Trans Mountain pipeline resumes construction after Keystone XL cancellation

Duration: 02:31 

After being shut down for months over safety concerns, construction has resumed on twinning the Trans Mountain pipeline, which would transport oil to Canada’s West Coast. The recent cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline leaves Trans Mountain as the best option to export Canadian oil to other countries.

UNLIKE KENNEY'S BET ON PRIVATIZED TC ENERGY WE OWN TRANSMOUNTAIN, ALBERTANS, FRIST NATIONS AND THE FEDS.

How Alberta's old oil wells could feed the world's growing hunger for lithium — podcast

Gabriel Friedman 

This week, on Down to Business, Chris Doornbros, CEO of Calgary-based E3 Metals, offers an inside look at lithium — a critical element for the cleantech economy

.

© Provided by Financial Post Lithium batteries will revolutionize how we use energy.

His company is working on technology to extract lithium from old depleted oil and gas reservoirs in Alberta.

Doorbros explained lithium isn’t the new oil, and it doesn’t spell the end of Alberta’s fossil fuel economy. On the contrary, nothing matches hydrocarbons, as an energy source, he said.

© AZIN GHAFFARI/POSTMEDIA CALGARY FILES 

Chris Doornbos, chief executive of Calgary-based E3 Metals Corp.

But lithium ion batteries are revolutionizing the way we use energy: They’re the reason we walk around with powerful computers — read smartphones — in our pockets. And even if everyone in Alberta started driving an electric vehicle tomorrow, the province would still be just as reliant on natural gas as it is today, Doornros said.

There would be one crucial difference: instead of CO2 emissions coming out of every tailpipe, they’d come out of a central power plant, where they could be easily captured, stored maybe even used for something.

How Alberta's old oil wells could feed the world's growing hunger for lithium (libsyn.com)

PODCAST 

HUMAN RIGHTS VS RELIGIOUS RITES 

Presbyterian church head says Victorian ban on gay conversion practices should be ignored

TAX THE CHURCHES

 

© Provided by The Guardian 

Photograph: Andrew Boyers/Reuters

The head of the Presbyterian church in Australia says its pastors will not be directed to obey the Victorian government’s new law banning gay conversion practices, calling the bill “a declaration of war on scripture”.

In an interview with Guardian Australia on Thursday, the moderator general of the Presbyterian church in Australia, Rev Peter Barnes, called the bill – which passed Victoria’s parliament earlier this month – “authoritarian” and said the church would ignore it on the basis that church leaders “don’t get our instructions from parliament house”.

The head of the Presbyterian church head in Australia has said its pastors will not be directed to obey a new law banning gay conversion practices.

Related: Senior faith leaders call for global decriminalisation of LGBT+ people

“Civil authorities have a God-given right to govern, I’m not questioning that, but its authority is not open-ended,” he said.

“If the government passes legislation I don’t think is wise, that’s one thing. You’re not going to please all people all the time. If I think they should lower taxes but they raise them, I still pay my taxes.

“But there are limits, and this legislation puts itself very obviously against scripture. It was a declaration of war against scripture.”

The bill, which passed the parliament in February, outlaws practices that seek to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Penalties for those found to have engaged in conversion practices resulting in serious injury face penalties of up to 10 years jail or up to $10,000 in fines.

The bill also empowers the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission to investigate reports of suspected conversion practices.

Advocacy groups including the Brave Network, the LGBTQIA+ committee of the Uniting church in Australia and Rainbow Catholics lauded the bill as the “world’s most significant achievement in legislation curtailing the diabolical influence of the conversion movement”. During a marathon debate on the bill in parliament, Labor’s Harriet Shing – the first openly lesbian member of Victorian parliament – said the bill helped to “recognise the pain and the trauma and the hurt of victims and survivors”.

The bill goes further than one passed in Queensland last year in that it prohibits harmful practices not only in healthcare settings but also in religious settings.

This includes “carrying out a religious practice, including but not limited to, a prayer-based practice, a deliverance practice or an exorcism”.

A number of religious groups opposed the bill when the Victorian government put the proposal out for consultation in October last year, or pushed to have it cover only conversion practices deemed to be carried out without consent.

That report quoted survivors of conversion practices who spoke about the lasting impact it had on their lives and mental health, including one anonymous submission which discussed feeling “shame to such a degree that my mental, physical and spiritual health all suffered” and experiencing “suicidal ideation” after attending a prayer therapy group which sought to fix the person’s “sexual deviance”.

Related: Experience: I was a gay-conversion therapist

Barnes published a statement on the church’s website earlier this month entitled “Where to from here?” after the bill passed. In it, he wrote that the church was “obliged before God to preach all that He has revealed to us, whether law or gospel, and to do so in a spirit of love and truth”.

