to-face teaching and c) openning of bars and restaurants, combined with a restarting of university courses, would make social spacing less than easy. Social spacing (always harder as the weather gets more wintery) is actually the most important remedial action we can take to reduce viral transmission. It seems to me that too many things were 'released' from lockdown simultaneously. Perhaps prioritising and doing things in stages would have been a better strategy?

Good News and Bad News in the Search for a Cure for Multiple Sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a progressively debilitating disease where the patient's own immune system destroys the fatty myelin sheath around his/her nerves. The sheath is important as it allows nerve impulses to pass quickly along the neuron. MS can result in a loss of balance, blindness and a variety of motor impairments (including the loss of the ability to walk). Although there is currently no cure for the condition, a number of drugs have been approved for lessening the symptoms and/or slowing the progression of the condition. Recent studies have been described where the drug bexarotene was administered to patients with relapsing MS (an early form of the disease). The good news is that brain scans demonstrated that the myelin sheath was newly intact after treatment and visual signals passed more quickly from the retina to the visual cortex in the brain. (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/sep/25/ms-treatment-step-closer-drug-shown-to-repair-nerve-coating-trial-multiple-sclerosis). Both findings confirm that remyelination of the nerves is possible (at least in this early stage of MS). The bad news is that there were a variety of side-effects (damage to both the thyroid and the pancreas) that preclude bexarotene's clinical use. The fact that remyelination can occur is, however, important. Another study aims to combine a diabetes drug, metaformin with an anti-histamine, clemastine. The combination has been shown to produce remyelination in animal studies by rejuvenating the stem cells that secrete the myelin sheath. The hope is to find drug treatments that can repair the myelin sheath without having dangerous side-effects.

The Medical Importance of Sex in Covid-19 Research

The fact that male and female patients often respond differently to medications has been known for decades (for example, the heart drug digoxin, reduces mortality in the male but increases it in female patients). I have also complained, for quite some time, that much of the animal research testing exploring potential drugs is often limited to the male (on the slightly odd grounds that they are less 'variable'). There is now a timely warning that much of the relatively rushed research on medications to treat Covid-19 is not considering the potential impact of sex appropriately (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/sep/25/not-accounting-for-sex-differences-in-covid-research-can-be-deadly). Studies often give the total numbers of males and females used in their investigations but they rarely balance the genders in their individual categories (such as those for different ages). An example of this was seen in attempts to establish whether the long-used antimalarial drug, hydroxychloroquine, could benefit people with a Covid-19 infection. The incidence of dangerous side-effects was much greater in women. As one of the authors emphasised 'women are not just little men'. We really need to establish the efficacies and safety of all treatments in both males and females.

Mutation, Mutation!

There are reports from the USA, looking at changes in the genotypes of the Covid-19 virus, suggesting that it is becoming more infective (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/24/coronavirus-mutate-contagious-study-us-cases). They also note that there is no evidence that the virus is becoming more lethal and suggest 'that mutation is still likely when we have a vaccine'. I appreciate that this is not the intention, but the coverage gives the impression that mutation is a deliberate 'policy'. Mutation occurs, whenever organisms reproduce or replicate. With its crossing the species barrier to humans, there has never been more copying of the short RNA sequence that largely makes up this virus. Micro-organisms, such as bacteria and viruses, reproduce very quickly (much much faster than we humans), so there are bound to be lots of mutations in the viral populations. Most of these mutations will be short-lived and have little or no influence on the viral population. Viruses, like everything else, are subject to Darwinian natural selection. The virus that made the 'jump' from bats to humans probably had mutations facilitating that move. The virus didn't choose to change host species. Those that could, however, suddenly had major replicating and population expanding possibilities. The currently recorded mutations are also random events. Covid-19 might well be becoming more infective as certain mutations might enable the virus to partially overcome some of the human attempts at limiting transmission (such as social spacing). The evidence that the virus is not becoming more lethal is very likely to reflect the fact that killing the host reduces the replication opportunities for the virus (so, like any good parasite, infections producing milder forms of the disease might well be getting more common). It's absolutely certain that mutation will continue when a vaccination is found and utilised (this happens with monotonous regularity in seasonal influenza). The vaccination will constitute a selection pressure for the virus (as do antibiotics for bacteria, producing 'superbugs'). Only the viruses that can infect, get the chance to replicate. So those with mutations that allow them to overcome the immune defences of the vaccinated host will get the chance to replicate in initially well-protected (vaccinated) populations.

