It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Saturday, March 15, 2025
Liquid metal-enabled synergetic cooling and charging: a leap forward for electric vehicles
A recent study published in Engineering presents a novel approach to address the challenges of high-power direct current fast charging (DC-HPC) in electric vehicles (EVs). The research, led by a team from China Agricultural University, focuses on developing a synergetic cooling and charging strategy using a gallium-based liquid metal flexible charging connector (LMFCC).
As the demand for EVs grows, DC-HPC technology, especially for megawatt-level charging currents (≥1000 A), is crucial for reducing charging time. However, it brings the problem of instantaneous thermal shocks. Conventional cooling methods that separate current transmission and heat transfer struggle to achieve both flexibility and high-efficiency cooling.
The LMFCC proposed in this study has several advantages. It can efficiently dissipate ultra-high heat flux while carrying superhigh current. Thanks to the excellent liquidity and conductivity of liquid metal, the LMFCC shows exceptional flexible operability with a bending radius of 2 cm and high transmission stability even under significant deformation, outperforming solid metal connectors.
The researchers optimized a compact induction electromagnet-driven method. By adjusting the current and magnetic flux distribution, they enhanced the liquid metal (LM) flow rate and active cooling capacity of the LMFCC system. This method also helps suppress end effects. A three-dimensional multi-physics numerical model and a synergetic cooling and transmission test platform were established to comprehensively evaluate the performance of the LMFCC under different conditions.
The experimental results are promising. The LMFCC demonstrated good electrical stability under torsional and bending conditions. Regarding cooling performance, at a charging current of 1000 A, the temperature difference between the maximum temperature and the external environment remained at 54.3 °C, showing its excellent heat extraction and dissipation capabilities. The system’s cooling performance can be further improved by adjusting parameters such as the length, diameter of the charging cable, and the flow rate of the liquid metal.
This new synergetic cooling and charging strategy represents a significant step forward in ultra-high heat flux thermal management. It has the potential to enable the development of simple, reliable, and lightweight charging systems with high charging power. Although it is still in the research stage, it offers new possibilities for the future of the electric vehicle industry, potentially accelerating the widespread adoption of electric vehicles.
Liquid Metal-Enabled Synergetic Cooling and Charging of Superhigh Current
Lifetime health effects and cost-effectiveness of tirzepatide and semaglutide in US adults
JAMA Health Forum
About The Study:
This economic evaluation found that although tirzepatide and semaglutide offered substantial long-term health benefits, they were not cost-effective at current net prices. Efforts to reduce the net prices of new anti-obesity medications are essential to ensure equitable access to highly effective anti-obesity medications.
Editor’s Note: Please see the article for additional information, including other authors, author contributions and affiliations, conflict of interest and financial disclosures, and funding and support.
Those with access to firearms rarely use their weapon to defend themselves, and instead are far more likely to be exposed to gun violence in other ways, according to a Rutgers Health study.
An overwhelming majority of firearm users, or about 92%, indicated they never have used their weapons to defend themselves, with less than 1% say they did in the previous year, a new study by the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Centerfound.
“Adults with firearm access are far more likely to be exposed to gun violence than they are to defend themselves with their firearms,” said Michael Anestis, executive director of the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center at Rutgers and lead author of the study. “It’s not that defensive gun use never happens, but the notion that firearm owners are routinely saving their own lives or those of their loved ones by using a firearm in self-defense simply is not backed up by the data. When we consider policies, we need to more heavily weigh the harms that frequently occur, not the instances of defense that rarely happen.”
The study, which appears in JAMA Network Open, collected data from a nationally representative sample of 8,009 adults in May 2024 and examined how frequently the 3,000 with firearm access had engaged in defensive gun use and been exposed to gun violence, both across their entire lives and within the past year.
More than one-third (34.4%) said they had known someone who had died by firearm suicide. In the past year, 32.7% said they had heard gunshots in their neighborhood. Although only 2.1% of the sample indicated they had been shot, 59.5% of all instances of defensive gun use during which an individual shot at a perceived threat occurred among those who had previously been shot themselves.
The researchers also examined which individuals were most likely to have engaged in defensive gun use in their lifetimes. Those with previous exposure to gun violence, who carry firearms more frequently and who tend to store firearms loaded and unlocked were more likely to indicate they had engaged in at least one form of defensive gun use.
