Uncircumcised Men Are Responsible for up to 37% of Vaginal Infections

By Mary Moore | Published on August 6, 2020
Reviewed By Gilmore Health | On: August 6, 2020

Table of Contents

According to a US study, between a quarter and a third of vaginal infections are caused directly by men, depending on whether they are circumcised or not.


Vaginosis

All too often the role of men in women’s reproductive health is overlooked. To remedy this, researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago have shown that men are responsible for between a third and a quarter of vaginal infections. They published their findings in the journal Frontiers of Cellular Microbiology and Infection on August 4.
Circumcision a real influence

The researchers examined 168 heterosexual couples who had regular sex for one year. They investigated the presence of bacterial vaginosis – an imbalance in the vaginal or vulvar flora that causes the growth of harmful bacteria – in the women at the beginning of the study, six months and a year later. They also took samples from men in the urethral duct, glans and urethral meatus to test for the bacteria.

Read Also: A Comprehensive Look at STDs and Their Various Types

The influence of the men on the development of vaginal infections became clear. The results showed “a clear temporal relationship between the microbial composition of the penis and subsequent disease development,” observed Supriya Mehta, the lead author of the study. About one in four women (26.3%) developed an infection during the study when their partner was circumcised. Among those whose partner is not circumcised, this figure rises to more than every third woman (37.3%). According to the researchers, this difference is explained by the lower number of anaerobic bacteria in circumcised penises.
Men must be included

The role of men in the development of female reproductive diseases is obvious: “The correspondence between the penis microbiome and the vaginal microbiome of the sexual partners does not simply reflect the vaginal microbiome, but can contribute to it,” the researchers argue. It has been shown that the observation of penile microbes is a strong predictor of bacterial vaginosis. Bacterial types were predicted in 74.6% of cases.

The authors believe that these results should help to further investigate the influence of men on reproductive diseases developed by women. “A possible treatment should effectively reduce or modify the presence of bacteria in men” and thus reduce bacterial vaginosis. “I want doctors, researchers, and the general public to involve male partners in their efforts to improve women’s reproductive health,” Supriya Mehta told AFP. It’s not about blaming one of them, but about expanding the possibilities and opportunities for improvement.
References

The Microbiome Composition of a Man’s Penis Predicts Incident Bacterial Vaginosis in His Female Sex Partner With High Accuracy

'Weirdest Fossil' Wasn't a Dinosaur After All

George Dvorsky
Yesterday 4:32PM

A beautifully preserved skull in 99-million-year-old Burmese amber.Image: Lida Xing
CT scan of Oculudentavis skull.Image: L. Xing et al., 2020/Nature

The authors of a high-profile study published earlier this year, in which the scientists claimed to have discovered the world’s smallest dinosaur, have now retracted the paper in response to new fossil evidence.

The now-retracted Nature paper, published on March 11, 2020, apparently misidentified a tiny skull found inside a 99-million-year-old chunk of Burmese amber. Dating back to the Late Cretaceous period, the specimen was said to be the smallest dinosaur in the fossil record, in a claim that attracted considerable media and public attention.

With its bulbous eyes, 14-millimeter-long skull, and dozens of sharp teeth, it was “the weirdest fossil I’ve ever been lucky enough to study,” declared Jingmai O’Connor, the lead author of the paper and a researcher from the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing, China, in a press release issued when the paper was first published. The fossil was identified as a tiny bird, weighing just 2 grams, and given the name Oculudentavis khaungraae.

This interpretation, however, appears to have been flawed. This fossil, designated HPG-15-3, is probably a lizard, and not an avian dinosaur. As Giuliana Viglione reports at Nature News, the paper was retracted owing to the emergence of a similar fossil, which a separate team of scientists have identified as belonging to a lizard.

“We, the authors, are retracting this Article to prevent inaccurate information from remaining in the literature,” wrote the authors in their official retraction statement. “Although the description of Oculudentavis khaungraae remains accurate, a new unpublished specimen casts doubts upon our hypothesis regarding the phylogenetic position [in the evolutionary tree] of HPG-15-3.”

In an email to Gizmodo, O’Connor said that while she agrees that the original assessment of the fossil as an avian dinosaur was incorrect, she doesn’t think a retraction was the best way to handle the problem, as it has created further problems.

“However, we were wrong and Oculudentavis is not a bird but a lizard, which time and new data will demonstrate,” she said. “Nature was not unfair or unkind to us; they made their decision for their own reasons, which were not disclosed to us but of course we must accept—and we do accept,” said O’Connor, adding that her team “worked every step of the way doing whatever Nature asked of us.”

Speaking to Retraction Watch, O’Connor said her team may have been wrong in their identification of the fossil, “but as we have demonstrated in a Matters Arising reply…the specimen cannot be unequivocally identified as either a bird or a squamate [lizard] without more material (which has come to light but is as yet unpublished and effectively does not exist to science yet).”

