Assisted Dying: Pros and Cons

In a viable human, pain serves a very useful purpose. It encourages the individual to avoid or move away from potentially damaging situations. It also makes them more amenable to receiving care and comfort from others. Folk, lacking a functional pain mechanism, have very difficult lives. Intractable pain can't be negated by medications. It seems obvious that intractable pain, in the case of a dying individual, only serves to make the situation more awful, for him/her and their loved ones. UK MPs have just voted in favour of potentially giving some terminally ill folk the right, in England and Wales, to get medical assistance end their lives. Intractable pain will generally (but not always?) be the trigger for a persons taking such a decision. That 'right' has not yet been conferred. The private member's bill, in question, will simply go to the next stage of being debated, examined and (possibly/probably) amended. The current bill is very tightly worded. It only applies to folk with less than 6 months to live, who have the capacity to make an informed decision. Two doctors and a judge also have to be convinced of the decision's legality and appropriateness. For decades circa 75% of the UK's general public have been in favour of assisted dying. The vote in parliament was, however, much closer. Folk in favour of the measure generally think a) exposing other humans to prolonged pain is wrong (most wouldn't let an animal suffer in this way) and b) people should have a 'right' to decide when to die (along with other 'rights'). A wider variety of reasons (not all employed by the same individuals) have been advanced by opponents of the bill. They include a) the sanctity of life argument, often with religious overtones; b) opposition to any state-regulated 'suicide service'; c) the 'slippery slope' concept, where greater numbers of people end up being included in the service than were envisioned by the act; d) candidates for euthanasia, being pressured/feeling pressured to 'end things' by sometimes rapacious relatives and e) costs for the health and legal services (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/29/mps-vote-for-assisted-dying-in-england-and-wales). I don't normally baldly state my own opinion. In this case, I will make an exception. I am in favour of much improved 'end of life' care provision, as well as wider access to hospices. These are in the UK, however, currently very much subject to a 'post-code lottery' (their availabilties and qualities are highly geographically variable). This isn't likely to change, any time soon. I do think that folk, with proper safeguards, should have a choice of asking for assisted dying. I believe, however, that the current bill is too 'tight' (probably to 'get it through' parliament?). Six months is a very short period. Why should some folk potentially be subject to years of intractable pain, simply because they may live longer? Isn't longer worse in this case? People with religious objections to assisted dying, are certainly entitled to those views. They, and others objecting to the idea, presumably won't be using the service? Their objections should not, however, be foisted on what's now a largely secular population. Costs to services also shouldn't be a real consideration. Richer folk in the UK, already have the potential option of travelling to other countries for assisted dying. Should poorer folk simply have to suffer? The UK's National Health Service was designed to operate 'from the cradle to the grave'. A good assisted dying bill, needs to be part of that. The UK is actually coming rather late 'to the party'. Assisted dying has been available in a number of countries for at least a decade. We should be taking best practise from them.

City 'Meadows'?

There are concerns about the dramatic declines, throughout Europe, in pollinator insect numbers. A study from Warsaw (Poland) has shown, however, that inner city wildflower 'meadows', appear to attract the same diversity of bees, butterflies and flies, as natural countryside meadows (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/20/patches-of-wildflowers-in-cities-can-be-just-as-good-for-insects-as-natural-meadows-study-aoe). This Polish study, suggests that the planting of wild flowers by councils, can actually help maintain insect pollinator stocks. Perhaps, they could even reverse declines. The flower species planted in the city meadows must, of course, be appropriate for insects in the surrounding area. These plants must also provide nectar for adult insects as well as foods for their laval forms. Road traffic would be an additional hazard for city-based insects. Insectivores may, however, be less common in such areas. Get planting!

Breathing More Easily?

Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) are relatively common and dangerous lung disorders. They've tended to be treated, respectively, with inhalers and steroids. A King's College, London study now suggests that benralizumab treatment can be a 'gamechanger' for these conditions. Benralizumab is a monoclonal antibody, injected to target eosinophil white blood cells. Monoclonal antibodies are very specific polypeptides that 'lock on' to particular proteins. Eosinophils (cells that take up the Eosin dye), are involved in the body's inflammatory responses. These white blood cells appear overactive in asthma and COPD. Injection of benralizumab, reduced lung inflammation to a greater extent than steroid tablets (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/27/doctors-hail-first-breakthrough-in-asthma-and-copd-treatment-in-50-years). Steroids, being 'immunosuppressive' reduce all antibodies. Benralizumab treatment, effectively, administers a single, tailor-made antibody. Inflammation, aided by the eosinophils, is an important innate immune response. This response, however, appears to be excessive in asthma and COPD patients. It seems to have parallels to autoimmune diseases, where the body attacks itself. Benralizumab is, consequently, a very different kind of treatment.

A Synergism We Could Do Without!

'Forever chemicals' (PFASs) and microplastics are both ubiquitous and dangerous. Every human, on this planet, has been exposed to both. Worryingly, a Water flea (small, freshwater crustaceans) study, has revealed that these pollutants have a synergistic effect. A PFAS and microplastics combination, resulted in more profound impairments of maturation and reproduction in these little animals, than either substance alone (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/25/pfas-microplastics-toxic https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/25/pfas-microplastics-toxic). A similar synergism is very likely in humans. The threat to human health of our man-made pollutants, just got more evident.

We Are Sailing?

