What you need to know about cellphone radiation

Pro Publica
January 05, 2023

Photo by Fausto Sandoval on Unsplash

To many people, the notion that cellphones or cell towers might present a health risk long ago receded into a realm somewhere between trivial concern and conspiracy theory. For decades, the wireless industry has dismissed such ideas as fearmongering, and federal regulators have maintained that cellphones pose no danger. But a growing body of scientific research is raising questions, with the stakes heightened by the ongoing deployment of hundreds of thousands of new transmitters in neighborhoods across America. ProPublica recently examined the issue in detail, finding that the chief government regulator, the Federal Communications Commission, relies on an exposure standard from 1996, when the Motorola StarTAC flip phone was cutting edge, and that the agency brushed aside a lengthy study by a different arm of the federal government that found that cellphone radiation caused rare cancers and DNA damage in lab animals. The newest generation of cellphone technology, known as 5G, remains largely untested.

Here’s what you need to know:

Do cellphones give off radiation?

Yes. Both cellphones and wireless transmitters (which are mounted on towers, street poles and rooftops) send and receive radio-frequency energy, called “nonionizing radiation.” The amount of this radiation absorbed by the human body depends on how close a person is to a phone and a cell transmitter, as well as the strength of the signal the phone needs to connect with a transmitter. Cellphones displaying fewer bars, which means their connection with a transmitter is weak, require stronger power to communicate and so produce more radiation. Wireless transmitters, for their part, emit radiation continually, but little of that is absorbed unless a person is very close to the transmitter.

What does the science say about this? Is it harmful?

That’s the multibillion-dollar question. Government-approved cellphones are required to keep radiation exposure well below levels that the FCC considers dangerous. Those safeguards, however, have not changed since 1996, and they focus exclusively on the unlikely prospect of “thermal” harm: the potential for overheating body tissue, as a microwave oven would. The government guidelines do not address other potential forms of harm.

But a growing body of research has found evidence of health risks even when people are exposed to radiation below the FCC limits. The array of possible harms ranges from effects on fertility and fetal development to associations with cancer. Some studies of people living near cell towers have also confirmed an array of health complaints, including dizziness, nausea, headaches, tinnitus and insomnia, from people identified as having “electromagnetic hypersensitivity.”

The most sensational — and hotly debated — health fear about wireless radiation is cancer. In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, cited troubling but uncertain evidence in classifying wireless radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” In 2018, a study by the federal government that was nearly two decades in the making found “clear evidence” that cellphone radiation caused cancer in lab animals. A major study in Italy produced similar results.

Do cellphones pose any special health risks for kids?

Some experts say they do, citing studies suggesting children’s thinner, smaller skulls and developing brains leave them more vulnerable to the effects of cellphone radiation. The American Academy of Pediatrics embraces this concern and has for years urged the FCC to revisit its radiation standards, saying they don’t adequately protect kids. More than 20 foreign governments, as well as the European Environment Agency, urge precautionary steps to limit wireless exposure, especially for children.

What about risks in pregnancy?

A Yale study found hyperactivity and reduced memory in mice exposed to cellphone radiation in the womb, consistent with human epidemiological research showing a rise in behavioral disorders among children who were exposed to cellphones in the womb. Dr. Hugh Taylor, the author of the mouse study and chair of the obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences department at the Yale School of Medicine, told ProPublica: “The evidence is really, really strong now that there is a causal relationship between cellphone radiation exposure and behavior issues in children.”

What does the U.S. government say about cellphone radiation?

The key federal agencies — the FCC and the Food and Drug Administration — have echoed the wireless industry and a number of other groups in rejecting evidence of any “nonthermal” human health risk, saying it remains unproven. The government websites also reject the claim that children face any special risk.

In 2019, during the administration of President Donald Trump, the FCC shut down a six-year review of its 1996 wireless-radiation safety standards. The agency rejected pleas to make the standards more stringent, saying it had seen no evidence its safeguards were “outdated or insufficient to protect human safety.” In 2021, however, a federal appeals court ordered the FCC to revisit the issue, saying the agency had ignored evidence of an array of noncancer harms to humans, animals and the environment, and that its decision to uphold its exposure standard failed to meet “even the low threshold of reasoned analysis.” The FCC has taken no formal action since then.

Why is the issue not resolved?


Determining wireless radiation’s health effects with certainty is difficult. Researchers cannot ethically subject people to endless hours of cellphone radiation to gauge the results. Scientists have to rely on alternatives such as animal studies or epidemiological research, where challenges include getting subjects to accurately recount their wireless use and pinpointing the specific causes of disease or harm. Many health effects of toxic exposure, especially cancer, take years or decades to appear. And the mechanisms of how wireless radiation could affect the body at the cellular level are poorly understood.

Research funding on the issue has also been scarce in the U.S., despite frequent calls for more study. Research (and researchers) raising health concerns have come under sharp attack from industry, and government regulators have remained skeptical. A key FDA official, for example, dismissed the relevance of the federal study that found “clear evidence” of cancer in lab animals, saying it wasn’t designed to test the safety of cellphone use in humans, even though his agency had commissioned the research for that reason.

Linda Birnbaum, who led the federal agency that conducted the cellphone study, said that while proof of harm remains elusive, what is known means that precautions are merited. “Do I see a smoking gun? Not per se,” she told ProPublica. “But do I see smoke? Absolutely. There’s enough data now to say that things can happen. … Protective policy is needed today. We really don’t need more science to know that we should be reducing exposures.”

If I’m concerned about the risk, are there precautions I can take to protect myself and my family?

Because exposure varies dramatically with your proximity to the source of the radiation, experts say a key to minimizing risk is increasing your distance from the phone. This means keeping any cellphone that’s turned on away from direct contact with your body. Don’t keep it in your bra, in your pocket or (especially if you’re pregnant) against your abdomen, they say. And instead of holding the phone against your head when you talk, use a speaker or wired earphones. (Wireless headsets, such as AirPods, also emit some radiation.) Try to avoid making calls when the phone is telling you the signal is weak because that boosts the radiation level. You can also limit exposure by simply reducing how much time you spend talking on your cellphone and texting instead, they say. 

Using an old-fashioned landline avoids the problem altogether.

How France’s prized nuclear sector stalled in Europe’s hour of need

Agence France-Presse
January 05, 2023

View of French utility EDF's Penly Nuclear Power Plant in Petit-Caux, near Dieppe, France, December 9, 2022. © Benoit Tessier, Reuters

France should be in a strong position as Europe reels from the energy crisis, drawing on the renowned nuclear industry that supplies the lion’s share of its power. But France’s nuclear sector has been going through a tricky time, as a significant proportion of its reactors have had to close for maintenance. Analysts blame a mixture of bad luck and the consequences of a political deal from a decade ago.