Nature’s Matters Arising policy allows outside scientists to submit any concerns they might have about a published Nature paper “as necessary to advancing scientific discourse.” These comments “can involve either challenges or clarifications of the published work and may, after peer review, be published online as Matters Arising, usually alongside a Reply from the original Nature authors,” but these comments “should ideally be based on knowledge contemporaneous with the original paper, rather than subsequent scientific developments,” according to Nature.

O’Connor brings up a good point: It seems odd that Nature would retract a paper based on a forthcoming study that has yet to go through peer review, but that appears to be the case.

O’Connor also said it’s not out of the ordinary for paleontologists to misidentify specimens and for new data to correct previous hypotheses, as she told Retraction Watch:

However, Nature chose not to publish our Matters Arising reply and instead retracts our paper—they must have their reasons. It’s unfortunate because this way science can’t simply correct itself (as it is supposed to do) and on top of that, according to the [International Code of Zoological Nomenclature] ICZN the nomenclatural acts are valid whether retracted or not creating a complex grey area. The paper is retracted, yet will continue to be cited. So science will correct itself and cite the paper even though it is retracted making the retraction pointless.

Which speaks to the new problems that O’Connor alluded to in her email to Gizmodo. It’s now an open question as to whether or not scientists will ignore the retraction or the new name, Oculudentavis khaungraae. As the authors pointed out in their retraction statement, they stand by their description of the fossil, even if their interpretation of its place within the evolutionary tree was flawed.

When asked to explain the retraction, a spokesperson from Nature said in an email that the journal is “unable to discuss the confidential process behind retractions as all correspondence with the author prior to publication remains confidential. The research paper was retracted by the authors and the retraction note reflects their rationale for the retraction.”

Addressing the retraction being influenced by the apparent introduction of a new scientific paper after the fact, the spokesperson said, “Nature retracts or agrees to a request for retraction when important contemporary errors or mistakes have been identified or acknowledged that undermine the conclusions of the research. Subsequent scientific developments are not, in and of themselves, a reason for retraction unless they invalidate the methodology used.”

Not very helpful responses. Nature is being tight-lipped about the situation, to the point where we can’t actually be sure why the paper was retracted and if Nature violated its own policies.

It’s important to point out that a preprint in June, written by a different group of scientists, also took exception to the O’Connor paper. In this preprint, which hasn’t gone through peer review, the authors said their own findings “highly contradict” the interpretation that the fossil belonged to a bird and that this “enigmatic animal demonstrates various morphologies” resembling lizards. In a subsequent retort, O’Connor and her colleagues said these authors “failed to provide conclusive evidence for the reidentification” of the fossil as lizard, but O’Connor now seems to have changed her opinion on the matter.

Paleontologist Andrea Cau from Parma, Italy, is also skeptical of the original classification, as Nature News reports:


[B]ecause so many of the specimen’s features are lizard-like — about ten, by his estimate — “the idea that it was instead a lizard could not be excluded”. Cau is not surprised by the retraction, and notes that reclassifications, especially of incomplete fossil specimens from unknown groups, are not uncommon in the field.

These concerns aside, and revisiting O’Connor’s comments to Retraction Watch, this particular retraction isn’t sitting very well with me. Nature seems to be violating its own Matters Arising policy, by considering data that wasn’t available to the researchers at the time of authorship.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that criticism of the original paper is wrong, but this whole thing could’ve been handled considerably better.

George Dvorsky
George is a senior staff reporter at Gizmodo.

AU CONTRAIRE
Nuclear Fusion Will Not Save Us
Yessenia Funes
Wednesday  August 6, 2020

A technician walks past the lower cylinder of the cryostat, which provides the high vacuum, ultra-cool environment for ITER.Photo: Clement Mahoudeau/AFP (Getty Images)

Last week, construction kicked off on the world’s largest experimental nuclear fusion reactor. It marked the start of a new era in the energy sector: The fossil fuel industry has historically dominated this arena, but renewable energy is quickly taking over. Now, nuclear scientists are hoping that the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER, the experimental power plant under construction in southern France, can play a role alongside already-established technologies like solar and wind.

All the nuclear power plants that exist today rely on nuclear fission. ITER, however, will rely on nuclear fusion. The two are dramatically different, and scientists have struggled to recreate nuclear fusion—the process that makes stars shine—in a lab setting. ITER is the world’s first true attempt at this on a large scale.

The Promise and Peril of Nuclear Power
Temperatures are rising, the Antarctic is melting, and a million animal and plant species face the…Read more

“The difference between nuclear fission and nuclear fusion is the reason why we’ve developed a nuclear fission reactor in a matter of years, and still after more than six decades, we still don’t have a nuclear fusion reactor,” said Eugenio Schuster, a mechanical engineering and mechanics professor at Lehigh University who is working on ITER.

