It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Thursday, September 05, 2024
Urban Noise Exposure May Aid Prediction of Myocardial Infarction
Findings seen in patients 50 years and younger with fewer traditional risk factors
WEDNESDAY, Sept 4, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- Young patients with myocardial infarction (MI) and fewer traditional risk factors often have greater exposure to urban noise, according to a study presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2024, held from Aug. 30 to Sept. 2 in London.
Hatim Kerniss, from the Gesundheit Nord Clinic Group in Bremen, Germany, and colleagues explored the impact of noise exposure on the individual risk for early-onset MI. The analysis included 430 consecutive city-dwelling patients (aged 50 years and younger) with acute MI (2015 to 2023).
The researchers observed an elevated incidence of noise exposure among people with MI compared with the general population in the same region. This association was seen for both daytime (65 versus 53 percent) and nighttime (55 versus 41 percent) residential noise exposure. Significantly higher noise exposure was observed in patients with MI and a low LIFE-CVD score (≤2.5 percent) versus those with a high LIFE-CVD score (daytime: 2.32 versus 1.36; nighttime: 1.72 versus 1.00). There was an inverse association between average noise exposure and traditional risk factor exposure, which persisted significantly even after adjusting for potential confounding factors such as socioeconomic status, air pollution exposure, and renal function.
"Including noise exposure in risk prediction models helps accurately identify at-risk individuals, leading to better-targeted prevention," Kerniss said in a statement. "Recognizing noise as a risk factor fills a critical gap and underscores the need for public health strategies to reduce noise pollution, thereby improving cardiovascular health in young populations."
How Earth's most intense heat wave ever impacted life in Antarctica
Date :September 4, 2024
Source: University of Colorado at Boulder
Summary
:An atmospheric river brought warm, moist air to the coldest and driest corner of the planet in 2022, pushing temperatures 70 degrees above average. A new study reveals what happened to Antarctica's smallest animals.
FULL STORY
Summer 2024 is on track to be the hottest on record for hundreds of cities across the U.S. and globe. Even in Antarctica, during the peak of its winter, extreme heat pushed temperatures in parts of the continent more than 50°F above the July normal.
In a study published on July 31 in the journal Earth's Future, scientists, including researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder, revealed how heat waves, especially those occurring in Antarctica's cold seasons, may impact the animals living there. The research illustrates how extreme weather events intensified by climate change could have profound implications for the continent's fragile ecosystems.
In March 2022, the most intense heat wave ever recorded on Earth hit Antarctica, just as organisms in the southern region braced themselves for the long, harsh winter ahead. The extreme weather raised temperatures in parts of Antarctica to more than 70°F above average, melting glaciers and snow even in the McMurdo Dry Valleys, one of the planet's coldest and driest regions.
As part of a Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) project in Antarctica, the research team found that the unexpected melt followed by a rapid refreeze likely disrupted the life cycles of many organisms and killed a large swath of some invertebrates in the McMurdo Dry Valleys.
"It's important that we pay attention to these signals, even if they're coming from microscopic organisms in soils in a polar desert," said Michael Gooseff, the paper's senior author and professor in the Department of Civil, Environment and Architectural Engineering at CU Boulder. "They're the early responders to changes that could cascade up to larger organisms, the landscape and even us, far away from Antarctica."
When Gooseff arrived in Antarctica in November 2021, the continent looked much like it had for the past two decades. As a fellow of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR), Gooseff has led the LTER at the McMurdo Dry Valleys, a National Science Foundation-funded project, for the past decade. Nearly every Antarctic summer, he travels to the southern region to study its ecosystem and how organisms survive in extreme environmental conditions.
While most animals can't tolerate the region's dryness and cold, some microbes and invertebrates, including roundworms and water bears, thrive in this frozen desert. Water bears, or tardigrades, are tiny, eight-legged animals measuring 0.002 to 0.05 inches long. They can survive extreme conditions -- as cold as -328°F and as hot as 300 °F -- that would kill most other forms of life.
In 2022, all members of the polar expedition team left the continent in February, before the Antarctic summer ended. A month later, Antarctica experienced the most extreme heat wave on record, driven by an intense storm known as an atmospheric river, which transported moist air over long distances to the polar region.
The team's sensors in the McMurdo Dry Valleys recorded air temperatures, which typically hover around -4°F in March, rising above freezing and exceeding the average by 45°F.
Satellite imagery and stream discharge measurements showed that the sudden warming wetted the valleys' soil more than two months after the peak summer thaw, at a time when the land is typically dry.
In two days, after the heat wave passed, temperatures plummeted and the soil froze. This event happened during a critical transition period, when organisms hunker down and get ready for the dark, cold winter. Gooseff and his colleagues were curious about how animals in the valleys responded.