As the Russian invasion of Ukraine prompted Europe’s energy crisis and climate change racks the world, you could expect France to be congratulating itself on its vast fleet of nuclear power stations. After all, nuclear energy produces barely any CO2 and does not leave countries relying on Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

France went all in on nuclear after the OPEC embargo sparked the 1973 oil shock – unlike Britain, for example, which tapped then-abundant fossil fuel reserves in the North Sea (and is now one of the countries worst-affected by energy inflation).

Nuclear power now produces some 70 percent of France’s energy – the highest proportion in the world – thanks to this long-term strategy known as the Messmer plan (named after its architect, then PM Pierre Messmer) to nourish domestic nuclear expertise and build a large fleet of nuclear reactors.

“Obviously there was the fact that France did not have large reserves of coal or gas and they weren’t able to start drilling in the North Sea; and there was also that Gaullist desire to ensure national independence, while France already had a certain amount of nuclear expertise because it had its independent nuclear weapons system known as the force de frappe,” explained Jacob Kirkegaard, a senior fellow in economics and trade at the German Marshall Fund Brussels bureau.

Largely thanks to this policy stretching back to the 1970s, French CO2 emissions per capita stood at around 4.5 tons in 2019, compared to 5.2 tons in the UK and 7.9 tons in Germany, which has leaned heavily on Russian gas.

France’s nuclear plants ‘important for Europe’

But rather than enjoying the benefits of its vaunted nuclear industry, France found itself importing electricity from Germany in 2022. By November, a record 26 of France’s 56 nuclear reactors were shut for repairs or maintenance – although as of January 2 that figure had fallen to 15 and is expected to fall to nine by the end of January, according to Olivier Appert, an energy specialist at the French Institute of International Affairs (IFRI) in Paris and a member of the French Academy of Engineering.

Meanwhile the French government is fully nationalizing EDF, the state-controlled energy company running the power stations, to stop it going bankrupt. EDF’s new boss Luc Rémont said in October the company faces a “serious crisis”.

“France’s nuclear energy production was in August 2022 the lowest it’s been for 30 years,” Appert noted.

France has been a “net exporter of electricity” over the past decades, Appert added. But “since the autumn of 2022, in light of the maintenance problems, France became a net importer for the first time in 30 years or so” – even if lower energy demand meant it became an energy exporter again on January 2.

This makes matters worse for Europe as a whole as it faces the energy crunch caused by Putin cutting off the supplies of Russian gas in retaliation for European sanctions over the invasion of Ukraine.

“France’s nuclear plants are very important for electricity generation in Europe as a whole,” Appert continued. “The network is very interconnected; each member contributes to the overall security of the system.”

‘Bad luck’

In part, France’s nuclear power stations can be seen as victims of that successful response to the 1973 energy crisis. So many of them were built around the same time as France moved relatively quickly into this current energy paradigm – and that means they have to undergo maintenance around the same time. They were also built according to a single standard – and that means issues found in one plant prompt fixes in others.

“Plants will need to be shut down for maintenance or decennial revision and this happens every two or 10 years,” Appert said. “But the time nuclear power stations were taken out of action was extended a great deal by Covid, because of course people couldn’t move around and do their jobs in the usual way during the lockdowns. So one really musn’t underestimate the effect of Covid in helping cause France’s current nuclear problems.”

As well as the impact of Covid, last summer’s drought was another “bad luck” factor pushing France’s nuclear capacity down, Kirkegaard pointed out, because it meant there was “less water available for cooling reactors”.

However, the current problems are not only down to bad luck. Ahead of the 2012 presidential elections, Socialist François Hollande cut a deal with the Greens in exchange for their support: he vowed to shut the two reactors at Fessenheim, France’s oldest nuclear plant, and cut to 50 percent the proportion of French energy nuclear generates by 2025. After he won, Hollande closed the two reactors – even if he reneged on part of the deal by keeping nuclear’s contribution to French energy needs at around 70 percent.

‘Relic of a bygone age’

Nuclear energy was perceived quite differently a decade ago. The 2011 nuclear disaster at Japan’s Fukushima plant caused by a tsunami made many feel wary of nuclear power – even prompting then chancellor Angela Merkel to promise a phase-out of nuclear energy in Germany, under pressure from the ascendant Greens.

In addition to the Fukushima effect, concerns about the supply security of natural gas and the environmental impact of fossil fuels were less prominent a decade ago. “It wasn’t just Germany but many other European countries, including France, that believed in a relationship with Russia,” Kirkegaard noted. “And back in 2012, especially in Germany but also elsewhere in Europe, plenty of people saw nuclear power as a bigger safety issue than carbon emissions from an environmental point of view,” he added.

All that has changed as heatwaves bake Europe every summer and the invasion of Ukraine exposed Russia as an untenable gas supplier for the old continent. Nearly 80 percent of the French public support nuclear energy, up 20 points from 2016, according to an Elabe poll for Les Échos published in November. Even Germany – with the Greens now in government – is extending the life of three nuclear power stations until April.

“The discourse has changed a lot against natural gas, against fossil fuels more generally, in favor of basically carbon-free energy sources like nuclear,” Kirkegaard noted. “Hollande’s pledge in 2012 is the legacy of a bygone age.”

But the consequences of Hollande’s pact have contributed to France’s current nuclear woes, Kirkegaard continued. In particular, it will have put many talented engineers off the French nuclear sector, he said, because “people are not going to pledge their future to an industry perceived to be in terminal decline”. Moreover, “there’s clearly a reason why so many French reactors are as old as they are”, Kirkegaard added: “They haven’t been consistently replaced – so Hollande’s statements absolutely had an effect.”

A renaissance thanks to Macron?

Even before the energy crunch, Hollande’s successor Emmanuel Macron was keen to renew Messmer’s approach and keep France in the vanguard of the nuclear industry –announcing in 2021 that the “number one priority” for his industrial strategy is for France to develop a cutting-edge fleet of small-scale nuclear reactors by 2030.

Together with this long-term plan, Macron acted to deal with the nuclear situation in the short term with that full nationalization of EDF so the state can pump in funds.

“Nationalizing EDF means a lot of public money can be put in to resolve the problems, and – handily for Macron’s government – because it’s a state-owned company, the money it’s losing, which will be quite significant, will not come up officially on the public books for a while,” Kirkegaard said. “That said, the state will still be paying to sort out EDF,” he cautioned.

