Samples from China mission show Moon 'active' more recently than thought

China's Chang'e spacecraft brought lunar soil and rock samples to Earth last year - 

China National Space Administration (CNSA) via CNS/AFP/File

Beijing (AFP)

The first lunar rocks brought back to Earth in decades show the Moon was volcanically active more recently than previously thought, Chinese scientists said Tuesday.

A Chinese spacecraft carried lunar rocks and soil to Earth last year -- humanity's first mission in four decades to collect samples from the Moon, and a milestone for Beijing's growing space programme.

The samples included basalt -- a form of cooled lava -- from 2.03 billion years ago, scientists found, pushing the last known date of volcanic activity on the moon closer to the present day by as much as 900 million years.

Analysis of the samples "reveals that the Moon's interior was still evolving at around two billion years ago", the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) said in a statement.

Previous moon rocks brought back by US and Soviet missions showed evidence of lunar activity up to 2.8 billion years ago, but left a gap in scientists' knowledge about the more recent history of Earth's natural satellite as they were from older parts of the lunar surface.

The Chang'e-5 mission -- named after a mythical moon goddess -- collected two kilogrammes (4.5 pounds) of samples from a previously unexplored area of the moon called Mons Ruemker in the Oceanus Procellarum or "Ocean of Storms".

The area was selected as it was thought by scientists to be more recently formed, based on the lower density of craters from meteors on its surface.

The Chang'e mission was the first in decades to bring lunar samples to Earth 

WANG Zhao AFP/File

"Altogether those results are extremely exciting, providing amazing science and results on understanding the lunar formation and evolution over time," Audrey Bouvier, a planetology professor at Germany's University of Bayreuth, said in a video message at a Beijing press conference on Tuesday.

The latest findings -- published in three papers in the Nature journal on Tuesday -- open up new questions for scientists trying to decipher the history of the Moon.

"How did the Moon sustain volcanic activity for so long? The Moon is naturally small and should disperse heat quickly, or so the thinking goes," CAS researcher Li Xianhua, one of the authors of the studies, told reporters.

The Chang'e 5 samples marked a major step for the Chinese space programme, which has sent a rover to Mars and landed another craft on the far side of the Moon.

The country, racing to catch up with the United States and Russia, sent three astronauts to its new space station on Saturday, which is expected to become operational by 2022.

© 2021 AFP

Exposed: How big farm lobbies undermine EU's green agriculture plan

Farmers and lobby groups are split on an EU agricultural reform that may increase farmers' incomes and consumers' prices. 

A  DW joint report reveals a rift between farmers and the groups purporting to represent them.


An EU proposal calls for a more sustainable agriculture policy, but who will benefit from it most?

It is a long way from the farms and fields of Sezze in central Italy to the halls of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. But the decisions made at the European assembly this week can directly impact the lives of farmers like Valentina Pallavicino. Her farm in the plains between Rome and the Mediterranean is the kind that is often cited by policymakers and lobbyists when seeking support for changes to Europe's complex, subsidy-heavy agricultural system.

Pallavicino, like most Europeans, does not follow every twist and turn of farming reform debated by politicians in Brussels and Strasbourg, but she does discern two central aspects of the agricultural landscape with clarity: cheap food has been a boon for big, industrial farms and many farmers support sustainable farming.

"What they ask for we already do," she says when presented with some of the key elements of a new "green" strategy for the future of European farming, known as "Farm to Fork," which aims to slash pesticide and antimicrobial use, set a threshold on food waste, and rely on renewable energy to create a sustainable food system. "We don't use antibiotics, preservatives, or chemicals," she added.

Pallavicino says she is also wary of the organized lobby organizations claiming to speak in her name. It seems obvious, she says, that the big players do not like this kind of policy because it will increase costs and "they win if prices are lower."

Although they have never met, Polish dairy farmer Alina Lis has reached the same conclusions at her 30-hectare (74-acre) farm in western Poland, where she rears 40 cows.

"I believe agriculture in Europe should be sustainable for the sake of nature and food security," Lis says.

Lis has seen the margins on her milk fall as she competes with intensive farms that rely on heavy use of chemical fertilizers and antibiotics.
Who represents EU farmers?

The battle over who represents the true voice and interests of farmers like Pallavicino and Lis, and the millions of Europeans they feed, reaches a crescendo this week as the European Parliament prepares for a vote on a radical new direction for farming in the EU. Any changes the legislative body introduces require approval from EU member states before taking effect.

Farmers will receive support from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) budget, the EU's huge farming subsidy program that has paid out more than €50 billion ($58 billion) every year since 2005. Of the funding, 80% goes to 20% of the biggest farms in the EU.

Proponents of the Farm to Fork strategy, including green groups, say it will reduce farming's share of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions while keeping food affordable. An assessment by the Commission's in-house scientists found the strategy could support farmers and cut agriculture-related emissions by 20% across the EU.

Yet, it has come under fire from the powerful agribusiness lobby that says the proposal is not scientifically viable, will push up prices for consumers and goes against the interests of EU farmers.

Documents reviewed by DW showed these groups want to get rid of specific targets for reducing the use of pesticides and fertilizers, references to health risks associated with intensive farming, requirements to increase transparency by labeling products, and the ability of member states to impose higher taxes on unsustainable products.