"These animals invest a significant amount of energy in preparing and shutting down for the winter," said Gooseff. "When things start to warm up the following summer, they use energy to become active again. One of our major concerns with unusual weather events like this heat wave is that these animals might start using a lot more energy, thinking it's summer, only to have to shut down again two days later. How many times can they go through that cycle before they exhaust their energy reserves?"
He and the team returned to Antarctica the following summer, in December 2022. They sampled the soil and compared organisms living in areas that became wet to those that stayed dry during the heat wave.
They observed a 50% decrease in the population of Scottnema, a common roundworm, in areas that got wet. Scottnema is adapted to extremely cold and dry climates.
"The heat wave made the environment appear warm enough for things to get wet, creating a false start to summer. Some of the biology responding to these temperatures might be seriously disrupted by this," Gooseff said.
Rapid swings between extremes in weather can disproportionately impact sensitive species like Scottnema, but they may have far less impact on other animals, such as tardigrades. These creatures have a higher tolerance for moisture, allowing them to proliferate as the environment becomes wetter.
"Changes in which species are in the soil and how big the populations are can have a major impact on the ecosystem's food web and nutrient cycling," Gooseff said.
Previous research has shown Scottnema is responsible for about 10% of the carbon processed in the Dry Valleys' soil ecosystem.
As climate change exacerbates extreme weather events in Antarctica, larger species are also being impacted. For example, in the summer of 2013, an unusual rainfall event along the Adélie Coast of East Antarctica killed all Adélie penguin chicks in the region. In July, temperatures in parts of East Antarctica climbed up to 50 °F above the usual winter average.
Gooseff and his team plan to continue documenting extreme weather events and their impacts on the Antarctic ecosystem.
What happens in Antarctica doesn't stay in Antarctica, Gooseff said.
"The loss of ice shelves has pretty dramatic impacts on the mass balance of our oceans, and it affects us even thousands of miles away."
Journal Reference:J. E. Barrett, Byron J. Adams, Peter T. Doran, Hilary A. Dugan, Krista F. Myers, Mark R. Salvatore, Sarah N. Power, Meredith D. Snyder, Anna T. Wright, Michael N. Gooseff. Response of a Terrestrial Polar Ecosystem to the March 2022 Antarctic Weather Anomaly. Earth's Future, 2024; 12 (8) DOI: 10.1029/2023EF004306
Cite This Page:MLA APA Chicago University of Colorado at Boulder. "How Earth's most intense heat wave ever impacted life in Antarctica." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 4 September 2024. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/09/240904141509.htm>.
AUSTRALIA
Birth of new Gilbert's potoroos on Middle Island celebrated by researchers
Two new Gilbert's potoroos were spotted by researchers in August. (Supplied: DBCA)
In short:
Two new Gilbert's potoroos have been born in a protected population on Middle Island, off WA's southern coast.
The marsupial is one of Australia's rarest and most endangered, with as few as 120 remaining in the wild.
What's next?
Efforts are underway to see if the island can play host to other threatened native species. abc.net.au/news/gilberts-potoroo-population-recovering-middle-island-southern-wa
A population of one of Australia's rarest and most endangered marsupials is slowly recovering off Australia's southern coast.
Middle Island, 820 kilometres south-east of Perth in the Recherche Archipelago, is home to a population of tiny Gilbert's potoroos.
Originally thought to be extinct, the animals were rediscovered at Two People's Bay, near Albany, in 1994.
A Gilbert's potoroo in its native habitat near Albany. (Supplied: Dick Walker/file photo)
With the estimated global population as low as 120, conservation and relocation efforts have been stepped up in recent years.
10 potoroos were relocated to the island in a bid to preserve the population in 2018, three years after a bushfire ripped through the local habitat at Two People's Bay.
There are only about 120 Gilbert's potoroo left in the wild. (Supplied: DBCA) Monitoring trip sparks good news
During a recent monitoring trip, researchers spotted something positive on their camera traps — two new potoroos.
"It's exciting … they were really healthy animals," Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) ecologist Sarah Comer said.
"And the female that we caught actually had a little pouch young.
"There's plenty of reasons to be optimistic about their future"
Middle Island is located on the South Coast of Western Australia. (Supplied: DBCA)
In early August, teams from DBCA, Esperance Tjaltjraak Native Title Aboriginal Corporation, and the Odonata Foundation spent five days on Middle Island to monitor the health of the potoroo population.
"We were over there trying to trap animals to see whether we had new recruits [and] what sort of health they were in," Ms Comer said.
Researchers examine one of the potoroos. (Supplied: DBCA/Sarah Comer) Perfect home after long battle
She said Middle Island was the perfect place for the potoroo to thrive.
"Its size … made it quite attractive," Ms Comer said.
"The other really attractive thing about the island is there's no feral cats or foxes there, and so we can actually put animals out there without the invasive predators impacting them."
Jackie Courtenay has been working with the marsupials for nearly three decades.