As in the case of aviation, it's difficult to decide who bares responsibility for the activities of particular cruise ship companies. As it's difficult, both planes and shipping currently benefit from extremely lenient environmental and tax rules. Cruise ships have now become vast floating resorts. They can have up to 20 decks, often with rooms for several thousand paying passengers. Cruise ship companies have recently changed their marketing focus. They are moving away from retired folk, to appeal to the relatively affluent young with families. The carbon emissions of a cruise ship are, however, massive. They're roughly double that of equivalent flights to destinations, with hotel stays. Cruise ships also discharge enormous quantities of waste, directly into the oceans. When in port, most leave their engines running to generate electricity. This greatly adds to local toxic air pollution. Cruise ships are becoming persona non grata in some locations. They're banned in the Venice lagoon, as well as currently restricted in Amsterdam and Barcelona. Damage to buildings and massive influxs of tourists, are frequently cited problems (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/26/the-guardian-view-on-cruise-ships-a-licence-to-pollute). There's even an account of a former French sea captain (who knows the truth about shipping), campaigning to keep cruise ships out of his local port of Marseille (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/25/i-feel-guilty-and-angry-the-captain-turned-campaigner-trying-to-keep-cruise-ships-at-bay). Cruise ships trade on images of paradise, while doing enormous damage. The operations of both airlines and cruise ship companies must be allocated to countries. Their emissions should be added to that countries 'carbon footprint'. They should also be responsible for other forms of polution. That might stimulate them to tax frequent flyers and cruisers, accordingly.

'Early To Bed and Early To Rise Makes a Man Healthy...'?

We're often told it's important to get a 'full night's sleep' of 7-9 hours. Our exercise watches, for example, constantly remind us of this 'truism'. Benjamin Franklyn is credited with the phrase "Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise". Old Ben might have been the more accurate about sleep, at least with respect to the first part. A study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health recently looked at data for more than 72,000 people, aged 40-79, in the UK Biobank. It found that, variations in the times a person goes to sleep and wakes up, were strongly associated with increased risks of stroke, heart attack and heart failure. There was a 26% increase in risk of these conditions, even in folk who got a 'full night's sleep'. Subjects furthest away from regular retiring to bed and rising times, had the greatest risk (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/26/irregular-sleep-pattern-raises-risk-of-stroke-and-heart-attack-uk-study-finds). It consequently seems that sleeping routines are more important than duration. Perhaps, a regular routine gives a better quality of sleep. It could also, of course, just indicate that the subject has a less pressured life-style. Emergency and shift workers, will have the most irregular sleep patterns.

Yet Another Benefit of Weight-loss Drugs?

Agonists are compounds that mimic particular neurotransmitters. Glucagon is a hormone produced by the pancreas's Islets of Langerhans. It operates in the opposite fashion to insulin (also produced in the Islets of Langerhans), by increasing blood sugar levels. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are a group of synthetics, some of which help folk lose weight, consequently reducing the incidence of heart attacks and strokes. Semaglutide (Ozempic or Wegovy) does this by encouraging a feeling of satiation. A large and comprehensive analysis of the impact of GLP-1 receptor agonists, suggests they could also have significant benefits to kidney patients. The meta-analysis involved more than 85,000 patients. It included folk with type-2 diabetes, as well as other overweight/obese subjects with cardiovascular disease without this condition. Seven different GLP-1 receptor agonists were used including semaglutide, dulaglutide and liraglutide. Compared with placebo, GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced kidney failure risk by 16%. They also prevented end-stage kidney disease in 22% of cases. The combined reduction in the risk of kidney failure, worsening kidney function and death due to kidney disease was 19%. GLP-1 receptor agonists also reduced the risks of heart attack deaths, a non-fatal heart attack or a non-fatal stroke. World-wide, chronic kidney disease (CKD) is thought to affect 850 million people. It seems as if GLP-1 receptor agonists use will boom to an even greater extent (). It's obviously good news that the potential benefits of GLP-1 receptor agonists on CKD have been largely confirmed. There are, however, looming problems. Ozempic and Wegovy are currently in short supply. There are already reports of folk attempting to buy these from dubious web sites. There's, of course, no certainty that the material they purchase is a) appropriate for the buyer or b) even the active compound. It would also be wholly inappropriate for semagglutide to become simply a lifestyle choice. People need to the guided in terms of sticking to a healthy diet and appropriate exercise regime. A total medicalisation of weight problems with its attendant disease risks would be a) expensive and b) inappropriate.

Bashed Around By Bert

Folk, in many UK areas, have been predictably upset by the impacts of storm Bert. It's disrupted rail and road travel. It's caused extensive flooding in some town centres near rivers. In some areas, a month's worth of rain fell in 24 hours. Also predictably, people have started blaming the Meteorological Office, for not explicitly warning them of the intensity of the storm. Others, are admonishing local government/ the Environmental Agency for the inadequacies of flood defences (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/25/travel-chaos-and-flooding-to-continue-as-uk-counts-cost-of-storm-bert). This blame-game seems a tad concocted. Surely, people must, by now, be starting to appreciate that climate change inevitably increases the incidence and intensities of extreme weather events? 'Once in a 100 years' events are likely to be with us every 5-10 years. Major, expensive mitigations will be required, as the release of 'greenhouse gases' is not being adequately curbed. Every storm designated by name (like Bert), can be a harbinger of chaos, even in our 'green and pleasant land'.

Sucking Us Dry?

The UK currently has a surfeit of fresh (potable) water. It still sounds disturbing that 'foreign multinationals' are extracting billions of litres from UK aquifers. For example, Coca Cola has an Environment Agency licence, to extract almost 1.6 bn litres of water each year from bore holes in Sidcup (Kent) for its soft drinks. It can take another 380 m litres from Morpeth (Northumberland), for its bottled water brands. A subsidiary of the French company Sources Alma, is licenced to extract 1.5 bn litres from Armathwaite (Cumbria). The Swiss company Nestle Waters, has licences for 880 m litres it can take from sites in Derbyshire and Pembrokeshire (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/25/foreign-firms-taking-billions-of-litres-from-uk-aquifers-to-make-bottled-water). In the UK, Environment Agency water bottling licences, however, account for less than 1% of total abstraction. The vast majority of abstracted water, is used by agriculture, industry and for human households. This is, of course, not always true in other parts of the world. Extraction by multinationals may starve locals of their own water. This needs carefully watching in the UK, as climate change impacts make potable water availability less reliable. A more currently serious gripe, to direct to these 'foreign multinationals', is that they often sell their over-priced drinks in plastic bottles. They are consequently considerable sources of microplastics pollution.

