Why do whales and dolphins strand?

There have always been mass strandings of whales and dolphins. Worldwide, about 2,000 marine mammals die in this way every year. But the phenomenon is not always due to natural causes.





Which whales and dolphins tend to strand where?

Pilot whales, sperm whales, beaked whales and deep-sea dolphins are the marine mammals most commonly involved in mass strandings. Baleen whales, on the other hand, a group to which all big whales except the sperm whale belong, strand very rarely.

If these mammals become stranded, they can dry out, overheat, suffocate or suffer severe inner injuries because of their enormous dead weight.

Individual strandings have been observed at many locations, while most mass strandings have been registered in Western Australia, New Zealand (with up to 300 stranded whales annually), and on the east coast of North America and Patagonia (Chile). Occasionally, however, there are also mass strandings in the North Sea.

On land, the mammals can dry out, suffocate or suffer internal injuries from their enormous weight

How do whales and dolphins navigate?

Like migratory birds, some whale species travel great distances every year. In winter, whales migrate from the cold northern seas to warmer waters in the south, and whales from southern waters move to the north in the same season. Months later, they then begin to travel back home.

The smaller toothed whales, such as dolphins, have a powerful underwater sonar. They orient themselves on their journeys by emitting sound waves in the form of clicking noises. When these sound waves collide with an object, they are reflected back as echoes to the animals' ears, which in the case of whales are shielded from the skull in foam-filled chambers inside the body to enable spatial hearing. The faster the sound returns, the closer the prey, an obstacle or the coast.

However, in the case of the large baleen whales, which have horn plates (baleen) instead of teeth in their upper jaws for filtering krill, animal plankton and small fish from the water, this underwater sonar is not very highly developed.

This echolocation works very well as a rule. However, sound reflection does not function reliably in certain circumstances, particularly when there are shallow or semicircular bays, sandy underwater embankments or silt banks. These types of coasts and obstacles do not produce an unambiguous echo from any particular direction, so the warning system fails.

Even in the German Wadden Sea, whales like this not yet fully grown sperm whale are washed up from time to time

What influence does the earth's magnetic field have?

Whales such as the pilot whale do not use just underwater sonar to orient themselves, but — again, like migratory birds — seem to rely on the lines of the earth's magnetic field, as their migration routes often run parallel to those lines. The slight fluctuations of the earth's magnetic field appear to function like a kind of map.

Magnetite crystals have been found in the skulls of these animals. The whales could be confused by disturbances of the geomagnetic field near the coast. Magnetic fields running perpendicular to the mainland are also thought to play a role in mass strandings of whales in certain coastal regions.

Every few years, solar storms and sunspots that occur amid heightened activity on the sun's surface also cause fairly large changes in the Earth's magnetic field. It is at such times that sperm whales, for example, which also use geomagnetism as a natural navigation system, get lost and become stranded in the North Sea.

Why do whales and dolphins become stranded?

Navigational errors are thus believed to be the main cause of whale strandings, but all the reasons have not yet been conclusively investigated.

One of them is certainly the social behavior of many whale species, which travel in groups, so-called pods, and are guided by a leader. For example, in the case of sperm whales, a male leads the way from the Arctic Ocean back into warmer waters. By contrast, when orcas are on their travels, a mother or grandmother leads the group.

If leaders lose their orientation, perhaps because they are confused or because parasites have attacked their ears, rendering them incapable of hearing the echoes of the clicking sounds that have been sent, the accompanying animals will follow them in the wrong direction. If a leader is stuck in shallow waters, the rest of the group stays with it, even if this means their certain doom.

Sometimes, as has been observed, for example, with orcas on the South African coast, this group cohesion can go so far that whales who have already been saved after a mass stranding return to the beach if another stranded whale calls for help.

But strandings can also have other natural causes. Sometimes, smaller dolphins become beached because they have taken refuge from orcas and other predators in shallower waters or because they have ventured too far into shallow areas when hunting shoals of fish.

Occasionally, individual animals are also washed ashore dead after being previously injured by collisions with ships, fishing nets or shark attacks or becoming ill from infections or parasite infestation.

High-performance military sonar devices in particular massively impair the orientation of marine mammals

Which human influences exacerbate the situation?

In addition to natural factors, man-made underwater noise from ships, icebreakers, drilling platforms or military sonar equipment can also massively impair the orientation and communication of marine mammals. They flee the strong sound waves in a state of confusion. And since the density of water is much higher than that of air, sound propagates underwater about five times faster than in the air.

Military sonar operations employing very loud sounds have particularly drastic effects. After NATO maneuvers, for example, beaked whales have washed up dead on the coasts of Cyprus, the Canary Islands and the Bahamas. The sonars, which are louder than 200 decibels, triggered the formation of gas bubbles in the blood vessels and organs of marine mammals (as happens with diving sickness), obstructing the blood supply and leading to their death.

Every helper is welcome — the mammals must remain cool and moist

How can you help stranded whales and dolphins?

When a whale stranding is discovered, there is usually not much time left. Teams of helpers can do little more than try to cool the stranded animals, keep them moist and combine forces to get the heavy animals back into the sea as quickly and gently as possible.

In some countries, hotlines have been set up so that as many helpers as possible can be mobilized quickly. For many exhausted animals, however, even these immediate measures often come too late.