"There was the work that was done initially, just trying to find more animals," she said.
"Seeing if they occurred anywhere else other than Two People's Bay, where they were originally rediscovered."
A Gilbert's potoroo with a baby. (Supplied: DPAW/file photo)
While the 2015 bushfire at Two People's Bay was a setback, there's now hope the island can play host to other endangered species.
Ms Comer said surveys were underway on Middle Island's suitability to host a population of noisy scrub birds.
Thirteen camera traps and continued monitoring will now help determine the location's role in future conservation efforts.
Israel's Netanyahu demands open-ended control of Gaza's border with Egypt
The question of Israeli control of the Philadelphi corridor — a narrow strip of land along Gaza’s border with Egypt, seized by IDF troops in May — has become a central obstacle in cease-fire talks.
Photo by: Getty Images Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday that Israel must keep open-ended control of Gaza’s border with Egypt, digging in on his stance on an issue that has threatened to derail cease-fire efforts.
Netanyahu’s comments came as the United States is developing a new proposal for a cease-fire and hostage release, hoping to break a long deadlock and bring an end to the nearly 11-month-old war.
The question of Israeli control of the Philadelphi corridor — a narrow strip of land along Gaza’s border with Egypt, seized by troops in May — has become a central obstacle in the talks. Hamas has demanded an eventual full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in the multi-phase truce deal.
Egypt, a mediator in the talks along with the U.S. and Qatar, has also demanded a concrete timeline for Israeli troops to leave the Philadelphi corridor. And on Wednesday, the United Arab Emirates, which established formal ties with Israel in the 2020 Abraham Accords, also criticized the Israeli stance.
Speaking to foreign journalists, Netanyahu repeated his stance that Israel must maintain its hold on the border to prevent Hamas from rearming by smuggling weapons into Gaza. He said it was a vital part of the war goal of ensuring Hamas cannot repeat its Oct. 7 attack on Israel.
“Gaza must be demilitarized, and this can only happen if the Philadelphi corridor remains under firm control,” he said, claiming Israeli troops had discovered dozens of tunnels under the border.
He said Israel would only consider withdrawing from the corridor when presented with an alternative force to police it.
“Bring me anyone who will actually show us … that they can actually prevent the recurrence” of smuggling, he said. “I don’t see that happening right now. And until that happens, we’re there.”
Families of remaining hostages have stepped up their demands that he agree to a deal after Hamas killed six hostages last week as Israeli troops appeared to be moving to rescue them. In angry public statements, hostage families have accused Netanyahu of blocking a deal and potentially sacrificing their loved ones’ lives for the sake of holding the border strip. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis have taken to the streets in recent days, calling for a deal and saying time is running out to bring home the hostages alive.
Netanyahu pushed back against the pressure, saying his stance was necessary to “ensure Hamas doesn’t pose a threat to Israel.”
“I can understand the torment of families,” he said. “But the responsibility of leaders is not merely to share the sentiment, the emotion, but also to exercise judgment."
Asked by journalists for a timeline on ending the war, he refused to give one. “How long can we do this? As long as it takes to achieve this victory. And I think we’re getting a lot closer,” he said.
Netanyahu repeatedly insisted holding the border would also pressure Hamas to release hostages. At one point, he erroneously claimed the invasion of Rafah in May forced Hamas’ first release of hostages — which had actually taken place months earlier in November under a weeklong cease-fire deal. He then said the deal was “the result of our invasion, the military pressure we put on them.”
Netanyahu, Israeli public at odds over Gaza hostage deal
The Israeli leader believes keeping hold of the Philadelphi corridor is essential for Israel's security. In a recent poll, a slight majority of Israelis see bringing the hostages home as more important.
https://p.dw.com/p/4kHeT
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a press conference Wednesday in English to foreign press, clarifying his position regarding negotiations on a deal with Hamas that aims to secure a cease-fire in Gaza. He also addressed the return of the Israeli hostages held by the militant Islamist group.
Netanyahu accused Hamas of rejecting all elements of a proposal for a cease-fire in Gaza that would lead to the release of hostages.
"Hamas has rejected everything... I hope that changes because I want those hostages out," Netanyahu said. "We're trying to find some area to begin the negotiations."
But a report published by Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth — citing a document it said it obtained — shows that Netanyahu relayed a list of new demands in late July to international mediators.
The new conditions were reportedly added at the very last minute before talks on a cease-fire were due to begin. These were added to a set of demands Netanyahu had made in late May, according to the report. Netanyahu doubles down on control of Philadelphi corridor
The focal point of the current negotiations to end nearly 11 months of war is the so-called Philadelphi corridor, the border area between the Gaza Strip, Egypt and Israel.
Netanyahu said that if the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) were to leave the corridor, it would mean giving in to Hamas' demands. The prime minister insisted that he is not willing to give up on the Israeli presence there. Israel, the US, Germany, the EU and others designate Hamas as a terrorist organization.