During this process, Macron’s strategy will take the French nuclear sector into a new paradigm, away from big reactors such as the one EDF is constructing at Flamanville next to the English Channel, which has been married by delays and cost overruns.

The new approach stands a good chance of bearing fruit, Kirkegaard concluded: “Building smaller reactors makes a lot of sense because they’re a lot quicker and easier to build”, he said. “So you’re much less likely to have building delays, and as well as that it’s much easier to find suitable locations for them because they’re a lot smaller – and that means they’re advantageous for France and especially well-suited for export to more densely populated countries like the UK.”

Update on Damar Hamlin reveals Buffalo Bills player is awake, communicating

Andrew Buller-Russ
Lon Horwedel-USA TODAY Sports

The only story around the NFL right now is all about the health and safety of 24-year-old Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin. Vibes around the league just haven’t been the same since Monday night, when millions witnessed Hamlin’s injury occur, which required CPR, and resulted in his hospital stay in Cincinnati ever since.

Yet, we’ve continued to receive trickles of information regarding the Pennsylvania native’s condition, and on Thursday, more updates were released.

Here’s the latest we know.

Damar Hamlin still on a breathing tube, but is communicating via writing

Cara Owsley/The Enquirer / USA TODAY NETWORK

According to doctors who have been apprised of the situation, Hamlin is now awake but is also hooked up to a breathing tube to ensure he receives enough oxygen. He’s also been able to communicate only in written form.


The doctors at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center suggest there is even still hope for Hamlin to pick up where he left off with a normal life before the incident occurred.

On Thursday, the Bills made an official statement regarding the improving health of Hamlin.



“Per the physicians caring for Damar Hamlin at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Damar has shown remarkable improvement over the past 24 hours. While still critically ill, he has demonstrated that he appears to be neurologically intact. His lungs continue to heal and he is making steady progress.”Buffalo Bills official statement on Damar Hamlin’s health

With Hamlin’s health improving, one of the top topics on his mind was to learn who won the Week 17 matchup between the Bills and Cincinnati Bengals. He proceeded to ask about the outcome of the game to those around him in the hospital room, to which they had a great response.

Of course, the game stopped after roughly nine minutes of play in the first quarter after Hamlin’s serious injury occurred and has since been suspended. The most recent indication is that the Bills-Bengals matchup will not be resumed at all and will be canceled in short order.

Yet, it’s safe to say nobody really cares about whether a game is played or not. It’s all about Hamlin at this point. We all just want to see him safe and sound, even his opponents.

Buffalo Bills football player Damar Hamlin in critical condition after heart stops mid-game

Andy Thompson

WSWS.ORG

Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin (3) during the second half of an NFL football game against the Cleveland Browns, Sunday, Nov. 20, 2022, in Detroit. [AP Photo/Duane Burleson]

During Monday night’s nationally televised National Football League (NFL) game between the Cincinnati Bengals and the Buffalo Bills, Damar Hamlin, the safety for the Bills, collapsed after his heart stopped during the first quarter.

Hamlin had just made a tackle on a Bengals player and received a hard blow to his chest. He stood up immediately following the play, but collapsed seconds later. Medical staff responded quickly and administered CPR, which apparently succeeded in restarting his heart.

Hamlin was removed from the field by stretcher and rushed to the University of Cincinnati Medical Center, where he remains in the Intensive Care Unit in critical condition. Reports Tuesday night from family members at the hospital depicted a grim situation for the 24-year-old athlete.

An uncle, Dorrian Glenn, who visited Hamlin at the hospital told the press that Damar has required resuscitation at least twice and has been in a state of sedation. Glenn added that for now Hamlin had to remain on his stomach so as to drain blood from his lungs, and that he was able to breathe only with the assistance of a ventilator.

While a full and detailed medical report on Hamlin has yet to be given to the public, the fact that he suffered a severe heart episode should be of great concern for all young athletes. For one thing, it has been medically established that COVID-19 infections can lead to a higher risk of myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart, especially among young men.

Since the outbreak of the pandemic, the condition has become increasingly common in college athletes. In at least one case, a 20-year-old college football player, Jamain Stephens, died from myocarditis, which had developed after he had been infected with COVID-19.

In a formal statement, Hamlin’s family wrote: “On behalf of our family, we want to express our sincere gratitude for the love and support shown to Damar during this challenging time. We are deeply moved by the prayers, kind words, and donations from fans around the country.”

The statement extended special thanks to the medical staff and first responders who are caring for Hamlin.

After Hamlin collapsed on the field, his teammates and opponents alike could be seen struggling to hold back tears, fearing that they had just witnessed a fellow athlete die. Only minutes afterward, top officials in the NFL informed the teams that they had five minutes to “warm up” and continue the game.

The players responded by refusing to continue the game, instead gathering on the field and kneeling together in a moment of prayer. Shortly afterwards, the NFL officially suspended the game and ended the live TV broadcast.

In a desperate attempt to save face, the NFL is now denying that it ever told players they had to continue playing. However, at least one ESPN reporter, Joe Buck, is insisting he was told by an NFL official that players were expected to be back on the field within five minutes of Hamlin being carried off on a stretcher.

An estimated 14 million people watched Hamlin collapse. Once it became clear that the players had no intention of resuming the game while Hamlin’s survival was in question, the League conceded. It feared the repercussions of what could have turned into an angry protest by the players, broadcast into millions of homes, against any attempt to force them to resume play.

On Tuesday, the NFL issued a statement saying that the Bills-Bengals game would not be resumed this week and that no decision had been made as to whether it would be rescheduled for a later date. The statement went on to say, however, that the games scheduled for next week would go ahead as planned, and that the Bills would be expected to play the New England Patriots on Sunday.

There will be immense pressure from the billionaire team owners to reschedule the Bengals-Bills game. They will seek to minimize lost revenue from the halting of Monday’s game. Moreover, failure to replay the game could impact the placement of the Bills in the extremely lucrative post-season playoffs.

On average, an NFL team takes in over $10 million per game just from ticket sales. On top of that, owners take home massive profits from TV broadcasting rights and advertising. In 2021, across all teams, the NFL generated a combined $17 billion.

In the immediate aftermath of Monday’s tragedy, there has been an outpouring of support for the young athlete and his family. There have been thousands of heartfelt posts on social media. Many have expressed outrage at the NFL for even considering making the players continue the game. Others have expressed horror that such a deadly incident could occur in professional football, the most popular sport in the US.

