CANADA NEEDS 21 CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE

‘Broadband isn’t a luxury': groups call for internet benefit for low-income households

Shruti Shekar
·Telecom & Tech Reporter
Updated Fri., January 29, 2021

“The idea of getting internet at home would have been attractive except for the cost,” said Ray Noyes, a 64-year-old man who thinks it’s time the federal government creates a broadband internet benefit.

The Ottawa, Ont.-based man said in an interview that even though he is part of the Ontario Disability Support Program, it doesn’t cover the costs required to pay for internet services.

“With my $1,169, I’ve got to pay over half of that in rent,” he said.

Noyes is also a member of ACORN Canada (an independent national organization of low and moderate-income families), which, in partnership with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), and the National Pensioners Federation, are campaigning for a $50 a month Canadian Broadband Benefit.

The proposed benefit is similar to what the Federal Communications Commission in the U.S. has been tasked with creating.

Ray Noyes, an ACORN member, can't afford to pay for internet services and is calling the federal government to help. Image credit: ACORN

The three groups want the benefit to be provided monthly for low-income Canadians, seniors on fixed incomes, and for those Canadians qualifying for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB).

John Lawford, executive director and general counsel of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, said in an interview that the program should run for at least six months.

He added that while the government offered CERB, those funds aren’t enough to pay for a service that was already expensive before the pandemic.

“There was already an [internet] affordability crisis before COVID, which was not being addressed by the CRTC or the government,” he said. “The federal government felt a bit bad and did the Connecting Families program, which is a very limited program.”

In 2017, the government announced the $13.2 million Connecting Families initiative that provides cheaper internet services for qualified families that fall under the low-income bracket.

Lawford said it was unacceptable for people to be stuck at home and not be able to connect with the outside world.

“Perhaps the government believes that part of the CERB would go towards paying for internet, but the members, the low-income members we’re talking to, it’s not adequate,” he said. “If you have a pre-existing affordability problem, it’s not going to fix it.”

Trish McAuliffe, president of the National Pensioner’s Federation, echoed Lawford and added that many older seniors receive low pension payments because they haven’t worked enough.

“There is a lot of economic pressure,” she said. “They’re struggling to get food on the table, and take their meds, and we know the internet is very expensive. They just can’t pay for all of this. They’re suffering in silence.”

Dwayne Winseck, a media industry researcher at Carleton University in Ottawa, said that pushing for a benefit like this underscores the severe necessity of a service that is no longer considered a luxury.

“It’s kind of a fundamental necessity in contemporary life, not at all a luxury,” he said in an interview. “I don’t think this is a pie in the sky fantasy. This is a very realistic proposal that addresses a very real need and the real status of internet access.”

Winseck said that while CERB may help some Canadians pay for internet services, many in the low-income bracket have other priorities.

“For lower-income households, essential services like telecommunications or internet access constitute a larger portion of their household spending than it does for other households,” he said. “And for that reason, it’s targeting these particular households.”

Christopher Ali, a telecom expert and associate professor at the University of Virginia, said in an interview the Canadian government shouldn’t make Canadians pick one or the other when it comes to what they decide to pay for using their stimulus checks.

“You don’t need to have it one way or the other. I think you could give funds to Canadians and have them spend it as they see fit. But you can also mark part of that for broadband services because the two do go hand in hand,” he said.

“I also feel we haven’t convinced everybody that broadband isn’t a luxury and that people need to get on board quite frankly.”

Originally published Fri., January 29, 2021

WE CAN HOPE

Biden's climate agenda: Is this the beginning of the end for fossil fuels?

Justin Rowlatt - 

Chief environment correspondent BBC
Updated Sun., January 31, 2021

After years of Trump, the new US administration wants to rejoin world efforts to tackle the climate change emergency

Fossil fuels have been the bedrock of US prosperity for more than a century.

The country's economy, security and society depend on them.

But in the few days since his inauguration, the new American president has gone to war against coal, oil and natural gas with a decisiveness that has caught everyone by surprise.

This week I spoke to the man Joe Biden has tasked with drawing up his climate change battle plans - John Kerry.

"It is one of his top priorities, without any question whatsoever," Mr Kerry assured me. "He'll make more progress on the issue than any previous president."

That seriousness is reflected in his choice of John Kerry as his special envoy on climate.

John Kerry calls Trump 'reckless' over climate

'Exceptionally hot' 2020 concludes warmest decade

Why is the US rejoining the Paris climate agreement?