But the same interest groups have also been accused of abusing science, skewing media coverage and failing the farmers they claim to represent.
Big lobbies, small farmers

In a months-long joint investigation, investigative newsroom Lighthouse Reports, DW, Follow the Money, Mediapart and Domani spoke to nearly 30 farmers, politicians, scientists, lobby groups and experts and scanned confidential communications to reveal lobbying organizations' scope and influence.

What emerges is a portrait of wealthy industrial pressure groups — from petrochemical companies and multinational meat-packing giants to pharmaceutical businesses — that have a stubborn hold over EU policy as well as critical differences with the family farmers whose welfare they are supposed to defend.

A rift has emerged within the farming community, between those who want to continue expanding an industrial farming model, which experts say is damaging the environment, and others who prefer a smaller-scale, more ecologically friendly form of agriculture.

How is EU agricultural money spent?

Most independent farmers say they welcome the price increases, focusing on the environmental costs of agriculture and fair trade practices. Many also say the big lobby groups do not speak for them.

"I do not feel represented by farmer lobby groups... small farms in Poland are collapsing," said Lis.

Marcin Wojcik, who owns a 270-hectare farm in the Low Beskid mountains in Poland, agreed.

"For two years, I was vice-president of Narodowy Fundusz Promocji Mięsa Wołowego, but I resigned because I didn't relate to those people and what they do," he says. "It was more of politics. It was unclear where the money was going."

Farm to Fork a 'win-win for total society'

Farming lobby groups including Copa-Cogeca, Liaison Centre for the Meat Processing Industry in the European Union (Clitravi), European Livestock Voice, European Dairy Association and CropLife Europe have commissioned studies that attack the Farm to Fork strategy.

A study financed by the Grain Club, an alliance of German grain companies, and carried out by the University of Kiel, shows implementing the Farm to Fork plan would cause Europe's agricultural production to decrease, prices to rise and the continent to become more dependent on imports.

Copa-Cogeca has used the study to criticize the Farm to Fork strategy without mentioning that the report also shows the income and welfare of farmers, especially livestock farmers, could be significantly improved.

The study's author, scientist Christian Henning, pointed this out in an interview with DW: "The green deal is potentially a win-win situation for total society as the benefits more than compensate for losses from reduced conventional farm production."

The green deal Henning refers to is a set of proposals adopted by the European Commission on July 14 to ensure the EU's climate, energy, transport and taxation policies reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels. Farm to Fork is "at the heart" of the Green Deal, the Commission has said, adding that farming is responsible for 10% of the EU's greenhouse gas emissions.

Farming in Italy is at a crossroads

Another publication commissioned by CropLife, which lobbies on behalf of pesticide manufacturers and other players in the agri-food industry, and used by Copa-Cogeca, comes from the Netherlands' Wageningen University. It concludes that if Farm to Fork is implemented, prices will rise and meat production will fall by 10% to 15% and crop production by 10% to 20%.

Jean-Baptiste Boucher, Copa-Cogeca's communications director, told DW such studies showed "many blind spots" of Farm to Fork and accused NGOs of "a deliberate attempt to trigger a media backlash" for speaking out against the strategy.

However, the research did not address "the positive impact of the Farm to Fork strategy on climate change," the proposal's main objective, admitted Johan Bremmer, an author of the Wageningen report.
Paid for Farm to Fork disinformation?

In the span of two days, the Wageningen report was presented at a conference on the media platform Euractiv, which produced articles critical of the Farm to Fork initiative, and at a special event organized by pro-meat group European Livestock Voice.

CropLife paid for the Euractiv event. A scan of the platform's website showed that of the seven events organized by Euractiv with "Farm to Fork" in the title over the past two years, six were sponsored by the agri-food industry.

Chris Powers, communications director of Euractiv, says that while the organization was paid to host the events, Euractiv values impartial, inclusive and constructive debates.

Small-scale farmers left in the dark

The sustained campaign against Farm to Fork has confused small-scale farmers who were already struggling to stay profitable and are unsure whether to welcome all the proposed measures.

Dutch dairy farmer Peter Gille says low margins and high costs have made it difficult for many farmers like himself to secure their future. He has set up side businesses, including a nursery, a camping site and a restaurant, to supplement his income.

Susan Malhieu, a 29-year-old dairy farmer in Ypres, Belgium, said while some of the strategy's policies will work, environmentally friendly farming will cost money.

"I am a bit concerned this has not been addressed very well in Farm to Fork," she said. "I am fine with having environmental targets ... but to meet the targets, will the monetary help be delivered?"

Italian farmer Emanuele Pullano thinks raising awareness amongst consumers is crucial.

"We need to make people understand that they might be spending those extra two euros but buying a product that is healthy for themselves and for the environment. In this way, the price increase can be digested."

Celine VanKerschaver, 29, international representative for Grone King, the organization for young farmers in Belgium, said Farm to Fork could help the EU achieve more coherence within the food chain and improve the social and environmental aspects of farming. But politicians should listen to farmers, not just lobbies, she says.

"We want more recognition for small and young farmers because they are the next generation," she says. "There is a lot of talking about farmers but not with farmers."