“There is nothing unique in such legislation. When King Darius exceeded his God-given authority, Daniel did ‘as he had done previously’,” he wrote.

Asked by the Guardian on Thursday whether that meant he was advocating in favour of ignoring the legislation he said: “I’m saying that and a lot of people feel the same way.

“The official policy of the church is to preach the whole counsel of God – I was just saying that’s what we signed up for.”

During the debate around the bill, religious groups distanced themselves from older practices including electro-shock treatment or aversion therapy, and Barnes said he had “never heard of that happening”. But he said if someone “comes to me and asks me to pray for them or help them” he would not “turn them away”.

Report says NASA needs to be aggressive in pursuing nuclear propulsion
Shane McGlaun - Feb 14, 2021

A report recently published by the National Academies committee concluded NASA needs to kick off an aggressive technology development campaign for space nuclear propulsion technologies. The aggressive campaign is necessary if NASA wants to use the technology for human missions to Mars within the next two decades.

The report was published on February 12 and was sponsored by NASA. It found that both nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) and nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) have significant hurdles to overcome before they can be used in a 2039 human mission to Mars. The big benefit of nuclear propulsion for Mars missions is that the propulsion systems could significantly reduce the travel time.

A faster travel time is critical as the mission would require fewer resources, and astronauts would be subjected to less radiation. Between the two technologies, the report favors NTP. With NTP, a nuclear reactor heats fuel, such as liquid hydrogen, to generate thrust. The report believes that an aggressive program could develop NTP systems capable of executing a Martian mission by 2039

The technology does face significant hurdles to coming to reality that extend well beyond creating the nuclear reactor itself. The propellant would have to be heated to a temperature of 2700 kelvins, and the system would have to bring the propellant up to operating temperature within one minute. One major challenge is no ground-based testing facility for NTP systems and the difficulty of storing liquid hydrogen for the mission’s duration.

Using NEP, the nuclear reactor would generate power for electric thrusters. The challenge with this system is that it has to be scaled to power levels far beyond what’s currently available for both power and thermal management systems to work with megawatt-class reactors. The report also found that there has been little progress on relevant technologies since 2005.

February 6/7, 2021, ~ Explosions (9) ~ Volcan De Fuego, Guatemala ~ Via Crelosa
•Feb 7, 2021


Volcano Time-Lapse

'Look beyond': WHO scientist makes shock claim about origins of coronavirus



Tom Flanagan
·News Reporter
Sun, 14 February 2021, 

A leading scientist who was part of the World Health Organisation-led team to investigate the origins of coronavirus in Wuhan has cast further doubt the virus emerged in China.

Professor John Watson, who spent four weeks in Hubei province at the start of the year, said the virus's leap from animals to humans may have occurred outside the country's borders.

He says the pandemic most likely started with an infection in an "animal reservoir" which was then passed on to humans through an "intermediate host".

Asked if he was sure the virus emerged in China, Prof Watson, who previously served as England's deputy chief medical officer until 2017, said "no".

The building of Huanan seafood market where coronavirus is believed to have first surfaced. Source: Reuters

"There are all sorts of reasons ... that suggest that China is a very, very possible source for the outbreak," he told the BBC on Sunday.

"But by no means necessarily the place where the leap from animals to humans took place.

"And I think we need to ensure that we are looking beyond the borders of China, as well as within China."

Prof Watson's remarks follow comments from fellow team member Dr Peter Daszak who said extensive investigations were needed across South East Asia.

“The supply chains to the Huanan seafood market were extensive, they were coming in from other countries, they were coming in from various parts of China, so to really trace that back it's going to take some work," he told the BBC last week.

A photographer on a tall ladder tries to shoot photos of the World Health Organization convoy after it entered the the Huanan Seafood Market. Source: AP

The Huanan seafood market was shut down indefinitely at the beginning of 2020 as it was identified as the virus's first epicentre when multiple cases were linked back to the wet market.

In recent months, Chinese diplomats and state media have said they believe the market is not the origin but the victim of the disease, and have thrown support behind theories that the virus potentially originated in another country.
'Deep concerns' over China's transparency

Concerns have been raised about the WHO team's access to vital early data from the Chinese government.

US national security adviser Jake Sullivan said on Friday that Washington had "deep concerns about the way in which the early findings of the COVID-19 investigation were communicated and questions about the process used to reach them".

Meanwhile, the UK's Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab also shared concerns, saying scientists needed full co-operation to get the answers they need.