Assalted!

Excess dietary salt is one of the world's biggest hidden killers. Too much salt on food causes high blood pressure, which increases the risks of heart attacks and strokes. Salt has also been linked to stomach cancer, kidney disease and osteoporosis (brittle bones). The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends an adult consumption of no more than 5g of salt per day. The average British adult currently daily packs away an average of 8.4g. The British Heart Foundation suggests that, if every UK adult met the WHO limit, there could be up to 1.4m fewer new cases of high blood pressure in the country. There would, consequently, be marked reductions in illness as well as deaths from heart attacks and strokes. Individuals, however, generally find it hard to regulate their salt intake. UK citizens currently get 85% of their salt from purchased foods. They generally don't appreciate that foods like bread, baked beans, tomato juice, cakes and breakfast cereals can have high salt levels. Some even supposedly 'healthy vegan options', contain massive amounts of this condiment (https://www.theguardian.com/food/2024/nov/24/the-truth-about-salt-how-to-avoid-one-of-the-worlds-biggest-hidden-killers). Government should increase the taxes on salty products. It should also make it much easier for people to see the salt contents of their foods as well as reminding them of the safe daily limit. Few people can find the time to cook all their food 'from scratch'.

We're All Plastic Now!

Microplastics are another threat to human health, biodiversity and climate change. They've been found in every placental tissue tested, as well as human arteries, testes and semen samples. They're literally, everywhere! Plastics are, of course, oil derivatives and their production is a $712bn per annum industry. It's, consequently, predictable that, attempting to get a UN global treaty to end plastics waste, is meeting fierce opposition (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/24/world-unable-cope-10-years-talks-un-global-treaty-to-end-plastic-waste). Trouble agreeing this treaty, is yet another example of an environmental challenge being resisted by vested fossil fuel interests. A workable treaty is urgently needed on plastics. Countries must now curb its production as well as tackling plastic's full life-cycle. Otherwise, it's predicted, the world will be unable to cope with the shear volume in as little as 10 years.

Spotting the 'Outsider'?

A 1960s study, found that US residents of Martha's Vineyard (Massachusetts), started emphasising their accents, when feeling overrun by wealthy summer visitors. By doing this, they may have been attempting to distinguish themselves, for the benefit of other locals. A study recently published in Evolutionary Human Sciences looks at rather similar issues. Researchers played volunteers 2-3 second audio clips of 7 regional British accents. Some were authentic and others 'fake'. The accents selected were 'Geordie' (NE England); Belfast (Northern Ireland); Dublin (Eire); Bristol (SW England); Glasgow (Scotland); Essex (SE England) and 'Received Pronunciation' ('upper class' English, as spoken in the 1950s, on the BBC). In nearly 2 out of 3 cases, volunteers spotted the fake accents. Southern English volunteers were, however, markedly worse at doing this, than counterparts from the North, Scotland or Ireland (North or South). The researchers tentatively linked this to historical tensions across the UK. Northeners, Scots and the Irish might have had to become more adept at spotting outsiders, than their Southern counterparts (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/nov/20/southerners-among-worst-at-spotting-fake-english-accents-study-finds). Dialects confer a sense of identity. They may certainly be used to help identify a spy or potentially dangerous outsider. Having said that, however, Southern England gets a much higher influx of folk with varied accents, than the other regions. Perhaps, accent is consequently less of a 'badge' there?

Another Fine Pledge Goes In the KFC Bucket

Newly-developed, fast-growing breeds of chickens are plagued by poor animal welfare. In the UK, the Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) franchise consequently 'pledged' to stop using such 'Frankenchickens', by 2026. Predictably, KFC is now dropping this pledge, claiming that the UK poultry industry can't supply sufficient higher welfare birds (https://www.theguardian.com/food/2024/nov/23/kfc-drops-pledge-to-stop-using-frankenchickens-in-the-uk). This seems 'par for the course'. Large companies often make big claims about their 'green/animal welfare intentions'. They then quietly renege on the 'deal', hoping customers quickly forget the initial 'pledge'. Such 'greenwash' often seems to works 'a treat'. The UK's poultry industry is, however, massive. It would be remarkable, if a supplier couldn't be actioned to supply breeds of birds growing at a more normal rate. They would, however, cost a bit more, as they take longer to mature. Animal welfare seems a low priority for KFC. Is US chlorinated chicken likely to be next on its UK menu?

Our Own Worst Enemy

COP29 is in overtime, as its collective can't agree the final communique. Some nations now want to renege on previous COP 'pledges'. Others want compensation amounts boosted (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2024/nov/23/cop29-talks-go-into-overtime-as-countries-wrangle-over-finance-deal-live-coverage). None of this comes as a surprise to a behavioural biologist. Many species have to compete with eachother for finite resources. Herbivores need to max out on vegetation. Carnivores need to take their prey (who don't want to be eaten). A species most powerful competitors is, however, members of its own species. A species conspecifics want exactly what it wants! This is termed intraspecific competition. The Earth is a finite resource. Rich nations want to stay rich. Poorer nations want compensation for a) the damage caused to themselves by the activities of others; b) choosing not to add to 'greenhouse gas' emissions by industrialising and c) maintaining biodiversity. Genuine altruism never features, when intraspecific competition 'calls the tune'. The trouble is that, this time, we are genuinely 'all in it, together'

Plastic Greenwash!