Mr Kerry was President Barack Obama's secretary of state and a key architect of the Paris climate change summit in 2015.

In other words, he is someone deeply invested in tackling global warming, who understands current global climate diplomacy, and personally knows many of the key people the US will have to work with.

Ambitious start

In the handful of days the new president has been in office, he has already exceeded expectations.

We knew he was going to re-join the Paris climate accord, we didn't know that a few days later he'd order his domestic climate "tzar", Gina McCarthy, to draw up plans to commit the US to "the most aggressive" carbon cut possible.

We expected him to try and kill the giant Keystone XL oil pipeline, but not that he'd pull the permit on his first day in office, stopping the 2,000km pipeline project dead in its tracks.

We knew he planned to make climate change a priority in policy-making, but not that he'd order the Pentagon to make it an issue of national security.

It is part of what is being called a "whole government" approach to the issue.

"He is mobilising every department, every agency of the United States government to focus on climate and he is determined to try and restore America's credibility and reputation," explained Kerry.

Even some of the deepest green activists have been impressed.

"There is a shock-and-awe feel to the barrage of actions," says veteran environmental campaigner Bill McKibben.

The proposed route of the Keystone XL oil pipeline

He believes the flurry of executive orders is designed to make an important point.

The president wants to send "a decisive signal about the end of one epoch and the beginning of another," says Mr McKibben.

That signal is aimed at investors, he says. "Fossil fuel, Biden is making clear, is not a safe bet, or even a good bet, for making real money."
Oil feels the heat

The oil industry has been left reeling. Share prices plunged, and Goldman Sachs warned of a drop in US crude supplies.

"The industry is aghast at these changes," one oil services company CEO told Bloomberg. "They are more direct, more fierce and quicker than what folks expected."

Biden and his team have been meticulous in casting the agenda as an exercise in job creation and economic stimulus in the wake of the Covid-19 crisis.

Mr Kerry repeats the now familiar "build back better" mantra to me.

"If we're going to invest new money," he says, "let's invest it in clean energy, invest it in clean jobs, invest it in those technologies and other things that will build the future, rather than simply being the prisoners of the past."


US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII


Coal mine go-ahead 'undermines climate summit'


'Exceptionally hot' 2020 concludes warmest decade

Meanwhile, there have been a few modest sops to the fossil fuel industry.

Fracking won't stop, for example, although there will be tighter regulations, and Biden promised to put displaced fossil fuel workers to work sealing off the estimated one million leaking oil and gas wells.

The plan to build 1.5 million new energy-efficient homes, and manufacture and install half a million new electric-vehicle charging stations, would also create millions of "prevailing wage" jobs.

And the car industry will be delighted by the commitment to electrify the government's 650,000-strong fleet of vehicles.

But, at the same time, President Biden has reiterated his desire to end all fossil fuel subsidies, ordered a ban on new oil and gas leases on federal land, and said a third of all federal lands must be reserved for conservation.

He also ordered agencies to accelerate the authorising of renewables projects, as part of his effort to double wind capacity by 2030, and make the electricity sector zero-carbon by 2035.
Private sector 'buy-in'?

These initiatives don't depend on the Democrats wafer-thin majority in the Senate, Mr Kerry insisted. These are areas where the president already has authority.

"Now, that's not to say the president isn't going to try and get Congress to be part of this, of course he wants them. But this isn't going to be solely dependent on one source."

For instance, Mr Biden plans to reinstate and strengthen Obama-era regulations, repealed by Trump, on the three largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions: vehicles, power plants and methane leaks from oil and gas wells.

The key, says Mr Kerry, is "a massive shift" in attitudes in the private sector.

Why is the Keystone XL pipeline so disputed?


Why 2021 could be turning point for tackling climate change


Trudeau conveys pipeline 'disappointment' to Biden

Companies are increasingly dealing with climate "upfront and directly", says Mr Kerry.

US car makers are coming to accept that fuel economy standards have to rise, for example.

Only this week General Motors announced plans to phase out petrol and diesel cars and trucks completely, and sell only vehicles with zero emissions by 2035.

And some big oil and gas companies have acknowledged some of the curbs on emissions lifted by President Trump need to be reinstated.

But Mr Kerry knows there will be pushback from others in the fossil fuel industry and from the lawmakers who back it.

Joe Manchin, the Democratic senator for West Virginia, is likely to be a particular thorn in the side of the Biden administration.