The Power of the 'Common Good'?

At the start of the second wave of Covid-19 infections in the UK, there has been much talk about how 'freedom loving' people are now breaking the rules (whether they understand them is another issue) and making transmission of the virus worse. There is an interesting opinion piece by Nicky Hawkins (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/23/people-follow-covid-rules-fear-common-good-uk-restrictions) who cites a study from the London School of Economics on the first wave. The study found that there was extraordinary adhering of people to the lockdown rules. This was neither driven by knowledge nor fear. Social responsibility and the perception that most other people (with some notable exceptions) were also 'doing the right thing', were what caused people to stick to lockdown. Fear of fines were not strong factors then and probably won't be very effective in the second wave. Hawkins also points to a King's College London study that found that (surprisingly) 75% of respondants thought that other people were insufficiently worried about climate change (actually a more terminal problem for our species). The claim was that, as we constantly hear that few people are taking it seriously, individuals feel powerless and positive action becomes less likely. Hawkins' suggests that there should be less lecturing and lambasting on the topic and more positive actions displayed for people to follow (presumably so we can feel that we are 'all in it together' on this problem also). I would argue, however, that there are major differences between these two crises. The Covid-19 pandemic was something that was a danger to all and people could recognise that lockdown was likely to have only a short, finite duration. Climate change, on the other hand, results in short-term gains for some groups (e.g. oil companies and politicians) but problems for the 'powerless' masses. We are clearly not 'all in it together'. Climate change can only be 'cured' by almost permanent alterations to living conditions that go well into the future (or so they hope). One could argue that many older folk appear unwilling to give up pleasures (and pensions based on petrochemicals) that were regarded as standard until recently. It seems to be mainly sections of the young who campaign against global warming as they perceive that they will have to 'pay' for the consequences of what they regard as the antisocial behaviour of the earlier generation.

Seeing the Changes 1496

A hoverfly (probably Blera sp) attempted to sunbathe in Loughor.

Not To Be Sniffed At?

It's not just drugs and explosives that sniffer dogs can detect! A pilot study (get it?) at Helsinki airport has used 4 dogs in a trial, to determine they can detect people infected with the Covid-19 virus (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/24/close-to-100-accuracy-airport-enlists-sniffer-dogs-to-test-for-covid-19). It is reported that the dogs have close to 100% accuracy (unlike temperature measuring devices or immunological tests). The tests can be carried out within 1 minute (the dog bit only takes 10 seconds), so delays would be minimal. Sniffer dogs have been used successfully to screen other illnesses such as cancers, so this is a logical development. If the results are confirmed, it is possible that we will get sniffer dogs (or pigs, as they are also pretty good at olfactory detection) at the entrances to companies, universities, schools and football stadia.

Hanging Chad?