Wuhan Covid investigator says he's not sure virus originated in Wuhan


VIDEO 'Look beyond': WHO scientist makes shock claim about origins of coronavirus (yahoo.com)

Prof Watson said the WHO team saw a "great deal" of information about the cases of the first 174 people who contracted coronavirus in China.

But he added that the team was only given access to a "certain amount" of the raw data.

"We didn't see all of that and we didn't see the original questionnaires that were used," he said.

"But apart from the fact that, of course, they would have been in Chinese, one has to think about what one would have seen if one had gone to any other country in the world."

He said the team's visit was not a "one-off" and that the WHO sees it as "the start of a process that's going to take really quite a while".

China has faced claims that the Wuhan Institute of Virology could be the suspected source of the COVID-19 virus.

But the WHO team concluded it was "extremely unlikely" to have entered the human population as a result of a lab-related incident.

Prof Watson said the possibility that it may have escaped from a laboratory had not been "ruled out".

With AAP

‘Politics was always in the room.’ WHO mission chief reflects on China trip seeking COVID-19’s origin

Peter Ben Embarek (center) and Marion Koopmans (right) say farewell to their Chinese counterpart Liang Wannian (left) after 9 February press conference to discuss the findings of a joint investigation into the pandemic’s origins. AP PHOTO/NG HAN GUAN

By Kai Kupferschmidt

Feb. 14, 2021 
Science’s COVID-19 reporting is supported by the Heising-Simons Foundation.

The World Health Organization (WHO) mission to China to probe the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic had a bumpy start, so it’s perhaps no surprise that the team’s departure from China didn’t go entirely smoothly either. A 9 February press conference in Wuhan to summarize the mission’s findings was widely hailed within China, but criticized elsewhere.

During the press conference, WHO program manager and mission leader Peter Ben Embarek and team member Marion Koopmans praised China’s cooperation during the 4-week investigation. They said it was “extremely unlikely” that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a Chinese laboratory and said the team would not investigate that hypothesis further. But they kept open the possibility that the virus arrived in Wuhan on frozen food, a route promoted aggressively by Chinese media to suggest the virus was imported from elsewhere in the world.

Some journalists and scientists called the event a double win for China and demanded more evidence for the rejection of the lab theory. And on 12 February, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus appeared to publicly push back against the team, saying, “All hypotheses are on the table” with respect to the pandemic’s origins. Meanwhile, media reports have suggested WHO team members were disappointed about not getting access to certain data, for instance on Chinese patients with respiratory symptoms who may have been some of the earliest COVID-19 cases.

WHO plans to release a summary report of the mission’s finding as early as next week; a full report will come later.

Science had an hourlong video interview with Ben Embarek on Saturday after his return to Geneva. An epidemiologist and food safety scientist, he has experience both with China—he worked at WHO’s Beijing office between 2009 and 2011—and with coronaviruses, as the head of the agency’s effort to investigate the animal origin of the Middle East respiratory syndrome virus after its emergence in 2012.

Ben Embarek defended the much-debated press conference, explained why the lab escape hypothesis has not been ruled out, and summarized what was learned about when, where, and how SARS-CoV-2 first infected humans. This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Q: What was the most surprising experience during your mission?

A: The whole 4 weeks were a roller coaster of feelings and experiences. The amount of attention from the outside world was very special. Visiting the labs, but also visiting that market that has been closed for a year now, was very important and extremely useful to better understand the environment. Some of the meetings we had with COVID-19 victims and with relatives of victims were also very special.

Q: At Friday’s press conference in Geneva, Tedros seemed to contradict you by saying that with respect to the origins of SARS-CoV-2: “All hypotheses are on the table.” Was it a mistake to call the lab origin hypothesis “extremely unlikely”?

A: No. We first developed a pathway of all the possible ways the virus could be introduced into the human population in late 2019. A lab accident is one hypothesis, another is the direct introduction from an animal host, and the others are different versions of intermediary hosts.

For each hypothesis, we tried to put facts on the table, look at what we had in terms of arguments, and then make an assessment of each. It was already a big step to have Chinese colleagues assess and evaluate such a hypothesis based on what we had on the table, which was not much. Yes, lab accidents do happen around the world; they have happened in the past. The fact that several laboratories of relevance are in and around Wuhan, and are working with coronavirus, is another fact. Beyond that we didn’t have much in terms of looking at that hypothesis as a likely option.

Q: But what led you to use the “extremely unlikely” label? Did you learn anything that made it less likely?

A: We should not put too much focus on the wording. We were looking at different options. At some point we were thinking: Should we use a ranking, with one being the most unlikely, five the most likely, or should we use colors, or should we find another scale? We ended up with a five-phrase scale: “extremely unlikely,” “unlikely,” “possible,” “likely,” and “very likely.” It’s more an illustration of where these hypotheses are to help us organize our planning of future studies.


