Pooper Scoopers

 

News that the UK Environment Agency has approved the import of almost 30,000 tonnes of municipal sludge from the Netherlands has been greeted with some concern by environmental groups (https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2020/09/02/uk-imports-sewage-sludge-agriculture/). The material (which contains human faeces) could not be incinerated, due to a breakdown of facilities in Amsterdam. We do allow sludge to be spread on farmland (as fertiliser), after 'appropriate' treatment. The Agency assures the public that this can be safely done. Having said that, much depends on the behaviour of the farmers treating and using this material. The sludge will certainly reach this country containing potentially dangerous bacteria, pathogens and contaminants. This probably accounts for the Dutch banning the application of the sludge onto their fields (they do know a bit about agriculture).  

Avian Roadies

An interesting account looks at the impact of roads in the UK on populations of birds (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/01/weve-covered-huge-swathes-of-the-uk-in-tarmac-how-roads-affect-birds-aoe). The author points out that the country is one of the most 'road dense' areas on the planet with almost 400,000 km (and scheduled to extend) of tarmac for cars. It is claimed that 80% of the land surface in the UK is well within 1km of a road. Roads are not only a collision threat for birds (as well as for insects and mammals) but they also generate air, noise and light (at night) pollution. More than 60% of bird species show significant variance in their abundance with their exposure to roads. There are, of course, 'winners' (common gull species, blackbirds, pigeons and scavengers of all types) and 'losers' (generally more conservation concerning birds such as lapwings, skylarks, warblers and Yellow wagtails). Different combinations of road-associated factors seem to determine whether a particular species can thrive or not close to roads. Perhaps the move away from the noise of the internal combustion engine in our vehicles will favour some species? We at least ought to consider the likely impact on bird species when planning new roads.

 

Microplastics and Soil Fertility

 

A large Chinese study has demonstrated that microplastic pollution of soil (along with that of rivers and seas) has a powerful detrimental impact on its populations of small arthropods and worms (https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/microplastics-harm-ants-worms-soil-nutrients-study-explained-614984). This may not sound very exciting (compared to ocean plastics endangering whales) but these tiny creatures (including ants, insect larvae, mites, nematode worms and springtails) are of great importance in the carbon and nitrogen cycles. They essentially breakdown organic matter, making it easier for bacteria (these are not influenced to the same degree) to complete the recycling process. The result is that soil fertility (along with our ability to grow crops) is impaired. 

Defrosting Italia

 

A further indication of the enormous impact of global warming is the fact that the Marmolada glacier on the border of Trentino and Veneto is predicted to entirely disappear by 2035 (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/01/marmolada-queen-of-dolomites-glacier-could-vanish-within-15-years). This 'river of ice', which is currently more than 3,300m in length has apparently lost more than 80% of its volume in the last 70 years. This could very well intensify flooding in the area.

Jumping the Gun on Zoom Face?

 

Apparently, lots of people are not relishing their appearance, whilst, in lockdown, largely when communicating online. This has led to the very convenient affliction of 'Zoom face' that can be 'cured' by having an expensive face-lift (at a time when you can conveniently hide the bruising) or (cheaper) Botox treatment (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/13/health/coronavirus-cosmetic-surgery.html). There's not much they can do for me but I do think the 'patients' are being a bit premature. It would be very easy for a computer whizz to produce a variant on Zoom that can automatically smooth away your wrinkles and brighten your smile, whilst leaving a recognisable you. There just has to be enough demand.

Money Talking?

 

Type 2 diabetes seems to be produced by life-style disrupting the Islets of Langerhans' (above) ability to produce insulin to control blood sugar levels. This condition increases the risk of having a heart attack or a stroke, as well as sometimes resulting in blindness or the amputation of limbs. It has been estimated that the totalled diabetes treatments cost the NHS £10bn per year and that 1 in 20 prescriptions are linked to the condition. Being overweight has long been established as a risk factor for developing this form of diabetes. This probably accounts for the enthusiasm evident in some newspapers (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6742637/NHS-soups-shakes-weight-loss-diet-cost-effective-study-finds.html#:~:text=The%20NHS%20announced%20last%20year%20it%20would%20trial,to%20patients%20who%20desperately%20need%20to%20lose%20weight.) for extending a trial of providing (free, on the NHS) a soup and shakes diet to 5000 more patients. The measure is deemed to be 'cost-effective' as it may 'save the NHS £10000 per person'. Actual savings are really difficult to calculate (and shouldn't be the whole story anyway). I suspect that not everyone will stick to the diet (they will also have to be carefully monitored- a difficulty in the time of the pandemic). One also has to pose the question of what happens after the soup and shakes regime finishes? People will still have to keep the weight off and develop healthier eating and exercise habits (will they be able to afford this?). I am not saying that this is not worth doing. Just don't expect savings of £10,000 per patient! Think more about the potential health benefits to some individuals!  

Lies and Damn Lies Applied to Statistics?

 

Statistician David Spiegelhalter has reacted bullishly to a writer in The Daily Telegraph who has warned that there will be an "inquiry into the role of statisticians in the Covid-19 crisis (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/31/politicians-covid-19-statistics-statisticians). He cites Nate Silver who wrote that "numbers have no way of speaking for themselves.....we imbue them with meaning." Spiegelhalter is dismissive of the UK government's 'number theatre' in the early days of the pandemic, when there were daily presentations of numbers accompanied by 'fancy' graphs. Subsequent events have revealed that the numbers can be changed and that politicians generally  'pick and mix' the data, to support the line that appeals to them. There have been some almost laughable misuses of numbers, including a recent statement by Stephen Hahn (Commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration). He claimed, at a press conference, that if treatment with the antibody-containing plasma from recovered patients was given to "100 people who were sick with Covid-19, 35 would have been saved". This remarkable 35% 'cure' is based on a finding that 8.9% of the plasma-treated group died compared to a 13.7% mortality in the 'control group' (who didn't receive the plasma). That is a 35% relative difference but the absolute difference is only 5%. This was also based on a single somewhat dodgy (scientists call such things 'preliminary') study, which wasn't even a randomised design (with the groups carefully matched to include people of similar age, gender, ethnicity, underlaying health conditions and disease severity). A 5% saving is distinctly optimistic. The question that remains is, do politicians 'twist' the data simply because they are ignorant or do they calculate what they can get away with to tell 'their' story? Either way, I don't think they are serving their populations well. Viruses don't care!