At a time when there has been a call to 'leave more of the unexploited hydrocarbons in the ground', it is rather saddening to read that the Country of Chad has asked UNESCO to 'postpone' making a decision on granting World Heritage status to Lake Chad ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/24/chad-halts-lake-world-heritage-status-request-over-oil-exploration-unesco). The Lake Chad region is very substantial (it's home to some 45 million people) and is located, as well as shared, where Chad, Cameroon, Niger and Nigeria meet. All 4 countries had been involved in the very prolonged application process which could have substantial tourism benefits for the area. Chad have independently asked for a postponement, as they have granted oil exploration rights to several, unnamed companies. If oil is found and extracted, World Heritage status for the region becomes impossible. Although the other countries are reportedly 'livid', not all of them have been very protective of other regions that have been 'trashed' by oil extraction. Chad is a poor country and one can understand the temptation of oil revenues but, controlling climate change, means extracting fewer of the planet's hydrocarbon reserves. Oil money, in Africa, rarely flows to the people who life in the region (even though they take the environmental 'hit'). In a sane world, people would consider the long-term consequences.

'Herd Immunity' in Manaus?

We heard much about the possible benefits of 'herd immunity' at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. Preliminary observations (they have not been through a peer review process) of the population in the Brazilian city of Manaus in the Amazon Rainforest may give us a glimpse into what it might look like (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/brazilian-amazon-city-of-manaus-may-have-reached-covid-19-herd-immunity-study-says/ar-BB19n1uB). The study basically examined blood samples and questionnaire responses from the city. Manaus, has a population of over 2 million, is in a relatively impoverished part of the country and is characterised by people living together in large groups. Most of the residents would be classed as 'young'. One should warn, initially, that simply looking at whether an individual's blood sample contains antibodies to the virus (is 'seropositive') does not reveal the whole picture about earlier exposure to the virus (the antibodies can rapidly 'fade' and T and B cells may still offer protection). Brazil had a dreadful Covid-19 pandemic (second only to the USA) and Manaus has had almost 2.5k deaths from the infection. The study suggests that around 66% of the population of the city are now seropositive, which would make it difficult for the virus to find new people to infect (if second infections are rare). Currently, Manaus is showing a very rapid re-openning of businesses, night clubs etc and there are fewer than 4 deaths per day, that are attributal to the virus. So, 'herd immunity' appears to work but at a dreadful cost. It doesn't appear to be something that should be entered into lightly without a vaccine.

The Exponential Growth of 'Weird'

Back in the days before the internet, vitually the whole of science was conducted by writing scientific papers and trying to get them published (hopefully in a 'decent' journal). People eventually became obsessed with assessing the 'quality' of the science, that was being carried out. A popular (it's still done) way of doing this was to count how many times the paper (or even book) had been cited (i.e. quoted and listed in the references) in the publications of other authors. The average number of citations per paper was close to zero, so it was argued that papers getting lots of citations were 'better'. A downside of this was, of course, that highly specialist areas might have only a few people working on that topic to cite them. Citing yourself was often necessary but this was 'looked down upon' as not being 'real' citation. It is claimed that some people even 'gamed the system' by setting up 'citation clubs' ( "I'll cite yours, if you cite mine"). Some papers (often review articles or publications describing a new technique that lots of people later used) were garlanded as 'citation classics'. These papers generally became classics because they advanced science but, very occassionally, a paper was highly cited because its results were regarded as completely 'wrong'. The people who cited it, basically referenced it because they were attacking it as 'weird' (i.e. it was illogical and/or was badly conducted and analysed). Whether you appreciated the paper or not, the process was very slow, as the citer had to write and publish a paper (in some instances, they had to carry out experiments to make their point). Generally, the only people who would bother to do this were qualified scientists broadly working on the same topic. The arrival of the internet (along with rapid publication vehicles) has led to major changes in the 'dissemination' of science. Now, rather than using laborious (albeit of limited utility) citations, impact is 'measured' in terms of 'reads', 'likes' and 'forwards'. Anyone (whether they have any expertise or understanding or not) can do these immediately with a simple click of the mouse. On the one hand, I greatly welcome the improved access to science but it does (I think) have a downside. I think that 'weird' has now sometimes become 'click bait', actually encouraging some people to push such items 'out there' on the web. We also generally don't know whether the people 'liking' or 'forwarding' the material have any expertise to assess the quality of the item. I hope that I am not talking anyone out of reading or commenting on my posts (I am grateful for any interest) but 'science' is very different in today's brave, new world. I think it's even harder now to assess 'quality' and 'impact'.