In 2019 (fanfare!), the Alliance to End Plastic Waste (AEPW) was set up. This consortium of oil and chemical companies, includes ExxonMobile; Dow; Shell; TotalEnergies and ChevronPhillips. The AEPW pledged to divert plastic from the environment. Between them, its members produced circa 132m tonnes of plastic. Their target of clearing 15m tonnes of plastic waste has, however, now been quietly scrapped as 'too ambitious'. Consequently, AEPW is currently making at least 1000 times more plastic, than it's clearing up (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/20/five-firms-in-plastic-pollution-alliance-made-1000-times-more-waste-than-they-saved-analysis-shows). This is a typical ploy used by producers of environmentally problematic materials. First promise the Earth and then fail to achieve even minimalistic 'pledges'. Greenwashing par excellence?

Slip-Sliding Away

Qikiqtaruk is an Arctic Island off Canada's coast. It's an ecologically rich location, with Beluga whales, Dolly Varden char, bears (both brown and polar), Musk ox, caribou, as well as circa 200 plant species. This island is culturally important to the indigenous Inuvialuit. In 1984, their elders used newly allocated powers to set up the Herchel Island-Qikiqtaruk territorial park. Summer temperatures are now, however, rapidly melting the permafrost, causing the island to literally slip into the sea (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/21/canada-arctic-herschel-island-qikiqtaruk-climate-permafrost-tundra-ecology-aoe). Although Qikiqtaruk is a relatively small area, it's a very powerful illustration of the devastating impact of climate change. Climate change: coming to a location near you.

Fat Cell Memories

Many people find it hard not to put weight back on again, after dieting. An individual's fat cells may be partially to blame. A Zurich University study compared fat cells from obese patients (before and after the fitting of a bariametric band) with samples from counterparts who had never had a weight problem. In culture, fat cells from the former grew faster than the latter. The fat cells did this, by absorbing nutrients more quickly. It didn't matter whether the fat cells were from currently or formerly obese subjects (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/18/ability-fat-remember-obesity-drives-yo-yo-diet-effect). It seems likely that fat cells 'remember' past obesity and resist attempts to lose weight. That 'memory' can apparently last for years. This would make it very difficult for so-called 'yo-yo dieters', to permanently shed their excess pounds. Diet follows diet, follows diet.

Putting a Different Construct On It?

Steel and cement production release massive amounts of climate-altering 'greenhouse gas'. These materials are, of course, much used by the construction industries. The construction industry actually accounts for circa 37% of global 'greenhouse gas' emissions. Simon Jenkins is intrigued, however, that it seems to largely escape censure or even a focus (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/19/construction-world-biggest-carbon-emitter-labour). Jenkins agrees the UK needs new homes for its burgeoning population. He regards, however, the 20% Value Added Tax (VAT) on the refurbishment of old buildings as essentially a 'subsidy for pollution'. That's because there's no VAT on new constructions. Jenkins also isn't enthusiastic about the creation of new 'garden cities' on green land in the SE. He notes their new-builds would generate massive amounts of 'greenhouse gases'. It would also leave their new inhabitats very car-dependent. Jenkins believes this would even further exacerbate the current 'North-South prosperity divide'. He thinks much more could be done, throughout the UK, to utilise empty or under-utilised buildings. Improving their environmental efficiencies would, he says, be more effective and less climate-damaging, than 'green' new-builds.

A Wasteful Investment?

Waste incineration plants are currently the UK's dirtiest means of generating electricity. This country currently has around 60 of these 'energy from waste' plants. Annually, they burn around 16m tonnes of waste, generating about 3% of the UK's electricity. Obviously, 'energy from waste' plants reduce the material that has to go to landfill. Without carbon capture, however, they emit very high levels of 'greenhouse gas'. Their emissions are actually markedly worse than those from plants that burn gas or wood. The UK pension fund, Aviva, is said to be currently facing a £350m investment loss on 3 waste incinerator plants. Between 2015 and 2023, these plants received £480m in loans (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/20/uk-pension-fund-loses-350m-waste-incinerator-power-plants). Fairly obviously, waste incineration plants aren't currently a good UK investment. Although they reduce the need for landfill (where methane can be generated), environmentalists think the best way of dealing with waste is to markedly reduce its production. This especially applies to our production and use of plastics.

Change Course For Hamsterdam!

This must be the first time a UK passenger plane has been grounded by 160 Hamsters running amuck in the luggage hold (https://metro.co.uk/2024/11/17/aircraft-grounded-130-hamsters-run-riot-luggage-hold-22009613/). It's not exactly 'Snakes on a Plane' but beasties can cause problems on flights. Hamsters are pretty nifty at opening cages.

Wye, Oh Wye?

Chicken droppings contain more phosphates than any other animal manure. When these phosphates are washed into rivers, they cause eutrophication (algal growth). This starves fish and river plants of oxygen, producing dead zones. The Severn and Wye river valleys, are already home to many large Intensive Poultry Units (IPUs). More than 51 million chickens are currently industrially farmed on their river banks. Campaigners are currently trying to halt the building of yet another IPU in Shropshire. This would house nearly an additional 250,000 chickens. It makes no sense, to have such a high concentration of potential organic pollution adjacent to two important rivers, much utilised by anglers and water enthusiasts (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/19/uk-intensive-farming-hotspots-79-times-more-chickens-than-people-data-shows-river-pollution-wye-severn). Agricultural pollution is a relatively little discussed danger to the UK's river systems. It certainly receives much less publicity than Water Company release of untreated sewage. IPUs generally get easy approval, because their construction is linked to jobs. This shouldn't, however, be the only consideration. There's a need to look after and start to repair our already ravaged natural environment. The last thing this area needs is another IPU!

A little More Explanation?