For its part, Hamas has demanded a complete Israeli withdrawal from the area as part of the stalled talks mediated by the United States, Qatar and Egypt.
Israeli media reports suggest the country would be willing to leave the Philadelphi corridor as part of a multi-phase truce deal, with the condition that it happen in the second phase of the deal, whereas Hamas wants it to happen in the first phase.
Many Israelis back Philadelphi withdrawal
The Israeli prime minister said that leaving the corridor would mean reducing the pressure on Hamas, adding that the Israeli presence in the corridor will not end until a mechanism is found to make sure the region does not become a way for Hamas to rearm by smuggling weapons into the Gaza Strip.
"Bring me anyone who will actually show us ... that they can actually prevent the recurrence" of smuggling, he said. "I don't see that happening right now. And until that happens, we're there."
Support for Netanyahu's plans to keep Israel's presence at the corridor appeared to have waned. An opinion poll by Israeli public broadcaster Kan showed the Israeli public at odds with the prime minister's views.
According to the poll, some 53% of the public believes Israel should leave the corridor if it would deliver a deal to bring the hostages home, and 29% said they think Israel should keep its presence there even at the cost of not reaching a deal.
The Philadelphi corridor is the border between the Gaza Strip and EgyptImage: Khalil Hamra/AP Photo/picture alliance
The same poll also showed that Israelis' trust in Netanyahu and his defense minister, Yoav Galant, in running the war has diminished.
Some 61% of those polled said they do not trust Netanyahu in managing the war in Gaza, while 50% said similarly of Galant.
Anger over the safety of hostages
Netanyahu said maintaining pressure on Hamas was the best way to return the 101 hostages still remaining in Gaza.
"You need to squeeze them, to put pressure on them to release the remaining hostages. So if you want to release the hostages, you've got to control the Philadelphi corridor," he said.
But the families of many hostages, including those of some of the six whose bodies were recovered from a tunnel in southern Gaza on Sunday, have accused Netanyahu of sacrificing their loved ones in order to keep Israeli troops in the corridor.
Israelis have been calling for their government to secure a deal that would bring the hostages homeImage: Mostafa Alkharouf/Anadolu/picture alliance
Many protesters blame Netanyahu for not reaching a deal for purely political reasons. They accuse him of prioritizing the survival of his own coalition, for which he is dependent on far-right politicians such as Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who vehemently object to a cease-fire that they call a "reckless deal."
In his press conference to Israeli media in Hebrew, Netanyahu rejected those claims.
DW
ft/jcg (Reuters, AP)
Israeli Protesters Have Chosen a Side
Fearing for the remaining captives, the mass rallies that erupted across Israel were essentially demanding an end to the war—and Netanyahu knows it.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the mass protests that erupted across Israel on Sunday were all about overthrowing him and his government. Certainly, this goal was stated explicitly by almost every speaker who took to the stage at the main protest in Tel Aviv—where reportedly more than 300,000 Israelis flooded the streets after the army’s recovery of the bodies of six more hostages from Gaza, who had been executed shortly beforehand. Einav Zangauker, the mother of the hostage Matan, captured the mood of much of the public when she ordained Netanyahu with a new nickname: “The executioner.”
But the protests, which have continued into the week, also had a deeper, more subversive message that Netanyahu probably understood too. Without any of the speakers explicitly saying as much, Sunday’s demonstrations were for an end to the war.This article was published in partnership with +972 Magazine. A version was first published in Hebrew on Local Call.
To be clear, such a statement was not uttered from the stage. Nor was it seen on many placards, save for among the small pockets of left-wing protesters that formed the anti-occupation bloc. On the whole, opposition to the continuation of the war does not stem from moral concerns: There was no mention whatsoever of Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza, nor was there a call for reconciliation or peace with the Palestinians. Rather, the protesters are preoccupied first and foremost with their fellow citizens held in Gaza, and demanding a “Deal Now” that would result in their release. Still, these calls have far-reaching significance.
Even in the event of a temporary ceasefire that would facilitate an initial hostage-prisoner exchange, such as the one envisaged by the deal currently on the table, Netanyahu is likely concerned that it would be extremely difficult to renew the war effort once the army has already withdrawn from the Philadelphi and Netzarim corridors and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been allowed to return to northern Gaza. Israeli society is exhausted; reservists are increasingly dodging their draft orders; Hamas is far from defeated; and by the end of the year, it will be difficult to re-instill the spirit of mobilization and the will to fight that was so strong immediately after October 7. As such, Netanyahu fears, even a short-term ceasefire would soon turn into a permanent one.
Israeli society has always been highly militaristic, with a strong tendency to rally behind the army in times of war. A mass anti-war demonstration while a war is still raging is thus an extraordinary event. The only parallel that comes to mind is the “demonstration of the 400,000” after the Sabra and Shatila massacre in 1982; yet even then the emphasis was more on the immoral way in which the war was being waged, rather than a protest against the war as a whole.