The Rate of Heating Might be the Fish Killer

A paper (in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA) has raised the possibility that the rate at which the water heats (rather than the final temperature attained) is the factor accounting for the mass deaths of coral reef fish (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/09/15/2009748117). A study on fresh carcasses collected at an event off Eilat (Israel) found that several of the fish had died following a major infection with a bacterium Streptococcus iniae. The bacterium is normally found in most reef fishes (it's what is known as a latent infection) but it appeared that the heating event prevented the immune system of the fish from keeping it in check. The water temperatures attained were not extreme but the warming occurred over just a few days, rather than by following a seasonal pattern. Similar mass reef fish deaths had been recorded in Kuwait bay in 2001 and in an Australian location in 2011. Again, the deaths were preceeded by a very rapid warming of the waters in these same areas. It appears than some of the negative consequences of climate change occur because the organisms don't have time to adapt.

Pilot Error

Of the 450 Long-finned pilot whales stranded on sandbanks in a Tasmanian harbour, only around 50 have been successfully coaxed (by volunteers) back out to sea (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/23/more-than-450-whales-now-stranded-in-tasmania-after-rescuers-discover-pod-of-200-dead). This is Australia's worst, recorded mass stranding of whales and probably reflects the difficulty these cetaceans have with shallow waters, that are in close proximity to deeper channels. Their sonar systems don't cope very well with such conditions.

Farm Animals Versus Cars and Vans

Greenpeace have produced one of those 'wow, I never thought that!' calculations. They have worked out, that if you add in the figures for changes in land use and deforestation, the collected farm animals (mainly cows and pigs) of the EU have a bigger greenhouse gas impact than the emissions from all cars and vans in the bloc (https://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/issues/nature-food/45051/animal-farming-in-eu-worse-for-climate-than-all-cars/). This, of course, requires converting the very potent methane generated in cow burps, into carbon dioxide equivalents. They suggest that this means that the EU will have to reduce the emissions generated by its meat and dairy industries to get anywhere near the target for arresting climate change. I certainly agree that they must be part of the calculation. What about, however, the emissions associated with trucks, shipping and aircraft, as well as with concrete production for building? This is not to mention, electricity production and sections of heavy industry and waste disposal. I would also ask people to note, that the stocking densities of EU animals, doesn't even approach that of the mega-farms in the USA, Brazil and Australia. The calculation might impress some people sufficiently to reduce the meat and dairy content of their diets (I hope it does) but this is 'small beer' when weighed against the contributions to climate change made by other activities (over which most members of the public have little control).

Seeing the Changes 1495

A few end of season flowers in Gorseinon. Spotted Soapwort (Saponaria officinalis); Small toadflax (Chaenorhinium minus); Pale toadflax (Linaria repens); Bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides); Chicory (Cichorium intybus) and the alien Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera).

Scientists Kick the Covid Football?

There are reports of two multiple authored letters from groups of eminent scientists with advice for the UK government on tackling the 2nd wave of Covid-19 infections (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/sep/22/scientists-disagree-over-targeted-versus-nationwide-measures-to-tackle-covid). These, in my view, are getting dangerously close to advocating policy rather than simply offering technical advice (and, to a certain extent, confusing the general public about what science can really offer). I don't really think that the two groups are using different information. It's just where the emphasis is placed. Both groups accept that Covid-19 is a dangerous infection, broadly effecting different cohorts of the population in different ways. Both, presumably, see some deaths as being inevitable (perhap it's just a matter of where?). One group of letter writers (Greenhalgh and Collegues) broadly approves of the government's 'whack a mole' policy (essentially creating local lockdowns, where test and trace has seen a surge in cases). They emphasise that, inspite of a popular belief that Covid-19 is only severe in older people and those with 'underlying health conditions' (whatever they may be), the virus can cause death and severe illness in all age groups. We don't current seem to have anything like a precise knowledge for the outcomes of infection in 'long-haul' patients. The other group of scientist scribes (the Gupta-Heneghan-Sikora axis), broadly think the government is going down the wrong track. They point out, that imposing lockdowns and restrictions, whenever case numbers rise, is based on data that is not very robust anyway. They also state that this action will lead "to significant harm across all age groups, which likely offsets any benefits". In their utilitarian argument, they are presumably thinking of the illness and death caused by failures to treat other conditions (e.g. cancer), the effects on mental health (including suicides), the violence that can occur in lockdown etc, etc. It all leaves me (one of the over 65's) in a confused place (even if I am a scientist)!

