Study: Wireless radiation exposure for children is set too high

Levels should be hundreds of times lower than current federal limits

ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP

Research News

WASHINGTON - A peer-reviewed study by the Environmental Working Group recommends stringent health-based exposure standards for both children and adults for radiofrequency radiation emitted from wireless devices. EWG's children's guideline is the first of its kind and fills a gap left by federal regulators.

The study, published in the journal Environmental Health, relies on the methodology developed by the Environmental Protection Agency to assess human health risks arising from toxic chemical exposures. EWG scientists have applied the same methods to radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices, including cellphones and tablets.

EWG recommends the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, adjust its woefully outdated health standards for wireless radiation, last revised a quarter-century ago, well before wireless devices became ubiquitous, heavily used appliances synonymous with modern life. The recommendation draws on data from a landmark 2018 study from the National Toxicology Program, or NTP, one of the largest long-term studies on the health effects of radiofrequency radiation exposure.

EWG's new guidelines, the first developed in the U.S. to focus on children's health, recommend that children's exposure overall be 200 to 400 lower than the whole-body exposure limit set by the FCC in 1996.

The EWG recommended limit for so-called whole-body Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR, for children is 0.2 to 0.4 milliwatts per kilogram, or mW/kg. For adults, EWG recommends a whole-body SAR limit of 2 to 4 mW/kg, which is 20 to 40 times lower than the federal limit.

The FCC has not set a separate standard for children. Its standards for radiofrequency radiation set a maximum SAR of 0.08 watts per kilogram, or W/kg, for whole-body exposure and an SAR for localized spatial peak - the highest exposure level for a specific part of the body, such as the brain - of 1.6 W/kg for the general population.

The NTP studies examined the health effects of 2G and 3G wireless radiation and found there is "clear evidence" of a link between exposure to radiofrequency radiation and heart tumors in laboratory animals. Similar results were reported by a team of Italian scientists from the Ramazzini Institute.

Cellphone radiation was classified a "possible carcinogen" in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, a conclusion based on human epidemiological studies that found an increased risk of glioma, a malignant brain cancer, associated with cellphone use.

EWG scientists say that more research is needed on the health impacts of the latest generation of communication technologies, such as 5G. In the meantime, EWG's recommendation for strict, lower exposure limits for all radiofrequency sources, especially for children.

When the FCC established its radiofrequency radiation limits, following the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, relatively few Americans, and likely no children, owned and used cellphones.

Much has changed since the federal limits were set, including technology and how these devices are used. A survey completed by the nonprofit Common Sense Media in March 2020, just before the start of the Covid-19 spread in the U.S., found that 46 percent of 2- to 4-year-olds, and 67 percent of 5- to 8-year-olds, had their own mobile devices, such as a tablet or smartphone.

With remote learning, a necessity during the Covid-19 pandemic, phones, tablets and other wireless devices became a part of life for young children, tweens and teens nationwide.

"The FCC must consider the latest scientific research, which shows that radiation from these devices can affect health, especially for children," said Uloma Uche, Ph.D., EWG environmental health science fellow and lead author of the study.

"It has been 25 years since the FCC set its limits for radiofrequency radiation. With multiple sources of radiofrequency radiation in the everyday environment, including Wi-Fi, wireless devices and cell towers, protecting children's health from wireless radiation exposures should be a priority for the FCC," she added.

"We have grave concerns over the outdated approach the federal government has relied on to study the health effects of cellphone radiation and set its current safety limit and advice for consumers," said EWG President Ken Cook. "Government guidelines are a quarter-century old and were established at a time when wireless devices were not a constant feature of the lives of nearly every American, including children."

Reviewing 5G and other aspects of wireless technology should be the focus of public health agencies, noted Cook. "It is long past time the federal government made exposure to 5G wireless devices safe. We strongly believe those exposures deserve far more investigation and scientific rigor than has been applied to date."

"The evidence shows that children absorb more radiofrequency radiation than adults, and the developing body of a child is more vulnerable to such effects," said Olga Naidenko, Ph.D., EWG's vice president for science investigations and co-author of the study.

"More research on the safety and sustainability of wireless technology is essential," added Naidenko. "Meanwhile, there are simple steps everyone can take to protect their health, such as keeping wireless devices farther from their bodies."

There are a number of easy, precautionary steps consumers can take until the government conducts the rigorous scientific assessment the issue deserves, which should have occurred years ago.

"Based on our review of the health risks and the inadequacy of current standards to protect children, while the science evolves, it is perfectly reasonable for parents to consider minimizing or eliminating radiofrequency radiation sources at home by relying more on wired internet access, and to urge schools to take comparable steps to reduce classroom and campus exposure," said Cook.

Other health-protective tips for consumers who want to reduce radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices include using a headset or speaker, texting instead of talking, and limiting the time children spend on smart phones.

Find all of EWG's tips to reduce exposure to wireless radiation here.

EWG's recommendation for limits for radiofrequency radiation exposure is its latest effort to advance the public dialogue about science-based standards that protect public health.

###

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Elite runners spend more time in air, less on ground, than highly trained but nonelite peers

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Research News

A recent study led by Geoff Burns, an elite runner and postdoctoral researcher at the University of Michigan Exercise & Sport Science Initiative, compared the "bouncing behavior"--the underlying spring-like physics of running--in elite-level male runners (sub-four-minute milers) vs. highly trained but not elite runners.