I don’t think the press conference was a PR win for China. I think the outcome of the mission is a win for the international scientific community.Peter Ben Embarek, World Health Organization



Q: But my question is whether you learned anything new in China. Now that you’ve been there, do you have more reason to say it’s “extremely unlikely” than before?

A: Yes. We had long meetings with the staff of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and three other laboratories in Wuhan. They talked about these claims openly. We discussed: What did you do over the past year to dismiss this claim? What did you yourself develop in terms of argumentations? Did you do audits yourself? Did you look at your records? Did you test your staff? And they explained how they worked and what kind of audit system they had. They had retrospectively tested serum from their staff. They tested samples from early 2019 and from 2020. There were a lot of discussions that we could not have had if we had not traveled to Wuhan. We also did not have evidence provided by outsiders to support any of the claims out there. That could potentially have tipped the balance. What we saw and discussed gave us much more confidence in our assessment. The consensus was that this is an unlikely scenario.

We also had difficulties designing future studies to look into the laboratory claims within our joint group, because if you want to explore such a hypothesis further, you need a different mechanism. You need to do a formal audit, and that’s far beyond what our team is mandated to do or has the tools and capabilities to do. So that was also a reason why we could not start moving forward in our next series of studies into that direction. But the fact that the hypothesis is listed or assessed as extremely unlikely is not the same as if it had been listed or assessed as impossible. We’re not closing the door.

Q: So, it will be investigated further, just not by you and your team?

A: It’s not something we’re going to pursue in the coming weeks and months. But our assessment is out there, and the topic is on the table. This is to me a big achievement, because for the past year it was mission impossible to even discuss it or even put it on the table or on the agenda of any meeting or discussion.

Q: But will someone else investigate?

A: Remember that the report is the outcome of a joint team of Chinese experts and international experts. If others want to pursue that hypothesis, it’s there, it’s being discussed openly and accepted. As I said, this would not be something that this team, or I believe even WHO alone, would be able to move forward on. That would have to be, I believe, a United Nations–wide approach in consultation with member states, if that was something that the international community would want to move forward with.

Q: Would it have been better to project less certainty at the press conference in Wuhan? The way most journalists understood it, the way I understood it, was that this has been ruled out.

A: Let me be clear on this: The fact that we assessed this hypothesis as extremely unlikely doesn’t mean it’s ruled out. … We also state in the report that all these hypothesis assessments will be reviewed on a regular basis. We may pick that one up again if new evidence comes up to make it more likely. It’s work in progress.

Q: Another scenario that you outlined was that the virus was transmitted through frozen food. What is the evidence for that?

A: This scenario is an interesting one because of the findings we made in the Huanan market, which is a wholesale market selling a lot of frozen products and refrigerated products—animal products, meat products, and seafood. And we know that the virus persists for a very long time on frozen products. China has reported over the past months a few instances where they have isolated the virus and positive samples on imported frozen products.

But that’s happening in 2020, at a time where the virus is widely circulating in the world, where there are multiple outbreaks in food factories around the world. It is probably an extremely rare event; we can see that from only a few dozen positive findings in China, out of 1.4 million samples taken so far. It’s potentially possible, so it’s worth exploring. But we have to separate the situation in 2020 with imported goods in China, and the situation in 2019, where that was not a possible route of introduction. There were no widespread outbreaks of COVID-19 in food factories around the world.

There is a much more likely scenario. Some traders at the Huanan market were trading in farmed wild animals—badgers, bamboo rats, rabbits, crocodiles, and many others. Several of these animals are known to be susceptible to SARS [severe acute respiratory syndrome] viruses. Some of them come from farms in provinces where coronaviruses have been isolated from bats: Guangdong Guanxi, Yunnan. Potentially, some of these animals were infected at those farms and then brought the virus into the market.

It is [time] to go back to the suppliers and to the farms and explore what type of species were there. Was there a mix of species? Were new animals introduced to the farms on a regular basis, as new breeding stock or whatever? Did they get supplies of animals from other places? Were there other farms nearby of interest? And of course, doing a lot of testing of all these animals and surroundings and environment.

As to bats: In recent weeks, we’ve had reports new interesting viruses, from Thailand and from Cambodia. We’re also interested in looking at the bat population in a wider area; finding more viruses could help us narrow down the evolutionary pathway of this coronavirus. And also doing more systematic studies on other animal species of interest, in China in particular, that we know are susceptible: minks, raccoon dogs, foxes. There are a number of farming systems that will be of interest to us.

Q: How are you moving forward on this?