Emotional support animals can endanger the public and make life harder for people like me who rely on service dogs


Deni Elliott,

 Eleanor Poynter Jamison Chair in Media Ethics and Press Policy;

 Co-Chief Project Officer on the National Ethics Project,

 University of South Florida

Sun, October 17, 2021

The U.S. currently has no system to differentiate real service dogs from pets.

Cheryl Paz/Shutterstock.com

In 2017, Marlin Jackson boarded a cross-country flight. When he got to his row, another passenger was already in the middle seat with an emotional support dog in his lap.

According to Mr. Jackson’s attorney, “The approximately 50-pound dog growled at Mr. Jackson soon after he took his seat…and continued as Mr. Jackson attempted to buckle his seatbelt. The growling increased and the dog lunged for Mr. Jackson’s face…who could not escape due to his position against the plane’s window.” Facial wounds requiring 28 stitches were the result.

Untrained emotional support dogs don’t just attack people. They attack highly trained service dogs, as well, sometimes ending their working lives.

I can relate. I am a visually impaired person partnering with my fourth guide dog over a 20-year period. In the past decade, I have increasingly needed to cope with clueless handlers allowing their pets to interfere with my dog’s work.

As a professor of ethics, I teach students to consider first the needs of the most vulnerable. I wish I could teach the same lesson to those who risk public safety with their ill-trained dogs, most of whom are emotional support animals, a category not recognized by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Dogs, dogs, dogs

Over the past decade, purported emotional support animals have increasingly appeared in stores, restaurants and airports. While peacocks, pigs and kangaroos make the headlines, almost all the animals found in no-pet zones are dogs. Dog biting, barking, growling, urinating and defecating are top complaints, with one airline reporting an 84% increase in dog-related incidents from 2016-2018.

The influx of inappropriate dogs has also generated unwarranted suspicion toward the approximately 10,000 Americans who, like me, partner with legitimate, trained guide dogs.

Animal public access in the U.S. is currently governed by a patchwork system of inconsistent laws, creating confusion for people with disabilities, citizens and, particularly, gatekeepers – the store managers, restaurant owners and building supervisors tasked with deciding which dogs should be allowed in their no-pet spaces.

dog straining on leash walking a plane's aisle

In other countries, IDs are issued only to professionally trained service dogs who have demonstrated ability to behave in public. In the U.S., there is no such validation. As a result, pet owners have become increasingly brazen in fraudulently claiming their animals warrant legal public access.

Service dogs versus emotional support animals

The Department of Justice, which enforces the Americans with Disabilities Act, allows people with physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual or mental impairments to have public access with service dogs who have been individually trained to perform tasks that mitigate their owners’ disabilities.

The Department of Transportation and Department of Housing and Urban Development allow service dogs on public transportation and in housing, respectively, but also grant access to people with mental and emotional disorders accompanied by emotional support animals – untrained animals who need only to contribute to their owners’ emotional well being, as any good pet would.

Technically, the individual seeking access with an emotional support animal must have certification of a mental or emotional disorder, which is a much lower standard than the disability requirement of DOJ.

Some mental health professionals have been willing to attest to an individual’s “need” for an emotional support animal without having a professional relationship with them. And none vouches for the appropriateness of specific animals.

ADA service dogs may legally accompany their handlers almost anywhere. Emotional support animals may not. For example, emotional support animals currently allowed in aircraft cabins are not legally permitted in airport shops and restaurants. Emotional support animals allowed to live in college dorms may not go with their owners to class or the cafeteria.

Online purveyors of official-looking letters, vests and patches guaranteed to get dogs access in pet-free zones take advantage of the confusion between service dogs and emotional support animals, liberally mixing the classifications. They also fail to mention that the individual seeking such accommodation must have proof of a mental disorder. This omission, itself, is an ethical problem.

A predicament for gatekeepers

Gatekeepers have to weigh the consequences of confronting an individual accompanied by a dog. Denial of access to a disabled handler with a legitimate service dog can result in a US$10,000 fine by the DOJ. The fine for a handler who falsely portrays a pet as a service dog or emotional support animal ranges from $100 to $1,000 and happens only if the handler supplies identification or waits for the police.

For now, it’s ‘all aboard.’ Robert Nickelsberg/Archive Photos via Getty Images

It is cheaper and easier for gatekeepers to just hope that questionable dogs don’t put patrons at risk. Airline attendants face a unenviable dilemma, as passengers cannot escape aggressive or stressed dogs in the tight confines of an airplane.
Change on the horizon?

There are recent signs that DOT and HUD are moving toward DOJ’s more stringent regulations. On Feb. 5, 2020, DOT opened a 60-day public comment period for a plan that would reclassify emotional support animals as pets and restrict free aircraft cabin access only to service dogs. HUD recently posted new guidelines to help housing providers better determine animal access.

In my view, more federal intervention is needed. Medical documentation of disability should be the entry point for service dog access, just as it is for handicapped parking permits. Offering a nationally recognizable ID for service dog owners who voluntarily provide documentation would eliminate some fraud.

Ideally, a dog’s ability to behave appropriately in public should be proven prior to access and affirmed annually by testers, who use a public access test to verify a dog’s manners and handling of disability-specific tasks, such as that developed by Assistance Dogs International or those performed by all U.S. guide dog schools.