Wales introduced a residential area 20 miles per hour (mph) speed limit in 2023. It was an attempt to rebalance communities, so they were no longer dominated by cars. Will Hayward, notes that, in 9 months, it saved the country more than £45m, prevented almost 500 people being killed or injured, made residential areas more appealing (less polluted) places to live, as well as reducing car insurance premiums. The measure also continues to have the support of all Welsh emergency services. What's not to like? Strangely, the 20mph speed limit has become the most unpopular piece of law-making, in the history of the Senedd (Welsh Parliament). A petition opposing this measure, has reached almost 470,000 signatures. Hayward wonders why. He suggests that four of the main Facebook sites, opposing the change, clearly involve operatives with obvious political bias. Hayward also notes, however, that the Welsh government seem to have been short-sighted. Imposing this speed limit, cost around £32m (mainly on changed signage). Only £1.6m was spent, however, on explaining the policy to the populace (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/18/wales-20mph-speed-limit-lives-money-policy). Perhaps the Welsh government didn't think they needed to spend more money, explaining a supported manifesto commitment? They have made recent public pronouncements that, having 'listened', some roads will revert to 30mph. Hayward maintains that evidence-based policy does work. He opines, however, that you have to 'own it, explain it and stay the course'. There's always a political price to pay. In a world where facts and evidence matter less and less, this seems an important message!

True from False?

It seems like a good idea to check whether, in today's blizzard of false information, if you have a functional bullshit detector. It's, obviously, specially important if you write a blog on media treatment and science. Fortunately, my detector seems to be in fine working order. The Cambridge Misinformation Susceptibilility Test seems a reliable starting place. It seems to have most of the safeguards for users (you can delete or be anonymous). It tries to link the data to age, gender, nationality, political considerations (although the categories are rather 'American) and educational attainment (https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/misinformation-susceptibility-test). It seems important for folk to test themselves periodically. They also, of course, need to ensure that the test they use is reliable and unbiased. It's probably just a matter of time before misleading versions come online!

It's a Dead Parrot!

Scientists (what do they know?) are generally agreed. Most think the Paris Accord of limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees Centigrade above pre-Industrial values is 'deader than a doornail'. 2024 is almost certain to be the first individual year above this threshold. The planet is on track for an elevation of 2.7 degrees Centigrade, with dramatic climate repercussions (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/18/climate-crisis-world-temperature-target). We've known about the climate impact of anthropogenic (human generated) 'greenhouse gas' emissions for decades. Our rulers and shakers have simply been too slow to act. Some folk have (and still are) dialling-up the emissions for greater 'profits'. Folk need to be reminded of the following a) 1.5 degrees C was merely a 'guesstimate' in Paris for a 'safe' increase; b) 'tipping points' might mean there already can be no return to previous climate conditions; c) if a return to 'traditional' climates is possible, there will be a long, long time lag before any emissions reductions take effect; d) most countries haven't/ can't put mitigations in place for dealing with the likely climate change and e) the higher the global average temperature goes, the worse the consequences. 1.5 degrees C seems to be like Monty Python's Norwegian Blue. Let's hope 2.7 doesn't go the same way!

Feeling It 'In Our Thames Waters'

Thames Water is the largest of England's privatised water companies. For decades, this entity has accumulated debts, directing much of its monopoly income to shareholder dividends and CEO bonuses/'golden hellos'. Dealing with leaks and infrastructure upgrades should have been its major priorities. The ability of Thames Water to now keep London's taps flowing, is reported to be 'on a knife edge'. The company is said to urgently need £23bn for 'repairs', having failed to tackle serious safety concerns or to upgrade its vital IT services. Floods, explosions and asbestos removals all need to be dealt with (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/17/thames-water-supply-knife-edge-23bn-repairs-needed). What's the point of a water company, that doesn't do its job? For much too long, England's privatised water companies were treated as 'cash cows'. Water companies have even, in some cases, deliberately polluted lakes and rivers to boost their profits. Although,'bailing out' Thames Water by its users, shouldn't be an option, folk can't live without clean, potable water.

Winter Waste?

From November to March, in the UK, an extra 5000 tonnes of household waste is sent to landfill or for incineration. This is a 40% increase on values seen in the warmer months. This is because the wetter, winter period makes effective separation by recycling plants of 'co-mingled' items, next to impossible. 'Co-mingling' is the practice of requiring households to put all their recycling in single containers. Householders can be (and in many cases are) required to separate their paper, plastic, glass, metal, as well as food and garden waste. This prevents contamination, reducing the need for landfill and incineration. The UK government will have to rule on whether to abolish 'co-mingling' in England (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/17/how-winter-makes-recycling-harder-with-40-jump-in-contamination). Most householders can and will separate the items for recycling, if they are helped and given clear instructions. The variations between the practices adopted by different councils doesn't help them. There could also be more use (as in The Netherlands) of communal drop off points for certain materials within walking distance of people's homes.

The UK's Unhealthy Eating Habit Is Costing It Dear!

Brits seem hooked on foods that are high in fats, salt or sugar. They are also attracted to highly processed foods. Such food items are linked to obesity. Their consumption also produces high incidences of type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke etc. The Food, Farming and Countryside Commission (FFCC) estimates that unhealthy food habits currently cost the UK at least £268bn per year. This figure far outstrips the entire cost of its National Health Service (NHS). The FFCC figure is made up of direct NHS costs, charges for social care services and welfare system pay-outs. Lost productivity is also an added component (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/nov/15/uk-unhealthy-food-costs-268bn-a-year-report-food-farming-countryside-nhs). Injecting folk with eating suppressing drugs isn't a real answer. It's expensive and is unlikely to prove a healthy, long-term option. Prevention is always better than cure. Relying on the 'good' intentions of food producers isn't an option. They have had decades to get their collective act together. Profits have always trumped health considerations. The UK government clearly needs to a) refocus on preventing dietary-linked disorders, b) heavily tax unhealthy foods and c) use some of that tax, to give poorer folk better access (via vouchers) to fruit and vegetables. It may be 'nanny state' but Brits are clearly incapable of looking after themselves!