A: We’re discussing the next steps, bouncing ideas and strategies between what the Chinese team members would like to do, what we would like to do. But there is agreement on the most logical future studies. We don’t want everybody starting to test millions of animals all over the place because that’s going to waste a lot of resources for no good outcome.

Q: At the press conference you also said it was becoming clearer that there was no widespread transmission of the virus before December 2019. But there have been reports that China did not share all of the data on 92 patients who had flulike symptoms in 2019. (One team member has tweeted that her quotes on that topic were “twisted,” however.) How confident are you that there was no spread of the virus prior to December 2019, what data are still missing, and why?

A: Part of the process of trying to find older cases than early December was to look at data coming out of different surveillance systems. The Chinese colleagues in advance of our arrival identified 72,000 cases from surveillance system for influenzalike illness, fever, and pneumonia. In principle, they could be potential COVID cases. So, they tried to apply some kind of logical set of criteria to try to get to a smaller number of cases that would be worth exploring further. They went down to 92 cases. They were looking at a period first of October to December 2019, and there was no clustering in any way among these 92 cases. Then using serological tests [which look for antibodies to past SARS-CoV-2 infections], they managed to test 67 of these 92; the others were either unavailable, could not be traced, or had died. All 67 turned out negative.

We assessed all of this work and suggested further studies. The idea now is to try to use other strategies to better assess these 67 cases or 92 cases. For example, by also doing serological tests on some confirmed cases from December 2019. If those are still positive, that gives better confidence that the 92 are [truly] negative; if some of the confirmed cases are now negative, it puts a question mark on the value of the serological test.

The other thing is that going down from 72,000 down to 92 shows that the criteria were perhaps a bit too stringent. It might be a better idea to revisit the process and find a less stringent set of criteria so maybe we end up at 1000 cases or so and then do the same evaluation.

Q: Several people have said there was a heated debate about this. Why?

A: Because we wanted to go back immediately and look at the 72,000 cases in a different way—discuss together what criteria and process each of the health care facilities had used to go down from 72,000 to 92. So there was a discussion about whether that could be done now, or whether we should wait. It was a standard scientific debate. It’s frustrating, frankly, that we were not able to move quickly forward with new analyses. And don’t forget the conditions were really difficult. We were in quarantine for 4 weeks, couldn’t move easily around, et cetera. Under the conditions, it is not surprising that we had this disagreement. And it’s still on the table. It is still planned for the future, so it’s not out.

Q: Is there any other debate that got similarly heated?

A: In terms of studies, that was the most [heated]. There was, of course, a lot of debate and discussion about the wording in the report, how to phrase the findings, how to phrase the conclusions. And we should not forget that because of all the pressure on these missions from the outside world and within China from other parts of the … system, it was an extremely sensitive issue.

Q: If you take all of this together, what do we know? What’s the most likely scenario for how and when SARS-CoV-2 started to circulate?

A: It’s now clear that during the second half of December [2019] there was wide circulation of the virus in Wuhan. The contribution of the market at that time was not so important anymore because the virus was also circulating elsewhere in the city. That, to me, is a big finding. That was not the picture we had before. The cases outside the market were showing differences in terms of [virus] sequence diversity. Whether that indicates multiple introductions to the city or a single introduction a little bit earlier, followed by spread in different parts of the city, is still unclear. But it all points towards an introduction in the human population in that area in the period October to early December 2019—most probably late November, not so long before the earliest cases were found. But the route of introduction remains a mystery.

Q: You have the eyes of the world on you. You are working in a country that plays by its own rules. Isn’t there a danger that if you concentrate on the science, you end up being politically naïve? Some people have said the Wuhan press conference was basically a public relations (PR) win for the Chinese government.

A: The politics was always in the room with us on the other side of the table. We had anywhere between 30 and 60 Chinese colleagues, and a large number of them were not scientists, not from the public health sector. We know there was huge scrutiny on the scientific group from the other sectors. So, the politics was there constantly. We were not naïve, and I was not naïve about the political environment in which we tried to operate and, let’s face it, that our Chinese counterparts were operating under.

I don’t think the press conference was a PR win for China. I think the outcome of the mission is a win for the international scientific community. We managed to find a way of getting studies done that would otherwise not have been done. The politicization of events has not helped over the past year. But I think we’ve got the best out of it.

doi:10.1126/science.abh0598

Kai Kupferschmidt is a contributing correspondent for Science magazine based in Berlin, Germany.
 He is the author of a book about the color blue, published in 2019.