“If individuals themselves have experienced gun violence or they more frequently have quick and ready access to their firearms, they may be more prone to perceiving threats and responding through the use of their firearm,” Anestis said. “It is important to note that, just because someone perceives someone else as a threat does not mean they were one and, if someone truly is a threat, that does not always mean a firearm is necessary for defense. When defensive gun use occurs, we should not necessarily conclude that the result was a life saved that otherwise would have been lost.”
Dr Anestis reports receiving personal fees from Oxford University Press, Center for Naval Analytics, and Community Suicide Prevention outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
Lifetime and past-year defensive gun use
JAMA Network Open
About The Study:
In this survey of adults with firearm access, defensive gun use (DGU) was rare relative to gun violence exposure. Perceived threats may not necessitate DGU, and given the association between DGU and gun violence exposure, the consequences of DGU may be substantial. Narratives centering DGU as a consideration in firearm policies may misstate the risk profile of firearm access.
Corresponding Author: To contact the corresponding author, Michael D. Anestis, PhD, email mda141@sph.rutgers.edu.
Editor’s Note: Please see the article for additional information, including other authors, author contributions and affiliations, conflict of interest and financial disclosures, and funding and support.
PHILADELPHIA – Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) located H5N1 bird flu virus in samples of raw, or unpasteurized, milk in tests in four states in April 2024, and bird flu has been detected in commercially sold raw milk, many Americans do not know that consuming raw milk and its products poses greater health risks than consuming pasteurized milk and its products, especially for children. Consuming raw milkcan expose one to Salmonella, E. coli, Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, Listeria, and Brucella – and, potentially, H5N1 bird flu.
A majority of U.S. adults (56%) knows that drinking raw milk from cows, sheep, or goats is less safe than drinking pasteurized milk. But over 4 in 10 Americans either are not sure (25%), think raw milk is “just as safe to drink” as pasteurized milk (12%) or think it is “safer to drink” (6%), according to a recent survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania. The findings are statistically unchanged from APPC’s July 2024 survey. Almost a third of people (32%) know that drinking raw milk increases a person’s risk of foodborne illness, though 14% think it has no effect and 51% are not sure.
The survey, conducted Jan. 30-Feb. 10, 2025, among more than 1,700 empaneled U.S. adults, also finds that two-thirds (66%) do not know that children are more vulnerable than adults to getting sick from the viruses and bacteria that can occur in raw milk. (See the topline for data.)
“Consuming raw milk and raw milk products can make you sick and pasteurization reduces the risk of milk-borne illness,” said Patrick E. Jamieson, director of APPC’s Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute. “Looking for the pasteurization label before buying or consuming milk or milk products such as cheese is good practice.”
Bird flu
As of March 10, 2025, 70 confirmed U.S. cases of H5 bird flu have been detected in people in 13 states, nearly all from exposure to infected poultry or dairy herds, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). One death from bird flu has been reported, involving a patient in Louisiana. To date there have been no reported cases of human-to-human transmission.
From January 2022 through March 11, 2025, bird flu has been detected in nearly a thousand dairy herds in 17 states, and it has affected over 166 million poultry and wild aquatic birds, covering all states. Globally, according to the World Health Organization, from Jan. 1, 2003-Dec. 12, 2024, “954 cases of human infection with avian influenza A(H5N1) virus were reported from 24 countries. Of these 954 cases, 464 were fatal.”
Researchers have found that mice can be infected with bird flu by drinking raw milk. Although the FDA does not currently know whether H5N1 can be transmitted to humans through the consumption of raw milk, a study with mice suggests that the virus in “untreated milk can infect susceptible animals that consume it.” The National Institutes of Health says this suggests “that drinking raw milk may pose a risk of transmission to people.”
Raw milk and bird flu
Bird flu in raw milk: The vast majority of U.S. adults do not know that bird flu has been detected to date only in raw milk, not pasteurized milk. Just 17% know that bird flu has been found only in raw milk. Two percent incorrectly say bird flu has been found only in pasteurized milk, 7% say it has been found in both, 7% say it has been found in neither, and over two-thirds of those surveyed (68%) are not sure.
Raw milk and your chances of getting bird flu: Almost a quarter of people (22%) say drinking raw milk increases the chances you will get H5N1 or bird flu, up from 15% in July 2024, though this is unchanged from November 2024. An equal number (22%) say drinking raw milk has no effect one way or the other on whether you will get bird flu, though fewer people believe that today than in November 2024 (35%). Over half of those surveyed (53%) are not sure what effect drinking raw milk has on getting bird flu, up from 43% in November 2024.
The FDA has said that by heating milk to a specific temperature for a time pasteurization kills harmful bacteria and viruses, and that pasteurization will inactivate the bird flu virus if it is present in raw milk.