Some argue documentation and testing is burdensome or a violation of disabled people’s civil rights. But physicians, who diagnose ADA-defined disabilities, already provide their patients verification for state and federal benefits. Behavior tests assure handlers their dogs can work in stressful situations. And ensuring public safety protects the civil rights of all people.

Ivermectin has been a lifesaving drug for people with parasitic infections like river blindness and strongyloidiasis. 

But taking it for COVID-19 may result in the opposite effect.

Mon, 18 Oct 2021 

 Jeffrey R. Aeschlimann, Associate Professor of Pharmacy, University of Connecticut

While ivermectin was originally used to treat river blindness, it has also been repurposed to treat other human parasitic infections.

Ivermectin is an over 30-year-old wonder drug that treats life- and sight-threatening parasitic infections. Its lasting influence on global health has been so profound that two of the key researchers in its discovery and development won the Nobel Prize in 2015.

I’ve been an infectious disease pharmacist for over 25 years. I’ve also managed patients who delayed proper treatment for their severe COVID-19 infections because they thought ivermectin could cure them.

Although ivermectin has been a game-changer for people with certain infectious diseases, it isn’t going to save patients from COVID-19 infection. In fact, it could cost them their lives.

Let me tell you a short story about the history of ivermectin.

Developing ivermectin for animal use

Ivermectin was first identified in the 1970s during a veterinary drug screening project at Merck Pharmaceuticals. Researchers focused on discovering chemicals that could potentially treat parasitic infections in animals. Common parasites include nematodes, such as flatworms and roundworms, and arthropods, such as fleas and lice. All of these infectious organisms are quite different from viruses.

Merck partnered with the Kitasato Institute, a medical research facility in Japan. Satoshi Omura and his team isolated a group of chemicals called avermectin from bacteria found in a single soil sample near a Japanese golf course. To my knowledge, avermectin has yet to be found in any other soil sample in the world.

Research on avermectin continued for approximately five years. Soon, Merck and the Kitasato Institute developed a less toxic form they named ivermectin. It was approved in 1981 for commercial use in veterinary medicine for parasitic infections in livestock and domestic pets with the brand name Ivomec.The chemical compounds that make up ivermectin were first discovered in bacteria found in the soil of a Japanese golf course. Pak Sang Lee/flickr, CC BY-NC

Developing ivermectin for human use

Early experiments by William Campbell and his team from Merck discovered that the drug also worked against a human parasite that causes an infection called river blindness.

River blindness, also known as onchocerciasis, is the second leading cause of preventable blindness in the world. It is transmitted to humans from blackflies carrying the parasitic worm Onchocerca volvulus and occurs predominantly in Africa.

Ivermectin underwent trials to treat river blindness in 1982 and was approved in 1987. It has since been distributed free of charge through the Mectizan Donation Program to dozens of countries. Thanks to ivermectin, river blindness has been essentially eliminated in 11 Latin American countries, preventing approximately 600,000 cases of blindness.

These two decades of extensive work to discover, develop and distribute ivermectin helped to significantly reduce human suffering from river blindness. It’s these efforts that were recognized by the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, awarded to both William Campbell and Satoshi Omura for their leadership on this groundbreaking research.Satoshi Omura and William Campbell were awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their research on ivermectin. Bengt Nyman/Wikimedia Commons

Repurposing drugs for other uses

Infectious disease researchers frequently attempt to repurpose antimicrobials and other medications to treat infections. Drug repurposing is attractive because the approval process can happen more quickly and at a lower cost since nearly all of the basic research has already been completed.

In the years since it was approved to treat river blindness, ivermectin was also shown to be highly effective against other parasitic infections. This includes strongyloidiasis, an intestinal roundworm infection that affects an estimated 30 to 100 million people worldwide.

Another example is amphotericin B, originally approved to treat human yeast and mold infections. Researchers discovered it can also be an effective treatment for severe forms of leishmaniasis, a parasitic infection prevalent in tropical and subtropical countries.

Likewise, doxycycline is an antibiotic used for a wide variety of human bacterial infections such as pneumonia and Lyme disease. It was later found to also be highly effective in preventing and treating malaria.Ivermectin has been used to treat strongyloidiasis, an intestinal infection that can be life-threatening for the immunocompromised. jarun011/iStock via Getty Images Plus
Repurposing drugs for COVID-19

Not every attempt at repurposing a drug works as hoped, however.

At the start of the pandemic, scientists and doctors tried to find inexpensive medications to repurpose for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were two of those drugs. They were chosen because of possible antiviral effects documented in laboratory studies and limited anecdotal case reports from the first COVID-19 outbreaks in China. However, large clinical studies of these drugs to treat COVID-19 did not translate to any meaningful benefits. This was partly due to the serious toxic effects patients experienced before the drugs reached a high enough dose to inhibit or kill the virus.

Unfortunately, lessons from these failed attempts have not been applied to ivermectin. The false hope around using ivermectin to treat COVID-19 originated from an April 2020 laboratory study in Australia. Although the results from this study were widely circulated, I immediately had serious doubts. The concentration of ivermectin they tested was 20 to 2,000 times higher than the standard dosages used to treat human parasitic infections. Indeed, many other pharmaceutical experts confirmed my initial concerns within a month of the paper’s publication. Such high concentrations of the drug could be significantly toxic.