WATCHING WHALES - WITH DRONES
Science from above
To learn more about the whales' behavior, researchers with NOAA - the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - have started using drones. The high-tech devices offer a new insight into the animals' hunting techniques and social behavior. This picture shows a family of orcas off the Canadian coast.

VIDEOS AND MORE PHOTOS

 https://www.dw.com/en/why-do-whales-and-dolphins-strand/a-55203547

Brazil: Struggling with life after COVID-19

Many people who contracted the coronavirus disease struggle with long-term health issues. Maria Alzenir, a Sao Paulo local, got infected in July but is still dealing with a chronic shortness of breath and muscle pains.



Maria Alzenir Lima was released from hospital one month ago. The 53-year-old Sao Paulo local has officially recovered from her COVID-19 infection, yet still struggles with a persistent cough and shortness of breath. Getting around is a serious challenge. And after all this time, she still needs supplemental oxygen.

Alzenir — a nurse by training — spent 40 days in hospital. Her husband, who contracted SARS-CoV-2 as well, was hospitalized one day after her. He died on August 4 from heart and kidney complications brought about by the illness.

"I still cannot believe it. When I was hospitalized, my husband was still doing fine," says Alzenir. "I find it hard to grasp that he will not be at home when I go back." Alzenir has not yet returned to her own house but has been living with her daughter Barbara Lima since being discharged, as she requires round-the-clock care.

Read more: Pandemic deepens precarity for Brazil's domestic workers

Maria Alzenir was in hospital for more than 40 days

Weak muscles

Last week, when the global coronavirus death toll passed 1 million, with 140,000 of those deaths recorded in Brazil alone, Alzenir did her 10th physiotherapy session at her daughter’s home to deal with the consequences of her long hospital stay. Alzenir's leg muscles have grown weak and walking is difficult for her. She says that immediately after being discharged, she could not even stand upright. Now, at least, she can walk a few steps, she says.

Prolonged hospital stays take their toll on the entire body, says Marli Sartori, an infectious disease specialist at Brasilia's Santa Lucia hospital. "COVID-19 patients in intensive care usually need three to four weeks until they can be discharged," she says, adding that additional therapy is then needed for a full recovery.

Alzenir's relatives pay the equivalent of €12 ($14) each week so she can take private therapy sessions, as no physiotherapists covered under Brazil’s publicly funded health care system, known as SUS, were available. Costs for Alzenir's care will rise even further, as she will also have to see a lung specialist.

Read more: Coronavirus: Is a repeat COVID-19 infection possible?

Chronic cough

For now, however, her relatives do not want to risk taking her outside. "I was concerned from the very beginning — but now that I have lost my father and almost my mother, I am even more careful," says her daughter. "She can cope without supplemental oxygen but what if she starts feeling unwell when we are outside?"

Alzenir still cannot eat proper food, as swallowing gives her pain. She is also dealing with a persistent cough. But her physiotherapist Evelyn Felisari says this is not a sign that the illness is recurring, but results from the two weeks she spent on a respirator, as the device irritates the larynx receptors. She says Alzenir's lung has also been strained, along with her diaphragm. "The goal is to get patients back in shape within a month, though this always varies depending on the person."

A study by South Korea’s Disease Control and Prevention Agency found that nine out of 10 COVID-19 patients suffer from long-term issues like fatigue or a loss of smell and taste after recovering from the illness. Some 26% of those who participated in the study reported suffering from chronic fatigue, making it the most common long-term symptom. Nature, a weekly science journal, cites a further study revealing neurological damage caused by the virus. And according to a Japanese study, COVID-19 may also damage brain tissue.

COVID-19 can cause fluid buildup in the lungs, as seen in the right-hand image

Long-term health problems

Some 300 studies have been devoted to investigating the potential long-term health implications of COVID-19. Among the most severe suspected consequences is aphasia — the inability to comprehend or formulate language due to damage caused to certain brain regions — along with strokes and seizures.

Germany’s public health agency, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), cautions that it is still too early to make reliable statements regarding the pathogen’s long-term effects and whether it causes irreversible damage. Even so, if what many studies suggest is right, thousands, or even tens of thousands of former COVID-19 sufferers will end up struggling with ongoing health issues, perhaps for the rest of their lives. The initial belief that SARS-CoV-2 only damages people's respiratory tracts has been abandoned. Germany's RKI warns on its website that the virus can cause damage in a variety of ways, affecting lungs, kidneys, the liver and heart.

And that may not be all. Maria Alzenir appears to suffer from short-term memory loss. "Yesterday, she asked me why one of our relatives has not visited us — even though he came by just yesterday," recalls her daughter Barbara. Since contracting the virus, Alzenir also suffers from insomnia, a problem she did not have before.

Maria Alvenir has been left with several long-term effects

Caution is key

Maria Alzenir and her relatives live in Sao Paulo’s Sapopemba district, which has a population of some 300,000. It has seen some of the country’s highest coronavirus infection and mortality rates. Over 520 deaths were recorded here until early August alone, including that of Alzenir's husband, Jose Wellington de Sousa.

Alzenir says her late husband, who was 69, implored her to stop working amid the pandemic. He had told her they could scrape by on his pension. "But I did not want that, so every day, I took the overcrowded bus to work," says Alzenir. Now, in hindsight, she wishes he had listened to him.