Raw milk and health claims
APPC’s survey, which included non-milk drinkers, finds a small proportion of respondents (4%) who report having consumed raw or unpasteurized milk in the past 12 months, unchanged from our July 2024 survey. Another 2% were not sure whether they had consumed raw milk.
Survey respondents are equally split between those who say raw milk has more nutrients than pasteurized milk (28%) and those who say it has about the same amount of nutrients (28%). Forty percent are not sure. The FDA says pasteurization kills pathogens in raw milk “without any significant impact on milk nutritional quality.”
Promoters of raw milk have made many claims about its health benefits – but the FDA has categorized a number of them as misconceptions, as is explained here (current as of March 5, 2025). Though minorities believe in these claims, the survey finds that many more people – about half of U.S. adults or more – are not sure whether the claims are true or false:
Bone thinning (osteoporosis): About 1 in 4 people (26%) believe that raw milk is “about as effective” as pasteurized milk at preventing osteoporosis, although 10% incorrectly believe raw milk is more effective and 59% are unsure. The FDA says raw milk is not more effective than pasteurized milk at preventing osteoporosis.
Lactose intolerance: 40% believe that it is false to say that regularly consuming raw, unpasteurized milk cures lactose intolerance. But 10% incorrectly say this is true and 50% are not sure. The FDA says raw milk does not cure lactose intolerance.
Asthma: 39% believe it is false to say that regularly consuming raw milk reduces the symptoms of asthma, but 7% believe it is true and 54% are not sure. The FDA says that raw milk does not cure or treat asthma and allergy.
Immune system: 30% believe it is false to say that regularly consuming raw milk enhances the human immune system, but 23% think it is true and 47% are not sure. The FDA says raw milk “is not an immune system building food and is particularly unsafe for children,” who are usually more vulnerable to pathogens in raw milk than adults.
Children’s vulnerability to sickness: About a third (35%) know that children are typically more vulnerable than adults to getting sick from the viruses and bacteria that can occur in raw milk. But 5% incorrectly think they are less vulnerable, 16% think they are “about as vulnerable,” and 45% are not sure.
Government regulation of raw milk
The FDA has prohibited the interstate sale of raw milk since 1987, but 30 states in the United States allow its sale in some form, according to the FDA. Survey respondents were asked for their views on government regulation of raw milk sales and sellers:
Interstate raw milk sales: Nearly a quarter of those surveyed (24%) favor the interstate sale of raw milk, and a slightly larger group (28%) opposes it, statistically unchanged from September 2024. Nearly half of respondents either are not sure (18%) or neither favor nor oppose it (29%).
Raw milk sales within a state: Nearly a quarter (24%) favor the unrestricted sale of raw milk in the state in which they live, and another quarter (25%) say the sale of raw milk should be banned, except for farmers selling from their own dairy herds on their own land. Fourteen percent say the sale of raw milk should be banned in their states, and 37% are not sure.
Government intrusion: Nearly a third (32%) agree that federal government regulations of raw unpasteurized milk are “another example of unnecessary government intrusion in people’s lives,” while a like number (34%) disagree. A third (33%) neither agree nor disagree.
The rights of raw milk sellers: A quarter (25%) agree that state laws prohibiting the sale of raw milk violate the constitutional rights of raw milk sellers, while a third (34%) disagree, and 41% neither agree nor disagree. (Asked of a random half-sample.)
Warning labels: Over half (56%) do not think that state laws requiring labels on raw milk containers warning about the risks of consuming raw milk violate the constitutional rights of raw milk sellers, while 14% think the state laws do violate their rights. Nearly a third (30%) neither agree nor disagree. (Asked of a random half-sample.)
USDA testing of raw milk: Asked in how many of the states the U.S. Department of Agriculture is testing raw milk for bird flu virus, 74% are not sure. Two percent say “none,” and a quarter of those surveyed say either “some” (10%), “most” (9%), or “all” (5%). As of Jan. 8, 2025, the USDA says its National Milk Testing Strategy has enrolled 28 states, accounting for nearly 65% of the nation’s milk production.
APPC’s Annenberg Science and Public Health knowledge survey
The survey data come from the 23rd wave of a nationally representative panel of 1,716 U.S. adults conducted for the Annenberg Public Policy Center by SSRS, an independent market research company. Most have been empaneled since April 2021. To account for attrition, replenishment samples have been added over time using a random probability sampling design. The most recent replenishment, in September 2024, added 360 respondents to the sample. This wave of the Annenberg Science and Public Health Knowledge (ASAPH) survey was fielded Jan. 30-Feb. 10, 2025. The margin of sampling error (MOE) is ± 3.4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All figures are rounded to the nearest whole number and may not add to 100%. Combined subcategories may not add to totals in the topline and text due to rounding.