Seeing the Changes 2102

Winter heliotrope (Petasites fragrans) was flowering in Loughor.

Too Greedy To Change Course?

George Monbiot suggests an 'all-seeing eye' (a god?), looking at the Earth, might be intrigued to spot 'A species that knows it is destroying itself but is too greedy to change course'. That 'greed' is not, however, apparently equally shared by the 8 billion humans on the planet. The vast majority of folk express concern about the effects of global heating. They think there's a real danger of an existential climate crisis. The 'rich' and powerful, however, seem ever keen to get 'richer' and even more powerful. The rich produce massively more 'greenhouse gas' emissions, than their poorer brethern. They also use a fraction of their wealth, to reduce any chance of potential restrictions on their climate wrecking behaviour (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/15/dying-earth-cop29-azerbaijan-species). Jonathan Watts notes the rich are now developing a 'doomsday bunker mentality'. These folk are building 'bolt-holes' on remote islands. The bunkers have stores and protections against invasion by the masses. Watts regards this as an attempt to ensure 'survival of the richest' (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/14/survival-of-the-richest-trump-climate-and-the-logic-of-the-doomsday-bunker). It's clear that the rich know what forces they are unleashing and its likely outcome. Humans are frequently said to be a social species. Real social concern, however, often seems to only extend to that individual and his/her/their immediate families. Current paper 'money' is actually a somewhat arbitrary human invention. Will 'having' it, always make people greedy for more? Have humans bizarely invented a system that will ultimately destroy them?

Food For Thought?

The link between global heating and food prices is clearly illustrated in a recent CarbonBrief (https://www.carbonbrief.org/five-charts-how-climate-change-is-driving-up-food-prices-around-the-world/#:~:text=The%20heat%20impacted%20the%20cost,with%20the%202C%20warming%20target.%E2%80%9D). This brief, notes that, although European food inflation generally hovers between 0.43 and 0.93%, in parts of 2022 and 2023, rates peaked by as much as 19%. It predicts that the extra levels of heating, projected to hit Europe by 2035, will amplify food costs by 30-50%. Globally, the masses are feeling the effects of rising food and energy prices. In some cases, this has resulted in their sometimes electing climate-denying political 'strongmen'. James Meadway points out reasons why this appears to have happened in the recent US elections, when the economy was supposedly 'healthy'. Meadway notes that inflation figures are based on a 'basket of goods' for the 'average' household. This doesn't, of course, capture the very wide variations between households. The basket includes items like emissions-boosting air travel abroad. Twenty-seven percent of US citizens have never been to a foreign country. Costs of air flights don't change their lives. The 'basket' also includes, the now cheaper, purchase of a flat screen TV. How frequently, Meadway asks, does the 'average' holdhold purchase a new TV? Everyone, however, has to buy food. The rising food and energy prices, impact most heavily on the poorest folk. Meadway also opines that central banks changing the interest rates to 'combat' inflation only make things worse. It worsens the lives of marginal folk, without stimulating food production (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/13/grocery-prices-donald-trump-climate-crisis-olive-oil-butter-extreme-weather-cost-of-living). Meadway also notes that, between 2020 and 2022, 62 new 'food billionaires' were created. He thinks their excessive profits should be taxed. Meadway also believes that governments must subsidise the costs of basic foods for their poorer populations. Those governments certainly need to get an urgent 'handle' on minimising climate change! Otherwise, food cost inflation is only going to get worse.

Pointless?

Lots of fine 'pledges' were made at last year's Dubai COP28. There's been, however, no sign of the promised transition from fossil fuels to 'renewables' in 2024. The burning of coal, oil and gas all continued to rise (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/13/no-sign-of-promised-fossil-fuel-transition-as-emissions-hit-new-high). At Baku's COP29, the Albanian Prime Minister (PM) now wonders what's the point of the meeting, 'if the biggest polluters continue as usual' (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2024/nov/13/cop-29-leaders-speak-after-report-finds-climate-pledges-not-kept-live-updates). This PM clearly has a point. Do the COP meetings actually make any difference? Is it just 'window dressing'? The actions of the big players (countries and consortia) will ultimately determine whether catastrophic climate change can be avoided. There's little sign of these folk wanting to change their current behaviour. 'Drill, baby, drill' seems even more in vogue!

Bad COP?

At COP 29, the UN Secretary General described 2024 as being a 'masterclass in human destruction' of the planet. That COP is in Baku (Azerbaijan). Azerbaijan is a long-established major producer of oil and gas. COP29 has had a number of strong 'pledges'. These have mainly concerned promises of reduced 'greenhouse gas' outputs as well as funding to help undeveloped nations avoid adding to emissions totals. 'Pledges', however, rarely seem to be converted into meaningful action. Scandalously, there's also evidence of the organisers selling opportunities for fossil fuel producers to make deals to increase extraction (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/12/year-masterclass-in-human-destruction-un-chief-tells-cop29). One must ask whether COPs like this, serve any useful purpose? The organisers appear to be 'fiddling whilst the planet burns'. But what did we really expect? There's little sign that a climate crisis can be avoided.

War: What's It Good For?

Oil and gas producers in Iran, Russia and Venezuela never reveal their annual profits. In spite of this, 2022 was clearly a bonanza for the world's 90 plus big fossil fuel companies. Actual profits that year exceeded expected values by circa $490 bn (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2024/nov/11/cop29-live-the-climate-summit-gets-under-way-in-azerbaijan?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with%3Ablock-673201128f084530d737d6aa#block-673201128f084530d737d6aa). Russia's war with Ukraine in 2022, clearly greatly magnified the annual profits of oil and gas producers. War enhances 'greenhouse gas' emissions. It also encourages fossil fuel producers to extract even more product to chase growing profits. Perhaps, such 'super-profits' should be ploughed back into helping the global South reduce its emissions? Unfortunately, Iran, Russia and Venezuela are unlikely to contribute to this reparations pot.