He is to lead the Senate Energy Committee and was elected as a defender of his states coal industry.

He famously campaigned with a TV ad that featured him using a hunting rifle to shoot a copy of one of Obama's climate change bills.

And, remember the Senate is split 50-50 with Vice-President Kamala Harris holding the casting vote.

US rejoining world stage 'with humility'

There will be more freedom of action on the international stage.

Indeed, this may be where Joe Biden and John Kerry have their most transformative impact.

Mr Kerry describes the Glasgow climate summit in November this year as "the last best chance the world has to come together to avoid the worst consequences of the climate crisis".

It is a propitious time to be talking.

The cost of renewables has fallen dramatically since he led America's delegation to the Paris talks.

Lots of countries are considering green investments as a way to stimulate their economies post-Covid.

The Los Angeles refinery, California's largest producer of gasoline

And that's consistent with net zero by mid-century pledges that more than 100 countries - including the EU and China - have made recently.

Mr Kerry knows America has to step carefully.

"I think that the fact that the United States has been absent for four years, requires us to approach this with a certain sensitivity and humility."

The hope is, Mr Kerry implies, that aggressive action on the domestic front will give credibility to American efforts to encourage other nations to up their climate ambition.

He said he and the rest of the administration will work hard with the UK government to ensure Glasgow is a success.

"I'm not going to contemplate anything else," he told me, "because it would be a dramatic failure for mankind."

Originally published Sun., January 31, 2021, 3:14 a.m.

The Conversation Canada

What Biden's presidency means for Canada-U.S. agri-food trade

Sylvanus Kwaku Afesorgbor, Assistant Professor, Agri-Food Trade and Policy, University of Guelph and Eugene Beaulieu, Professor, Economics, University of Calgary
Updated Sun., January 31, 2021

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Joe Biden, U.S. vice president at the time, walk down the Hall of Honour on Parliament Hill in Ottawa in December 2016. 

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Patrick Doyle

Although international trade has long been affected by domestic politics, former U.S. president Donald Trump dramatically increased trade irritants between the United States and Canada. This was especially challenging in the agricultural sector where political interference in international trade is more prevalent than in the non-agricultural sector.

In our recent article in the Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, we analyzed how Trump’s presidency affected agri-food trade between the two countries and how the situation might change under President Joe Biden.

We argue that Trump’s negative rhetoric and actions heightened trade uncertainty and undermined global trading rules, which tends to disrupt international trade. This was a major challenge for a small open economy like Canada that depends largely on the American market. In particular, the politically sensitive nature of the agri-food sector makes agricultural trade highly dependent on diplomatic ties between countries.
Canada more reliant on the U.S.

Canada’s relationship with the U.S. is important for the agri-food sector in both countries, but it’s somewhat one-sided in terms of Canadian reliance on the American market.

Canada is the top destination for American agricultural exports, accounting for 15 per cent of the country’s total agricultural exports in 2019. Conversely, the U.S. is the foremost buyer of Canadian agri-food products, accounting for 58 per cent of total Canadian agri-food exports. This isn’t surprising due to the countries’ close proximity and similar consumer tastes and values.

But the Canada-U.S. political relationship became hostile during the Trump presidency due to the former president’s erratic foreign policy decisions, tariff wars and his verbal attacks on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The tense political relationship created an environment of uncertainty, adversely affecting the bilateral trading relationship.

A cyclist passes between two canola fields near Cremona, Alta., in a July 2016. The U.S. was the top market for Canadian canola in 2019. 

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh

Major trade disputes between the two countries at both the World Trade Organization (WTO) and within the former North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have largely involved the agricultural sector. WTO trade disputes over softwood lumber, hard wheat and durum and the compulsory country-of-origin labelling requirements, for example, were all within the agricultural sector.

The long-standing softwood lumber dispute predates Trump, but was escalated during his presidency and could not be sorted out under NAFTA and WTO dispute settlement mechanisms. It was resolved only through political negotiations when both parties signed a memorandum of understanding.

Canada diversifying?

The graph below shows that although bilateral agri-food exports from Canada to the U.S. increased marginally from 2015 and 2019, Canadian agri-food imports from the U.S. remained flat.

Agri-food imports and exports. Author provided

The increasing number of agri-food imports to Canada from nations other than the U.S., and the flat-lining of imports from south of the border, shows the Canadian economy may be diversifying away from the U.S. and not relying solely on Americans to be the main suppliers of its food basket.