Read more: Opinion: Bolsonaro lets 100,000 die of COVID-19 in Brazil

Many people in Brazil are going about their lives as if there was no pandemic

No more social distancing

After weeks of constantly high infection rates, Sao Paulo state is seeing a gradual flattening of the curve. Even so, the region is not out of the woods. According to Dados Transparentes – a Brazilian public health website — Sao Paulo state recorded some 32,000 new infections and 1,070 deaths in the last seven days. Indeed, while social distancing measures caused the infection curve to sink again in many countries, Brazil has seen infection rates remain at a consistently high level, and the country has now recorded almost 5 million confirmed cases and 146,00 deaths.

Despite these grim figures, many Brazilians have been flocking to the country’s beaches and bars to socialize and party after lockdown restrictions were lifted. Maria Alzenirs’s daughter-in-law Tamires is deeply concerned by this recklessness. "Although many people in our street are infected, some of them keep partying," she says.

But Alzenir herself can empathize with their need to relax and enjoy life. After all these months, she, too, would love to head out for a cold beer, she says.

Read more: Brazil: Rio postpones Carnival over coronavirus

This article was translated from German by Benjamin Restle.

Correction: The original version of this article mistranslated a sentence that said Alzenir's relatives pay €12 per week for physiotherapy because Brazil's public health care system, SUS, does not cover physiotherapy. The passage has been corrected to reflect that Alzenir's relatives pay the weekly amount because a physiotherapist covered under SUS was not available.

VIDEO https://www.dw.com/en/covid-19-brazil/a-55179978

RIP

Holocaust survivor and author Ruth Klüger dies at 88

Ruth Klüger, who survived the concentration camp in Auschwitz as a child and wrote a memoir about her time there, has died. 

The US-Austrian academic had been a vocal critic of Holocaust museum culture.

Holocaust survivor, author and German literary academic Ruth Klüger died aged 88 in California on Wednesday.

The Austrian-born professor had lived in the United States since 1947. She was the author of the bestselling memoir "Still Alive" about her childhood under the Nazi regime.

Klüger gave a speech at the German parliament in 2016, saying it was an "honor" to speak in front of Chancellor Angel Merkel. She praised the refugee policy of Merkel's government, describing it as "heroic."

"This country, which 80 years ago was responsible for the worst crimes of the century, has won the praise of the world today thanks to its open borders and the generosity with which you have taken in and are still taking in refugees," she said.

Klüger was interned at the camp at Theresienstadt and later Auschwitz.

Read more: Auschwitz's harrowing history

She also spoke about the forced sex work in concentration camps that many women were forced to take on, and then faced stigma for after the war.

Austrian President Alexander Van der Bellen wrote on Twitter that "another voice has been silenced," calling her an "impressive author, intellectual and witness of the times."


Klüger, who was born to a Jewish family in Vienna in 1931, was also a vocal critic of the remembrance culture surrounding the Holocaust. She argued that sometimes Germany and Germans tried too hard to identify with the victims of the era, and in doing so reduced them to that status.

"I'm not from Auschwitz, I come from Vienna," she once said, adding that this was one reason she opted to have the internment number tattooed on her arm removed in later life.

In the United States, she studied English and German literature and became a recognized authority on German literature, in particular the poet Heinrich von Kleist.

Klüger died in her long-time home in Irvine, California.

A previous version of this article stated that in her speech to the Bundestag, Klüger talked about her own experiences as a forced sex worker in concentration camps. In fact, Klüger was speaking about the experiences of other women. This error has been amended.

REST IN POWER

VP debate: Did gender play a role in the interruptions?

By Helier Cheung
BBC News

Dodging questions and interruptions: While the VP debate was more civil, there were still moments of tension

Wednesday night's vice-presidential debate was widely seen as civil, but with few memorable moments.

Yet one exchange that resonated strongly with many viewers - especially women - was when Kamala Harris responded to Mike Pence interrupting her by smiling and saying: "Mr Vice-President, I'm speaking… If you don't mind letting me finish, then we can have a conversation."

In fact, Ms Harris responded to an interruption with the phrase "I'm speaking" on three occasions.

Many considered these to be poignant moments that chimed with their own experiences of seeing women struggling for air time, or being interrupted by men in work situations.

“Mr. Vice President, I’m speaking” @KamalaHarris is every woman who has ever been talked over in her workplace. #VPDebate #GenderLens2020— Jennie Sweet-Cushman (@jenniesweetcush) October 8, 2020


One takeaway from tonight's debate will be how many times a woman of color, always smiling pleasantly, has to tell a white man, "I'm speaking," in order to STILL get less time than he gets. It is nauseating.— Mark Harris (@MarkHarrisNYC) October 8, 2020


Ms Harris was "clearly prepared" for interruptions, says Deborah Tannen, a linguistics professor at Georgetown University and expert in gender differences in language use.

She came across as "respectful" by saying "Mr Vice-President", while "I'm speaking" was not accusatory in the way "stop interrupting me" would have been, Dr Tannen told the BBC.

"Clearly her challenge throughout the whole debate was to avoid coming across as aggressive," she said.

"There's a double bind for women - because anything you do to come across as a forceful candidate violates expectations for women. I think she walked that fine line extremely well."

So what are the facts - and did gender play a role?

Mr Pence interrupted Ms Harris more than she interrupted him - a CBS tally found the vice-president interrupted the California senator 10 times, while she interrupted him five times.