Another commonly cited paper on ivermectin’s purported effects against COVID-19 was withdrawn in July 2021 after scientists found serious flaws with the study. These flaws ranged from incorrect statistical analyses to discrepancies between collected data and published results to duplicated patient records and the inclusion of study subjects who died before even entering the study. Even more concerning, at least two other oft-cited studies have raised significant concerns about scientific fraud.


Hand holding a blister packet of ivermectin.

Satoshi Omura and William Campbell.

Microscopic image of strongyloides stercoralis in human stool

At the time of this writing, two large randomized clinical trials both showed no significant benefit from the use of ivermectin for COVID-19. Reputable national and international health care organizations, including the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, unanimously recommend against the use of ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19 unless in the context of a clinical trial.

Consequences of using ivermectin for COVID-19

Unfortunately, many organizations with dubious intentions have continued to promote unsubstantiated use of invermectin for COVID-19. This has led to a dramatic rise in ivermectin prescriptions and a flood of calls to U.S. poison control centers for ivermectin overdoses. Many calls were due to ingestion of large amounts of veterinary products containing ivermectin – two deaths linked to ivermectin overdose were reported in September 2021.

Ivermectin, when used correctly, has prevented millions of potentially fatal and debilitating infectious diseases. It’s meant to be prescribed only to treat infections caused by parasites. It’s not meant to be prescribed by parasites looking to extract money from desperate people during a pandemic. It’s my sincere hope that this unfortunate and tragic chapter in the otherwise incredible story of a lifesaving medication will come to a quick end.

Article updated to indicate that the brand name for veterinary ivermectin is Ivomec

[Like what you’ve read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter.]

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Jeffrey R. Aeschlimann, University of Connecticut.

Read more:



New treatments for COVID-19 may stave off the worst effects of the virus


Why aren’t we curing the world’s most curable diseases?


Get ready for the invasion of smart building technologies following COVID-19

Jeffrey R. Aeschlimann has received funding from the NIH for collaborative research projects focusing on bacterial antibiotic resistance.

 Fox News Hosts Trashed For ‘Disgraceful’ Spin On Colin Powell’s Death

Lee Moran
Tue, October 19, 2021

Personalities on Fox News have been slammed for using the death of former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell from complications of COVID-19 to question the effectiveness of coronavirus vaccines.

Tucker Carlson, Will Cain and John Roberts each faced backlash for their coverage. Powell, 84, was fully vaccinated but also had multiple myeloma, a blood cancer that attacks the immune system, making him more susceptible to the effects of the virus.

Cain used the news of Powell’s death to rail against President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandates, claim there’d be calls for “more truth from our government” and note that fully vaccinated people are being hospitalized and dying from COVID-19, even though the vast majority of victims now are unvaccinated.

Roberts deleted a widely criticized tweet saying Powell’s death “raises new questions” about the shots, replacing it with a thread saying he was not anti-vaccine.

Carlson, meanwhile, suggested Americans are “being lied to” about the vaccines. He did not appear to reference Powell’s other health issues until the end of his broadcast.

CNN’s Don Lemon ripped Fox News for its response.

“The man had just died and this guy couldn’t wait to make it into a fight about vaccine mandates. It is disgraceful,” he said of Cain.

Others agreed:

This article originally appeared on HuffPost and has been updated.

Turkey summons 10 ambassadors after call for philanthropist's release


FILE PHOTO: Re-trial of philanthropist Osman Kavala in Istanbul


Mon, October 18, 2021, 4:51 PM·2 min read

ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Turkey's foreign ministry summoned the ambassadors of 10 countries, including the United States, Germany and France, over a statement calling for the urgent release of philanthropist Osman Kavala, state-owned Anadolu agency said on Tuesday.

The statement, shared by some of the embassies on Monday, called for a just and speedy resolution to Kavala's case, four years after he was jailed, saying the case "cast a shadow over respect for democracy."

Kavala, a businessman, has been in jail in Turkey for four years without being convicted, despite the European Court of Human Rights calling for his release.

He was acquitted last year of charges related to nationwide protests in 2013, but the ruling was overturned this year and combined with charges in another case related to a coup attempt in 2016.

Rights groups have described the trials against Kavala as symbolic of a crackdown on dissent under President Tayyip Erdogan.

"The continuing delays in his trial, including by merging different cases and creating new ones after a previous acquittal, cast a shadow over respect for democracy, the rule of law and transparency in the Turkish judiciary system," the embassies said in the statement.

"Noting the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights on the matter, we call for Turkey to secure his urgent release," the statement said.

The other countries named in the statement were Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Finland and New Zealand.

In response, Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu said Turkey is a democratic state of law. "Ambassadors making a recommendation and suggestion to the judiciary in an ongoing case is unacceptable," he said on Twitter.

"Your recommendation and suggestion cast a shadow on your understanding of law and democracy," Soylu said.

Justice Minister Abdulhamit Gul said diplomats need to respect laws and ambassadors cannot make suggestions to courts.

The Council of Europe has said it will begin infringement proceedings against Turkey if Kavala is not released.

The next hearing in the case against Kavala, who has denied all charges, and others will be held on Nov. 26.

(Reporting by Ali Kucukgocmen; Editing by Giles Elgood and Karishma Singh)

Millions of Years Ago, Our Ancestors Had Tails — But We Can Thank a Gene Mutation for Why We Don't


Daisy Hernandez
Mon, October 18, 2021

Photo credit: Daniel Day - Getty Images

A new study seems to have found the reason why humans don’t have tails even though our ancestors did.