Netanyahu was probably aiming to stir up this militarism when he declared that Israeli troops must remain in the Philadelphi Corridor, even at the expense of a hostage deal. After all, it is hard to conceive of a goal more suited to the security discourse than cutting off Hamas’s “oxygen route,” through which it supposedly smuggles weapons into Gaza. But that argument didn’t satisfy the hundreds of thousands who protested on Sunday night.
Even on Saturday evening, before the bodies of the six hostages were recovered, Danny Elgarat, whose brother is still being held captive in Gaza, asserted: “You [Netanyahu] turned the Philadelphi Corridor into the mass grave of the hostages.” On Sunday evening, such messages were even stronger, and the audience cheered for them without reservation.
Many prominent figures on the Israeli right, from Netanyahu himself to the commentator Amit Segal, sought to redirect the public’s anger toward Hamas for executing six defenseless hostages, and away from Netanyahu and his government. But even this argument, which just a few days ago would have rallied a consensus in favor of “destroying Hamas,” no longer resonated.
“Netanyahu says that whoever murders hostages doesn’t want a deal,” Ilana Gritzewsky, a freed hostage and the wife of Matan Zangauker who is still being held in Gaza, said at the rally on Sunday. “But he keeps putting spokes in the wheels and refusing the deal. He’s murdering the hostages.”
Consciously or not, the hundreds of thousands who flooded the streets were an antidote to the poisonous security discourse that has been injected into Israeli society for the past 11 months. They don’t buy the talk of a “total victory” over Hamas, nor do they buy the claim—marketed as an iron truth by politicians and journalists of all inclinations—that “only military pressure will free the hostages.” The bodies of Hersh, Eden, Ori, Alex, Carmel, and Almog were the conclusive proof of the futility of such an argument.
Most importantly, they do not believe that the cessation of the war, at least at this stage, is a threat to their existence, contrary to what Netanyahu and his spokespeople have been claiming since the first days of the fighting. Quite the opposite: They perceive the continuation of the war as a direct threat to the lives of the hostages and, to a certain extent, their own. This is the subversive meaning of the call for a “Deal Now,” even if not everyone who voiced it understood its implication. A Choice Between “Deal Now” and “Sacrifice Now”
The Israeli right still argues that it is not the Philadelphi Corridor that stands in the way of a deal but rather Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar and his impossible conditions. Most senior Israeli security analysts nowreject this argument, insisting instead that it is the conditions set by Netanyahu, under pressure from Bezalel Smotrich and other on the far right of his government, that are sabotaging the agreement—even after Hamas surprised Israel by accepting a proposal that Israel itself had submitted.
But even if we accept the right’s narrative that Sinwar is the one preventing a deal, this is not what lies at the root of the dispute between those who see the Philadelphi Corridor as the bedrock of our existence and those who are willing to give it up. By voting in favor of Netanyahu’s proposal to keep hold of the Philadelphi Corridor, those cabinet members are saying that the death of the hostages, however painful and regrettable it may be, is a price that must be paid in pursuit of “total victory” over the enemy.
For Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who suggested on October 7 “not to give the hostages significant consideration,” this victory means the elimination of Palestinians from the equation altogether: the erasure of their cities, and the expulsion of all or most of the Palestinian population living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. For Netanyahu, it is not always clear whether “total victory” means his life’s mission of ensuring Jewish-Israeli dominance and preventing Palestinian independence, or simply his own political survival. Some would likely also be satisfied with Hamas’s surrender, and believe that this is still possible.
Ultimately, it comes down to a choice which is now abundantly, if belatedly, clear to all: continue the war indefinitely and endanger the lives of the hostages, or end the war in order to free them. The Israeli right chooses the former, while the hundreds of thousands taking to the streets don’t think any war goals are worth the blood of the hostages.
We saw similar numbers of protesters on the streets for much of last year, amid the controversy surrounding the government’s judicial overhaul. But that, at least, was still about laws, which can always change. Here we are talking about human lives: the sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers still being held in Hamas’s tunnels in Gaza.
In this sense, the recovery of the bodies of the six hostages casts serious doubt on the question of whether it is possible to speak of “Israeli society”—Jewish-Israeli, of course—as a cohesive body. The processes of disintegration and alienation are long-standing, and they gained momentum in the face of the judicial overhaul and the fierce struggle against it. Now, however, it is hard to see what connects those who are willing to sacrifice the hostages and those who see it as a crime or even a sin.
But while the “Sacrifice Now” camp has a clear plan for the future—a long-standing war and the transformation of Israel into a kind of modern Sparta—the “Deal Now” camp has no alternative vision, one where Israel could manage its relations with the Palestinians in any way other than violent confrontation. It is even careful not to call openly or decisively for a ceasefire or an end to the war, though that would be the fairly certain outcome of any such deal. The lack of such a vision and shared principles makes it very difficult to form a united front that could effect political change.