It Should Also be Born in Mind?

Creatine supplements have long been used by bodybuilders and others to provide legal performance boosts. Energy for physical activity comes from Adenosine Tri Phosphate (ATP). ATP is mainly generated by the cellular break- down of glucose and other organic compounds. ATP production is, however, sporadic and short-lasting. Creatine seems to act as a buffer, allowing this energy compound to be produced more quickly. This allows maximal effort to be given for longer. Evidence now seems to be accumulating that creatine supplements can support neural function. The brain has no glucose stores, entirely depending on receipt of this sugar via its blood supply. Intense neural activity, however, uses lots of ATP. There are suggestions that, in some folk, creatine improves mental clarity and focus as well as concentration duration. This supplement may even be neuroprotective, limiting damage to the brain from free radicals etc. (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/nov/10/the-creatine-conundrum-can-it-really-help-your-muscles-and-your-brain). Much more research is needed on the potential mental boost possibly provided by creatine supplements. Proper double blind studies will be required. If the mental health effects are confirmed, older folk and menopausal women could be obvious potential beneficiaries.

Seeing the Changes 2101

Red campion (Silene dioica) is again in bloom in Penclacwydd!

A Play Area For Townies?

There's a proposal to create a new Welsh National Park. The location would run from Prestatyn in the North-east, take in LLangollen and include Lake Vyrnwy in the South. This proposal has predictably generated a raging debate. The claim has been made that the park would be 'a play area for townies' (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/10/new-national-park-wales-local-opposition). Supporters of the proposal, point to the importance of improving access to the countryside. Such access has mental and physical health benefits. Even 'townies' need such opportunities. The setting up of a National Park would, they say, also make it easier to protect this part of rural Wales. There's clearly a need to utilise our limited environment to help deal with climate change. Opponents of the National Park development, worry about increased traffic from Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester, disrupting their lives. They also express concern about outsiders purchasing second homes and Airbnbs in the newly attractive location. This could, they claim, make it impossible for their young locals to get on the housing market. Some opponents are even concerned about the restrictions placed on residents living in National Parks. Constructing new buildings and the setting up of new businesses is more tightly controlled. This one, as they say, is likely to 'run and run'. It should, however, be possible to solve, so long as the argument doesn't simply come down to 'us' against 'them'? National Parks need careful nurturing and rather better financial support.

Honey, Honey!

DNA profiles have been developed to test the authenticity of honeys. Ninety percent of UK samples, failed such tests. The failure rate of honeys from UK supermarkets, was strikingly high. The honey trade body has counter claimed that the supermarket product is 'of high quality'. They have expressed doubts about the validity of the DNA tests. The suspicion remains in minds of some folk, however, that certain supermarket products have been 'bulked out' with cheaper sugar syrup (https://www.theguardian.com/food/2024/nov/09/nine-in-ten-honey-samples-from-uk-retailers-fail-authenticity-test). It can be argued that it really doesn't matter, so long as the supermarket 'honey' is a safe product. Honey has, however, often been championed on the basis of its 'naturalness'. Some of the claims are almost mystical. There's no good reason, however, why a premium should be paid for a cheap, concocted item. It's suggested that honeys should specify their country (countries?) of origin. Their labels should also give more detail on production methods. This seems entirely reasonable.

Hair Today (But Not Gone Tomorrow)?

A person consuming certain drugs, retains traces of those compounds in their growing hair. Consequently, hair-strand tests, for drug or excessive alcohol consumption, have been developed. In the UK, such tests have proved popular with some employers (e.g. railways) and Family Courts. More than 30 years of testing has revealed, however, that hair-strand tests need careful evaluation. Recorded drug values are influenced by factors including the subject's race, hair colour and even the use of particular hair products. Pregnancy, exposure to UV light and whether the individual lives near drug users, will also change the readings (https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/nov/09/uk-children-taken-away-from-parents-due-to-misreporting-of-drug-tests-say-experts). Hair-strand tests have resulted in some folk losing their jobs. They've also influenced decisions made by Family Courts. Such tests may result in a child being removed from its parents and placed in the care of a local authority. Folk, relying only on hair-strand test data, need to be educated about their limitations. Erroneous decisions can be life-changing (usually for the worse).

Taking a Stake?

Nature campaigners are calling on UK taxpayers to take stakes in forest and peatland restoration projects. Forests and peatlands are carbon sinks. They remove atmospheric carbon dioxide, reducing the rate of global heating (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/06/nature-campaigners-urge-uk-taxpayers-to-take-stakes-in-forest-projects). Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are already at record levels. We are near exceeding the Paris Accord's alledgedly 'safe' increase of 1.5 degrees Centigrade above pre-Industrial levels. The recent US Presidential elections will, however, result in that country leaving the Paris Accord for the second time, crippling the climate agreement (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/01/a-trump-presidency-could-cripple-the-paris-climate-agreement-warns-un-chief-antonio-guterres). Getting the UK taxpayers to take stakes in local carbon sinks, just became a much harder sell. Small countries have little impact on climate change, when big countries are intent on maximising their emissions. People know that!

Every Move You Make?