Continuing trade uncertainty with the U.S. could push Canada to pursue its market diversification agenda more aggressively. Canada has shown serious signs of market diversification through its membership in two major free-trade agreements — the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with the European Union and the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) with Pacific Rim countries.

Read more: Canada-U.K. free trade: A post-Brexit opportunity

Biden’s presidency

In his inaugural speech, Biden promised to immediately work to repair and renew relationships with U.S. allies and return America to a leadership role in the world. His first call to a foreign leader was made to Trudeau, and he assured the prime minister that “Buy American” policies weren’t aimed at Canada.

Biden is facing significant domestic political challenges, and it’s too soon to know how he’ll deal with trade irritants and address the harm done by the Trump administration. But it’s clear he’s intent on returning to multilateralism.

The American dissatisfaction with the World Trade Organization (WTO) predates Trump and runs deep in the U.S. Barack Obama’s administration also blocked appointments to the appellate body based on this dissatisfaction. However, Biden has been clear about supporting a strong multilateral trading system and isn’t expected to be obstructionist like the Trump administration, but instead will likely work with allies to address concerns with the WTO.

When it comes to trade deals, Biden has acknowledged the importance of deals like the CPTPP that Trump pulled out of on his third day in office. But he’s also promised to protect American workers.
Protectionist forces

Protectionist forces will continue to disrupt trade between the two countries, but we can expect a closer and more constructive relationship under Biden. Trade disputes won’t disappear, but the approach to them will change, and improved U.S.-Canada diplomatic relations will have a positive impact on Canada’s agri-food sector.

Canada’s prime minister and Biden are much closer in terms of ideology, policy objectives and leadership style than Trump and Trudeau were, and they share views on eliminating trade barriers instead of imposing them.

Biden and his wife, Jill Biden, arrive at the airport in Richmond, B.C. in 2015 when he was serving as U.S. vice-president. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jonathan Hayward. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jonathan Hayward

The past four years of trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada were largely politically motivated, especially Trump’s imposition of steel and aluminium tariffs in the name of national security, which Canada responded to by imposing retaliatory tariffs on a number of agri-food products from the United States.

Such unilateral decisions will probably be minimal under Biden. Bilateral trade flows between both countries are unlikely to be affected by the types of erratic trade actions favoured by Trump.

Closer political ties between the Biden administration and the Canadian prime minister means a more constructive and co-operative approach to solving challenges between the two countries in the agri-food sector. Trade disputes will undoubtedly continue, but diplomatic efforts will work to resolve these disputes. This is a positive development for the Canadian agri-food industry.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Sylvanus Kwaku Afesorgbor, University of Guelph and Eugene Beaulieu, University of Calgary.

Read more:

The measly $292.50 that could have transformed Canada’s agrifood sector

Canada’s new food policy means everyone’s at the table

Sylvanus Kwaku Afesorgbor receives funding from Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs.

Eugene Beaulieu does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Originally published Sun., January 31, 2021

RIP

Jonas Gwangwa: The South African jazz icon who stood up to apartheid

Mo Allie - BBC News, Cape Town

Updated Sat., January 30, 2021, 



South African and world music has lost an icon with the death of jazz trombonist, composer and organiser Jonas Gwangwa.

The musician, who was 83, died on 23 January succumbing to cardiac complications.

He passed away on the same date that his great friend Hugh Masekela had died three years earlier, and two years to the day after Zimbabwean great Oliver Mtukudzi.

Gwangwa, who spent the prime of his life in exile, not only won acclaim for his music, he was also deeply involved in the struggle against white-minority rule in the country.

Born in the Johannesburg township of Soweto on 19 October 1937, Gwangwa went on to enjoy a highly successful musical career spanning six decades.

During that time he answered the call by Oliver Tambo, then-president of the ANC, to lead the Amandla Cultural Ensemble. The group was formed in 1980 to show a softer side to the anti-apartheid struggle, and win support in different parts of the world.

The white-minority National Party government regarded Gwangwa's musical and cultural activism as a big enough threat for their security forces to bomb his house in Botswana in 1985. Fortunately the musician and the other occupants were elsewhere.

His commitment to the liberation struggle together with his exceptional musical talent saw Gwangwa being awarded South Africa's Order of Ikhamanga in Gold - the nation's highest honour.