Uncovering An Arctic Mystery

Something lurks beneath the Arctic Ocean. While it’s not a monster, it has largely remained a mystery.
Eurasia Review
A Journal of Analysis and News

This artistic diagram of the subsea and coastal permafrost ecosystems emphasizes greenhouse gas production and release. Sandia National Laboratories geosciences engineer Jennifer Frederick is one of the authors in a recent study regarding the release of such gases from submarine permafrost. CREDIT: Artwork by Victor O. Leshyk, Center for Ecosystem Science and Society, Northern Arizona University

According to 25 international researchers who collaborated on a first-of-its-kind study, frozen land beneath rising sea levels currently traps 60 billion tons of methane and 560 billion tons of organic carbon. Little is known about the frozen sediment and soil — called submarine permafrost — even as it slowly thaws and releases methane and carbon that could have significant impacts on climate.

To put into perspective the amount of greenhouse gases in submarine permafrost, humans have released about 500 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution, said Sandia National Laboratories geosciences engineer Jennifer Frederick, one of the authors on the study published in IOP Publishing journal Environmental Research Letters.

While researchers predict that submarine permafrost is not a ticking time bomb and could take hundreds of years to emit its greenhouse gases, Frederick said submarine permafrost carbon stock represents a potential giant ecosystem feedback to climate change not yet included in climate projections and agreements.

“It’s expected to be released over a long period of time, but it’s still a significant amount,” she said. “This expert assessment is bringing to light that we can’t just ignore it because it’s underwater, and we can’t see it. It’s lurking there, and it’s a potentially large source of carbon, particularly methane.”
Researchers combine expert analysis on known data

The team of researchers led by Brigham Young University graduate student Sara Sayedi and senior researcher Ben Abbott compiled available articles and reports on the subject to create a base analysis of submarine permafrost’s potential to affect climate change. The study was coordinated through the Permafrost Carbon Network, which has more than 400 members from 130 research institutions in 21 countries.

The study was conducted through an expert assessment that sought answers to several central questions: What is the current extent of submarine permafrost? How much carbon is locked in submarine permafrost? How much has been and will be released? What is the rate of release into the atmosphere?

The participating experts answered questions using their scientific skills, which could include modeling, data analysis or literature synthesis. Frederick, one of the original advocates of the study, has been modeling submarine permafrost for almost 10 years and answered the questions through the lens of her research, which is primarily in numerical modeling. She said she uses published material for model inputs or works directly with researchers who visit the Arctic and provide datasets.

Her work on the study was funded by the Laboratory Directed Research and Development program that enables Sandia scientists and engineers to explore innovative solutions to national security issues.

Frederick’s work aligned with Sandia’s Arctic Science and Security Initiative. For more than 20 years, the Labs have had a presence in northern Alaska, said Sandia atmospheric sciences manager Lori Parrott.

Working for the Department of Energy Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Sandia manages the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement user facility that collects atmospheric data continuously. Researchers measure and predict the speed of de-icing at the North Slope to help federal leaders make decisions on climate change and national security. In addition, Sandia creates accurate models for both sea and land ice and develops technologies for greenhouse gas monitoring. With more than 20 years of data, researchers can begin to decipher trends, Parrott said.
Permafrost study a reason to unite

“I hope this study begins to unite the research community in submarine permafrost,” said Frederick. “Historically, it’s not only been a challenging location to do field work and make observations, but language barriers and other obstacles in accessibility to the existing observations and literature has challenged international scientific progress in this area.”

The team estimates that submarine permafrost has been thawing since the end of the last glacial period 14,000 years ago, and currently releases about 140 million tons of carbon dioxide and 5.3 million tons of methane into the atmosphere each year. This represents a small fraction of total human-caused greenhouse gas emissions per year, about the same yearly footprint as Spain, Sayedi said.

However, modern greenhouse gas releases are predominantly a result of the natural response to deglaciation, according to the study. Expert estimates from this study suggest human-caused global warming may accelerate greenhouse gas release, but due to lack of research and uncertainties in this area, determining causes and rates of the release will remain unknown until better empirical and modeling estimates are available.

“I’m optimistic that this study will shed light on the fact that submarine permafrost exists, and that people are studying its role in climate,” Frederick said. “The size of the research community doesn’t necessarily reflect its importance in the climate system.”

Almost every expert involved in the study mentioned the permafrost knowledge gap, which makes it harder for scientists to anticipate changes and reduces the reliability of estimates of carbon pools and fluxes, as well as the thermal and hydrological conditions of permafrost. Frederick said that while there is a wealth of ongoing research on terrestrial permafrost, submarine permafrost hasn’t been taken on like this before, and hasn’t been the subject of nearly as much international collaboration.

The amount of carbon sequestered or associated with submarine permafrost is relevant when compared to the numbers of carbon in terrestrial permafrost and what’s in the atmosphere today, Frederick said.