Air fryers are increasing common in UK kitchens. The consumer body, Which, has found, however, that some smart devices, request permission to record audio on the user's phone via a connected app. This function enables the user to start cooking before he/she gets home. Which found that the app provided by Xiaomi devices connect to trackers for Facebook and a TikTok ad network. The user's personal data is then sent to a server in China (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/nov/05/air-fryer-excessive-surveillance-smart-devices-which-watches-speakers-trackers). Collecting of personal data can also be done by some smart watches and digital speakers. There's debate about whether data protection rules are adhered to. It's somewhat worrying that users may be subsequently targetted by marketing firms. Outsmarted by your own air fryer?

Greater Manchester Windfarm?

Cubico Sustainable Investments (an independent renewable energy developer) has submitted plans to erect 21 onshore wind turbines at Scout Moor. The turbines would be adjacent to a windfarm near Greater Manchester. This site would then be able to generate more than 100 megawatts of electricity. That's sufficient, to power more than 10% of Greater Manchester's domestic energy needs. This installation could also be in operation by 2030 (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/05/biggest-onshore-windfarm-energy-cubico-scout-moor-greater-manchester). So long as the folk living near this onshore windfarm get some benefits, this is a good direction of travel. Cubico have proposed a multi-million pound Community Wealth Fund, as well as a Moorland Restoration and Management Plan. The development would speed up the UK's 'green' transition, without having to transmit the power generated over excessive distances. Building it would also much faster, cheaper and safer than constructing a nuclear powerstation. Sections of the moorland would also still be available for wildlife and human recreation.

Apres Le Deluge?

'After the flood' in Valencia, it's clearly apposite for the EU to reconsider responses to extreme weather events. In 2014, Federike Otto founded World Weather Attribution to quickly evaluate whether an extreme weather event could be linked to the climate crisis. This was a reaction to the general hesitancy to connect any particular event to climate change. Cause and effect is a serious issue. Scientists always have to 'hedge their bets' when dealing with such complex phenomena. A quick (and 'dirty') World Weather Attribution analysis of the events in Spain, suggest that the climate emergency made the extreme rainfall about 12% more intense. It also indicates that these once rare events, are becoming markedly more common. Otto, however, says there's an urgent need to improve the preparedness of folk in their responses to such emergencies. As she points out, it's all very well predicting the event, but do people know what to do? There's been several cases, in Germany and Spain, of people being killed in unevacuated care homes (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/04/spain-deaths-europe-realities-extreme-weather-flooding). The EU provides necessary finance to help with 'clean-ups' after extreme weather events. Otto suggests, however, there's also clearly a need to provide money to help communities plan effective responses. Can folk help mitigate the effects by limiting the spread car-friendly water impervious surfaces? Can planning be done, allowing rivers to flow, without first flooding into people's homes. Do locals know where to go in the event of flooding, violent storms etc.?

UK 'Clean Electricity Pledge' is Achievable?

The UK's new National Energy System Operator (NESO) says the plan to create a 'clean' electricity system by 2030 is 'doable'. This would mean replacing all coal, gas and waste burning, by 'renewables'. Wind turbines and solar panels would be the main sources of renewable energy. This transition would, however, require the fixing of the country's 'sluggish' planning system. This would be essential to transmit the electricity from where it's generated, to all areas of the country. This would be costly and difficult. People get upset by pylons (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/05/britain-green-energy-system-operator-neso-green-electricity). Achieving 'clean energy' status, would make Britain much less dependent on 'fossil fuel' price fluctuations. It would also improve the country's energy security. Nuclear power and extra North Sea oil and gas extractions, are not viable options. NESO notes that Britain's electricity prices could actually decline. The country might even become an exporter of 'green' energy.

The Rich Get Richer?

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is one thing the EU never got right. It currently hands out 3 billion euros a year in farming subsidies. The money received by each farmer depends on their 'acreage'. The bigger your farm, the more money you get. Predictably, billionaires are receiving most of the subsidies. Concomittantly, thousands of small farms in Europe are closing (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/03/revealed-billionaires-ultimate-beneficiaries-linked-to-eu-farming-subsidies). It's likely the billionnaire EU farmers will simply buy up vacated small farms to increase the area of their holdings. They will consequently get an increased subsidy, without even producing any additional crops. The really big farms are also generally dominated by monocultures, with very low biodiversity. Brexit was said to facilitate UK farmers being subsidised for encouraging biodiversity. The results, however, have been somewhat 'patchy'. In the words of the song, "Because the rich get richer. And the poor keep on getting poorer". The EU's current CAP ensures this will always remain the case. Clearly, it won't encourage necessary rewilding.

No Precision Breeding For UK Farm Animals?

Genetic Modification (GM) involves transfering whole genes from one organism to another. The recipient organism then becomes able to produce a new protein. Gene Editing is more subtle, as it only alters a few bases in an organism's existing gene. This still, however, essentially alters proteins. The UK is set to approve The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act. This will allow UK scientists to use Gene Editing to modify plant crops. The legislation is not, however, approving gene editing in domesticated animals (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/nov/02/scientists-dismayed-as-uk-ministers-clear-way-for-gene-editing-of-crops-but-not-animals). The failure to approve gene editing in animals may hold back the creation of healthier herds and flocks. If approved the technology could be used to create domesticated animals resistant to particular diseases. Gene Editing could also make animals more capable of coping with climate change. Cows could even be created, with reduced levels of methane burping. Methane is a very potent 'greenhouse gas'. Although welfare issues have been cited, the failure to allow Gene Editing in domesticated animals is rather odd. This technology has been repeatedly tested in humans in attempts to counter faulty genes. In some countries, Gene Editing has even been trialled to enable animal organs (liver and heart) to be transplanted to humans, without subsequent rejection. It would, in any case, be impossible to prevent Gene Edited stock animals being imported into the UK. You can't easily tell, if an organism has been Gene Edited. UK farmers will be tempted, if cows, pigs and sheep, with clearly beneficial attributes, become available from foreign laboratories. Perhaps the only folk being limited by the proposed legislation, are UK scientists?