Subjects ran on a treadmill instrumented with a pressure plate beneath the belt, so Burns and colleagues could see how much time they spent in the air and in contact with the ground. When running, muscles and limbs coordinate to act like a giant pogo stick, and those muscles, tendons and ligaments interact to recycle energy from step to step, Burns says.

The researchers looked at the basic physics of the runners as pogo sticks--called a "spring-mass" system in biomechanics--to see how those giant springs differed between elite and highly trained runners, and found some interesting and surprising differences.

What did you find?

We often think of running as pushing off the ground, but it's actually a beautifully coordinated bounce. All animals that run behave like this--even the ones with multiple pairs of legs coordinating to "bounce" along the ground.

In general, the elite runners were "stiffer" spring-mass systems with steeper impact angles--think of stiffer, more upright pogo sticks. Across various speeds, the elites had similar stride lengths and stride frequencies (similar cadences, or steps-per-minute) as highly trained runners, but elites spent more time in the air and less on the ground, especially at the lower speeds. With their "stiffer" spring behavior on each step, they may be better recycling that gravitational energy from the time in the air to quickly and efficiently bounce along, step-to-step.

One of the key findings was that difference in speeds. Across all speeds, the elite runners were in the air longer, but both time on the ground and in the air changed differently across speeds in the two groups. In both measures, the highly trained group approached the elites at faster speeds, but at lower speeds--where both groups spend the bulk of training time--the times were very divergent, with the elites more similar to their patterns at faster speeds.

In your study, you write that the interaction of nature and nurture--not one or the other--may give rise to their emergent, elite ability. Can you explain?

I suspect for each runner it operates on a spectrum. There are aspects of nature, or at least aspects that are developed very early on, such as tendon properties or neuromuscular recruitment patterns. But those things, and other contributing factors to these "system" characteristics of a runner's bouncing patterns, can be developed to some extent. It's probable that an interaction of nature and nurture allowed certain people to take to the training and racing that further developed the characteristics of an elite runner.

How did your own talent emerge? Was there a time when it became clear that you had special abilities?

I think my intrinsic physical qualities that allowed me to excel were my more malleable physiology and capacity to absorb training, meaning an ability to get better (perhaps, a nature that is readily nurtured). That ability to adapt and improve coupled with an intense desire and drive to do so is a good combo. So, with respect to mechanics, that may have manifested as the ability to adopt the characteristics that my competition-specific training and preparation demanded. I suspect I'm fortunate to have this capacity more than most, but I also think it should hopefully inspire everyone who runs, that these things aren't likely entirely predetermined. We, as humans, have the capacity to change ourselves with the right stimulus to adopt characteristics, be it mechanical or physiological, that allow us to achieve better performances.

Is there a practical application for runners here? Can this be taught?

Yes, these aspects are--to some extent--trainable. Things like resistance training for the lower limbs are known to increase leg stiffness, and even incorporating plyometric drills can help with this. Even something as simple as running on different surfaces (pavement vs. grass vs. dirt) will force you to change your body's bouncing stiffness. Simply put, challenging your body to interact with the ground differently will likely promote some sort of beneficial adaptation, if dosed responsibly.

But, I would certainly caution runners from trying to change this consciously. By this I mean, don't go out for a run and think, "I'm going to run with a stiffer leg or body" or "I'm going to try and spend as little time on the ground and as much time in the air as possible for this whole run." Broadly speaking, when we run, our bodies choose the movement patterns that tend to be most efficient and safest for us at that time. Moreover, because these are "system" characteristics, trying to exert conscious control over a continuously changing coordination of components is a recipe for trouble.

Putting those two things together, I'd say runners shouldn't try to consciously change their system or emulate the elite characteristics, but rather incorporate elements in their training that demand their system to take on those characteristics. What are those things? I think we can look right at the common ingredients of the middle distance runners' training menu: hills, sprints and fast intervals, plyometric drills, and lots of easy, slower running. These are things that are easy to incorporate into training that will challenge the whole "system" of a runner--be it the musculoskeletal strength, those neuromuscular coordination patterns, or tendinous structures--all to interact with the ground more efficiently across a range of speeds. While most of both the trained and elite runners in our study used these ingredients to some extent, I would add that the elites were certainly more regimented in them, and most incorporated resistance training as well.

Did anything about the findings surprise you?

The different relations with speed between the two groups in the contact time and flight time were interesting. I expected those variables to be linked to speed in both groups, and maybe some general difference between the two, but the interaction was interesting. Especially in that the elite group was less influenced by speed, meaning those patterns persisted at slower speeds. This could suggest a robustness of the musculoskeletal and physiological patterns that give rise to the overall spring-like characteristics of their stride, or that they're continually training these patterns at lower speeds when they're not incurring the physiological and mechanical stresses of running at faster speeds. That's just my own speculation, but it was very interesting.

It was also interesting that despite these different patterns in the speed dependency between the two groups, the runners still coordinated their global mechanics to maintain consistent leg stiffness across all speeds. This was expected, as all running animals tend to maintain leg stiffness across speeds (which was cool, nonetheless, to see that play out here in all the runners). But that there were different relationships with the other variables across speeds between the two groups that ultimately produced this consistent bouncing behavior in each group was pretty neat. And that it was consistently higher in the elites was further cool.