The citation for the national order, which he received in 2010, recalls how he "enthralled the world with his artistry as a composer and all-round creative genius. For more than 30 years he travelled the world as an exile collecting accolades wherever he went".
'A mirror for society'

Paying tribute to Jonas Gwangwa, President Cyril Ramaphosa said in a statement that he "ascends to our great orchestra of musical ancestors, whose creative genius and dedication to the freedom of all South Africans inspired millions in our country - and mobilised the international community against the apartheid system".

Former president Thabo Mbeki paid his own tribute via his foundation: "Bra JG, as he was affectionately known, understood the potent combination of culture and the arts as an effective instrument for national liberation from the beginning of his career.

"Together with others of his generation, Gwangwa harnessed the enthralling capacity of music not just to entertain, but also to hold up the mirror to society and bare the evil soul of the Apartheid regime to the world."

A young Gwangwa delighted audiences in Johannesburg's vibrant multi-racial cultural hub of Sophiatown, until it became illegal for black people to congregate and the apartheid government censored jazz performances in 1960.

Along with other leading South African musicians like Masekela, Abdullah Ibrahim and Miriam Makeba, Gwangwa went into exile rather than bow to apartheid censorship.

He rose to worldwide prominence in 1965 performing at a Sound of Africa concert at New York's Carnegie Hall with the likes of Makeba, Masekela, and Letta Mbulu.

It was the start of an international career that he used in service of the constantly growing struggle against white-minority rule.

In 1987, alongside English composer George Fenton, Gwangwa composed the score for the film Cry Freedom, earning two Oscar nominations for best original score and song.

He also received numerous awards at home, including at the South African Music Awards in the jazz category.

'Boy, did he play the trombone'

Like most other exiles Gwangwa returned home in the 1990s. Ike Phaahla, one of the country's leading radio jazz presenters, remembers the musician's first performance back home - at the famous Kippies jazz club in Johannesburg in 1991.

"Backstage he regaled us with stories from his time in exile, but boy did he play the trombone that night.

"He was not only an artist but also an activist and freedom fighter. He was insightful but very humble. He always enjoyed the stage and had lots of fun with his band," said Phaahla.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTNYGdGp1hQ

Despite being out of the country, internationally renowned artists like Gwangwa had a huge impact on those at home, including saxophonist Khaya Mahlangu.

"He was one of the pioneers alongside Abdullah Ibrahim, Caiphus Semenya and Hugh Masekela," Mahlangu said.

"They were the trailblazers, guys who hoisted our cultural flag high up on the international stage, and they shaped the cumulative me because much as they spent so much time abroad, they kept the sound of South Africa alive."

He was honoured with a special provincial state funeral on Friday livestreamed online by South Africa's state broadcaster, bringing together those kept apart by coronavirus restrictions.

Gwangwa's death, just two weeks after that of his wife Violet, is a huge loss to South Africa's music fraternity.

But at least the world will still be able to tap their feet and lift their spirits when listening to his music.

Originally published Sat., January 30, 2021, 

New Indigenous languages radio station 89.3 The Raven launches in Edmonton

A new radio station featuring programming in five indigenous languages has launched in Edmonton.© Provided by Edmonton Journal The Raven Studio in Edmonton. The new readio station, featuring indigenous language programming, is set to launch on Feb. 1.

The Aboriginal Multi-Media Society of Alberta (AMMSA) launched 89.3 The Raven on Monday. The station features blues, hip hop, classical rock and pop music alongside language programming in Cree, Dene, Nakoda Sioux, Blackfoot and Michif. It will also broadcast news and indigenous culture programming.

“All our staff and management have worked really hard to make this a reality. I’m so proud of them and our new baby,” said Bert Crowfoot, founder and CEO of AMMSA, in a news release issued Sunday.

The station is scheduled to start each morning at 6 a.m. with an indigenous prayer, a welcome song and the news. Raven Mornings will broadcast from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. and will be followed by a half hour of language programming. The afternoon show, known as the Tribe Drive, will run from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. The station will also feature a number non-daily block programs.


The Raven is live in Edmonton #Yeg 89.3 #ListenLive https://t.co/58mfsO4SrO #Indigenous #ClassicRock #Blues pic.twitter.com/aKQwrrR2VF— 89.3 The Raven (@893TheRaven) February 1, 2021

The radio station was originally supposed to launch last April but was delayed because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication Commission granted AMMSA a pair of broadcasting licenses four years ago to launch two radio stations. The society is currently operating a station in Calgary, which launched in 2018.

Crowfoot said he is excited to launch an Edmonton station and likened the beginning of The Raven to the early days of the Windspeaker newspaper in 1983, a print media outlet that AMMSA operates.