In their study, a group of researchers found that a mutation of the TBXT gene caused rat embryos to develop stunted tails or no tails at all.

The researchers hypothesize that 20 million years ago, a random human ancestor was struck by the TBXT gene mutation and passed the tailless trait to its offspring for several generations. Eventually, humans evolved with this mutation which is why we don't have tails.

Millions of years ago, our ancestors had tails. So, why don’t we?

The short answer, of course, is we lost the ability and need to grow tails thanks to evolution. The longer, more accurate explanation is one that scientists have been working to figure out and now we might finally have an answer: genetic mutation.

In a new study, New York-based researchers theorize that the mutation was mediated by the addition of a short segment of DNA—known as an Alu element—and is the reason why humans and apes do not have tails but monkeys do. In fact, the question of why humans lack tails has plagued Bo Xia, an NYU Grossman School of Medicine stem cell biology graduate student, since he was a child, he told the New York Times.

In an effort to find some answers, Xia studied embryo development with a particular focus on which genes were activated and which were turned off at different points during the growth within the womb. He also analyzed tail development in other animals and compared the DNA of tailless apes to monkeys with tails.

Because scientists have previously discovered over 30 genes responsible for tail development in various animals—including Manx cats who famously have no tail or a small nub for a tail caused by a genetic mutation—Xia theorized that the same had happened to our ancestors, and eventually, us.

Photo credit: Angie Selman / EyeEm - Getty Images

After comparing the apes and monkeys, Xia made an exciting discovery: a mutation in the TBXT gene was evident in humans and apes but not seen in monkeys. To test the theory that this gene was the genetic mechanism responsible for tail loss in humans, Xia and his team genetically modified mice embryos to see what would happen.

They found that the addition of the TBXT gene resulted in some mice having no tails while others developed short, stubby tails.

This led Xia and colleagues to hypothesize that 20 million years ago, a random gene mutation in an ape caused it to either develop a shortened nub of a tail or no tail at all. That ape then passed the trait down to its offspring and the mutation continued to rapidly make its way down several genealogies until it reached us.

Still, the question remains as to why the loss of a tail was beneficial to our ancestors. Did tails get in the way more than they helped? Plus, there was the increased risk of developing neural tube defects (NTD) which could adversely affect the brain and spine. Developing NTDs is still a concern during pregnancy which is why the CDC recommends “all women of reproductive age ... get 400 micrograms (mcg) of folic acid every day” in an effort to prevent the defects.

We may not yet know what the advantage was to losing our tails, but further research may one day be able to pinpoint the answer.

HUNTING PREDATORS IS A MALE EGO TRIP
Massive male cougar captured, tagged in 2018 by biologists legally killed by hunter in northeast Washington

Eli Francovich, The Spokesman-Review, Spokane, Wash.
Sun, October 17, 2021,

Oct. 17—A massive male cougar that was captured and tagged by biologists in 2018 was legally killed by a hunter on Sept. 9 in Eastern Washington.

In 2018, the tom cougar weighed 197 pounds, its head was 56 centimeters in circumference and it was 9 years old, according to Bart George, a wildlife biologist for the Kalispel Tribe who captured the cougar in 2018. The cougar was so large that biologists had to dart him twice. He was so muscular that one of the darts popped out when the animal flexed his thigh muscle. On average, tom cougars weight between 150 and 155 pounds.

At that time, the animal was captured and collared as part of Washington's ongoing predator-prey project, which is attempting to better understand the relationship between wolves and ungulates. A secondary consideration, however, is how wolves and cougars interact.

In 2018, the cougar was the largest captured cougar in Washington.

"Congratulations to the hunter, that's a big mature animal that has very likely sired lots of offspring in the region," George said in a text. "The removal of the big cat will make room for another mature male to fill his niche."

On Sept. 9, Brandon Reed was fishing and camping with his girlfriend and two children on Carl's Lake. That morning, they went for a hike around the lake, and he scrambled up to a rocky outcropping for scout for elk. Reed started searching a nearby drainage with his binoculars when he saw the tom cat lying under a tree.

"I'm glassing and laying clear across this drainage was a cat and a big cat," he said. "It struck me as huge. Laying there like your normal house cat."

Reed, who had his Tikka .300 mag rifle with him, went to the ground and sighted in on the tom. He estimated the shot was between 300 and 350 yards.

Reed figured that with a target so small, he would either hit the cat or completely miss.

"I'm either going to be high, low or I'm going to hit it," he said.

He fired, the recoil knocking him off the scope.

When he got the scope back on the cat, he saw it do two flips down the drainage before it disappeared into the tree line.

Reed hiked back to his truck and family, grabbed a shotgun and then went to retrieve the cat. He found the tom wrapped around a tree downhill from where he'd been lying. He also brought a rangefinder and found that he'd shot at 366 yards. He also found the collar and tag placed on the animal in 2018 and he notified state and tribal biologists.

Over the next several hours, Reed skinned the cat and packed out between 50 and 60 pounds of meat in addition to its hide and skull. He's waiting for the skull to be processed at the taxidermist and will submit it to check for a world record.