It was also interesting that the two groups had similar vertical compressions during stance across speeds, meaning that their bodies moved up and down similar amounts, yet the net result was still higher leg stiffnesses and vertical stiffnesses. This stems from the interaction of the steeper impact angles in the elites and the higher vertical forces. So, they were more upright in their force delivery to the ground, and loaded their bodies slightly more. Ultimately, they moved up and down the same amount, but because the forces were greater and their mechanical system was stiffer, they could recycle more energy through the stance cycle.

Did any one or two elements of movement stand out as being more significant than others?

In addition to the ones discussed above (contact and flight relations, vertical compression), the impact angle patterns were also interesting. These are essentially a synthesis of the runner's time on the ground, the runner's speed and the body's geometry. That the runners converged on the contact time at faster speeds but diverged on the impact angle (meaning the elites and subelites had more similar contact times at faster speeds, but less similar impact angles) would suggest that the two groups were changing their contact times in relation to their center-of-mass height and leg length differently, with the elites doing so to keep their system more "upright" or vertical at the faster speeds.

Do you plan to study female runners?

I do hope to publish something very similar in the coming year on groups of elite and highly trained female runners. I'm very curious to see how the trends between groups compare, but also how the characteristics at common speeds are similar or different.

###

Study co-authors include: Richard Gonzalez, U-M professor of psychology, marketing and statistics; Jessica Zendler, a researcher at the Michigan Performance Research Laboratory and principal consultant at Zendler Scientific, a consulting and research services firm for sport and human performance; and Ronald Zernicke, director of U-M's Exercise & Sport Science Initiative and professor of kinesiology, biomedical engineering and orthopaedic surgery.

The study, "Bouncing behaviors of sub-four minute milers," appears in Scientific Reports.

Muddied waters: Sinking organics alter seafloor records

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS

Research News

The remains of microscopic plankton blooms in near-shore ocean environments slowly sink to the seafloor, setting off processes that forever alter an important record of Earth's history, according to research from geoscientists, including David Fike at Washington University in St. Louis.

Fike is co-author of a new study published July 20 in Nature Communications.

"Our previous work identified the role that changing sedimentation rates had on local versus global controls on geochemical signatures that we use to reconstruct environmental change," said Fike, professor of earth and planetary sciences and director of environmental studies in Arts & Sciences.

"In this study, we investigated organic carbon loading, or how much organic matter -- which drives subsequent microbial activity in the sediments -- is delivered to the seafloor," Fike said. "We are able to show that this, too, plays a critical role in regulating the types of signals that get preserved in sediments.

"We need to be aware of this when trying to extract records of past 'global' environmental change," he said.

Scientists have long used information from sediments at the bottom of the ocean -- layers of rock and microbial muck -- to reconstruct the conditions in oceans of the past.

A critical challenge in understanding Earth's surface evolution is differentiating between signals preserved in the sedimentary record that reflect global processes, such as the evolution of ocean chemistry, and those that are local, representing the depositional environment and the burial history of the sediments.

The new study is based on analyses of a mineral called pyrite (FeS2) that is formed in marine sediments influenced by bacterial activity. The scientists examined concentrations of carbon, nitrogen and sulfur and stable isotopes of glacial-interglacial sediments on the seafloor along the continental margin off of modern-day Peru.

Varying rates of microbial metabolic activity, regulated by regional oceanographic variations in oxygen availability and the flux of sinking organic matter, appear to have driven the observed pyrite sulfur variability on the Peruvian margin, the scientists discovered.

The study was led by Virgil Pasquier, a postdoctoral fellow at the Weizmann Institute of Sciences in Israel, and co-authored by Itay Halevy, also of the Weizmann Institute. Pasquier previously worked with Fike at Washington University. Together, the collaborators have raised concerns about the common use of pyrite sulfur isotopes to reconstruct Earth's evolving oxidation state.

"We seek to understand how Earth's surface environment has changed over time," said Fike, who also serves as director of Washington University's International Center for Energy, Environment and Sustainability. "In order to do this, it's critical to understand the kinds of processes that can influence the records we use for these reconstructions."

"In this study, we have identified an important factor -- local organic carbon delivery to the seafloor -- that modifies the geochemical signatures preserved in sedimentary pyrite records," he said. "It overprints potential records of global biogeochemical cycling with information about changes in the local environment.

"This observation provides a new window to reconstruct past local environmental conditions, which is quite exciting," Fike said.

###

Microbially produced fibers: Stronger than steel, tougher than Kevlar

Artificially designed, amyloid-silk hybrid protein developed in Zhang lab even outperforms some spider silks

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS

Research News

 

IMAGE: THE 128-REPEAT PROTEINS RESULTED IN A FIBER WITH GIGAPASCAL STRENGTH WHICH IS STRONGER THAN COMMON STEEL. THE FIBERS' TOUGHNESS IS HIGHER THAN KEVLAR AND ALL PREVIOUS RECOMBINANT SILK FIBERS. ITS... view more 

CREDIT: WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS/JINGYAO LI

Spider silk is said to be one of the strongest, toughest materials on the Earth. Now engineers at Washington University in St. Louis have designed amyloid silk hybrid proteins and produced them in engineered bacteria. The resulting fibers are stronger and tougher than some natural spider silks.

Their research was published in the journal ACS Nano.

To be precise, the artificial silk -- dubbed "polymeric amyloid" fiber -- was not technically produced by researchers, but by bacteria that were genetically engineered in the lab of Fuzhong Zhang, a professor in the Department of Energy, Environmental & Chemical Engineering in the McKelvey School of Engineering.