Around the world, 450 nuclear reactors were operating last year, all using nuclear fission, which involves splitting heavy atoms of elements such as uranium and plutonium. The process produces tons of highly radioactive waste, the ingredients to create nuclear weapons, potential instability that could lead to a destructive nuclear meltdown, and other concerning issues.

This process also requires uranium. In the U.S., the mining of this resource has contaminated the waters of the Navajo Nation and left countless individuals sick. President Donald Trump wants to see more uranium mining, and he doesn’t care where. The Grand Canyon? It can be mined. Bears Ears National Monument? That, too. Nuclear fission has proven destructive to both human health and the environment. There’s a reason many environmental advocates are highly opposed.

“We have a horrible legacy of uranium contamination in our communities,” said Carol Davis, the executive director of Diné C.A.R.E., an environmental organization that supports the Navajo people. “Water was contaminated with uranium, and it’s never been cleaned, and people are using that and drinking that.”

Davis and other advocates worry nuclear power is just another false promise that creates radioactive waste while taking time and money away from developing renewable energy technologies. The United States alone has 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste with nowhere to go. Nuclear fusion doesn’t create the same level of long-lived radioactive waste as the more popular process of nuclear fission, but it isn’t waste-free, either.

The process begins with the breaking down of lighter atoms into a state of matter called plasma. It requires more than 270 million degrees Fahrenheit of heat to get going, though. When you’re comparing it to fission, of course, fusion is better. It can’t cause the nuclear meltdowns that we’ve seen at other sites. It doesn’t need any uranium; all it needs is lithium and water. If greenhouse gas emissions are the concern, fusion doesn’t have any evidence of contributing there. But the process does still produce some waste, and advocates are worried that their communities will be forced to deal with that waste for the greater good.

“This whole notion of endless power with little to no waste, it just sounds too good to be true. We really need to examine what are the true costs and who are the people who will be impacted,” said Leona Morgan, a Diné activist and coordinator of the Nuclear Issues Study Group, a New Mexico-based volunteer organization against nuclear power. “It seems like we should really learn from what we have already experienced with the loss of human rights and loss of water resources from contamination.”

If scientists want communities to fully embrace nuclear energy, they need to figure out what the hell to do with this toxic trash. In the U.S., decision-makers have historically dumped this stuff near tribal or low-income rural communities. History is bound to repeat itself if leaders don’t take proper action to prevent these injustices.

This Town Didn't Want to Be a Radioactive Waste Dump. The Government Is Giving Them No Choice.

PIKETON, OHIO—David and Pam Mills have grown tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, and okra on their…Read more

“The reason we’re investing in fusion is because the promise is big,” Schuster said. “We’re going to have the benefits of renewables in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, but at the same time, we’re going to reduce the area we need to produce the same amount of energy while eliminating the risk of nuclear accidents and the generation of long-lived radioactive waste.”


That’s the thing, though. Intense attention on the climate crisis allows other ecological crises to happen alongside it. No one wants to see the world burn from rising temperatures, but disenfranchised communities don’t want to keep being sacrificed for the sake of human progress, either. Lithium extraction primarily happens in Argentina and Chile, where Indigenous advocates worry about the amount of water the mining requires, as well as the potential for contamination of their lands. Water is going to become even more valuable as we see droughts dry out lakes, rivers, and streams. Fusion simply doesn’t come without a cost.“This whole notion of endless power with little to no waste, it just sounds too good to be true.”

Proponents of ITER note that the amount of lithium and water needed is minimal, especially compared to the extractive industries that exist today. The plant is expected to need only 550 pounds of fuel a year, half from the isotopes they need from water and half from the isotopes they need from lithium. Schuster notes that most of the water needed for this process would be returned to its source. That’s because researchers need only a specific molecule from the water. These materials won’t be the main issue with nuclear fusion, said Egemen Kolemen, an assistant professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at Princeton University who is also working on the plant.

“The real issue is going to be the nuclear safety issues,” Kolemen said. “Even though it doesn’t have this runaway type of [reaction], there is still going to be some sort of nuclear reactions… that are going to have low levels, but still some, nuclear waste of sorts.”

The construction of ITER certainly does mark a new chapter in the world’s energy sector. It marks a moment of technological breakthrough and scientific accomplishment, but it won’t save us by itself. No new energy source can. At the heart of the climate crisis is human behavior. If we’re to survive it—and, more importantly, solve it—we need to take a long, hard look in the mirror. Reducing emissions will require more than finding the perfect clean energy source; it will need a massive shift in human behavior, lowering our emissions through energy efficiency and less consumption.

Then again, emissions aren’t everything. If we’re lowering our carbon footprint without protecting the health of vulnerable communities, what good is it after all? A nuclear future needs a justice and equity lens if it’s to actually be successful. Otherwise, it’ll be another damaging industry. The world already has enough of those.
Yessenia Funes
PostsEmailTwitter

Yessenia Funes is a senior staff writer with Earther. She loves all things environmental justice and dreams of writing children's books.