He said that while The Raven focuses on indigenous language programming, the station is for everyone.

“We have a lot of listeners that aren’t Indigenous,” said Crowfoot in the news release. “Many non-Indigenous people are extremely interested in the radio shows featuring language programming and culture.”

dshort@postmedia.com

4 DAY WK, 4HR DAY, 40 HRS PAY

Japan mulls four-day working week amid COVID pandemic

Japanese lawmakers are debating whether companies should offer their staff the option of a regular three-day weekend, hoping that more relaxed workers will be less at risk of "karoshi," or death by overwork.

In Japan, several hundred people die every year of heart attacks, strokes or other medical problems brought on by overwork

Japanese employees are famous for putting in agonizingly long hours at their desks and declining to take all their annual holidays for fear of inconveniencing office colleagues. But changes that were becoming evident in society have been exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic.

Members of the Japanese parliament on Wednesday opened discussions on a proposal put forward by Kuniko Inoguchi, a member of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, to permit workers to opt for a four-day working week instead of the traditional five-day, Monday-to-Friday pattern.

A handful of Japanese companies have already instituted flexible working systems, but the changes wrought on the corporate landscape by COVID-19 have hastened the debate on the issue.

And the early signs are that it would have the support of workers and companies.

"I would say that rather than being a possibility at companies, it should be a necessity," Teruo Sakurada, a professor of business at Osaka's Hannan University, told DW.

Economy under pressure

"Japan's economic system is under a great deal of pressure – made more acute by the pandemic. We we need to make changes to ensure that it is sufficiently resilient and able to meet the needs of companies in the future," he said.

In recent decades, Japan has shifted from an economy that is based on manufacturing to one that is more reliant on the service sector and financial services. That trend will continue as the nation's population continues to contract from 126.5 million at present to possibly as few as 83 million by the end of the century.

VIDEO Japan government orders time off for workers

"These changes mean that Japan has to be far more efficient in the future, and we need to find ways to improve both working conditions for people and the amount of leisure time that they can enjoy," Sakurada added.

Most immediately, Sakurada wants changes in the working environment for millions of Japanese to bring an end to "karoshi," the primarily Japanese problem of death brought on by overwork.

A 2016 government study determined that one in five Japanese workers were at risk of karoshi, with nearly a quarter of companies requiring staff to put in more than 80 hours or overtime each month, often unpaid. As a consequence, several hundred people were dying every year of heart attacks, strokes or other medical problems brought on by overwork, with more driven to suicide.

A new law went into effect in April 2019 that limited overwork to 100 hours a month and imposed fines on companies that broke the rules. Critics point out that there are loopholes in the law, which Sakurada hopes reducing the working week might help to close.
Karoshi crisis

"This law would enable more people to work fewer hours and be less stressed, which would in turn reduce the likelihood of karoshi," Sakurada said, adding that it would also create new employment opportunities.

Inoguchi said the pandemic has shown that Japan "has the latent ability to create flexible work environments and work styles." The lawmaker pointed out that enabling workers to choose to have a three-day weekend would give them more opportunities to spend time with their children or elderly relatives, pursue educational opportunities, examine the possibility of other business ventures and contribute to the national economy by consuming.

It is also considered likely that couples who want to have more children but fear they just do not have the time to raise youngsters, might change their minds and have larger families. That, in turn, would help to reverse the problem of a declining population.

The major drawback that has been identified is, inevitably, the lower wage associated with working one day less per week. But that has not proved a complete deal-breaker at companies that have already introduced the option of a four-day working week.

Watch video 01:20 Japan's aging population opens opportunities for seniors

Both Microsoft Japan and the Mizuho Financial Group have introduced schemes under which staff can choose to cut a day off their week, while Fast Retailing, the company behind the Uniqlo chain of clothing stores, first gave staff the option of four-day weeks back in 2015.

"We introduced a range of changes designed to make the working environment better for our staff primarily because we wanted to retain our best talent," said Pei-chi Tung, a spokeswoman for the company.

'Worker-friendly environment'

"We knew that we needed to make Uniqlo a worker-friendly environment. Giving employees the option of working four days and then having a long weekend every week was part of that," she told DW.

The system has proved quite popular, Tung said, although a majority of people still prefer to work the traditional five-day week. But they agree that it's a good option to have if they suddenly find that a family member is ill or there are other reasons that they need a bit more time off, she added.