Global Warming: A Rich Man's Sport?

Some numbers take your breath away. Oxfam have estimated that the World's richest 1%, generate double the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by the poorest half of the planet's human population (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/worlds-richest-1-cause-double-co2-emissions-of-poorest-50-says-oxfam). They suggest that, rather than wasting it entirely, the carbon credits trading scheme should be revamped to give more benefit to the poorest 50%. If the world is actually going to do something meaningful about climate change (a phenomenon that has a disproportionately large negative effect on the 'have nots'), people who can't afford to live anyother way (until 'greener' technologies are brought in to help them) should have the benefits of the carbon credits. At the moment they are largely utilised to give the rich more air flights, space tourism shots, exotic holidays etc, etc. Otherwise, achieving control of heating and retaining a planet capable of supporting human life (whether rich or poor), becomes much less likely.

Somethings to Grouse About

It isn't a very good look! Following on from a ruling that the 'Rule of Six' (new legislation aimed at limiting the transmission of Covid-19, between members of large groups) will not apply to members of grouse-shooting parties and their beaters, is a suspicion that the UK government is 'stalling' on promised law changes to stop (at least for this year) the burning of peat bogs (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/20/ministers-accused-of-blocking-plans-to-ban-burning-of-uk-peatlands). This appears to be yet 'action' intended to benefit to grouse-shooters. The burning encourages the growth of new shoots of Heather in these locations, on which their 'game birds' feed. The reason why environmentalists wanted the burning banned, is that the peat bogs are very effective carbon sinks and the UK is supposedly trying to encourage 'greener' environmental practices to global warming (the UK will, of course, be hosting the next world conference on climate change). I suspect that many people will not be impressed by these sops to the shooting lobby. It all seems a bit P.G. Wodehouse!

Viruses to the Rescue?

Antibiotics are chemicals (often produced by natural organisms- like the first one, Penicillin) that can attack a spectrum of bacteria (the natural ones facilitate the producer's ability to compete with bacteria for 'substrate'i.e. food). Antibiotics transformed the medical treatment of infections, that formerly resulted in amputation and/or death. These agents, however, are very expensive, as well as time-consuming, to develop and have been massively overused. Sometimes, they are given at the patient's insistence for a viral infection (they don't work on viruses, such as the causal agent of influenza). Doctors have also been known to prescribe them as a 'test' to see if the infection is viral. They are also much used by farmers as growth enhancers for animals (thus increasing their profits). The trouble is that wherever an antibiotic is employed, it exerts a powerful selection pressure on the rapidly-reproducing (about every 20 minutes) bacteria. The only bacteria that breed in the next generation, after treatment, are those that survived the antibiotic. This gives rise to the so-called 'superbugs' (more properly labelled 'antibiotic resistent bacteria'). These strains of bacteria (commonly found in some hospitals and care homes, where antibiotics are commonly and repeatedly utilised), can cause infections that are resistant to any of the currently available antibiotics. These 'untreatable infections' can lead to the deaths of the patients (the World Health Organisation estimates that, without alternative treatments being developed, by 2050 more than 10 million people, infected with a superbug, will die each year). Some people are advocating a return to the use of bacteriophages to treat bacterial infections ( https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/sep/21/phages-the-tiny-viruses-that-could-help-beat-superbugs ). Bacteriophages are tiny viruses that are sometimes described as 'predators' (I would argue that 'parasites') of bacteria. Each phage is only effective against a limited number of bacterial species (in the same way that parasites have a limited range of hosts). Phages are, however, much cheaper and quicker to develop than an antibiotic (they can be formulated in nations with less developed medical/pharmaceutical systems). They also don't appear to have any side-effects on patients. It seems that phages could become an effective alternative treatment for people infected with a superbug strain (such as Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus).