Meanwhile, NBC news tracked nine interruptions by Ms Harris, and 16 interruptions by Mr Pence.

But these figures pale in comparison to the number of interruptions during the presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden last week.

According to one Washington Post tally, Mr Trump made 71 interruptions compared with Mr Biden's 22.

Mr Pence spoke for 38 minutes compared to Ms Harris who had 35 minutes, according to CBS News

Given that the raucous Trump-Biden debate was almost universally criticised, it's not surprising that Mr Pence and Ms Harris appeared to make an effort to keep their exchanges civil.

But a CBS tally still found that Mr Pence ended up with more speaking time - 38 minutes, to Ms Harris' 35 minutes.

The moderator, USA Today's Susan Page, was criticised for failing to stop both candidates, particularly Mr Pence, from interrupting, especially as Mr Pence often exceeded the time limits for speaking.

At one point, Ms Harris fought to speak and said: "He interrupted me, and I'd like to just finish, please."

Previous studies have suggested that gender can play a role - often subconsciously - in how much people interrupt.

One 2014 study found that speakers tend to interrupt more when speaking with a woman rather than a man , while a 2017 study found this trend even existed at the top - with male Supreme Court justices interrupting female justices three times more than they interrupted each other.

A 2017 study found that, even at the Supreme Court, men were more likely to interrupt women (file photo)


And women can face a double bind when they fight to be heard - because studies suggest women who interrupt are penalised more harshly than men who speak out of turn, and powerful women can incur a backlash when they speak more than others.

A well-documented phenomenon, says Dr Tannen, is that "when women talk equally to men they're perceived as talking more" - presumably because people expect them to speak less.

Another factor, she adds, is that "frequently, women will give way more quickly than men will" when being interrupted.

But gender isn't always the only factor at play. Mr Trump interrupted Mr Biden more than 70 times in last week's presidential debate, compared to the 51 times he interrupted Hillary Clinton during the first presidential debate in 2016.

And in the 2016 vice-presidential debate, Democrat Tim Kaine interrupted Mr Pence 70 times, compared to Mr Pence's 40 times.

What about ethnicity?

Ms Harris is the first black, and Asian, vice-presidential candidate - and many believe she was also conscious of stereotypes about ethnic minority women when responding to interruptions.

"There's this trope of the angry black woman and she knows she has to avoid that," Melissa Michelson, a political science professor at Menlo College, told Mercury News.

Meanwhile, commentator Jessica Yellin praised Ms Harris on Instagram, writing: "The challenge for women, and for the first woman of colour to be on a major presidential party ticket especially, is to take back your time without media and swing voters calling ya "difficult" "tough" "aggressive." Answer: Do it with confidence, a smile and gleam in your eye."

Serena Williams and 'angry black women'

Helping women ensure their voices are heard

Of course, not everyone was impressed with Ms Harris' debate performance, or the way she and Mr Pence interacted.

One focus group of undecided voters, asked to describe the candidates in one word, chose words including "calm", "bland", "presidential", "comfortable" and "typical politician" to describe Mr Pence, and "evasive", "abrasive", "snarky" "too rehearsed" and "unpresidential" for Ms Harris.

Frank Luntz, who organised the focus group, told Fox News that, while voters were frustrated with the vice president for repeatedly running over his allotted time, "Harris' reactions to Pence - the smiling, the smirking, the scowling" left them far "angrier".

"It was clear that Mike Pence was the winner of tonight's confrontation," Mr Luntz, who has mostly worked for Republican clients in the past but is not working for any political party in the 2020 election, added.

By contrast, a CNN instant poll of registered voters found that 59% felt Ms Harris had won, while 38% preferred Mr Pence.

Are viewers influenced by gender and ethnicity?


media captionHarris and Pence ‘dodge questions’ during the vice-presidential debate in Utah

It's difficult to say - but the same CNN poll certainly found that women had a better impression of Ms Harris than men.

After the debate, 56% of men and 70% of women polled had a favourable impression of Ms Harris - while 50% of men and 32% of women had a favourable impression of Mr Pence.

And whether or not gender and ethnicity have influenced voters' perceptions, they certainly seem to have had an impact on media coverage of Ms Harris.

One recent study described "sexist and racist bias" in how the news of Mr Biden's vice-presidential pick was covered.

TIMES UP Now, which describes itself as an independent charity focused on improving work environments for women, said its study found that nearly two-thirds of media coverage mentioned race and gender, compared to just 5% of coverage in 2016 for Mr Pence and Mr Kaine.

A large proportion of this coverage would have reflected the historic nature of the nomination - given Ms Harris was the first black and Asian VP pick and one of only a few female candidates.

However, a quarter of the media coverage of Ms Harris included "racist and sexist stereotyping and tropes", including the "Angry Black Woman" trope and "birther" conspiracies, TIMES UP Now said.

"This shows that when white men are running for elected office, their identity is viewed as the "default" for leaders in our society," it added.

So - how can you deal with interruptions?

media caption A lesson in managing a presidential debate from two primary school teachers

Dr Tannen argues that, for political debates, "the solution has to lie not with the candidates, but with the moderators and organisers".

She suggests switching off candidates' microphones when their time is up - or, "if a candidate speaks over their allotted time, give that amount of time to the other candidate, immediately".