The largest cougar shot, according to the Boone and Crockett Club's record, was killed in 1979 by Douglas E. Schuk in British Columbia. The skull scored 16 4/16 points. The Boone and Crockett Club's runner-up cougar was killed in Idaho's Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness by Gene R. Alford of Kamiah, Idaho, in 1988.

"Truth of the matter is I want it to be a record," Reed said.

Farmer jailed over cruelty that led to ‘UK’s biggest animal rescue mission’

Telegraph reporters
Sun, October 17, 2021

Animal welfare officers at the farm of Geoffrey Bennett, where they found more than 200 animals being kept in vile conditions

A farmer has been jailed after more than 200 animals were freed from vile conditions in what has been described as the “UK’s biggest rescue mission”.

In total, 22 animals had to be put down or died following their rescue from Geoffrey Bennett’s farm. The 68-year-old left two starving ponies suffering with disease caused by parasites and a goat that was so ill it collapsed in its pen.

All those animals were so sick they had to be put down by vets when Hurst Farm in Ripley, Surrey, was raided by police in January 2019.

Despite receiving urgent treatment, another 14 horses that had been weakened by worms and parasitic disease died. Two dogs, a goat, a chicken and a duck also died, the RSPCA said.

Officers found herds of ponies riddled with worms and living out in fields with hazardous metal underfoot and broken fencing sticking up from the thick mud.

Inside two barns were pens filled with donkeys, goats, alpacas and ponies squashed in together, standing on top of months worth of waste and faeces.

Many were malnourished and had been suffering from underlying health conditions, the RSPCA said.

Dozens of dogs - some pregnant and others with tiny puppies in tow - were found chained and tethered on the “filthy” yard, while others were shut inside “tiny cramped cages” and makeshift kennels.

Dozens of dogs were found in cramped cages

After being rescued, several animals were born in care of the RSPCA, including 20 foals, six goat kids, one alpaca and nine puppies. Two puppies died and two ponies were stillborn.

A total of 204 animals were discovered at the site, with 131 horses, 33 dogs, two alpacas, donkeys, goats, chickens, ducks and birds all requiring veterinary treatment.

Bennett admitted to failing to provide the stricken animals with enough nutritious food and not seeking treatment for them when they became ill.

At Guildford Crown Court, Bennett was given a 19-week jail sentence and was disqualified from owning animals for life, after admitting to a string of animal abuse offences.

He pleaded guilty to two Animal Welfare Act offences as well as six charges of failing to dispose of animal by-products after rescuers found bones and skeleton parts buried among the muck and wrapped in rugs.

Sentencing Bennett, the judge took into account his guilty plea, age and health problems, but added that due to the severity of the crimes, he had to be jailed.

Geoffrey Bennett has been given a 19-week jail sentence and was disqualified from owning animals for life

Recorder Darren Reed also ordered that Bennett receive 12 months supervision on release from prison.

As he sentenced him, Recorder Reed said: “They [the prison service] will show you responsibility and care many times greater than you showed the animals in your care.”

PC Hollie Iribar, from Surrey Police, said the case was “one of the most difficult” she had ever seen.
‘One of the most difficult cases’ officers had seen

She added: “As a Rural and Wildlife Crime Officer for Surrey Police, I have witnessed some devastating acts of animal cruelty over the years.

“This was one of the most difficult cases I’ve seen, and I am grateful to the RSPCA and our other partner agencies for the hard work put in to bring this case to trial.

“I’m very glad that this heartbreaking case has seen a resolution in the courts, and that the animals involved were rescued and given a second chance at a happy and healthy life.”

Kirsty Withnall, of the RSPCA, coordinated the rescue mission and led the investigation. She said: “The RSPCA and World Horse Welfare officers had received complaints about the farm and had been looking into these concerns and gathering evidence.

“This was a huge multi-agency rescue mission which was the culmination of weeks of planning and evidence gathering. In total, there were 100 staff from different agencies working on the case to help round up the animals.

“It took almost 12 hours on the day to assess all of the animals, load them into horseboxes and animal ambulances, and move them off-site; making it one of the biggest coordinated rescue missions the UK has ever seen.”

More oil trains will run through Minnesota, Twin Cities



Mike Hughlett, Star Tribune
Sun, October 17, 2021, 4:00 PM·6 min read

A new Canadian railroad venture is sparking a significant increase of 15 to 20 oil trains that run through Minnesota each month.

Canadian Pacific Railway's specialized new Canadian crude cargoes run on its main line, which bisects the Twin Cities. And the Canadian rail giant's recent deal to purchase a major U.S. railroad will likely make its new oil service even more appealing to shippers.

Oil-by-rail has stoked safety concerns in Minnesota and elsewhere since 2013 when an oil train in Quebec caught fire and exploded, killing 47 people.Since then, several more oil trains in North America have derailed and spilled, some catching fire.

Canadian Pacific declined to say how many of the new oil trains it's currently running. But during a conference call with analysts in July, the railroad's chief marketing officer said he expects "business to ramp up to 15 to 20 trains per month during the third quarter," which ended Sept. 30. Their destination: Port Arthur, Texas.

Canadian Pacific and the company behind the new Alberta, Canada, rail venture, USD Partners, say they're using a new technology that makes shipping oil safe enough it need not be categorized as a flammable hazardous cargo.