Fukushima’s Contaminated Wastewater Could Be Too Risky to Dump in the Ocean


Dharna Noor
Yesterday 5:10PM
•
Filed to:FUKUSHIMA

A person walks past storage tanks for contaminated water at the company’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Photo: Tomohiro Ohsumi/AFP (Getty Images)

Almost a decade ago, the Tohoku-oki earthquake and tsunami triggered an explosion at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, causing the most severe nuclear accident since Chernobyl and releasing an unprecedented amount of radioactive contamination in the ocean. In the years since, there’s been a drawn out cleanup process, and water radiation levels around the plant have fallen to safe levels everywhere except for in the areas closest to the now-closed plant. But as a study from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution published in Science on Thursday shows, there’s another growing hazard: contaminated wastewater.





Radioactive cooling water is leaking out of the the melted-down nuclear reactors and mixing with the groundwater there. In order to prevent the groundwater from leaking into the ocean, the water is pumped into more than 1,000 tanks. Using sophisticated cleaning processes, workers have been able to remove some of this contamination and divert groundwater flows, reducing the amount of water that must be collected each day. But those tanks are filling up, and some Japanese officials have suggested that the water should dumped into the ocean to free up space.

The water in the tanks goes through an advanced treatment system to remove many radioactive isotopes. The Japanese utility company TEPCO, which is handling the cleanup processes, claims that these processes remove all radioactive particles from the water except tritium, an isotope of hydrogen which is nearly impossible remove but is considered to be relatively harmless. It decays in about 12 years, which is faster than other isotopes, is not easily absorbed by marine life, and is not as damaging to living tissue as other forms of radiation.

But according to the new study, that’s not the only radioactive contaminant left in the tanks. By examining TEPCO’s own 2018 data, WHOI researcher Ken Buesseler found that other isotopes remain in the treated wastewater, including carbon-14, cobalt-60, and strontium-90. He found these particles all take much longer to decay than tritium, and that fish and marine organisms absorb them comparatively easily.

Nuclear Fusion Will Not Save Us

Last week, construction kicked off on the world’s largest experimental nuclear fusion reactor. It…Read more


Top ArticlesApple's App Store Policies Are Reportedly Keeping Microsoft'sProject xCloud off iOS
READ MORE




SKIP AD




“[This] means they could be potentially hazardous to humans and the environment for much longer and in more complex ways than tritium,” the study says.

Though TEPCO’s data shows there is far less of these contaminants in the wastewater tanks than tritium, Buesseler notes that their levels vary widely from tank to tank, and that “more than 70% of the tanks would need secondary treatment to reduce concentrations below that required by law for their release.”

The study says we don’t currently have a good idea of how those more dangerous isotopes would behave in the water. We can’t assume they will behave the same way tritium does in the ocean because they have such different properties. And since there are different levels of each isotope in each different tank, each tank will need its own assessment.

“To assess the consequences of the tank releases, a full accounting after any secondary treatments of what isotopes are left in each tank is needed,” the study said.

Buesseler also calls for an analysis of what other contaminants could be in the tanks, such as plutonium. Even though it wasn’t reported in high amounts in the atmosphere in 2011, recent research shows it may have been dispersed when the explosion occurred. Buesseler fears it may also be present in the cooling waters being used at the plant. That points to the need to take a fuller account of the wastewater tanks before anything is done to dump them in the ocean.

“The first step is to clean up those additional radioactive contaminants that remain in the tanks, and then make plans based on what remains,” he said in a statement. “Any option that involves ocean releases would need independent groups keeping track of all of the potential contaminants in seawater, the seafloor, and marine life.”

Many Japanese municipalities have been pushing the government to reconsider its ocean dumping plans and opt to find a long-term storage solution instead, which makes sense, considering exposure to radioactive isotopes can cause myriad health problems to people. It could also hurt marine life, which could have a devastating impact on fishing economies and on ecosystems.

“The health of the ocean—and the livelihoods of countless people—rely on this being done right,” said Buesseler.
Dharna Noor
PostsTwitter

Staff writer, Earther

Shallow Lightning and Mushy Hail: Violent Storms on Jupiter Are Weirder Than We Thought


George Dvorsky

Artistic depiction of electrical storms on Jupiter, using data obtained by NASA’s Juno mission.
Image: NASA/JPL-Caltech/SwRI/MSSS/Gerald Eichstädt

Lightning and hailstones exist on Jupiter, but they’re of a very different sort than the ones we’re familiar with on Earth, as new research suggests.

Shallow lightning on Jupiter doesn’t originate from watery clouds like on Earth but instead from clouds packed with both water and ammonia, according to new research published this week in Nature.

In a related study, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, scientists show how these same thunderstorms are capable of producing unexpected weather in the form of hailstones, or “mushballs,” in the parlance of the researchers. These slushy orbs fall into the bowels of the gas giant, delivering ammonia to its deeper layers.