Space Cadets

I totally agree with the scientists who have pointed out that the UK Prime minister has got his advice on avoiding Covid-19 infections completely the wrong way round (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/19/scientists-criticise-uks-hands-face-space-campaign-to-control-covid-19-coronavirus). The PM has advocated the mantra "Hands, Face, Space" (he likes simplistic phrases for chanting purposes). However, 80% of the transmissions of Covid-19 infections are via the aerosol route (as are colds and influenza) by infected people breathing, talking and singing. So spacing is by far the most important way of reducing transmission (indeed, the 2nd wave that seems to be developing in the UK is probably largely a consequence of many folk resuming of grouped activities in schools, universities, work and whilst travelling). Washing of hands and avoiding touching the face are important but a focus on these items developed from a mistaken belief that Covid-19 transmission was largely via large droplets being produced when infected people coughed. I really think that spacing has to be emphasised as some people appear to be becoming too blase about the need (perhaps feeling more protected by wearing a face mask than they ought to be).

A Downside to Winter Alfresco in Covidland

It has been suggested that a good way of reducing the chances of passing on a Covid-19 infection is to do as much socialising as possible outside (rather than in poorly ventilated, indoor spaces). The Brits are not used to alfresco activities in the winter months but some have been anticipating the move by buying rugs, outdoor blankets and thermal underwear. There has also, however, been a more than 80% increase in orders from some suppliers for chimineas, fire pits and patio heaters (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/20/bundle-up-britons-urged-to-embrace-an-alfresco-covid-winter ). As many people have noted, however, all forms of heaters for the exterior are not exactly 'green' (indeed, some retailers have stopped stocking them) and will certainly add to the production of greenhouse gases. It would be better, if people just wrapped up warmly in waterproof clothing and embraced the outside conditions. We could have a good time moaning about the weather. Otherwise, we are attempting to ameliorate one crisis by making the next crisis worse.

Seeing the Changes 1494

Also some critters on the walk through Crawley woods to the beach. Small copper butterflies (Lycaena philaeus); Eristalis arbustorum; and Drone fly (Eristalis tenax). There was much activity by bees burrowing in the dunes. The bee itself (Dasypoda altercator) is shown competing in a group and alone. A collection of tunnels is also shown in the side of a dune. Other Hymenoptera were evident in a digger wasp (Ammophila sabulosa) and Marble galls of Andricus kolleri. On the beach itself was a Brittle star (Ophiothrix fragilis).

Seeing the Changes 1493

It's the end of the summer but lots of plants on a walk down through Crawley woods (on the Gower) via the dunes. Lichen was much in evidence on the established dunes as were bunches of Juncus reeds. Flowers and their products spotted included Traveller's joy (Clematis vitalba); Forking larkspur (Consolida regalis); Sea rocket (Cakile maritima); Rest harrow (Ononis repens); Agrimony (Agrimonia eupatoria); Mouse-ear hawkweed (Hieraceum pilosella); Michalmas daisy (Aster novi-belgii); Orpine (Sedum telephium); Small scabious (Scabiosa columbaria); Field scabious (Knautia arvensis); Burnett rose (Rosa pimpinellifolia)- the flower and the hip and Bloody cranesbill (Geranium sanguineum).