"From an innovation, sustainability and safety perspective, this is a game changer," Canadian Pacific CEO Keith Creel said in 2019 when the project was announced.

USD Partners said testing of its proprietary oil blend indicates that if it's spilled into water during a derailment, it will float. Unlike lighter oil, heavy Canadian crude can eventually sink and diffuse, making cleanup efforts more difficult.

But the venture and USD's claims have some skeptics.

"There are a lot of problems with this proposal and the complete lack of transparency around it," said Frank Hornstein, the Minneapolis DFLer who heads the Minnesota House's Transportation Finance and Policy Committee.

"We don't know the characteristics of this material being transported," he said. "We have to depend on the company making a profit off of it to guarantee its safety."

Plus, Hornstein said it's imprudent to launch such new fossil fuel projects "at a time when a climate emergency is building day by day."

Most Canadian crude bound for the United States — by far Canada's biggest oil export market — travels on pipelines, particularly Enbridge's corridor of six lines across Minnesota. Enbridge recently completed a $3 billion-plus pipeline to replace Line 3, which was corroding and able to operate only at 50% of capacity.

One of Enbridge's arguments for the controversial pipeline was that without it, the number of oil trains in Minnesota would multiply, said Laura Triplett, a geology and environmental studies professor at Gustavus Adolphus College.

"Now we are getting more trains anyway," she said.

The Canadian Pacific's route runs the length and breadth of Minnesota, hugging the Mississippi River in the southeast. For the past 21 months, Department of Public Safety records indicate CP is the largest rail shipper of oil in the state.

Volume varies considerably. For the week ending Oct. 3, CP had five to six hazardous trains running through the most heavily trafficked counties for those types of loads. For the week ending Sept. 5, that count was 16 to 19. Crude oil and ethanol generally make up the bulk of hazardous rail cargoes.

The new oil trains running from USD's terminal aren't likely to be tallied in those state counts. USD said the oil is not hazardous cargo as defined under U.S. and Canadian transportation regulations.

Heavy Canadian crude, known as bitumen, is considerably less volatile and combustible than lighter oil from North Dakota, which was at the heart of the massive accident in Quebec eight years ago. But Canadian crude can still catch fire.

A Canadian Pacific train derailed in rural Saskatchewan in February 2020, spilling around 400,000 gallons of oil, which ignited. A similarly-sized CP derailment and oil spill two months earlier in Saskatchewan also burned.

USD says oil processed through its new technology is not flammable — and therefore not hazardous. A key to that claim involves something called diluent.

Bitumen from Canada's oil sands is so thick that it's often extracted from big open pit mines, a particularly carbon-intensive process. To make the stuff fluid enough to transport, oil shippers use diluent made from lighter — and more flammable — hydrocarbons.

Diluent typically makes up about 30% of the oil shipped through pipelines. Sometimes, oil will be moved directly off pipelines to railcars with that 30% diluent level maintained. Other times, trains will transport heavy crude with about 15% diluent.

USD Partners' said that with its "DRUbit" process, the diluent level of a barrel of oil is reduced to 5% and the diluent that remains has fewer light hydrocarbons.

"By design, DRUbit reduces diluent to allow the product to not meet the flammable and hazardous classifications of the U.S. Department of Transportation and Canada's Transport of Dangerous Goods regulations," USD said in a statement to the Star Tribune.

Canadian Pacific, also in a statement, said, "DRUbit is specifically designed for safe rail transportation."

U.S. and Canadian transportation regulators say it is the shipper's responsibility to classify whether oil and other cargoes are hazardous.

For years, companies in Canada's oil patch have been working on ways to remove diluent from rail cars — and not just for safety reasons. Economics plays a key role.

Diluent is a low-value product that adds costs to shipping, said Kevin Birn, a Calgary-based oil industry analyst for IHS Markit. "It basically occupies space."

USD's terminal in Hardisty, Alberta — a joint venture with the Canadian firm Gibson Energy — receives crude from pipelines with 30% diluent. It recycles much of that diluent and ships it back to Alberta oil producers to reuse, a particularly cost-effective measure.

Publicly traded USD Partners has a long-term agreement with oil producer ConocoPhillips to ship crude from Alberta and is looking for more customers.

Shipping oil by pipelines is generally significantly cheaper than by rail. But USD Partners claims that its technology is cost-competitive with pipelines — and analysts say that is possible.

The economics for USD Partners and the Canadian Pacific should get even better if CP's $27 billion purchase of Kansas City Southern goes through.

The Canadian Pacific's system runs south to Kansas City. From there, the KCS has extensive ties to the Gulf Coast — the largest U.S. oil refining hub — including Port Arthur, Texas. ConocoPhillips has a refinery nearby.

In Port Arthur, USD Partners has built a new terminal, which like its Hardisty venture, was completed this summer. Like CP, KCS has been instrumental in advancing the new DRUbit rail service to Port Arthur.

But with the merger, CP will be able to offer single-line service all the way to the Gulf Coast, which should reduce costs for all traffic moving on the combined railway.

"That single-line service, you'll hear us talk a lot about that," Kansas City Southern CEO Pat Ottensmeyer told stock analysts in September. "That is significant in that it avoids interchanges, avoids those [situations] that generally add cost and add time."