Planetary scientists have known about lightning bolts on Jupiter for decades, figuring they were caused by similar conditions on Earth, that is, forming from water clouds and at temperatures near the freezing point. For this to work, however, these storms would have to form at altitudes reaching 28 to 40 miles (45 to 65 kilometers) below Jupiter’s cloud tops. Trouble is, observations made by NASA’s Juno spacecraft pointed to the presence of smaller and shallower flashes, which appeared considerably higher in Jupiter’s atmosphere.

In the new Nature study, planetary scientist Heidi Becker from the California Institute of Technology, along with colleagues, present a plausible explanation for this apparent inconsistency: Storms at deeper atmospheric layers toss water-ice crystals up into the higher layers, some 16 miles (25 km) above the gas giant’s water clouds. The ice crystals then come into contact with ammonia at this higher altitude, resulting in an ammonia-water mixture. At this level, temperatures reach -126 degrees Fahrenheit (-88 degrees Celsius), but the ammonia melts the incoming ice.

“At these altitudes, the ammonia acts like an antifreeze, lowering the melting point of water ice and allowing the formation of a cloud with ammonia-water liquid,” explained Becker in a NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory press release. “In this new state, falling droplets of ammonia-water liquid can collide with the upgoing water-ice crystals and electrify the clouds. This was a big surprise, as ammonia-water clouds do not exist on Earth.”

Conveniently enough, this explanation appears to have solved another mystery having to do with Jupiter: uneven gaps of missing ammonia. Scientists previously figured that the absent ammonia was caused by rain, in which a wet mixture of ammonia and water precipitated down into the deeper levels. Calculations of this scenario didn’t work, however, as the hypothesized rain wouldn’t be capable of falling deep enough to match observations made by Juno’s Microwave Radiometer, which detected the depleted ammonia.


Graphic depicting the evolutionary process of shallow lightning and mushball hail on Jupiter.Image: NASA/JPL-Caltech/SwRI/CNRS

A new explanation, as described in the new Journal of Geophysical Research study, suggests scientists were on the right track. But rather than invoking rain as the cause, the new paper, also co-authored by Becker, posits a different type of precipitation: hailstones.

Referred to as “mushballs” by the researchers, these hailstones are made from water and ammonia. Similar to the way hailstones form in Earth’s atmosphere, the mushballs start as small seeds that grow in size as they’re kept aloft by violent winds. Eventually, these slushy orbs get too heavy and fall down to the deeper layers below, evaporating in the warmer temperatures.

“As it turned out, the ammonia isn’t actually missing; it is just transported down while in disguise, having cloaked itself by mixing with water,” explained Scott Bolton, a co-author of the study and Juno PI at the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, in the JPL press release.

Jupiter Just Sprouted a Brand New Spot
An amateur astronomer in South Africa has detected a bright new surface feature rising above the…Read more

So, in addition to showing where the missing ammonia had gone, the new theory also explains the uneven distribution of the missing ammonia in the Jovian atmosphere.

It’s so cool when one scientific discovery leads to another, which is what happened here. Some scientific endeavors might seem superfluous or indulgent, but as these two papers show, we don’t always know where they’re going to lead us.

George Dvorsky
George is a senior staff reporter at Gizmodo.

The Russian owner who abandoned the ship full of ammonium nitrate that caused the Beirut explosion has been questioned by police in Cyprus, reports say

Mia Jankowicz 

A 2010 stock image of the MV Rhosus cargo ship, overlaid with an image from social media video of the explosion in Beirut, Lebanon, on August 4, 2020. Hasenpusch/picture alliance via Getty Images/Business Insider

Igor Grechushkin, the Russian owner of the ship that carried a huge cargo of explosives to Beirut, which exploded years later, was questioned by Cypriot police on Thursday, reports say.Grechushkin abandoned the MV Rhosus and its cargo of 2,750 tons of explosive ammonium nitrate in 2014. Lebanese authorities impounded the cargo until Tuesday's catastrophic explosion. 

Police said the businessman, who resides in Cyprus, was "very willing to come forward" for police questioning, according to In-Cyprus News. 

Grechushkin is not suspected of any wrongdoing, since Lebanese authorities were response for the dangerous state the cargo was left in, Cyprus police spokesperson Christos Andreou told MailOnline.

Business Insider has been unable to reach Grechushkin for comment.

Cypriot police have questioned Igor Grechushkin, the Russian businessman whose ship carried the explosive cargo that devastated Beirut on Tuesday, according to news reports.

Grechushkin was the owner of the MV Rhosus, the ship that carried 2,750 tons of explosive ammonium nitrate, before abandoning it in Beirut in 2014.

Those materials were stored in Beirut's port for six years, before they detonated in Tuesday's catastrophic explosion, as Business Insider reported.

The 43-year-old is based in Limassol, Cyprus, according to multiple reports in local media there. The island state is a common haunt for wealthy Russians.