Inoguchi's proposal would see the government extend financial support, in the early stages, for companies that introduce reduced working weeks.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle to a widespread acceptance of the system, however, would be from older and traditionally minded manager-level employees, who put in the long hours to build Japan into the economic powerhouse that it is today. They are likely to frown upon a new generation of workers not showing quite the same commitment to the company and the nation.

Twitter blocks dozens of accounts on India's demand amid farm protests: sources



By Zeba Siddiqui, Devjyot Ghoshal
FEBRUARY 1, 2021

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Twitter blocked dozens of accounts in India on Monday, including that of a leading newsmagazine, on the demand of the government on grounds that the users were posting content aiming to incite violence, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.

The move by the social media giant came in the wake of protests by Indian farmers that took a violent turn last week, resulting in the killing of one demonstrator and injuries to hundreds of people, including police officers.

Tens of thousands of farmers have camped on the outskirts of New Delhi for more than two months, demanding the withdrawal of new agricultural laws that they say benefit private buyers at the expense of growers.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government denies this, saying the reforms open up new opportunities for farmers to sell their produce directly to private buyers.

A government official said the Home Affairs Ministry had demanded the suspension of “close to 250 Twitter accounts” that were allegedly posting content that sought to foment violence.

“The order was issued against accounts that were using the hashtag #modiplanningfarmersgenocide that started on Jan. 30,” the government source said.
“If we receive a properly scoped request from an authorized entity, it may be necessary to withhold access to certain content in a particular country from time to time,” a Twitter spokeswoman said in a statement.

She added that Twitter policy is to “promptly” notify the holders of the affected accounts when it receives requests to withhold them, unless it is prohibited from doing so.

Vinod Jose, editorial director of The Caravan magazine, whose official Twitter account had a following of more than 280,000 and had tweeted reporting on the farmers’ protests, was also blocked along with the accounts of many farm leaders and protest supporters.

Jose told Reuters that Caravan had received no word from Twitter on the account suspension. “This is akin to censorship. Twitter’s act follows multiple cases of sedition filed against Caravan editors for covering the farmers protests,” he said.

The suspended accounts include popular reports by agitating farmers keen to build public momentum for their campaign.


Reporting by Zeba Siddiqui and Devjyot Ghoshal in New Delhi; Editing by Euan Rocha and Mark Heinrich

Twisted light from the beginning of time could reveal brand-new physics

© Provided by Space In this all-sky map from Planck, a European Space Agency mission, the towers of fiery colors represent dust in the galaxy and beyond that has been polarized.

A twist in the universe's first light could hint that scientists need to rethink physics.

A pair of Japanese scientists looked at the polarization or orientation of light from the cosmic microwave background radiation, some of the earliest light emitted after the universe's birth. They found the polarization of photons, or light particles, might be slightly rotated from their original orientation when the light was first produced. And dark energy or dark matter may have been responsible for that rotation. (Dark energy is a hypothetical force that is flinging the universe apart, while proposed dark matter is a substance that exerts gravitational pull yet does not interact with light.)

The rotated signature of the photon polarization tells the scientists that something may have interacted with those photons — specifically something that violates a symmetry physicists call parity. This symmetry or parity says that everything looks and behaves the same way, even in a flipped system — similar to how things look in the mirror. And if the system was following this parity rule, there wouldn't be this rotation change.

Related: From Big Bang to present: snapshots of our universe through time


Parity is shown by all subatomic particles and all forces except the weak force. However, the new results suggest that whatever the early light might have interacted with might be violating this parity.

"Maybe there is some unknown particle, which contributes to dark energy, that perhaps rotates the photon polarization," said study lead author Yuto Minami, a physicist at the Institute of Particle and Nuclear Studies (IPNS) of High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK) in Japan.

When the cosmic microwave background radiation, or CMB, was first emitted 13.8 billion years ago, it was polarized in the same direction. Looking at how the light's polarization has rotated over time allows scientists to probe the universe's history since then, by looking at how the light has changed as it travels across space and time.

Previously, scientists have studied the CMB's polarization and how it's been rotated over time, but they weren't able to measure it accurately enough to study parity because of large uncertainty in the calibration of the detectors that measure the photon's polarization. In the new study, reported Nov. 23 in the journal Physical Review Letters, researchers figured out a way to precisely measure the rotation of the instruments by using another source of polarized light — dust from within the Milky Way. Because this light hasn't traveled as far, it's likely not strongly affected by dark energy or dark matter.