Zhang has worked with spider silk before. In 2018, his lab engineered bacteria that produced a recombinant spider silk with performance on par with its natural counterparts in all of the important mechanical properties.

"After our previous work, I wondered if we could create something better than spider silk using our synthetic biology platform," Zhang said.

The research team, which includes first author Jingyao Li, a PhD student in Zhang's lab, modified the amino acid sequence of spider silk proteins to introduce new properties, while keeping some of the attractive features of spider silk.

A problem associated with recombinant spider silk fiber -- without significant modification from natural spider silk sequence -- is the need to create β-nanocrystals, a main component of natural spider silk, which contributes to its strength. "Spiders have figured out how to spin fibers with a desirable amount of nanocrystals," Zhang said. "But when humans use artificial spinning processes, the amount of nanocrystals in a synthetic silk fiber is often lower than its natural counterpart."

To solve this problem, the team redesigned the silk sequence by introducing amyloid sequences that have high tendency to form β-nanocrystals. They created different polymeric amyloid proteins using three well-studied amyloid sequences as representatives. The resulting proteins had less repetitive amino acid sequences than spider silk, making them easier to be produced by engineered bacteria. Ultimately, the bacteria produced a hybrid polymeric amyloid protein with 128 repeating units. Recombinant expression of spider silk protein with similar repeating units has proven to be difficult.

The longer the protein, the stronger and tougher the resulting fiber. The 128-repeat proteins resulted in a fiber with gigapascal strength (a measure of how much force is needed to break a fiber of fixed diameter), which is stronger than common steel. The fibers' toughness (a measure of how much energy is needed to break a fiber) is higher than Kevlar and all previous recombinant silk fibers. Its strength and toughness are even higher than some reported natural spider silk fibers.

In collaboration with Young- Shin Jun, professor in the Department of Energy, Environmental & Chemical Engineering, and her PhD student Yaguang Zhu, the team confirmed that the high mechanical properties of the polymeric amyloid fibers indeed come from the enhanced amount of β-nanocrystals.

These new proteins and the resulting fibers are not the end of the story for high-performance synthetic fibers in the Zhang lab. They are just getting started. "This demonstrates that we can engineer biology to produce materials that beat the best material in nature," Zhang said.

CAPTION

This chart compares the toughness and strength of different natural and recombinant silk fibers. In red is the polymeric amyloid fiber developed in Fuzhong Zhang's lab.

CREDIT

Washington University in St. Louis/Jingyao Li

This work explored just three of thousands of different amyloid sequences that could potentially enhance the properties of natural spider silk. "There seem to be unlimited possibilities in engineering high-performance materials using our platform," Li said. "It's likely that you can use other sequences, put them into our design and also get a performance-enhanced fiber."

'TIME TO DIE'

Exterminate! Exterminate! 

Why it’s time for Doctor Who to die

Jodie Whittaker as Doctor Who, imprisoned by 16 years of the show’s own continuity. Photograph: James Pardon/PA

After 16 years, the BBC’s flagship sci-fi show is tired and suffering. It should go away to save itself

Martin Belam

Tue 20 Jul 2021

Three series is the usual tenure for an actor playing the Doctor, so rumours are rife that Jodie Whittaker is about to step down. Michaela Coel, Olly Alexander and Richard Ayoade are among those tipped for the role. But what if, instead of a new Doctor, the show actually needs something a doctor might prescribe to an exhausted patient – a rest.

The current run started in 2005, and even with such a flexible format as Doctor Who, there aren’t many TV dramas that can sustain 13 series in 16 years. (Call the Midwife is probably the best BBC attempt at that in the past decade.) Soap operas can manage it, but then soap storylines generally don’t revolve around such cataclysmic events as the universe being destroyed.

The whole television landscape has changed since Doctor Who made its return. That 2005 series wasn’t even filmed in HD, and the iPlayer was still a couple of years away. The current iteration of the show is up against the giants of Netflix and Disney+.

It isn’t just the budgets and production values of programmes such as The Mandalorian or Loki that are upstaging Doctor Who, it’s the storytelling. Something like WandaVision seems in a different league. And, even taking into account Covid, with only eight episodes expected in the delayed new season, the BBC’s production pace is glacial compared with its streaming rivals. Just as 70s Doctor Who looked cheap and wobbly beside blockbusters such as Star Wars, the show now suffers by comparison with Marvel TV shows.

It can’t keep up with Marvel ... Doctor Who. Photograph: James Pardon/BBC

There is also an increasing story-structure problem. When Russell T Davies revived the show, he was very clear in his pitch to BBC executives that this wasn’t just TV about a 900-year-old Time Lord who could change their face – it was about two friends travelling through time and space having adventures and righting wrongs.t

There is now 16 years of new lore, as well as all the stories from the 60s, 70s and 80s for fans to think about every time there is a new story. Failure to adhere to the continuity of some throwaway line from a script 10 years ago will send legions of fans into a frenzy, taking to their social media and YouTube channels to shout about “lazy writing”. Sometimes it feels like the show is being buried under the weight of its own continuity.

A gender-swap of the role brought attention and initially high ratings, but viewership has since settled at much the same levels as under Whittaker’s predecessor, Peter Capaldi. The decision to cast a woman as the Doctor has also meant the franchise became a pawn in the culture wars, further souring relationships in the fandom, and making the social media posts of the show’s creators and stars toxic to wade through.