Lebanese authorities have placed numerous port officials — who were repeatedly warned about the dangers of storing the explosive materials — under house arrest pending an investigation, according to the BBC.

Cyprus police offered assistance to Interpol and Lebanese police after Grechushkin was identified as the former owner of the Rhosus.

A police spokesperson said that Grechushkin, a Cypriot resident, was "very willing to come forward," according to In-Cyprus News, an online news site.

Cyprus police spokesperson Christos Andreou told MailOnline that the interview lasted several hours. "He is not facing any charges, nor is it likely that he will," he said.

"The request came in late Thursday and we acted on it immediately. It was a list of questions that authorities in Beirut wanted Grechushkin to answer."

Andreou told the outlet that Grechushkin was not suspected of wrongdoing given that authorities in Beirut took charge of the cargo years ago and were responsible for storing it.

Police said the details of the interview, which have not yet been made public, will be passed to Beirut officials, according to Reuters. The police spokesperson did not identify the person interviewed to Reuters, but an unnamed security source said it was Grechushkin.
—Ayman Abdel Nour (@aabnour) August 5, 2020

The Siberian Times published a picture purporting to be of Grechushkin, posing on motorcycle. Business Insider has been unable to verify if the image is genuine.

The ship carrying the ammonium nitrate that blew up in Beirut was abandoned in 2014 by a Russian businessman, who has said nothing since the explosion
Mia Jankowicz

A 2010 stock image of the MV Rhosus cargo ship, overlaid with an image from social media video of the explosion in Beirut, Lebanon, on August 4, 2020. Hasenpusch/picture alliance via Getty Images/Business Insider

A cargo ship that brought 2,750 tons of explosive material to Beirut in 2013 belonged to Russian businessman Igor Grechushkin, the ship's former captain told Radio Free Europe.
The cargo was impounded in 2014 and stored there until it exploded on Tuesday with devastating effect.
Grechushkin abandoned the ship after it got stuck in Beirut, leaving the crew stranded, according to the captain.
Grechushkin now lives in Cyprus, the captain said. Cypriot authorities said they have not received Lebanese requests for help reaching him, according to a local report.
Business Insider has been unable to reach him for comment. At the time of writing, he had made no public statement about the explosion.

The cargo ship that brought 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate to Beirut — which exploded Tuesday with devastating consequences — was abandoned in 2014 by a Russian businessman based in Cyprus, according to multiple reports. 

Igor Grechushkin was named as the owner of the MV Rhosus by the ship's former captain Boris Prokoshev, in an interview with the Russian edition of Radio Free Europe. 

According to Prokoshev, the Grechushkin now lives in Cyprus — a common destination for wealthy Russians.

Business Insider has been unable to reach Grechushkin for comment, and a LinkedIn profile with his name is inactive. CNN reported that its attempts to call him received no answer.

Grechushkin has not made any public comment about the explosion, which has so far killed at least 135 people and wounded 5,000 more.

The MV Rhosus was meant to take the ammonium nitrate from Batumi in Georgia — the former Soviet nation on the Black Sea — to Mozambique.

But according to Prokoshev, after they set sail the journey was not deemed profitable enough. The Rhosus detoured to Beirut port in late 2013 to take on more machinery, which Prokoshev objected was too heavy for the ship.

A map showing the ports of Batumi and Biera, the MV Rhosus' intended route, and Beirut, where it took a detour and remained. Google Maps/Business Insider

In Beirut, the ship was found to be unseaworthy and was barred from sailing further by inspectors. Some of the crew was released, but Prokoshev and three others were stuck there for 11 months, he said.

"We weren't paid a dime!" he told Radio Free Europe. "And [Grechushkin] didn't even buy food for us. We can say that he left us in a knowingly dangerous situation, doomed us to hunger."
Lebanese port officials took pity on the seafarers and fed them, Prokoshev said.
After a prolonged legal battle, Grechushkin paid for the remaining crew to be taken to Odesa, Ukraine.

But he abandoned the vessel and its explosive cargo. The ammonium nitrate was moved to port storage, where it stayed until it detonated on August 4, 2020, as Business Insider reported.

Prokoshev, a Ukrainian, said that he met Grechushkin in 2013 he bought the ship. The whole crew had been changed, and Grechushkin did not mention that this was due to non-payment of salaries, Prokoshev said. 

The Siberian Times published a picture purporting to be of Grechushkin, posing on motorcycle. Business Insider has been unable to verify if the picture is genuine.
—The Siberian Times (@siberian_times) August 5, 2020

It is not clear where Grechushkin is now.

Grechushkin has had offices in the city of Limassol, the Cyprus Mail reported. The Cypriot interior ministry said he is not a citizen of Cyprus.

Police on the island said they have contacted Lebanon with offers of assistance, but have yet to receive any requests.

Uber's CEO took a shot at labor groups, accusing them of being driven by 'politics' in the massive fight over drivers' employment status

NEXT HE WILL BE SAYING IT'S "CLASS WAR"!