The National Football League Players Association (NFLPA), the official union of the players, said in a brief statement on Tuesday: “Our focus remains on the health of our brother, Damar Hamlin. We continue to be in touch with the clubs and the NFL to ensure that Bills and Bengals players have every resource available to aid and support them during this time.”

It is unlikely that the NFLPA will take any action against the NFL. Historically, the role of the NFLPA, which is part of the AFL-CIO, has been to help the NFL save face and keep protests from players hidden from public view. It has never made any attempt to hold team owners or NFL officials responsible for the physical and mental injuries sustained by players.

Hamlin’s near-fatal experience is the second high-profile injury this year in the NFL. The first was the seizure suffered by Miami Dolphins quarterback Tua Tagovailoa in late September, which occurred after he was allowed to return to action despite having suffered a concussion.

The incident was a display of blatant negligence. Independent medical experts who observed Tagovailoa’s injury have gone on record saying that he has already likely sustained irreversible brain trauma.

Since then, Tagovailoa was again cleared to return to the field by the NFL. But in a Christmas Day game against the Green Bay Packers, he suffered yet another head trauma. In this most recent instance, he was not removed from play, despite signs that the injury had a clear impact on his performance. It was not until the next day that Tagovailoa self-reported to the team’s medical staff that he had again been placed in the concussion protocol.

Understanding cardiac arrest and emergency response following Damar Hamlin’s collapse during Monday Night Football

On-site care explanations, Possible causes, Traumatic Stress of responders/observers, Resources for learning CPR

Reports and Proceedings

AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION

DALLAS, January 3, 2023 — While playing in the Buffalo Bills - Cincinnati Bengals game on Monday Night Football on January 2, Bills player Damar Hamlin suffered cardiac arrest after a hit and was administered CPR on the field before being transferred to an area hospital, according to an overnight statement by the Buffalo Bills.

On-site care explanation

Hamlin reportedly experienced a cardiac arrest – when the heart stops abruptly with little or no warning. Early recognition of cardiac arrest  improves the person’s chance of survival and is key to starting the correct care of CPR and the appropriate use of defibrillation to restart the heart. The on-site medical team evaluated the situation and appeared to quickly remove his safety pads, begin CPR and apply the automated external defibrillator (AED).  

CPR can help keep the heart pumping and  blood flowing to vital organs until an electrical shock from a defibrillator is available to restore the heart to a normal heart rhythm. Then the patient can be safely moved for further medical treatment, supportive care, testing to determine what the cause of the arrest may have been and recovery, including both physical and mental health resources for the person and their family.

Possible causes

Cardiac arrest can have several causes. Since Hamlin collapsed immediately following a tackle on the play, one potential cause could be commotio cordis. Commotio cordis is a rare phenomenon from a sudden blunt impact to the chest causing sudden death in the absence of apparent cardiac damage.[1] The blow to the chest at precisely the wrong time in the cardiac cycle  causes an electrical abnormality in the heart resulting in  an irregular heart rhythm that cannot pump blood to the body.  Immediate CPR and a shock to reset the rhythm can help the heartbeat return to normal function.

Another cause of cardiac arrest that additional tests are likely to attempt to detect or rule out is hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) or a thickened heart muscle – a more common cause of sudden cardiac death in young people and athletes specifically. The thickened heart can be due to a genetic condition or can be caused by athletic conditioning that thickens the muscles of the heart and can make it more susceptible to an irregular heart rhythm like ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia[2].

Traumatic stress for responders, observers

Witnessing and responding to a cardiac arrest can be a very traumatic event and may cause lingering psychological impact regardless of the outcome. Lay responders and witnesses may need support and resources to help process their experience.

Responders have cited exhaustion, guilt, flashbacks, sleep disturbances, self-doubt, anger, sadness and fear. A positive outcome to performing CPR can mitigate some of the emotional responses; however, psychological responses are wide-ranging and individualized. In situations with a failed resuscitation attempt, PTSD symptom scores were twice as high for responders as those for non-witnesses.

“This was traumatic  for everyone, especially Hamlin’s family and teammates but also for so many others involved and witnessing the event. More than 70% of  cardiac arrests that do not happen in the hospital, occur in a home where access to medical professionals and an AED is not as readily available,” said Mariell Jessup, M.D., FAHA, chief science and medical officer of the American Heart Association. “Recognizing a cardiac arrest, calling 911 immediately, performing CPR and using an AED as soon as it is available are critical for survival. Statistically speaking, it is likely that the person will need to be helped by a family member or a friend in order to survive.”

Having community members trained in CPR and AEDs in public spaces can increase the chances of survival. The rate of bystander CPR in North America is estimated at only 39-44%, and only about 1 in 10 people survive an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Improving the rate of bystander CPR is critical to increasing survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).

The skill to perform CPR and use a defibrillator are the foundational components of preparing laypeople to respond to cardiac arrest. People also need to feel emotionally prepared to respond and be able to cope with the aftermath of actually performing CPR.[3]

Resources for learning CPR

Each year in the United States, an estimated 350,000 people experience sudden cardiac arrest in the community[4]. Anyone who witnesses a cardiac arrest in the community (i.e., not in a hospital) can perform CPR. Roughly 70% of cardiac arrests that do not happen in the hospital, occur in homes and private residences, therefore, a friend or family member is mostly likely to be the person who needs to take action. CPR, especially if performed immediately, can double or triple a cardiac arrest victim’s chance of survival.

For adults and adolescent children, Hands-Only CPR is an easy-to-learn skill that requires only two steps: call emergency services and push hard and fast in the center of the chest at a rate of 100-120 beats per minute.

Additional Resources:

• Multimedia may be downloaded from the right column of the release link https://newsroom.heart.org/news/understanding-cardiac-arrest-and-emergency-response-following-damar-hamlins-collapse-during-monday-night-football?preview=4c22c366f7a02d3539446db455606e1b
• Understanding the Importance of the Lay Responder Experience in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association
• Difference in Cardiac Arrest vs. Heart Attack
• Learn Hands-Only CPR/use and AED (English and Spanish)
• AHA health information: Bystander CPR
• AHA health information: Bystander CPR Infographic
• AHA health information: Hands-Only CPR Resources
• Follow AHA/ASA news on Twitter @HeartNews

About the American Heart Association

The American Heart Association is a relentless force for a world of longer, healthier lives. We are dedicated to ensuring equitable health in all communities. Through collaboration with numerous organizations, and powered by millions of volunteers, we fund innovative research, advocate for the public’s health and share lifesaving resources. The Dallas-based organization has been a leading source of health information for nearly a century. Connect with us on heart.org, Facebook, Twitter or by calling 1-800-AHA-USA1. 