Meanwhile, in the workplace, "the best thing is if a woman can have a partner, female or male, who will speak up for her".

It's a lot easier for somebody else to say "I'd like to hear what she has to say", than for the interrupted person to say "let me finish", Dr Tannen adds.

Attenborough: 'Curb excess capitalism' to save nature

8 October 2020
Related Topics
COP26

The renowned broadcaster says the excesses of capitalism must be "curbed" to help nature.

Sir David Attenborough says the excesses of western countries should "be curbed" to restore the natural world and we'll all be happier for it.

The veteran broadcaster said that the standard of living in wealthy nations is going to have to take a pause.

Nature would flourish once again he believes when "those that have a great deal, perhaps, have a little less".



Sir David was speaking to Liz Bonnin for BBC Radio 5 Live's new podcast 'What Planet Are We On?'. Listen to the podcast on BBC Sounds

Speaking personally and frankly, Sir David explained, "We are going to have to live more economically than we do. And we can do that and, I believe we will do it more happily, not less happily. And that the excesses the capitalist system has brought us, have got to be curbed somehow."

"That doesn't mean to say that capitalism is dead and I'm not an economist and I don't know. But I believe the nations of the world, ordinary people worldwide, are beginning to realise that greed does not actually lead to joy."

Prince William and Attenborough launch green prize
Arctic sea-ice shrinks to near record low extent
How the oil industry made us doubt climate change

Sir David said when we help the natural world, it becomes a better place for everyone and in the past, when we lived closer to nature, the planet was a "working eco-system in which everybody had a share"

.

GETTY IMAGES

The 10-part podcast is being released on the second anniversary of the publication of a key scientific report on global warming.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change study looked at how the world would cope if temperatures rose by 1.5C by the end of this century.

The podcast series explores issues and solutions around climate change, and features the BBC environment correspondent, Matt McGrath, and science correspondent, Vic Gill, along with interviews with well-known names like Idris Elba, Lily Cole and Jay Blades.

The IPCC special report, released in October 2018 didn't "save the planet" but it may yet prove to be the most critical moment in the story of climate change.

The study made two things very clear. The first was that there was a massive difference in keeping the rise in global temperatures this century to 1.5C as opposed to 2C.

Politicians had for years focussed on the higher number - the special report made clear that was a risky strategy, which could see the end of coral reefs and expose millions of people to the threat of floods.




The second key message from the IPCC was that the world could stay under 1.5C if carbon emissions were essentially slashed in half by 2030.

The urgency of the challenge laid out in the report inspired millions of young people to take action. This pressure is filtering up to politicians.

Sir David also spoke about his frustrations with the postponement of COP26, in Glasgow, the UN's major climate change conference.

He called the pandemic "a disaster for all of us" saying it's depressing that every time we get to a moment to do something about climate change, it's delayed to another year.

The broadcasting legend also spoke about giving up the "busyness" of things like travelling and meetings.

"We've had time to sit down and suddenly you realise out there in the park or if I'm lucky enough, in the garden, there's a bird singing and I've not heard that for a bit … and that lifts the spirit to an extraordinary degree and you begin to realise, what is really important".

T. rex dinosaur 'Stan' sold for world record price
By Jonathan Amos BBC Science Correspondent
7 October 2020

Image copyrightCHRISTIE'S

A near-complete specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex, nicknamed "Stan", has been sold for a world record price of $31.8m (£24.6m).

The 67-million-year-old fossil went to an anonymous bidder in the sale organised by Christie's in New York.

The guide price had been $6-8m, but this was rapidly surpassed as the online auction progressed.

Stan's hammer price smashes the $8.4m record paid for the T. rex known as "Sue" in 1997.

That particular specimen went on display at the Field Museum in Chicago. Where Stan is headed is uncertain, however. The fear, as always, is that it could disappear into a private collection never to be seen again.

While Christie's declined to divulge the name of the new owner, the company's James Hyslop said some further details about the dino's future could emerge in the next few days.

The actual winning bid was $27.5m, but commission and other additional costs took the final price to $31.8m.

Image captionCasts of Stan's bones have been sent all around the world

Stan carries the name of its discoverer, the amateur palaeontologist Stan Sacrison.

He first saw the dinosaur's remains in 1987, weathering out of sediments in the famous fossil-yielding Hell Creek Formation in South Dakota.

The bones were positioned about 16m below the Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) boundary - the geological horizon that records the impact of an asteroid on Earth, and the demise of three-quarters of all animal and plant species, some 66 million years ago.

Stan is regarded as one of the finest T. rex specimens in existence.

It comprises 199 bones - about 70% of a complete skeleton - which have been subjected to a battery of tests and investigations. Damage to the skeleton suggests the dinosaur was involved in a number of battles during its life.

"Stan rapidly became the 'Stan-dard' for T. rex, given there are so many casts of this extraordinary fossil that have been sold all over the world," commented British dinosaur expert Prof Phil Manning who has worked on the specimen.

"If you have looked at a T. rex in a museum, the chances are it was a cast of Stan. The skull is possibly the best preserved, given it was found as isolated elements, carefully prepped and beautifully reconstructed.

"I am keeping my fingers and toes crossed that this remarkable fossil stays in the public domain for all to enjoy," the University of Manchester scientist told BBC News.