The series finales have also been getting increasingly grandiose over the years. But how many times can the Daleks be destroyed and then return, the Master/Missy be dead then reappear with a new face, or the Earth be invaded but still hardly anyone acknowledge that aliens are even out there?

Yet when the showrunner, Chris Chibnall, tried to lower the temperature slightly with his first series finale, which only featured a returning lesser-known villain threatening to destroy the Earth, it was widely panned as low stakes. It feels as if, over the 16-year run, the volume of the story arcs has gradually been turned up to a Spinal Tap-esque 11, and now it can’t be turned down.

The glory days ... David Tennant and Billie Piper as the Doctor and Rose Tyler. Photograph: BBC/PA

As someone who loved Tom Baker as the Doctor in the 70s, I have found the success of the 2005 revival wonderful to watch. But while Doctor Who looks better than it ever has – the sequences of the Cybermen marching through their battle cruiser towards the end of the last season were worth the price of admission alone – everything around it feels tired.

The ability to travel anywhere in time and space makes Doctor Who a series that could potentially tell a million brilliant different stories, and Chibnall’s innovation of “the Timeless Child”, meaning there are potentially dozens of guest star Doctors Who we have never met before, opens it up to go in new directions.

But it doesn’t feel as if it is close to telling a million brilliant stories. It feels as if it is telling an increasingly self-absorbed meta-story about its own run, accompanied by a very vocal online fandom that isn’t quite sure what it wants, but knows it doesn’t want this.

Maybe the BBC needs to try something other than carrying on. A break. A feature film. A co-production deal. An anthology series featuring familiar characters from the Whoniverse who aren’t the Doctor. Anything other than slowly grinding out another couple of series formatted as if it were still 2005.

I have long resigned myself to the fact that I will never see every Doctor Who story ever, not just because some episodes from the 60s were wiped, but because they will make Doctor Who stories in books, comics, audio, and, yes, television, long after I am dead.

At some point, TV will be run by people who grew up with the excitement of first seeing Christopher Eccleston grab Billie Piper’s hand and tell her to “Run!” in 2005, who remember David Tennant and Matt Smith and hiding behind the sofa from the Weeping Angels when they were children. But, maybe, in order for them to think reviving Doctor Who would be a brilliant idea, it needs to have another rest first.

Freak out!: Giannis Antetokounmpo’s 50 power Bucks to first NBA title since 1971

Antetokounmpo logs 50 points, 14 rebounds, five blocks
Bucks win 105-98 to defeat Suns in best-of-seven finals

Milwaukee Bucks forward Giannis Antetokounmpo (34) celebrates hoists the NBA finals MVP trophy. Photograph: Jeff Hanisch/USA Today Sports

Agencies
Wed 21 Jul 2021 04.59 BST

Giannis Antetokounmpo ended one of the greatest NBA finals ever with 50 points and a championship Milwaukee waited 50 years to win again.

NBA finals 2021 Game 6: Phoenix Suns 98-105 Milwaukee Bucks – as it happened

Antetokounmpo had 50 points, 14 rebounds and five blocked shots as the Bucks beat the Phoenix Suns 105-98 on Tuesday night to win the series four games to two.

It was the third game this series with at least 40 points and 10 rebounds for Antetokounmpo, a dominant, debut finals performance that takes its place among some of the game’s greatest.

He shot 16 for 25 from the field and made an unbelievable 17-of-19 free throws a spectacular performance for any shooter, let alone one who was hitting just 55.6% in the postseason and was ridiculed for it at times.

He hopped around the court waving his arms with 20 seconds remaining to encourage fans to cheer, but it was way too late for that.

Their voices had been booming inside and outside for hours by then, having waited 50 years to celebrate a winner after Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Oscar Robertson led the Bucks to the championship in 1971.

In a season played played largely without fans, the Bucks had 65,000 of them packed into the Deer District outside, a wild party that figured to last deep into the Midwestern night.

Confetti rained down inside as fans chanted “Bucks in 6! Bucks in 6!” what began as a hopeful boast by former player turning out to be a prophetic rallying cry.

The Bucks became the fifth team to win the NBA finals after trailing 2-0 and the first to do it by winning the next four games since Miami against Dallas in 2006.

Chris Paul scored 26 points to end his first NBA finals appearance in his 16th season. Devin Booker added 19 points but shot just 8 for 22 and missed all seven three-pointers after scoring 40 points in each of the last two games.

The teams that came into the NBA together as expansion clubs in 1968 delivered a fine finals, with the last three games all in the balance deep into the fourth quarter.

The Bucks won them largely because of Antetokounmpo, a two-time MVP in the regular season who raised his game even higher in the finals and was voted the NBA finals MVP.

#NOONEISILLEGAL

For eight years, Australia has been taking refugees as hostages. It’s time to ask: who has benefited?

The government needs our bodies for political power, while the detention industry needs us to fuel its money-making torture machine. But what has Australia truly gained?

Kurdish-Iranian born journalist and refugee Behrouz Boochani spent six years in Australian-run detention on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. He now lives in Christchurch, New Zealand. Photograph: Martin Hunter/AAP

Behrouz Boochani
Wed 21 Jul 2021 

Eight years have passed since the Australian government mandated offshore detention for all asylum seekers who arrive by boat, which led to the banishing of more than 3,000 refugees to Nauru as well as Manus Island in Papua New Guinea.