### 

For Media Inquiries and AHA Expert Perspective:

Karen Springs, 214-706-4831, karen.springs@heart.org

For Public Inquiries: 1-800-AHA-USA1 (242-8721)

heart.org and stroke.org                                                                   

---

[1] Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. 2012;5:425–4321 Apr 2012. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.111.962712

[2] Sudden deaths in young competitive athletes: analysis of 1866 deaths in the United States, 1980-2006.Circulation. 2009; 119:1085–1092. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.804617

[3] Understanding the Importance of the Lay Responder Experience in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association, https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001054

[4] Heart disease and stroke statistics-2022 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001052

Why Archaeologists Are Fuming Over Netflix’s Ancient Apocalypse Series

In an open letter, the Society for American Archaeology accused journalist Graham Hancock’s docuseries of disparaging experts while promoting “racist, white supremacist ideologies.”

by Sarah E. Bond


Artistic rendering of the fictional city of Atlantis originally used as an allegory by Plato (image by George Grie via Wikimedia Commons)


In November 2022, Netflix launched a new “docuseries” titled Ancient Apocalypse, presented by journalist Graham Hancock. Over the course of eight episodes, Hancock revivifies long-discounted, Victorian-era views of the ancient past in connection with a great flood and even Atlantis. He also questions the views and motives of professional archaeologists. Hancock’s unfounded hypotheses and attempts to undermine the field of archaeology have now pushed the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) to issue an open letter decrying the show’s disparaging remarks against archaeologists and calling out the show’s alignment with racist theories about the ancient past.

To many, pseudoarchaeology at first appears to be a harmless form of entertainment consumed in jest or by those who revel in tales of lost cities or alien architects. But the recasting of science fiction as historical fact has real consequences. It emboldens conspiracy theorists who then use it to question everything from the legitimacy of the cultural heritage of Indigenous peoples, to scientific studies, to the validity of higher education in general. In remarks to Hyperallergic, Ancient Near Eastern and Egyptian archaeologist Vivian A. Laughlin noted that although archaeology is a social science, “both the social and scientific aspects are consistently disregarded in pseudoarchaeology.” She and many other professional archaeologists have co-signed the SAA letter’s categorization of the show as “harmful” and rooted in “racist, white supremacist ideologies,” adding that it “does injustice to Indigenous peoples; and emboldens extremists.” Finally, they called on Netflix to reclassify the series as “science fiction.”

What exactly does this “docuseries” pose that has archaeologists up in arms? In Ancient Apocalypse, Hancock first positions himself as a truth-teller while often reusing theories from the late 19th century. This includes discredited ideas such as those posited by politician and novelist Ignatius Donnelly in his 1882 book Atlantis: The Antediluvian World. The book argued that the advanced peoples of Atlantis revealed the secrets of architecture and agriculture to Indigenous peoples. Critic of pseudoarchaeology Jason Colavito has written extensively on Donnelly’s use of Atlantis’s utopian society to critique Reconstruction-era America, all while also reinforcing white supremacy: “Atlantis reflected his ideal American society. Whites ruled, of course, but everyone had a share.” Hancock’s resuscitation of Donnelly breathes air back into ideas and ideologies that, as I have written on prior, are rooted in white supremacy.

Although never trained as an archaeologist, Hancock also scripts himself as the truly reliable narrator who can speak out only because he exists outside of “mainstream archaeology.” It is the same outsider approach taken by showmen like Alex Jones or fellow pseudo-archaeologist Erich von Däniken, both of whom bank on public distrust surrounding science and, increasingly, the conservative suspicion surrounding academia itself. Hancock believes that archaeologists have ignored or even covered up the existence of an “advanced Ice Age civilization.” According to his hypothesis, this innovative culture was wiped out around 12,900 years ago by the impact of a comet that then caused a devastating flood. Hancock notes we have been “lied to by academia for eons” about the existence of this advanced civilization.

Hancock has been peddling these goods in print for a long time. In his 2015 book, Magicians of the Gods, a sequel to his 1995 Fingerprints of the Gods, he elaborated on a theory from a 2007 study that originally proposed to explain evidence for large-scale extinctions of megafauna in North America using a comet impact. Hancock then universalized this theory and used it to explain the existence of his “advanced” civilization globally. But as Michael Shermer reported for Scientific American over five years ago, not only is there no crater to support this theory, but the radiocarbon dating does not support a unitary event. This comet also conveniently wiped out all evidence of Hancock’s global, advanced civilization except certain sites which show signs of survivors from Atlantis. Explaining the giant stone pillars of Göbekli Tepe in Turkey as the product of some of these survivors robs Neolithic hunter-gatherers of their agency and ability to create their own monumental structures. As Shermer notes, what Hancock counts on when explaining this mysterious, progressive civilization is the “bigotry of low expectations.”

The site of Göbekli Tepe (Şanlıurfa Province, District of Haliliye, Türkiye) is a Neolithic site dating to about 9,600 to 8,200 BCE with early monumental and megalithic structures believed by Hancock to be evidence of survivors from Atlantis. (image by Volker Höhfeld via Wikimedia Commons)

Contrary to Hancock’s depictions of it, archaeology is today an active field predicated on painstaking excavation and the collation and careful analysis of archaeological data. It is also one which relies on public trust in the science and scientists that undergird it. Active movements led by archaeologists in the SAA and the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) have encouraged repatriation and set strong ethical codes for the field. Although movies like the recently-revived Indiana Jones series or Tomb Raider may cast looting as archaeological science, professional archaeological sites uncover, document, and map sometimes only centimeters per day. The field is unique in that it is also dependent upon public knowledge and media attention in order to survive. This is true both in terms of external grant funding for digs and, in the case of sites like Pompeii, Petra, or Chichén Itzá, the money that comes from archaeological tourism. In short, archaeologists need and deserve the trust that Hancock denies them. It may be amusing to believe that academics have joined forces to keep secrets from the public, but honestly, they would be the first to tell the world of such findings.