“This is an example of a very large source of carbon that hasn’t been considered in climate predictions or agreements,” she said. “While it’s not a ticking time bomb, what is certain is that submarine permafrost carbon stocks cannot continue to be ignored, and we need to know more about how they will affect the Earth’s future.”

Kenya: Panic as Desert Locusts Invade Farms in Embu County


FAO/Sven Torfinn
(file photo).

14 FEBRUARY 2021
The Nation (Nairobi)

By George Munene


The second wave of desert locusts has invaded Embu County, throwing residents into panic.

The voracious insects crossed over to the area from Kitui County and are wreaking havoc on farms in the expansive Mbeere South Constituency.

The most affected villages are Machang'a, Kanthenge, Riachina, Kaburu and Ndunguni where sorghum, millet and green grams are grown in large scale.

The insects were first spotted on Friday evening and are destroying crops, which the residents depend on for survival, at a very high rate.

According to the residents and Mbeere South MP Geoffrey King'ang'i, the insects appear to be very hungry because they were not sparing anything edible.

"They are feeding on crops as well as grass and shrubs. They are dangerous insects," said Mr King'ang'i.

The residents expressed fears that the locusts may wipe out their sorghum, millet and other crops if urgent measures are not taken to eradicate them.

Appeal for intervention

They appealed to the government to intervene quickly before they lose all their crops and pastures for their animals to the locusts which have spread over an area estimated to be 10 square kilometres.

The residents said efforts to chase away the voracious feeders have borne no fruit.

They said if the locusts are not controlled, famine is imminent in the area.

"We may starve if our crops are destroyed and, therefore, we call upon the government to help us eliminate the locusts which are spreading very fast," one of the residents, Mr John Runji, said.

The MP lamented that since the invasion was reported, no government official has visited the area to assess the situation.

"If the locusts are not sprayed, then my people will suffer as they depend on crops to feed and to educate their children," he said.

Mr King'ang'i observed that the locusts have landed in the area even before the residents recover from the adverse effects of the Coronavirus pandemic.


Read the original article on Nation.

Kenya: Swarms of Locusts Invade Mbooni in Makueni County



Haji Dirir/FAO
Locusts swarm (file photo).

1 FEBRUARY 2021
Capital FM (Nairobi)


Makueni — Swarms of locusts have invaded farms in sections of Makueni County Monday.

The locusts were spotted in large areas of Mbooni and Kaiti Constituencies in the County.

Makueni Agriculture County Executive Committee Member Robert Kisyula described the latest invasion as the worst in recent months.

Farmers interviewed expressed fears of the losses they are likely to incur following the invasion on their crops.

"The locusts came through, started to devour the only left crops in our farms," one farmer said, "Some have completely eaten all leaves, leaving only the stems."

Last month, Agriculture Cabinet Secretary Peter Munya said at least 15 counties were affected by the locusts invasion, but assured that efforts were in place to manage the situation.

The government has expressed optimism of eradicating the locusts' menace.

Munya said that 80 percent of the locust swarms that invaded the country during the second wave have so been treated and surveillance was underway to combat the rest.

He said that of the 75 swarms that have been identified, 66 of them have been treated.

Munya further announced that 15 counties were affected including Marsabit, Wajir, Garissa, Tana River, Lamu, Kilifi, Taita Taveta, Mandera, Machakos, Kitui, Isiolo, Samburu, Laikipia, Meru and Tharaka Nithi Counties.

"So far, the total number of swarms that settled in the Country between November 2020 and January 2021 are 75 out of which 66 have been treated reflecting a total area of 19,100 hectares. The exercise has thus largely been successful," Munya said.

Munya pointed out that 9 sprayer aircrafts have been deployed in different Counties which are adversely affected while 500 National Youth Service (NYS) personnel have been trained to help on ground control of the locusts.

"There are sufficient control pesticides both at the headquarters and all the field control bases to handle the desert locust invasion. Where necessary will purchase more," said Munya.

Additionally, 21 vehicles mounted with sprayers for ground control operations in the various bases.

The second wave started last year in November.

In March last year, Kenya and a number of countries in the horn of Africa including Ethiopia, Somalia and Uganda experienced the worst locust attack in seven years.

The first wave affected over 30 counties in Kenya with most of them being the Arid and Semi- Arid ones.


Read the original article on Capital FM.

Africa: Coronavirus and Food Safety - What the Studies Say


Rachel Mabala/ Daily Monitor
Fruit vendors along Nakasero market street in Kampala, Uganda.