Since then, we have heard many tragic stories about the stranded refugees – stories of death, violence, child detention, family separation and countless violations of human rights.

We have heard the stories of the hundreds who have been traumatised and the 14 who were killed. We got to know about Reza Barati who was surrounded by a group of guards and beaten to death. We were told about Hamid Khazaei who developed a leg infection, ended up in a wheelchair and died while in custody. Faysal Ishak Ahmed also died in a Brisbane hospital.

For the refugees Australia imprisons, music is liberation, life and defiance
Behrouz Boochani

When I think about the stories of these refugees, including myself, the first thought that springs to mind is the abduction of human beings on the sea. We were kidnapped and forcibly transferred to an island we had never heard of. We were robbed of our identity. We turned into a string of numbers through a carefully planned process of dehumanisation. We were led into an evil system which was designed to diminish our identity.

The offshore detention policy was a form of official hostage-taking. For years, the Australian government refused to accept us, while preventing us from being transferred elsewhere. Even when it succumbed to public pressure by signing a resettlement deal with the United States, the government prolongated the transfer process. After all these years, many refugees are still held in indefinite detention.
The offshore detention policy is a combination of hostage-taking, deception, secrecy, corruption, populist propaganda and systematic torture

In addition to being a form of official hostage-taking, the policy provided a platform for the spread of populist ideas and false claims. Kevin Rudd, for example, announced this policy just before the 2013 federal election, while Scott Morrison went to the Christmas Island detention centre alongside a dozen reporters in 2019 and posed heroically against the backdrop of the sea.

They deceived the public into believing that the offshore detention policy was like a building that would collapse if one brick were to be removed from it. They warned against the invasion of boats on Australian shores, but no boats arrived. What boats anyway? They returned every single one to Indonesia.

This is a key point, because whenever the public has put pressure on the government since 2013, officials have highlighted the risks of opening up the borders. This turned out to be an outright lie. What the government has done is create unjustified fear while hiding behind the notion of national security.

The reality is they needed our bodies for retaining their political power. Along the way, they created a $12bn detention industry which has greatly benefited politicians as well as certain security and medical companies. The contracts signed with Paladin is the only instance leaked to the media, but I believe that is just the tip of the iceberg.


Three countries, eight years: one refugee’s nightmare odyssey through Australia’s detention system

The Australian government has made every effort to preserve its detention industry. When thousands of refugees were transferred to the US, the government brought in a group of New Zealanders previously held in Australia. At the end of the day, human bodies are fuel to this money-making torture machine.

The offshore detention policy is a combination of hostage-taking, deception, secrecy, corruption, populist propaganda, and of course, systematic torture. It is sadistic, costly, and unnecessary. After all these years, Australians need to find the courage to look in the mirror and ask themselves, “What have we gained? What have we lost?” These are crucial questions.

It is time to challenge the foundations of this deceitful policy. In the last eight years, human values have been undermined, more than $12bn has been spent and the international reputation of Australia has suffered immensely. The key question to ask right now is: “Who has benefited from this policy?”

Written by Behrouz Boochani, adjunct senior fellow at University of Canterbury

Translated by Mohsen Kafi, a PhD candidate in literary translation studies at Victoria University of Wellington

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M
J&J and others reportedly on verge of $26bn US opioid settlement

Drugmaker and distribution companies said to be close to deal

Thousands of lawsuits filed by victims of over US opioid crisis

Opioids – including both prescription drugs and illegal ones like heroin and illicitly produced fentanyl – have been linked to more than 500,000 deaths in the US since 2000. Photograph: Mark Lennihan/AP

Guardian staff and agencies
Tue 20 Jul 2021

The three biggest US drug distribution companies and the drugmaker Johnson & Johnson are on the verge of a $26bn settlement covering thousands of lawsuits over the opioids crisis in the US, two people with knowledge of the plans told the Associated Press on Tuesday.

As a precursor to the bigger deal, the distribution companies AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health and McKesson agreed mid-trial to pay up to $1.1bn to settle claims by New York state and two of its biggest counties over their role in the opioid epidemic, the state’s attorney general said.

That trial is expected to continue, but the settlement leaves only three drug manufacturers as defendants.

The deal with the New York attorney general, Letitia James, and the Long Island counties of Nassau and Suffolk came three weeks into the first jury trial accusing companies of profiting from a flood of addictive painkillers that devastated communities.

“While no amount of money will ever compensate for the millions of addictions, the hundreds of thousands of deaths, or the countless communities decimated by opioids, this money will be vital in preventing any future devastation,” James said.

Hunter Shkolnik, a lawyer for Nassau county, said that unlike the proposed national settlement, the New York deal “is not contingent on the rest of the country or other states joining”.

In a joint statement, the distributors called the New York settlement “an important step toward finalizing a broad settlement with states, counties and political subdivisions”.

Johnson & Johnson settled with New York last month, just before the trial there started. It reiterated that it’s prepared to contribute up to $5bn to the national settlement.

“There continues to be progress toward finalizing this agreement and we remain committed to providing certainty for involved parties and critical assistance for families and communities in need,” the company said.

“The settlement is not an admission of liability or wrongdoing, and the company will continue to defend against any litigation that the final agreement does not resolve.”

The distribution companies face thousands of similar legal claims from state and local governments across the country and have long been trying to settle them all. The New York deal would become a part of a national agreement if one can be struck this year, according to one of the sources.