Beyond the SAA, there are also many individual academics countering Hancock’s false narrative. One of the most longstanding and widely read archaeologists today is Eric H. Cline, a professor of Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies and of Anthropology at George Washington University, who is also the director of the GWU Capitol Archaeological Institute. In addition to continued excavations at Tel Kabri (Tell al-Qahweh in Arabic) in Israel and his previous work at Megiddo — the site where the Book of Revelation foretells that the final battle of Armageddon will take place — he has written extensively on the biblical archaeology behind ideas of the Apocalypse and on the truth behind the “Sea Peoples” alleged to have invaded Egypt in the Late Bronze Age. In remarks to Hyperallergic, Cline notes that there is simply no proof or supporting evidence for an advanced but now lost Ice Age civilization. Rather than presenting much hard evidence, Hancock presents his audience with a flurry of questions (“Is it possible?” or “Could there have been?”). Cline underscores that the inception of doubt in the minds of the viewer often becomes more important than the presentation of facts.

Hancock’s questions and continued jabs at archaeologists throughout the Ancient Apocalypse series is, as the public SAA letter responds to, a tactic for undermining science and scientists who have dedicated their lives to archaeological inquiry. And such questioning is certainly on trend. Cline notes that the show capitalizes on an anti-establishment sentiment all too common since the 2016 presidential election.

“He is appealing to a particular subset of the general public who are now ‘anti-expert’ (on any topic ranging from medicine to archaeology), building on sentiments which came to the fore during the Trump era and continue today,” Cline said. “Ironically, however, he is beholden to the very archaeologists whose work he denigrates, for almost nothing of what he covers or says in the series could have been done without their work and by standing on their shoulders.”

Perhaps two of the most vocal critics of Hancock in print and on Twitter are archaeologists John Hoopes and Flint Dibble. In comments to Hyperallergic, both pointed to the holes and harm inherent in Ancient Apocalypse. Hoopes points out that in proposing an ambiguously “advanced” civilization, Hancock oddly also requests the audience view it as a society comparable to that of 19th-century Europe. Using European society as the standard metric for intellect, the arts, and “civilization” is at the heart of arguments in favor of white supremacy and European exceptionalism. Dibble similarly points to the fact that claiming such an advanced civilization actually built famed monuments suggests that a “fake civilization is responsible for monuments and the domestication of plants and animals around the world, with the implication that Indigenous people were not responsible for it.”

How did such a sham of a show get made? Is nepotism the answer? Graham Hancock’s son, Sean Hancock, is an executive at Netflix who works in the “Unscripted Originals” department. If you can’t get a show greenlit on its own merit, why not have your son help it along? Nepotism in the art world, in show business, in “legacy” college admissions, and in virtually every other area of our society means that access is often granted to those with more connections than merit. Although there has been intense interest devoted to the so-called nepo-babies that have pervaded the news towards the end of 2022, we might do well to do a bit more investigation into nepo-parents.

Social media plays a big part in the reception and impact of shows like Ancient Apocalypse. In 2022, former Cornell University undergraduate Angelina Nugroho published a network analysis of the Twitter discourse surrounding pseudoarchaeology. What she discovered is that such tweets “employ anti-institutional sentiment and draw on rhetorical themes in support of a historical white supremacy.” Nugroho noted that not only do pseudarchaeological theories and their diffusion detract from the ability of archaeology to provide a general understanding of the field as a scientific field, but they also cause real harm to modern Indigenous populations by undermining their past.

Can we then blame archaeologists for trying to push back against fiction masquerading as fact? As Hancock himself notes, his team was banned from filming at Serpent Mound in Ohio for attempting to falsely modify the dating of the site much earlier, to around 11,000 BCE. In fact, sacred mounds were made by two Native cultures: the Adena culture (800 BCE–100 CE) and the Fort Ancient culture (1000–1650 CE). Beyond shutting gates, other archaeologists are increasingly taking to public scholarship to push back against the broader harms of all “alternate history” shows. Whether it is actress Megan Fox’s short-lived “alternative history” show (inspired by her beliefs that the Pyramids of Giza were actually a kind of ancient power plant) or the lure of former Fear Factor and comedian Joe Rogan’s popular podcast, which Hancock appeared on: Conspiracy theories and pseudoarchaeology are a growing business.

The Great Serpent Mound located near Peebles, Ohio, United States, is a sacred site created by the Adena and the Fort Ancient cultures. (image by Eric Ewing via Wikimedia Commons)

The SAA letter points to the fact that every day, thousands of archaeologists work to speak to the public in museums, through government agencies, in university courses, on dig sites, and through their publications. Amplifying a culture of distrust around these professionals causes harm not only to them and to cultural heritage institutions, but also damages attempts at understanding and celebrating Indigenous peoples across the globe. At the end of the day, archaeologists are translators and, as Cline notes, “The number one danger is that such fantastical work, presented without supporting evidence, targets gullible audiences, who don’t know who or what to believe.”

While pseudoarchaeological shows are growing on the History network and now Netflix, the number of fact-based documentaries focused on the archaeological process and the science behind it is on the decline in the United States. As an increasing number of series get canceled across HBO, Netflix, and many other streaming services, opportunity is now at a premium. And championing pseudoarchaeology often means that the shows that center science are not given the green light. What might be the solution here? The SAA and many others see equal air time as one way forward. Cline notes that “the general public has seen only Hancock’s version in this series; a response by professional archaeologists, even of only an hour, and broadcast by Netflix, would be most welcome.” If Netflix is truly invested in presenting historical fact, it might do well to set a policy of allowing archaeologists to have their own shows with ample time to respond. Make no mistake that they will show up with trowels and real evidence in hand.

The latest nomination for Jeffries turns into a rebuke of the Republicans as the 'party of no'

Sarah K. Burris
January 05, 2023

Photo: Screen capture

Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA) took the floor to nominate Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) for the eighth time on the House floor to be the Speaker. This time, however, the Democrat nominating him took the opportunity to rebuke the Republican Party.

"The historic dysfunction that we are seeing, in the intra-party fight, that the American people have been drawn into, is imperiling our national security, it will imperil the ability of this government to deliver basic services," Clark warned. "It is imperiling our jobs and our responsibility to serve our constituents."

The House is at a stand-still, so there are members that can't provide constituent services to those in their states back home. So, if for example, a veteran needs help navigating his or her benefits and the complexities of the VA, they're left in the dark. For anyone trying to get someone to help them with a misfiled tax return and for a widow lost in how to navigate Social Security, there is no one in to help.

"But it is also entirely predictable. They're failing to convene congress today, but for years, they have failed to deliver the votes for the American people," she said to applause

"When small businesses needed to reopen, and the American people wanted vaccines, they said no," Clark began with a list of things Republicans opposed. "When we capped insulin costs for seniors, at $35 a month, they said no. When we lowered health care costs and premiums for working families, they said no. When we defended the civil rights of LGBTQ+ Americans, they said no. When we protected lives from senseless gun violence, especially in the wake of the horrors of Buffalo and Uvalde, they said no. When we stood up for women and reproductive freedom, they said no. When we brought manufacturing back to America, they said no. When we answered the urgent call to protect our planet and invest in clean energy, and create tens of millions of good-paying jobs, they said no."