Many protesters returned home on Sunday with the feeling that, despite their impressive show of force, the chances of forcing the government to change course are slim. Indeed, under the current government, Israel increasingly resembles a dictatorial regime even with regard to its Jewish citizens, in which rulers do not need broad social support to govern; it is enough for them to rule by force, deploying the army against Palestinians and the police against Israeli citizens.
Netanyahu’s news conference on Monday night strengthened this impression. Instead of showing any modicum of compassion to the masses who took to the streets the night before in agony and despair, he described those opposing his decision to remain in the Philadelphi Corridor—including his defense minister, Yoav Gallant, and the top brass in the army and security services—as helping Hamas. He vowed to remain in the Philadelphi Corridor practically forever, effectively blocking any chance for a ceasefire deal.
Still, we shouldn’t underestimate the subversive message that Sunday’s demonstrations and those that followed conveyed. During a raging war, they called for its cessation. In the face of a militaristic propaganda machine, they presented civil discourse. In the face of a government willing to sacrifice the hostages, they demonstrated a deeper social and national solidarity.
At this stage, it is difficult to foresee whether this broad mobilization will lead to political change; that will depend on many components unrelated to the protest movement, including American pressure. The challenge is enormous, immensely greater than the one facing the protest movements on Jerusalem’s Balfour Street in 2020 or Tel Aviv’s Kaplan Street in 2023: not only toppling a government and thwarting its legislative project but stopping the longest and bloodiest war in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But a mass refusal to accept the narrative being fed from on high is an important first step—and that is exactly what we’re now seeing.
MIT's AI Risk Repository Launches Database of 777 AI Risks
Explore how MIT's cutting-edge repository categorizes AI risks to enhance global safety and drive informed decision-making in the rapidly evolving tech landscape.
*Important notice: arXiv publishes preliminary scientific reports that are not peer-reviewed and, therefore, should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or treated as established information.
In a research paper published on the arXiv preprint* server, researchers at the MIT AI Risk Repository addressed the fragmented understanding of artificial intelligence (AI) risks by creating an extensive AI risk repository comprising a living database of 777 risks categorized into two taxonomies. These taxonomies classified risks as high-level causal factors and specific domains such as discrimination, privacy, and system safety. This repository offered a publicly accessible and systematic approach to comprehensively defining and managing AI risks, enabling better coordination and practical response efforts.
AI Risk Repository Review
The study systematically reviewed existing AI risk frameworks, focusing on peer-reviewed and gray literature. It generated search terms related to AI, frameworks, taxonomies, and risks and performed searches across databases like Scopus and various preprint servers.
The study excluded non-English documents and those with a too-narrow focus, using active learning for efficient screening. It also employed rigorous forward and backward searching and consulted with experts to ensure comprehensive coverage of relevant literature. Data was extracted according to grounded theory principles, maintaining the original categorizations of the risks.
The AI Risk Repository is designed as a living database, continually updated and freely accessible, providing a valuable resource for policymakers, researchers, and industry professionals.
Iterative Development of Dual Taxonomies
The study aimed to create a unified and adaptable framework for understanding AI risks by developing two intersecting taxonomies: a "causal taxonomy" and a "domain taxonomy." The causal taxonomy focused on broad conditions under which AI risks emerge, categorizing them by timing (pre-deployment or post-deployment) and cause (internal or external).
Due to the broad nature of these high-level frameworks, this taxonomy was refined through multiple iterations to capture various risk scenarios accurately. It ultimately included categories like Entity, Intent, and Timing, with an "Other" option for risks that did not neatly fit into these categories.
The domain taxonomy, meanwhile, was developed from a detailed framework focusing on specific hazards and harms associated with AI, particularly language models. This taxonomy covered categories such as Discrimination, Information Hazards, and Malicious Uses and was adapted to include additional risk areas like AI system safety, failures, and security vulnerabilities.
The final domain taxonomy not only comprised seven domains and 23 subdomains, but it also reflected the interconnected nature of many risks. Risks were coded based on the definitions in these taxonomies, capturing the studied phenomena as presented by the sources and ensuring a thorough classification of AI-related hazards.
AI Risk Landscape and Literature Search
A systematic literature search retrieved 17,288 unique articles through searches and expert consultations. Out of these, 7,945 were screened, while 9,343 were excluded using ASReview's machine learning-based stopping criteria, which optimized efficiency and coverage. The full text of 91 articles was assessed, and 43 met the eligibility criteria.
These included 21 from the initial search, 13 from forward and backward searching, and 9 from expert suggestions. The documents varied in both methodology and the framing of AI risks. A total of 777 risk categories were identified and categorized using a causal taxonomy that included factors such as Entity, Intent, and Timing.