14 FEBRUARY 2021
The Conversation Africa (Johannesburg)

ANALYSIS

By Jeffrey M. Farber, Lucia Anelich, Ryk Lues and Valeria R Parreira

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, not much was known about SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus) and its survival in food, on various materials and on surfaces. Since then, several food safety agencies have assessed the risk of potentially acquiring the virus from contaminated food or food packaging. The consensus is that currently, there's no evidence it's a food safety risk.

The main route of infection is from person-to-person via contact with one another, respiratory droplets and aerosols from coughing, sneezing and talking. Therefore, it's not considered a foodborne virus.

We surveyed the scientific literature to see what it said about the safety of food and SARS-CoV-2. This included the survival of the virus, how it's transmitted and how it can be inactivated in food and on surfaces.

Overall, the evidence suggests that the virus is not a risk to food safety. But it has caused disruptions to the global food supply chain.

One research question was whether the virus is transmitted via the faecal-oral route. The question arose because a study had found viral genetic material in anal swabs and blood taken from patients. This was an important point because one of the symptoms of COVID-19 is diarrhoea. However, there are no reports to date showing faecal-oral transmission of the virus.

Furthermore, several studies have concluded that diarrhoea in COVID-19 patients isn't likely to occur from ingesting contaminated food. Rather, it's from the pathway of the virus, from the respiratory system to the digestive tract.

Where the coronavirus survives

Viruses tend to survive well at low temperatures. Freezing can actually preserve them. So it's likely that SARS-CoV-2 would survive freezing of food. But several studies have indicated that this virus and similar ones are inactivated by cooking food at frequently-used temperatures.

The coronavirus appears to be stable at different pH values (3-10) at room temperature. More alkaline and more acidic conditions beyond this range appear to inactivate the virus. This means it's unlikely to survive the acidic environment of the stomach.

It's also likely that the virus in food will be at low concentrations. Importantly, the coronavirus, like other viruses, cannot multiply outside of their hosts. Therefore, it cannot multipy in food.

It's well-established that viruses causing respiratory infections can be transmitted by indirect contact through the environment. This happens when a person touches contaminated surfaces and then touches their mouth, nose or eyes, without first washing their hands.

Various experimental studies on the survival of the coronavirus on different types of surfaces under different conditions have been conducted. The virus was found to survive on different surfaces for different periods of time, depending on environmental conditions and initial viral load.

Nevertheless, one must be aware that survival may be different to these studies, in a more realistic setting, outside the laboratory. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other similar agencies and organisations don't consider contaminated surfaces a main route of transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Current consensus is therefore that SARS-CoV-2 is not transmitted by food and is highly unlikely to be transmitted by food packaging material, but it could be spread by touching contaminated surfaces and then touching your mouth, nose or eyes. It's therefore very important to properly clean and disinfect food contact surfaces and especially high-touch surfaces and utensils in a food environment.

Disinfection and prevention

SARS-CoV-2 belongs to the coronavirus family of enveloped viruses, which makes them susceptible to detergents and a variety of other microbicides, even more so than fungi, vegetative bacteria and yeasts.

Studies have shown that the fatty layer surrounding the virus is disrupted, leading to inactivation of the virus when using 0.1% sodium hypochlorite (diluted household bleach), 0.5% hydrogen peroxide and 62%-71% ethanol. These solutions all significantly reduce SARS-CoV-2 on surfaces, after one minute of exposure.

Several agencies have published a list of approved disinfectants for use against SARS-CoV-2 in industrial settings, namely the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Health Canada and the European Union.

In conclusion, the greatest risk related to COVID-19 remains person-to-person transmission and aerosolised transfer in the food environment, including manufacturing, retail and food service. In fact, there have been several person-to-person COVID-19 outbreaks among farm workers and in food processing establishments.

This is why it's important to adhere to proper hygienic measures by wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (such as masks) and practising proper hand hygiene and physical distancing. Food companies - like any others - need to ensure that their employees are vigilant about mask-wearing, hand-washing, maintaining a physical distance and regular cleaning and disinfection of high-touch surfaces and utensils.

In summary, the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 on food or food packaging may raise concerns about food safety, but it doesn't indicate a risk for public health. Therefore it should not be a basis for restricting food trade or initiating a food recall. Thinking about the food supply chain in a connected way - integrating health, food security and sustainability - will be an important part of controlling any future pandemics.

Lucia Anelich, Adjunct Professor, Food Sustainability, Central University of Technology; Jeffrey M. Farber, Professor of Food Safety, University of Guelph; Ryk Lues, Professor and Director: Centre for Applied Food Sustainability and Biotechnology , Central University of Technology, and Valeria R Parreira, Researcher and Adjunct Professor, Food Science , University of Guelph


This article is republished from The Conversation Africa under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.