Tyler Sonnemaker
  

Carlo Allegri/Reuters

IS LIBERAL BOURGEOIS FEMINIST CAPITALIST ARIANA HUFFINGTON STILL ON UBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS?
Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi slammed labor groups that oppose the company's stance on drivers' employment status, accusing them of being motivated by "politics." 

During a call with investors Thursday, Khosrowshahi said groups on Uber's side of the issue, conversely, "actually are taking into account the wants and needs of drivers." TYPICAL ANTI UNION BOILER PLATE, THE BOSSES ALWAYS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR WORKERS SUDDENLY WHEN THE ISSUE OF UNIONIZING ARISES AMONG THE WORKERS THEMSELVES

Uber and other gig-economy companies are engaged in a massive legal and political battle, most notably in California, over whether their drivers are employees or independent contractors.

The state's regulators have ruled that drivers are employees under its gig-worker law and have taken Uber and Lyft to court over the issue, while the companies have pumped $30 million each into a ballot measure that would exempt them from the law.

The stakes are high — analysts said last year that an adverse ruling on the issue could bankrupt Uber and Lyft.

Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi took a shot at labor and driver-advocacy groups on Thursday over their stance on drivers' employment status, accusing them of not representing drivers' interests.

During Uber's quarterly earnings call, Khosrowshahi said groups opposing Proposition 22 — the company's ballot measure in California that would permanently make drivers independent contractors — were motivated by "politics."

Labor and driver groups pushed back on Khosrowshahi's comments.

"We've got terrific supporters [of Proposition 22] in the community as well who actually care about drivers, versus labor unions and politics, they actually are taking into account the wants and needs of drivers," he said.
       
"It is the height of hypocrisy for Uber's rich executives to feign that they care about drivers when they are spending hundreds of millions on a ballot proposition to prevent those workers from receiving the wages, healthcare, and fundamental rights that they have been granted under California law," the Transport Workers Union's president, John Samuelsen, told Business Insider.

Carlos Ramos, a driver and organizer for Gig Workers Rising, said: "From my years of organizing with fellow drivers I can unequivocally say that Dara's words do not reflect Uber's actions. They never have. Uber has always attempted to deceive drivers around new policies and procedures, claiming that changes were made in the best interest of drivers."

Uber, Lyft, and other ride-hailing and food-delivery companies are in the middle of a heated battle in California over whether drivers are employees or contractors under the state's gig-worker law, AB-5, which took effect this year and raised the bar companies must clear to treat workers as contractors.

While the lawmakers behind AB-5 argued it made Uber drivers employees, the companies have refused to reclassify drivers.


In June, the state agency responsible for regulating Uber and Lyft ruled that ride-hailing drivers were considered employees under AB-5, and a month earlier, a group of attorneys general from the state, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego sued both companies over their refusal to reclassify workers.

On Wednesday, Uber and Lyft got hit with another lawsuit from the state's labor commissioner, who accused them of wage theft by refusing to pay drivers minimum wage, sick pay, unemployment, and other benefits guaranteed to employees under California law.

Unlike employees, contractors aren't guaranteed those benefits, and companies aren't bound by certain labor regulations around minimum-wage payments or subject to payroll taxes for those workers, which feed into programs like unemployment insurance.

But Uber is hoping that Proposition 22, which it introduced last fall along with Lyft, DoorDash, Postmates, and Instacart, will pass in November, allowing drivers to remain classified as contractors and making its legal battles a moot point. The companies have pumped more than $110 million into a group supporting the initiative, with Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash contributing $30 million each.


Khosrowshahi called Proposition 22, which also includes new benefits for drivers such as higher wages and some reimbursement for health insurance and vehicle-related expenses, "the best of both worlds."

But driver groups have slammed the companies' proposal, saying it shortchanges drivers by not fully accounting for the actual work they do and the costs they incur. For example, under Proposition 22, drivers would not be paid for the time they spend waiting to get matched with a rider, and they would be reimbursed only $0.30 a mile (the IRS per mile rate for business-related travel is 57.5 cents, by comparison).

Both Uber and driver groups claim drivers are on their side regarding the initiative. Khosrowshahi said the "vast majority of drivers" support it, while Ramos said "tens of thousands of drivers are organizing against" it.

The stakes are undoubtedly high for both drivers and the companies. When AB-5 passed last year, analysts at Barclays concluded that having to reclassify drivers as employees in California alone could cost Uber and Lyft an additional $3,625 a driver.

"We think an adverse ruling on the contract workforce issue would potentially bankrupt both Uber and Lyft," they concluded.

Axel Springer, Insider Inc.'s parent company, is an investor in Uber.

The majority of employees don't feel safe returning to work
Marguerite Ward

Women feel more anxious and stressed than men about the prospect of offices reopening. Miguel Pereira/Getty Images

While there's a big push to reopen the economy from lawmakers, workers themselves don't feel safe returning to business as usual.