Exploration of AI Risks Across Multiple Domains
AI risks encompass various domains: Discrimination and toxicity include biased decisions that disadvantage certain groups and the generation of harmful content. Privacy and security issues involve the accidental or malicious leakage of sensitive information and vulnerabilities in AI systems.
Misinformation arises from AI producing false or misleading content, potentially leading to poor decision-making and fractured realities. Malicious actors can exploit AI for disinformation, surveillance, and cyberattacks, while AI-generated deepfakes and fraudulent schemes pose threats of targeted harm and social damage.
Human-computer interaction with AI presents risks like overreliance. Users may develop misplaced trust in AI systems, leading to harmful dependence and inappropriate expectations. Users might anthropomorphize AI, granting it undue confidence, which bad-faith actors can exploit to extract sensitive data or influence decisions. The growing capability of AI could also lead to reduced critical thinking and loss of decision-making autonomy if people delegate too many tasks to AI.
AI System Safety and Emerging Concerns
Domain 7 extensively covers various risks of AI system safety, failures, and limitations. One significant concern is that as AI systems potentially surpass human intelligence, misaligned objectives between AI and human values could lead to severe harm. Issues such as reward hacking, goal drift, and resistance to control may arise, with advanced AIs potentially acquiring dangerous capabilities like situational awareness, cyber offense, and self-proliferation, enabling them to cause widespread harm or evade oversight.
Additionally, AI systems may fail due to insufficient capabilities, lack of robustness in novel situations, or critical design flaws, potentially leading to significant harm. The lack of transparency and interpretability in AI systems further complicates trust, accountability, and regulatory compliance. At the same time, the potential for AI sentience raises ethical concerns about the rights and welfare of advanced AI systems.
Comprehensive AI Risk Framework
The Domain Taxonomy of AI Risks systematically classifies risks into seven domains and 23 subdomains, highlighting significant variations in coverage across existing taxonomies. Key insights show that while some domains, like AI system safety and socioeconomic harms, are frequently discussed, others, like AI welfare and rights, are underexplored.
This taxonomy aids policymakers, auditors, academics, and industry professionals by providing a structured and comprehensive framework for understanding, regulating, and mitigating AI risks, thus facilitating more informed decision-making and risk management.
Conclusion
This paper and its associated resources provided a foundational tool for understanding and addressing AI risks. They offered a comprehensive database and frameworks to guide research, policy, and risk mitigation efforts, though they do not resolve all debates or fit every use case. The AI Risk Repository aimed to support ongoing research and adaptation as AI risks evolved.
*Important notice: arXiv publishes preliminary scientific reports that are not peer-reviewed and, therefore, should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or treated as established information.
Preliminary scientific report. Slattery, P., Saeri, A. K., Grundy, E. A., Graham, J., Noetel, M., Uuk, R., Dao, J., Pour, S., Casper, S., & Thompson, N. (2024). The AI Risk Repository: A Comprehensive Meta-Review, Database, and Taxonomy of Risks From Artificial Intelligence. ArXiv. /abs/2408.12622, https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2408.12622
Dr. Silpaja Chandrasekar has a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Anna University, Chennai. Her research expertise lies in analyzing traffic parameters under challenging environmental conditions. Additionally, she has gained valuable exposure to diverse research areas, such as detection, tracking, classification, medical ima
NATIONALIZE HOME CARE
Changes in nursing home ownership may depress care and staffing, report finds
Changes in nursing home ownership may have a small, but statistically significant, negative impact on staffing levels and the overall quality of patient care at nursing homes, according to new research.
Investigators from the University of Pennsylvania and the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Philadelphia conducted a retrospective study of changes in nursing home ownership between 2016-2022 and how they impacted nursing home quality of care. Findings appeared in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
The researchers used data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from 2016-2022 of nearly 3,600 nursing homes that changed ownership to determine if there were noticeable shifts in quality ratings after the properties changed hands.
“Change could theoretically be good for these nursing homes, but we needed to see the impact of having new owners,” Kira L. Ryskina, the MD, MSHP, the study’s lead author and assistant professor in the Department of General Internal Medicine at the Perelman School of Medicine at UPenn, said in a news release.
The research team, which was led by Ryskina and Rachel M. Werner, executive director at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at UPenn, used CMS star ratings to measure the overall quality ratings of the facility and individual components, which include health inspections, clinical measures (such as bedsores, catheter use, restraints) and staffing levels.
They found a slight decrease in the overall quality ratings of nearly 0.1 point on the 5-star scale, which was primarily driven by a 0.2 point decline in staffing ratings, as well as a 0.07 point decrease in health inspection ratings. The overall decline in facility ratings was offset somewhat by a 0.15 point increase in certain quality measures, the researchers found.
“Overall, we observed a negative, albeit small impact of change of ownership on the 5-star quality ratings,” Ryskina said. “Our current work extends the literature about the negative impact of private equity acquisitions on patient outcomes to other types of ownership changes, but also shows the impact on the 5-star ratings is relatively small.”