Stan had been on display at South Dakota's Black Hills Institute of Geological Research since the late 1990s, but the Hill City company was ordered in 2018 by a court to release the specimen for auction.

With the sale comes certain intellectual property rights, but the new owner has been denied permission to make future casts or 3D prints, or to sell related merchandise online.

Jonathan.Amos-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk and follow me on Twitter: @BBCAmos

Trump Calls Kamala Harris a ‘Monster’
By Benjamin Hart

Not most people’s definition of a monster. Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images

In an appearance that fell into the even-more-unhinged-than-usual category, President Trump appeared on Maria Bartiromo’s Fox Business show Thursday morning to rant about the supposedly low character of his opponents and the alleged conspiracies arrayed against him.

The president told a vigorously nodding Bartiromo that Biden was not “mentally capable” of lasting two months as president, and then, in an attack on Kamala Harris’s position on fracking, referred to her as “this monster who was onstage with Mike Pence,” calling her a “monster” again for good measure. (Harris did vow to ban fracking as a candidate in the Democratic primary but clarified during the debate that Biden would not do so.)

Trump refers to Kamala Harris as "this monster" pic.twitter.com/hcnUpV8PBf— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 8, 2020

Trump has long reserved some of his most dehumanizing insults for women, especially women of color.

Donald Trump‘s decision to call Kamala Harris a “monster” is a depressing statement about his understanding of his base of supporters and what they want to be told about the first Black woman to be a major party’s vice presidential nominee.— Olivia Nuzzi (@Olivianuzzi) October 8, 2020

And Trump wasn’t done attacking Harris:

Trump's descriptions of Sen. Kamala Harris this morning: “This monster." "Totally unlikable." "She's a communist." (No.)— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) October 8, 2020

Drawing the attention fully back to himself the night after a mostly uneventful debate, Trump — who did not sound short of breath several days after being hospitalized — also announced his opposition to a virtual debate with Biden next week, criticized Attorney General Bill Barr for not yet indicting Joe Biden and Barack Obama for “the greatest political crime in the history of our country” (referring to the abstruse “Obamagate” faux scandal), ranted about Hillary Clinton’s emails, and said that he might have caught the coronavirus from a meeting with Gold Star families, among other highlights/lowlights.

Given the friendliness with which Trump’s wild notions are received by Bartiromo, one can imagine that her show will be a choice venue for him to complain about the unfairness of November’s election — even if he wins.

We Know Exactly How Amy Coney Barrett Feels About Abortion
Don’t let Republicans pretend otherwise.
By Sen. Elizabeth Warren

ABORTION RIGHTS OCT. 8, 2020
Photo: Pool - Getty Images


The decision whether or not to bear a child is “central to a woman’s life, to her dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself. When Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that 30 years ago, at her Supreme Court confirmation hearing. She understood that reproductive freedom is foundational to equality, and critical to women’s health and economic security. Without access to high-quality reproductive health care — including contraception and safe, legal abortion — we cannot have true equality.


But President Trump, Senate Republicans, and their extremist allies don’t care. They’ve spent almost four years of the Trump administration — and the many years before — undermining health care and turning back the clock on reproductive rights. That’s why they nominated Amy Coney Barrett to sit on the Supreme Court. She’s the ticket for a desperate, right-wing party that wants to hold onto power a little longer in order to impose its extremist agenda on the entire country.

President Trump and his Republican enablers have tried to deny this obvious fact. The president recently said that he “didn’t know” how Barrett would rule on reproductive rights, and Republicans in the Senate have fallen in line. The Republican Party knows the large majority of Americans don’t support overturning Roe v. Wade. They benefit when we stay on the sidelines — and they want us to sit back and stay quiet while our fundamental freedoms are on the line.

But we see right through their radical play.

President Trump picked Barrett as his Supreme Court nominee to take us back in time. Roe v. Wade established the constitutional right to safe and legal abortion and has been the law of the land for over 47 years. But over, and over, and over again, President Trump has bragged about his plans to appoint judges who would “automatically” overturn Roe. The Affordable Care Act expanded access to reproductive health care — like no-co-pay birth control — for millions. But President Trump has promised to overturn the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, and sent his Department of Justice to ask the Supreme Court to do just that.

Barrett is Trump’s ideal candidate to accomplish his plans. In 2006, she signed a newspaper ad calling for the end of Roe and describing the decision as “barbaric.” She was a member of an anti-choice group while on the University of Notre Dame faculty. She’s also been critical of the Affordable Care Act and the Supreme Court’s past decision to uphold the law in court. Her position on abortion and other reproductive rights are clear: She believes women cannot be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies.

If Barrett’s nomination makes you scared and angry, you’re right to be: 17 abortion-related cases are already one step away from the Supreme Court. Twenty-one states have laws that could be used to restrict abortion in the event Roe is overturned. And if Barrett’s confirmation is rammed through quickly, she’ll have the opportunity — on November 10 — to hear a case about overturning the Affordable Care Act, and a lifetime on the nation’s highest court to undermine the rights and values we hold dear.

Access to birth control has changed the economic futures of millions of women, and access to safe abortion care is an economic issue, too. For a young couple with modest wages and piles of student loan debt, the decision to start or expand a family is a powerful economic issue. For a woman working two jobs with two kids in day care, an unplanned pregnancy can upend budgets already stretched too far. For a student still in high school or working toward a college degree, it can derail the most careful plans for financial independence. Indeed, one of the most common reasons that women decide to have an abortion is because they can’t afford to raise a child.