The majority of workers don't want to return to their workplaces, citing safety concerns over the coronavirus as their top reason, a recent LinkedIn survey of 1,000 US adults shows.

About 57% of professionals don't feel safe returning to work yet, LinkedIn found, and 63% of professionals would choose to continue working from home if given the choice to return.adults without kids, per the survey.

This is likely due to concerns about finding adequate childcare, previous research shows.

A LinkedIn survey shows 30% of working professionals with school-aged children at home right now feel they do not have the necessary childcare available to return to work. And 60% of workers say their employers have not made accommodations to their work schedules to help with parenting duties.

Parents are also much more worried about work efficiency compared with those without kids, the survey found. 

 The struggle to find adequate childcare could have long-term impacts on women's careers.

Millions of women are likely to take up more unpaid labor in parenting or may even drop out of the labor force to raise their children.

Extending unemployment will help women and workers of color find higher-paying jobs

Allana Akhtar

Jeffrey Greenberg/Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

People find higher-quality jobs when given extended unemployment insurance, according to a working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, first reported by CNBC. 

The paper compared which jobs laid-off workers found during the 2009 Great Recession, when unemployment insurance averaged 79 weeks, and during the 2002 recession.

The paper found extended UI allowed workers time to choose jobs "better suited to their skills;" without UI, workers were more likely to take whatever job they're first offered. 

Women, people of color, and less-educated workers are more likely to find better jobs with extended UI, the paper found, because these groups tend to have less savings to fall back on.

Women have less in workplace retirement savings plans than men, and Black and Hispanic households have far less personal savings than white ones.

Americans laid off due to the coronavirus received a $600 weekly federal bonus on top of state unemployment payments up until August , when congress failed to extend the program.

Since jobs have not rebounded to their pre-coronavirus level — and some experts say many jobs have disappeared permanently — 16 million people still need unemployment benefits, per the Labor Department.

President Donald Trump has indicated he supports extending federal unemployment insurance, and Republicans have proposed cutting the benefits to $400 a week

Lebanese forces fired tear gas at protesters who set fires and vandalized stores in anger over Beirut's deadly explosion and the government mismanagement that caused it

Ashley Collman

Riot police fire tear gas against anti-government protesters, during a protest against the political elites who have ruled the country for decades, in Beirut, Lebanon on August 7, 2020. Hassan Ammar/AP

Lebanese security forces fired tear gas on dozens of protesters Thursday night.

They were demonstrating against the government's ineptitude after a deadly explosion killed more than 100 people and injured 5,000 more on Tuesday.

Authorities say the blast was started after a fire ignited a stockpile of ammonium nitrate stored at a port. Officials reportedly ignored warnings about the stockpile for years.

The protests could signal the restarting of an anti-government protest movement that had fizzled out amid the coronavirus outbreak. 

For years, many people in Lebanon have become angered over the perceived incompetence and corruption of the country's ruling class.

Lebanese security forces used tear gas to break up a riot in central Beirut late Thursday, as dozens protested against the government after the deadly blast that ripped through the capital earlier this week.

The protesters gathered near the country's parliament, where they started fires, vandalized stores, and threw rocks at security forces, before ultimately being pushed back, Agence France-Presse reported, citing the state-run National News Agency.

The unrest was sparked by Tuesday's explosion, which killed at least 157 people, injured more than 5,000, and destroyed entire neighborhoods in the capital city.

Lebanese authorities have blamed the blast on a fire igniting more than 2,000 tons of ammonium nitrate stored at a port.

LOOKS LIKE PORTLAND!!

Lebanese security forces confront protesters in Beirut early Friday morning. Hassan Ammar/AP

Questions have been raised about why such a large amount of the highly-flammable substance had been stored for years at the port. Some Lebanese authorities have been accused of ignoring warnings about the explosives for years.


Several Beirut port officials have been put under house arrest after Tuesday's blast.

The riot on Thursday night, and a planned demonstration on Saturday, could signal the restarting of an anti-government protest movement that started last fall, but which fizzled out during the coronavirus outbreak.

For years, many people in Lebanon have grown fed up with the perceived ineptitude and corruption of the country's ruling class, which has been in power since the end of the Lebanese Civil War in 1990.

In the wake of Tuesday's explosion, two government officials — lawmaker Marwan Hamadeh and Lebanon's ambassador to Jordan, Tracy Chamoun — have resigned.

In a televised statement, Chamoun said she could "no longer tolerate" the government ineptitude and was resigning "in protest against state negligence, theft and lying."

"This disaster rang a bell: we should not show any of them mercy and they all must go. This is total negligence," Chamoun added, according to The Guardian.

NOW WATCH: How the tear gas industry become a billion-dollar business over the last 100 years

https://www.businessinsider.com/beirut-explosion-lebanese-forces-fire-tear-gas-anti-government-protesters-2020-8?jwsource=cl