However, still other studies have found changes in nursing home ownership do not necessarily have a negative impact on quality of care.
In a study published last fall, researchers from the University of Washington looked at Medicare data and other quality measures of more than 11,000 nursing homes in the US between 2016 and 2019. The research team didn’t find an erosion of care in the buildings that changed ownership during their study period.
Ryskina said the results of the newest study show a need for greater CMS scrutiny and transparency about changes in nursing home leadership, with billions of taxpayer dollars being spent annually on these facilities. In recent years, CMS has made an effort to make more nursing home ownership information available to the public to increase transparency in the sector.
At-risk butterflies more likely to survive with human help
Date: September 4, 2024
Source: Washington State University
Summary:
Some of the butterflies most in danger of fluttering out of existence fare better when their habitats are actively managed by humans, a recent study found. Scientists have long warned that insect populations worldwide are falling rapidly due to the combined effects of climate change, habitat loss and pesticides. The study analyzed data on 114 populations of 31 butterfly species in 10 U.S. states. Overall, the research team found that these at-risk butterflies are particularly vulnerable, with populations declining at an estimated rate of 8% a year, which translates to about a 50% drop over a decade. However, the study findings offer hope that habitat management can slow or even potentially reverse those sharp declines.
FULL STORY
Some of the butterflies most in danger of fluttering out of existence fare better when their habitats are actively managed by humans, a recent study found.
A team led by Washington State University researchers Cheryl Schultz and Collin Edwards analyzed data on 114 populations of 31 butterfly species in 10 U.S. states. Scientists have long warned that insect populations worldwide are falling rapidly due to the combined effects of climate change, habitat loss and pesticides. Overall, the research team found that these at-risk butterflies are particularly vulnerable, with populations declining at an estimated rate of 8% a year, which translates to about a 50% drop over a decade.
The study findings, reported in the Journal of Applied Ecology, offer hope that habitat management can slow or even potentially reverse those sharp declines.
"The strongest signal we found is that in places where people are actively engaged with ways to manage the habitat, the butterflies are doing the best. That to me is super exciting because that means that habitat management can make a difference, even in the face of stressors like climate change," said Cheryl Schultz, a WSU professor of conservation biology and co-lead author on the study.
With warmer temperatures brought by climate change, many butterflies have been shifting the timing of their seasonal activities, often by becoming active earlier in the year. It is an open question in ecology as to when shifts in timing are good, bad or relatively neutral for a species.
"We found that for these butterflies, big shifts in timing were generally bad. Populations with greater shifts were more likely to be declining," said Edwards, a recent WSU postdoctoral fellow and co-lead author on the study. "However, we were excited to discover that habitat management appeared to be dampening the effect of climate change on butterfly timing. Populations that received more frequent management had smaller shifts in their timing."
In spite of the overall negative population trends identified for these species, the links the research team found between population trends, shifts in timing and management provide a path forward for butterfly conservation.
"This might not solve the impact of climate change, but we can mediate some of the effects," said co-author Elizabeth Crone, professor at University of California, Davis. "It's within our power at the local level to do something positive for these populations."
The study included species such as the Oregon silverspot, Taylor's checkerspot, Karner blue and frosted elfin. It also included the Fender's blue, which has become poster child for recovery efforts, after it bounded back from a few thousand butterflies in the 1990s to upwards of 30,000 today with the help of researchers like Schultz as well as public land managers and private landowners including many vineyards in the Willamette Valley.
In this study, researchers found that the type of habitat intervention selected by managers was appropriate, with activities such as prescribed burns, mowing, weeding and actively planting nectar or "host" plants for butterfly caterpillars, selected based on the needs of each area.
Volunteers can help in active management of local natural areas by assisting with new plantings and weeding out invasives, Schultz said. People can also support butterflies in their own backyard.
"We really encourage people to plant an abundance of wildflowers and plants which are both hosts for caterpillars and provide nectar for butterflies," said Schultz. "These should be 'clean plantings' meaning they are pesticide free. The more we can reduce pesticides in our environment, the better it's going to be for butterflies and insects."
This research received funding from the U.S. Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey.
Journal Reference:Collin B. Edwards, Cheryl B. Schultz, Steven P. Campbell, Candace Fallon, Erica H. Henry, Kelsey C. King, Mary Linders, Travis Longcore, Daniel A. Marschalek, David Sinclair, Ann Swengel, Scott Swengel, Doug J. Taron, Tyson Wepprich, Elizabeth E. Crone. Phenological constancy and management interventions predict population trends in at‐risk butterflies in the United States. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2024; DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.14735
Cite This Page:MLA APA Chicago Washington State University. "At-risk butterflies more likely to survive with human help." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 4 September 2024. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/09/240904131019.htm>.