She went on to cite equal pay, child care, paid family leave, the fundamental right to vote for every American, and supporting veteran access to healthcare were all "no" votes from Republicans.

"When we defended our democracy, two years ago tomorrow, from a tyrannical president, following the Jan. 6th insurrection, they said no," Clark said. "House Democrats will stand together. We will stand for the American people. It is our job and our responsibility to elect a speaker who stands with them and with great pride, i nominate Hakeem Jeffries."

See the speech below or at the link here.

The Party of No

Florida county bans kids’ book about gay penguins as schools cite DeSantis’ ‘Don’t Say Gay’ law to erase LGBTQ themes

David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement
January 05, 2023


Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis claimed his "Don't Say Gay" law only applied to "classroom instruction" in kindergarten through third grade, and only prohibited "sexual instruction," but his Dept. of Education is promoting false claims that school library books are included, and some school systems are using the possibly unconstitutional law to ban books that have LGBTQ characters.

One Florida school system, Lake County, which includes about 60 public schools, has banned "And Tango Makes Three," according to Popular Information's Judd Legum. The award-winning children's book is based on the true story of two gay male Central Park Zoo penguins who adopt an egg and raise the baby penguin as their own.

There is nothing sexual about the book.

Popular Information quotes DeSantis defending his discriminatory "Don't Say Gay" law, officially titled the Parental Rights in Education Act.



"When you actually look at the bill and it says 'no sexual instruction to kids pre-K through three,' how many parents want their kids to have transgenderism or something injected into classroom instruction?" DeSantis said. "It's basically saying for our younger students, do you really want them being taught about sex? And this is any sexual stuff."

There is nothing sexual about two male penguins raising a baby penguin.

"Florida schools are using the law to justify the erasure of LGBTQ people," Legum reports. "Public records obtained by Popular Information through the Florida Freedom to Read Project reveal that several Florida schools have already removed books with LGBTQ characters from their libraries, citing the Parental Rights in Education Act. Further, training materials produced by the Florida Department of Education for librarians reveal that the DeSantis administration is encouraging this expansive interpretation of the law."

Legum points to Lake County's ban of three books, including, "And Tango Makes Three."

"In Lake County, for example, the school district has removed three books with LGBTQ themes from libraries. The school district claimed the removal of these books was required 'due to content regarding sexual orientation/gender identification prohibited in HB 1557,' the Parental Rights in Education Act."

It's not just Lake County. In Seminole County, three books removed from school library shelves "include gender-nonconforming characters, but have nothing to do with sex. Jacob's New Dress, for example, is about a little boy that likes to wear dresses. Officials in Manatee County have also removed several books with LGBTQ characters from the shelves based on the Parental Rights in Education Act."

Legum also reports how DeSantis' Dept. of Education is encouraging school systems to ban as many books as possible, and using tactics from the far right to do so.

"To encourage the removal of more books, the training instructs librarians to 'err on the side of caution' and consider 'whether you as an adult would be comfortable reading the material in person in a public meeting.' The 'read aloud' standard has no basis in Florida or federal law but is being pushed aggressively by right-wing organizations like Moms For Liberty. Members of Moms For Liberty regularly attend school meetings and read passages aloud as 'proof' they are inappropriate for students."

Read the entire Popular Information report here.

THATS WHAT THE UN WAS FOR ORIGINALLY

Japan minister calls for new world order to counter rise of authoritarian regimes



Reuters
January 05, 2023

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Japan's trade and industry minister said on Thursday post-Cold War free trade and economic inter-dependence had bolstered authoritarian regimes and urged the United States and other like-minded democracies to counter them with a "new world order."

"Authoritarian countries have amassed tremendous power, both economically and militarily," Japan's Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Yasutoshi Nishimura said in a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington D.C.

"We must rebuild a world order based on the fundamental values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law," he added.

Nishimura spoke ahead of a visit to Washington next week by Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida for talks expected to cover issues including Ukraine, North Korea and China's tensions with Taiwan. That summit will be preceded by talks between defense and foreign ministers of the two countries.

Kishida said this week he will discuss Tokyo's new security policy in Washington after Japan last month unveiled its biggest military build-up since World War Two.

Nishimura's call to arms comes amid growing concern in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine that Beijing and Moscow will use their control over energy resources and sway over manufacturing supply chains to stop the United States, Japan, Europe and other from opposing their diplomatic and military goals.

Leaders from the Group of Seven industrialized nations are likely to discuss how to respond to economic coercion when they meet in May in the Japanese city of Hiroshima, Nishimura said.

"We might need to make preparations to identify the choke points of countries wanting to engage in coercion and then take countermeasures if necessary," he said.

The Japanese minister warned that democracies need to protect their industrial power and guard against the loss of technologies, particularly those that could be diverted to military use.

He urged that cooperation between Japan and the United States extend beyond semiconductors to biotechnology, artificial intelligence and quantum science.

He also promised to work more closely with Washington on export controls, although he didn't say whether Tokyo would match the sweeping restriction on exports of chip manufacturing equipment imposed by Biden's administration in October.

On trade, Nishimura encouraged the United States to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership after former President Donald Trump abandoned an earlier version of the pact in 2017.

He also said Japan will work toward an "early conclusion" of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity launched by Biden in Tokyo in May as part of a push to bolster economic cooperation with 12 other countries in the region.

(Reporting by Tim Kelly; additional reporting by David Brunnstrom, Michael Martina and Katharine Jackson)

FAA names experts to review Boeing safety culture after fatal crashes




By David Shepardson

Reuters
January 05, 2023

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said Thursday it had named 24 experts to review Boeing’s safety management processes and how they influence Boeing’s safety culture after two fatal 737 MAX crashes killed 346 people.

The panel, which was required by Congress under a 2020 law to reform how the FAA certifies new airplanes, includes MIT lecturer and aerospace engineer Javier de Luis whose sister was killed in a MAX crash, as well as experts from NASA, the FAA, labor unions, Airbus, Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, United Airlines, GE Aviation, FedEx Express and Pratt & Whitney.

The panel will convene in the coming weeks and have nine months to complete its review and issue findings and recommendations, the FAA said. Congress directed the agency to appoint a panel by 2021, but the FAA missed that deadline.