The policy center has been tracking the American public’s knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors regarding vaccination, Covid-19, flu, RSV, and other consequential health issues through this survey panel for nearly four years. In addition to Jamieson, APPC’s team on the survey includes research analysts Laura A. Gibson and Shawn Patterson Jr.; Ken Winneg, managing director of survey research; and Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the director of APPC.
Source: Annenberg Public Policy Center's ASAPH survey, February 2025.
Source: Annenberg Public Policy Center's ASAPH survey, February 2025.
Source: Annenberg Public Policy Center's ASAPH survey, February 2025.
The Annenberg Public Policy Center was established in 1993 to educate the public and policy makers about communication’s role in advancing public understanding of political, science, and health issues at the local, state, and federal levels. Connect with us on Facebook, X, Instagram, and Bluesky.
DEI
Two factors could help close the hiring gap for autistic job seekers, VCU researcher finds
Neurodiversity training for employers and autism diagnosis disclosure by applicants could help level the playing field, says Christopher Whelpley of the School of Business
Autistic people often face an uphill battle when searching for a job, especially during interviews. New Virginia Commonwealth University research underscores the enduring value of employer neurodiversity training when coupled with candidates’ disclosure of their autism diagnosis during the hiring process.
Less than 60% of people diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder who do not have an intellectual disability are employed full-time or enrolled in post-secondary schooling. A growing body of research suggests that could be due to how employers perceive autistic people during job interviews.
“People are saying, ‘I feel like I’m being discriminated against during the interview process,’” said Christopher Whelpley, Ph.D., an assistant professor in VCU’s School of Business. “But you can’t really prove it. We wanted to establish whether there was actual or significant bias going on.”
To do so, Whelpley started to investigate the barriers to employment for autistic people. One of his earlier studies found that while neurotypical people outperformed autistic people during taped video interviews, autistic people were more likely to be hired based on the transcripts of those same videos.
In a later study, Whelpley and his collaborator, College of Charleston professor Cynthia May, Ph.D., found that autistic candidates were more likely to be hired if they voluntarily disclosed their autism diagnosis during the interview, but only if their interviewers had taken neurodiversity training. Such training alone did not change hiring outcomes.
But autistic people may be understandably hesitant to reveal their diagnosis, fearing negative reactions from future employers and colleagues. A solution, Whelpley said, may be for employers to offer interview accommodations to all job applicants, such as one-on-one interviews instead of panel interviews.
In this new study, the researchers recruited 30 undergraduate students, half of whom had been diagnosed with autism, to be videotaped during a mock job interview and discuss their qualifications for their dream jobs.
Then, the researchers recruited 190 undergraduate students and 95 U.S. adults to watch neurodiversity training videos. After either two weeks or two months, the evaluators were asked to watch 10 of the mock job interview videos, half of which would be from an autistic candidate. They were also told whether or not the candidate had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder before watching the interview.
The researchers found that the positive effects of employer neurodiversity training persisted for at least two months after the training. And while neurodiversity training did not completely eliminate factors that can work against candidates with autism — reviewers were still more likely to rate those candidates’ social skills poorly — they did score their trustworthiness equally to the neurotypical candidates, and said they were just as likely to hire the autistic candidates as they were to hire their neurotypical peers.
That’s a good sign, Whelpley said, especially as more children and adults in the United States are diagnosed with autism each year. It could be good for employers as well, who may be overlooking qualified job candidates because they interpret the symptoms of autism as awkwardness or antisocial behavior.
“Organizations should think, what are the unique skill sets that people are bringing in, and why is this a win-win?” Whelpley said. “Because you are ultimately finding unique candidates who bring unique skill sets that are beneficial to organizations.”
The new research did have some limitations. The mock interviewers were not human resources professionals or hiring managers, who may react differently to the training and to candidates revealing their diagnoses before the interview.
The researchers are also unsure why coupling candidate diagnosis disclosure with interviewer neurodiversity training helps level the playing field for autistic candidates. But it may be because it allows employers to empathize more with their potential employees, Whelpley said.
“It makes it a two-way street rather than a one way-street,” he said. “It’s not that you’re different than me. It’s that we’re different from each other.”