And let’s be explicitly clear: If these attacks succeed, they will have disproportionately negative consequences for women of color, who are already facing some of the most insurmountable barriers to abortion care. Rich women will still have access to abortion and reproductive care, but it will be Black and Brown women, women with low incomes, women who can’t afford to take time off from work, and young women who were raped or molested by a family member who will be the most vulnerable.

But this isn’t a moment to back down. Already, it’s inspiring to see so many women and friends of women coming off the sidelines in this fight — and we must continue to speak up, call your senators, and make sure this conversation is grounded in our real experiences. Men must speak up, too, because reproductive freedom affects us all.

Voting is already underway across the country, and there are only 26 days before the election is completed. And the data shows most Americans want to wait until after the election for a new justice to be confirmed. Justice Ginsburg gave us our marching orders: Do not fill this Supreme Court seat until after the election when the next president is installed. We will fight hard together to honor her wish.

Pence’s Won’t Own Up to His Anti-Abortion Crusade
By Ed Kilgore 
VISION 2020 OCT. 8, 2020

The vice-president at one of his favorite venues, the annual March For Life. Photo: Erik S Lesser/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock

In public appearances, politicians avoid discussion of their more unpopular positions all the time. When they are at or near the top of a party ticket, moreover, they tend to downplay positions that divide their own team or that are under internal discussion. That’s why Joe Biden and Kamala Harris didn’t directly answer questions about hypothetical “court-packing” schemes that Democrats might or might not pursue if Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed as Trump’s third Supreme Court justice. And it’s why Donald Trump and Mike Pence evade blunt questions about the administration’s Cheshire cat of a health-care plan.

But lumping all the evasions together as functionally equivalent isn’t right. One particular Pence side step in Wednesday’s vice-presidential debate is astonishing if you know anything about the man’s long history as a crusader against legalized abortion. Asked by moderator Susan Page what he’d want his own state of Indiana to do if Roe v. Wade is reversed and states could outlaw abortion, Pence would not answer other than a vague reference to himself as “pro-life,” a term that means different things to different people. That Pence has any doubt whatsoever on exactly what he’d want Indiana to do in this suddenly very plausible hypothetical situation is preposterous, unless he’s been lying to us for his entire public career.


You don’t have to go very far to find out what Pence’s attitude toward the abortion laws of Indiana might be: As governor of the state from 2013 to 2016, he signed eight bills aimed at testing the willingness of federal courts to accept an erosion of reproductive rights while harassing abortion providers and the women who rely on them.

But during his six terms in the House, Pence established the crusading identity on this subject that led Marjorie Dannenfelser of the hard-line anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List to praise him as a “pro-life trailblazer” and the best of all possible choices as Trump’s 2016 running mate. He was best known for launching the relentless attacks on public funding for Planned Parenthood that soon became part of the anti-abortion movement’s playbook at every level of government. The “defund Planned Parenthood” campaign he began nearly led to a government shutdown in 2011 and again in 2015, and was a symbolic expression of the grip the ban-abortion cause had on the Republican Party.

And speaking of that grip, Pence’s GOP has for many, many years been united (with a dwindling and now nearly disappearing minority of dissenters) in insisting that Roe v. Wade be replaced not by some sort of live-and-let-live states’ rights position on abortion policy but with a constitutional amendment banning abortion nationwide permanently. (This Human Life Amendment has been in every Republican platform since 1980.) There have been occasional attempts (by presidential nominees in particular) to insist on exceptions for pregnancies that are the product of rape and incest, or that threaten the life of the woman being ordered to carry the pregnancy to term. But the basic principal of making abortion illegal has been sacrosanct, as Michael Kinsley explained in 2012:

Ever since [1984], with various rhetorical flourishes, the platform has contained the same four elements: 1) the unborn child has a “fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed”; 2) endorsement of a “human life” constitutional amendment; 3) a call for judges who “respect human life”; and 4) new laws to “make clear” that the fetus is a “person” under the 14th Amendment. Paul Ryan has co-sponsored such legislation, declaring that the fetus is a “person.”

An even more visible proponent of “personhood” legislation has been — you guessed it — Mike Pence. Brian Tashman explained the significance of this position when Pence joined Trump’s ticket in 2016:

Advocates of federal personhood bills believe that if Congress passes legislation defining “personhood” as beginning at conception, they can bypass and nullify Roe v. Wade, criminalizing abortion nationwide with no exceptions. While the personhood movement has traditionally sat on the far-right fringes of the anti-abortion movement, in recent years Republican politicians like Pence have brought the extremist cause into the GOP mainstream. Unlike more established abortion rights opponents that seek to cut off access to abortion and gradually outlaw the procedure, personhood activists want the government to immediately end abortion in all cases.

Dubious as it is as a legal theory for circumventing the Constitution, the “personhood” movement is also too radical for the taste of many abortion opponents, suggesting as it does that certain forms of contraception might be banned as interfering with the development of a fertilized ovum. Personhood ballot initiatives have lost badly in Colorado, North Dakota, and (most recently) Mississippi. That Pence is inclined to go that far is another indication, should you need one, that he has not an ounce of doubt about the righteousness of taking control of reproductive systems from sea to shining sea.