A September 2020 House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee report said the MAX crashes "were the horrific culmination of a series of faulty technical assumptions by Boeing's engineers, a lack of transparency on the part of Boeing's management, and grossly insufficient oversight by the FAA."

Boeing did not immediately comment Thursday, but has previously emphasized it has made reforms to its safety culture that cost the company billions of dollars.

De Luis, a lecturer in the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics Engineering, told Congress in 2020 that "Boeing cannot be allowed to continue to certify its own designs, especially those systems that directly impact vehicle safety, with little to no outside review."

Last month, Congress voted to lift a Dec. 27 deadline imposing a new safety standard for modern cockpit alerts for two new versions of the 737 MAX aircraft that could have put the sale of those new models at risk.

In September, the FAA finalized a policy to protect aviation employees who perform government certification duties from interference by Boeing and others.

In May, the FAA opted to renew Boeing's Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) program for three years rather than the five years Boeing sought.

The FAA continues to subject Boeing to enhanced oversight, inspecting all new Boeing 737 MAXs and 787s before they can be delivered.

In November, the Transportation Department's Office of Inspector General said it would audit the FAA's oversight of the MAX.

(Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Aurora Ellis)

FROM THE USA

New 'ultra-transmissible' Covid 'Kraken' variant sparks warning from WHO

Kieran Doody
Thu, 5 January 2023 

 (Image: PA)

Health experts have issued a warning over a new “ultra-transmissible” Covid strain spreading across the UK.

The new Covid XBB.1.5 variant dubbed “The Kraken” currently surging across the US has already been spotted in parts of the UK.

The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) technical lead for Covid Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove expressed her concern about the growth of the new variant.

Speaking at a press conference, she said: "We are concerned about its growth advantage in particular in some countries in Europe and in the US... particularly the Northeast part of the United States, where XBB.1.5 has rapidly replaced other circulating variants.

"Our concern is how transmissible it is… and the more this virus circulates, the more opportunities it will have to change.”

Covid XBB.1.5 should be 'wake-up call' to UK

Professor Lawrence Young from Warwick University told the Mail Online that the new variant should be a “wake-up call” to the UK.

He said: “The XBB.1.5 variant is highly infectious and is driving increased hospital admissions in New York, particularly among the elderly. Waning immunity, more indoor mixing because of the cold weather and lack of other mitigations, such as wearing facemasks, are also contributing to this surge of infection in the US.

“This is a wake-up call - a sharp reminder that we can't be complacent about Covid. The threat of XBB.1.5 and other Covid variants further exacerbates the current NHS crisis and stresses the need for us to remain vigilant.”

He added: “We need to continue to monitor levels of infection with different variants in the UK, encourage those who are eligible to get their boosters shots - why not extend this to the under 50s - and promote the value of other mitigation measures.”

XBB.1.5: ‘Most Transmissible’ Strain Could Drive New COVID-19 Surge In US

Jan 4, 2023 By Luigi Caler 

There are concerns that a new COVID-19 surge in the United States could unfold in the wake of the new omicron subvariant’s emergence. 

XBB.1.5 is the new member of the omicron sublineage that sparked concerns among health experts this week after data showed how quickly it spread.

Dr. Ashish Jha, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, noted on Twitter Wednesday that there’s been a “stunning increase” in the cases caused by XBB.1.5 in the country over December. 

“Over the holidays, you may have heard about omicron XBB.1.5. It went from 4% of sequences to 40% in just a few weeks. That’s a stunning increase,” he tweeted. 

Epidemiologist and the World Health Organization’s (WHO) technical lead on COVID-19 Maria Van Kerkhove echoed the same sentiments, saying they are “concerned about its growth advantage.”

Van Kerkove pointed out via CNN that the new strain, first detected in the U.S., is the “most transmissible form of omicron to date.” It has already spread to at least 29 countries thus far. 

Despite the threat of XBB.1.5 starting new waves of infections in different parts of the world, Van Kerkhove was optimistic that there wouldn’t be serious effects when proper countermeasures remained in place. 

“We do expect further waves of infection around the world, but that doesn’t have to translate into further waves of death because our countermeasures continue to work,” she explained. 

Jha said in a separate tweet that XBB.1.5 “binds more tightly to the human ACE receptor,” so it could be more contagious than the other omicron subvariants. 

He added that the best protection tool against XBB.1.5 is the new bivalent COVID-19 vaccine. The bivalent shots from Moderna and Pfizer can help protect against infection and serious illness caused by the new strain, according to the expert. 

“We can work together to manage the virus. And if we all do our part, we can reduce the impact it will have on our lives,” he concluded his Twitter thread. 

Meanwhile, Van Kerkhove said the WHO is working on a risk assessment for the new strain by looking at real-world data on hospitalizations and their severity. The report will be released in the next few days.

New COVID-19 Variant Mutation Has

'Alarming' Immunity Evasion; Could 

Cause US Surge

Jan 4, 2023By Danielle Ong 

A new offshoot strain, XBB.1.5, of the COVID-19 Omicron variant has been found to have "alarming" immunity evasion, which could cause another surge of cases in the United States, according to experts.

Dr. David Ho, professor of microbiology and immunology at Columbia University, said the XBB.1 offshoot variant is 63 times less likely to be neutralized by the antibodies in people who have either been infected by COVID-19 or have been vaccinated against the virus when compared to the BA.2 variant. The same is the case with the XBB.1.5 strain.

"It is alarming that these newly emerged subvariants could further compromise the efficacy of current COVID-19 vaccines and result in a surge of breakthrough infections as well as re-infections," Dr. Ho wrote in his findings, which were recently published in the journal Cell.

In addition to its high immune evasion, the XBB.1.5. also has a key mutation at site 486, allowing it to bind better to ACE2, which is the door the virus uses to enter human cells. This mutation means the offshoot variant is more infectious.

"The mutation is clearly letting XBB.1.5 spread better," Jesse Bloom, a computational virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, wrote in an email to CNN.

Experts are now warning that the strain's features could give it the ability to cause another surge of COVID-19 cases in the U.S.

As of Friday last week, the U.S. Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that the XBB.1.5 variant accounted for 41% of new COVID-19 infections throughout December.

In northeastern states, the CDC said the offshoot variant is causing about 75.3% of all new cases. Those states include Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont.

In New York and New Jersey, the XBB.1.5 strain caused 72.2% of cases during the last week of December.

As of Tuesday, the U.S. reported a total of 100,845,043 COVID-19 cases since the pandemic began in 2020. Among those, 1,093,971 have died of the virus, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.