The state and local governments say distribution companies did not have proper controls to flag or halt shipments to pharmacies that received outsized shares of powerful and addictive prescription painkillers. The companies have maintained that they were filling orders of legal drugs placed by doctors – so they shouldn’t shoulder blame for the nation’s addiction and overdose crisis.

An AP analysis of federal distribution data found that enough prescription opioids were shipped in 2012 for every person in the US to have a 20-day supply.

Opioids – including both prescription drugs and illegal ones like heroin and illicitly produced fentanyl – have been linked to more than 500,000 deaths in the US since 2000.

Under the New York settlement, the three companies would provide more than $1bn to be used to abate the epidemic in the state. The money would be delivered in 18 annual payments, with the first one arriving this year.

The companies would also establish a national clearinghouse of data on opioid distribution, and the data would be monitored by an independent body. Johnson & Johnson would also agree not to produce any opioids for the next 10 years.

Including the New York case, there are currently three trials across the US of government entities’ claims that companies should be held liable for the opioid crisis. One in California focuses solely on drugmakers, and one scheduled to wrap up this month in West Virginia aims only at distributors. That could be ended if a deal is reached.

Other cases are queued up to start. The only one of its kind to reach a verdict so far was two years ago in Oklahoma. There, a judge ordered Johnson & Johnson, the only company not to settle before that trial, to pay $465m. The company is appealing the judgment.

The New York case is the broadest one to go to trial so far – and the first with a jury deciding the case rather than only a judge.

Johnson & Johnson settled for $230m just before the case started. The remaining defendants are Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Endo International and AbbVie.

With so many cases approaching trial, there’s been a flurry of proposed or realized settlements over opioids. OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma declared bankruptcy as part of its effort to settle cases. It is proposing a reorganization that would use all future profits to fight the epidemic as part of a deal the company values at about $10bn over time. That plan will face some opposition at a confirmation hearing in US bankruptcy court next month.

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

Chair of Trump’s inaugural committee arrested for conspiring to boost UAE

Tom Barrack, 73, among three men charged in New York

Billionaire allegedly tried to influence US foreign policy

LIKE MIKE FLYNN SHILLING FOR TURKEY

Tom Barrack sought ‘to advance the policy goals of a foreign government without disclosing [his] true allegiances’, according to acting assistant attorney general Mark Lesko. Photograph: David J Phillip/AP


AP in Los Angeles
Tue 20 Jul 2021 

The chair of Donald Trump’s 2017 inaugural committee was arrested on Tuesday on charges alleging he conspired to influence Trump’s foreign policy positions to benefit the United Arab Emirates and commit crimes striking at what prosecutors described as “the very heart of our democracy”.

Tom Barrack, 74, of Santa Monica, California, was among three men charged in federal court in Brooklyn, New York, with conspiring to act as an unregistered foreign agent as they tried to influence foreign policy while Trump was running in 2016 and later while he was president.


Trump inauguration took money from shell companies tied to foreigners

Besides conspiracy, Barrack was charged with obstruction of justice and making multiple false statements during a June 2019 interview with federal agents. Also charged in a seven-count indictment were Matthew Grimes, 27, of Aspen, Colorado, and Rashid al Malik, 43, of the United Arab Emirates.

“The defendants repeatedly capitalized on Barrack’s friendships and access to a candidate who was eventually elected president, high-ranking campaign and government officials, and the American media to advance the policy goals of a foreign government without disclosing their true allegiances, acting assistant attorney general Mark Lesko said in a release.

Prosecutors said Barrack not only agreed to promote UAE foreign policy interests through his unique access and influence, but also provided UAE government officials with sensitive information about developments within the Trump administration – including how senior US officials felt about the Qatari blockade conducted by the UAE and other Middle Eastern countries.

“Worse, in his communications with Al Malik, the defendant framed his efforts to obtain an official position within the administration as one that would enable him to further advance the interests of the UAE, rather than the interests of the United States,” prosecutors wrote in a letter seeking his detention.

Authorities said Barrack served as an informal adviser to Trump’s campaign from April 2016 to November 2016 and chair of the Presidential Inaugural Committee from November 2016 to January 2017. Beginning in January 2017, he informally advised senior US government officials on Middle East foreign policy, they added.

Authorities cited several specific instances when Barrack or others allegedly sought to influence US policies, noting that, in May 2016, Barrack inserted language praising the UAE into a campaign speech Trump delivered about US energy policy and emailed an advance draft of the speech to be delivered to senior UAE officials.

“Similarly, throughout 2016 and 2017, the defendants sought and received direction and feedback, including talking points, from senior UAE officials in connection with national press appearances Barrack used to promote the interests of the UAE,” authorities said in a statement.

They said that after one appearance in which Barrack repeatedly praised the United Arab Emirates, Barrack emailed al Malik, saying: “I nailed it … for the home team,” referring to the UAE.

Phone and email messages sent to the UAE embassy in Washington were not immediately returned.

Barrack will plead not guilty, according to a spokesperson.

“Mr Barrack has made himself voluntarily available to investigators from the outset,“ the spokesperson said.

Grimes also was arrested on Tuesday in southern California. A message seeking comment was sent to his attorney.

Bill Coffield, an attorney for al Malik – who was not in custody on Tuesday – said his client had cooperated extensively with the office of special counsel Robert Mueller and that there was “nothing new here”. He said that al Malik had simply tried to foster a good relationship between the country where he was born “and the country in which he lives and works, both of which he loves”.