On top of his single-issue devotion to the anti-abortion cause, pursuing that cause to its logical end of outlawing all abortions is Job One for a Christian right religiopolitical movement that regards Pence as its indispensable champion in the court of our erratic president. Here’s how I described Pence’s importance to Trump’s “faithful believers” in a review of a recent book about Trump’s relationship with conservative evangelicals:

You can sense the authors’ nagging doubts, though, perhaps nourished by the new president’s nasty Twitter language and other forms of thuggish behavior toward critics. Near the very end of the book they bring in their star witness for Trump’s inner transformation: Vice-President Mike Pence, the Christian-right warhorse who constantly attests to the president’s reliance on both prayer and the prayer warriors (like Trump’s all-Evangelical Faith Advisory Committee) for whom Pence runs interference.

All in all, it’s as likely that Pence would stop short of a total abortion ban in a world where the Supreme Court didn’t stand in his way as it is that Bernie Sanders will become a hedge-fund manager or Donald Trump a soup-kitchen cook. It’s the one thing about him that is most certain. And it’s precisely why he and his allies are so excited about Barrett’s potential advent to the Supreme Court.

So Pence’s evasions say a lot about the dishonesty of the anti-abortion movement and its confidence that its cause is winning the hearts and minds of the American people. All the efforts to distract attention from their fundamental radicalism with hand-wringing over a tiny number of late-term abortions can’t disguise that basic fact.

Harris and Pence Represent Two Different Americas
By Eric Levitz@EricLevitz 
VISION 2020 OCT. 7, 2020

There’s no red America and blue America — only the disunited states of Pence America and Harris America. Photo-Illustration: Megan Paetzhold. Photos: Getty Images

Four years ago, Donald Trump chose Mike Pence as his running mate because the formerly pro-choice libertine needed an ambassador to the Evangelical right.

Two months ago, Joe Biden chose Kamala Harris as his would-be veep because the old white male moderate from Scranton wanted to energize the (comparatively) young, diverse, college-educated liberals who provide his party with an outsize share of its small-dollar donations and phone-banking volunteers.

Ticket-balancing is not a new practice. But the polarization of America’s parties, combined with the peculiar and antithetical balancing needs of Biden and Trump, have brought us the most ideologically and culturally disparate pair of major-party vice-presidential nominees in U.S. history.

Harris is the child of a pair of immigrant academics, one an Indian American biologist, the other a Jamaican American Marxist economist. Pence is the son of Roman Catholic gas-station owners. Harris’s childhood was divided between Berkeley and Montreal. She attended a French-speaking primary school and historically Black university. Pence grew up in an Indiana town of 20,000 people before leaving for Hanover College, less than 60 miles away.

Both became attorneys animated by a will to political power. But for a man of Pence’s social conservatism and geographical roots, the path to such power ran through a conversion to Evangelical Protestantism and the hosting of a local right-wing talk-radio show. For Harris, it meant balancing San Franciscans’ public-safety concerns with their bleeding-heart liberalism. As their careers progressed — and their nation’s politics steadily polarized — the two came to represent evermore disparate constituencies.

In CNN’s most recent national poll, Harris is 29 points more popular with college graduates than noncollege graduates, 65 points more popular with liberals than with moderates, 32 points more popular with women than men, and 27 points more popular with “people of color” than whites. Pence, meanwhile, is 24 points more popular with noncollege grads than college grads, 87 points more popular with conservatives than with moderates, 31 points more popular with men than with women, and 29 points more popular with whites than “people of color.” These splits make Pence and Harris an even more polarizing pair of figures than Trump and Biden, who both boast a bit more appeal among secular white working-class northerners than the median member of their parties.

The running mates’ respective die-hard fan bases are even more diametrically opposed than their sources of polling support. Pence’s place on the GOP ticket signals to white patriarchal Christians that the Trump administration will fight to preserve their embattled traditions and ethnocentric conception of American identity. Harris’s place on the Democratic ticket, by contrast, signals to liberal professionals and social-justice nonprofits that Biden will fight to erode traditional race- and gender-based hierarchies and fortify an ascendent, ecumenical, multiracial conception of Americanness. Beyond the culture war, as a California senator and presidential candidate, Harris paid tribute to the economic ambitions of various progressive groups and advocacy campaigns, while Pence’s fealty to the Koch Network has made him every bit as loyal a servant of Mammon as he is of (white right-wing) Christ.

In Salt Lake City Wednesday night, Harris and Pence will likely seek to spotlight the ways their disparate constituencies are out of sync with the median swing-state voter. Pence may needle Harris for supporting the decriminalization of illegal border-crossing, Hyde Amendment repeal, or the passage of the Green New Deal (defined, in this context, as a ban on fracking, beef, and airplanes). Harris will surely note Pence’s opposition to Roe v. Wade and universal health care, toxically unpopular stances that are newly salient amid the looming vote over Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.

The debate is certain to be more polite than last week’s meeting between Biden and Trump (whatever their differences, Pence and Harris are both disciplined professionals). But the division that these two figures represent (both politically and symbolically) in American life — between cosmopolitanism and provincialism, city and country, secularism and fundamentalism, feminist advance and patriarchal tradition, social justice and racial innocence — is starker than any their bosses collectively embody. Pence and Harris offer irreconcilable visions for America’s future. And that future will never be more than one actuarially plausible tragedy away.