Barrack appeared at an initial appearance in federal court in Los Angeles, where prosecutors were to ask a US magistrate judge to bring him to New York.

Noting that Forbes estimated his net worth at $1bn in March 2013 and his access to a private plane, prosecutors called him “an extremely wealthy and powerful individual with substantial ties to Lebanon, the UAE, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” who poses a serious flight risk in a letter filed before his appearance.

Barrack is the latest in a long line of Trump associates to face criminal charges, including his former campaign chair, his former deputy campaign chair, his former chief strategist, his former national security adviser, his former personal lawyer and his company’s longtime chief financial officer.

 

The Democrat blocking progressive change is beholden to big oil. Surprised?

Alex Kotch

Joe Manchin owns millions of dollars in coal stock, founded an energy firm and Exxon lobbyists brag about their access to him. Republicans fundraise on his behalf

Senator Joe Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia, chairs a Senate energy and natural resources committee hearing. Photograph: J Scott Applewhite/AP

Tue 20 Jul 2021 

As “thousand-year” heat waves caused by the climate crisis rock the west coast and biblical floods engulf major cities, Senate Democrats are negotiating a $3.5tn budget package that could include an attempt to slow the use of fossil fuels over the next decade.

One prominent senator is very concerned about proposals to scale back oil, gas and coal usage. He recently argued that those who want to “get rid of” fossil fuels are wrong. Eliminating fossil fuels won’t help fight global heating, he claimed, against all evidence. “If anything, it would be worse.”

Which rightwing Republican uttered these false, climate crisis-denying words?

Wrong question. The speaker was a Democrat: Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

West Virginia is a major coal-producing state. But Manchin’s investment in dirty energy goes far beyond the economic interests of the voters who elect him every six years. In fact, coal has made Manchin and his family very wealthy. He founded the private coal brokerage Enersystems in 1988 and still owns a big stake in the company, which his son currently runs.

In 2020 alone, Manchin raked in nearly $500,000 of income from Enersystems, and he owns as much as $5m worth of stock in the company, according to his most recent financial disclosure.

Despite this conflict of interest, Manchin chairs the influential Senate energy and natural resources committee, which has jurisdiction over coal production and distribution, coal research and development, and coal conversion, as well as “global climate change”.

He even gave a pro-coal speech in May to the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) while personally profiting from Enersystems’ coal sales to utility companies that are EEI members, as Sludge recently reported.

Manchin is one of many members of Congress who are personally invested in the fossil fuel industry – dozens of Congress members hold Exxon stock – but he is among the biggest profiters. As of late 2019, he had more money invested in dirty energy than any other senator.

How can this be? Wouldn’t basic ethics prevent someone from being in charge of legislation that could materially benefit them? Unfortunately, conflict-of-interest rules in the Senate are remarkably weak. And guess who is seeking to strip conflict-of-interest rules from a 2021 democracy reform bill?

Joe Manchin.

His proposal “leaves out language that S 1 would add to federal statute prohibiting lawmakers from working on bills primarily for furthering their financial interests”, Sludge reported.

Manchin, the most conservative Democrat in the Senate, has used the evenly split chamber to block Joe Biden’s agenda. In the process he has become arguably the most powerful person in Washington. Hardly any Democratic legislation can pass without his vote.

That’s a problem – especially given that Manchin sometimes seems like he’s an honorary Republican. Earlier this month the Texas Tribune and other publications reported that Manchin was heading to Texas for a fundraiser hosted by several major Republican donors, including oil billionaires.

Manchin, along with Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, has vowed to protect the filibuster – a rule, frequently used to empower white supremacists, that requires 60 votes for most Senate bills to pass. That includes vital voting rights legislation, passed by the House, that is the only way to stop the Republican party from eviscerating what’s left of our democracy in the name of the “big lie” of voter fraud.

Because of his uniquely powerful position as a swing vote, Manchin can rewrite major legislation to his liking – effectively dictating the legislative agendas of Congress and the White House.

It appears that Manchin will have his way with the White House’s infrastructure package as well, and his changes will probably be more devastating, given the climate emergency we live in.

Manchin isn’t just sticking up for the coal industry and his family’s generational wealth; he’s doing the bidding of oil and gas executives, who also stand to lose money if the nation transitions away from toxic fuels.

Manchin’s political campaigns are fueled by the dirty energy industry. Over the past decade, his election campaigns have received nearly $65,000 from disastrously dishonest oil giant Exxon’s lobbyists, its corporate political action committee, and the lobbying firms that Exxon works with. A top Exxon lobbyist recently bragged about his access to Manchin.

In the 2018 election cycle, his most recent, Manchin’s campaign got more money from oil and gas Pacs and employees than any other Senate Democrat except then North Dakota senator Heidi Heitkamp. Manchin was also the mining industry’s top Democratic recipient in Congress that cycle.

If Biden wants to have any kind of legacy, he needs to stand up to Manchin, a member of his own party, and work with the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, to get him in line. I don’t fully know why Biden permits the West Virginian to dictate his own presidential policy agenda. But what is crystal clear is that the leader of the United States should be doing a whole lot more.

• Alex Kotch is an investigative reporter and editor with the Center for Media and Democracy, a nationally recognized watchdog that leads award-winning investigations into the corruption that undermines our democracy, environment, and economic prosperity

• This article was produced in partnership with the Center for Media and Democracy