Using the dusty Milky Way light, the scientists were able to figure out precisely how their instruments were oriented, so they knew the rotation in the light was real, not something caused by their instruments. This allowed them to determine the polarization rotation of CMB light was non-zero, which means that the light has interacted with something that violates parity. It's possible something in the early universe affected the light, but it's more likely that it was something along the light's path as it traveled toward Earth, Minami told Live Science.

That something could be dark energy or dark matter, which would mean that the particles that make up these mysterious substances violate parity.

The authors reported their findings with 99.2% confidence, meaning there's an 8 in 1,000 chance of getting similar results by chance. However, this isn't quite as confident as physicists require for absolute proof. For that, they need five sigma, or 99.99995% confidence, which likely isn't possible with data from just one experiment. But future and existing experiments might be able to gather more accurate data, which could be calibrated with the new technique to reach a high-enough level of confidence.

"Our results do not mean a new discovery," Minami said. "Only that we found a hint of it."

Originally published on Live Science.

Human activity threatens species survival: study

© MENAHEM KAHANA

 Authors of the research called for better habitat protection and ecosystem management

Human activities such as farming and construction are threatening the survival of scores of wild species by forcing them to travel more to avoid mankind's impact, research showed Monday.

 Authors of the research called for better habitat protection and ecosystem management

According to the United Nations' biodiversity panel, more than three quarters of land and 40 percent of Earth's oceans have already been "severely degraded" by humans.

Its landmark biodiversity assessment in 2019 drew on a large body of research into how human activities are impacting nature.

But there have been relatively few studies looking at specific species and how human influence is changing their behaviour.

Researchers in Australia looked at the impact of activities such as roads, tourism, recreation, hunting, shipping and fishing on 167 species, from the 0.05-gram sleepy orange butterfly to the two-tonne Great White shark.

They found that most species had increased the distance they travel due to human influence -- by 70 percent on average.

In a third of species, movement had either increased or decreased by half, according to the study published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution.

"This tells us that humans have widespread impacts on animal movement, but in many cases these are going undetected and unaddressed," lead author Tim Doherty, from the University of Sydney, told AFP.

Gallery: This country is where you can find some of the world’s rarest animals (National Geographic)


"In everyday life, we generally only see animals in the wild for short periods and don't get a proper understanding of how they move around and use space."

- 'Cascading impacts' -

Doherty said that since many species, including most mammals, spend nearly all their energy on hunting for food and finding mates, the additional energy required to relocate away from humans was an unwelcome survival challenge.

"However, animals will often move further in response to disturbance to ensure their survival, for example by seeking shelter, finding food," he said.

"Some species are able to cope with these changes better than others."

Of the taxonomic groups studied, birds and insects moved the most on average in order to avoid coming into contact with human activity.

The study warned of "cascading impacts" to natural processes such as pollination if such displacements continued apace.

The authors said they had documented a "global restructuring of animal movement, with potentially profound impacts on populations, species and ecosystem processes".

They called for better preservation of natural habitats through increasing protected areas and managing construction and tourism, as well as seasonal curbs on hunting during species' breeding periods.

pg/mh/jj

Inevitable Planetary Doom Has Been Exaggerated

It feels as if the world is on fire—and it is. In the last days of the Trump administration, U.S. government scientists announced that 2020 was one of the two hottest years in recorded history. The other hottest year was 2016: fittingly, the year that the United States elected Donald Trump president, a disaster for the environment as well as democratic norms

.

© H. Abernathy / ClassicStock / Getty

I am an environmental writer, and in the environmental world, the past year in particular has felt like an endless series of reactions to immediate crises: constant rollbacks of environmental protections, the pandemic complicating environmental work, colossal wildfires that torched the West. (The offices of the local climate-justice organization I volunteer for literally burned to the ground, for example.) We were so busy coping with immediate catastrophes, we had little time to make things better. Now, with Trump out, many of us can take a breath and think on longer timescales for the first time in years.

[Read: The United States is a disaster area]

But environmentalists are so good at emphasizing worst-case scenarios that when we look to the future, apocalypse often feels inevitable. After all, aren’t we in the “sixth mass extinction”? Haven’t populations of wild animals already crashed by 60 percent? Don’t we have just “10 years left” to avert climate meltdown? Do we really dare to hope?

Yes, we do dare to hope. Looking at these problems from a distance, they seem like impenetrable, mountainous barriers to a good future, but in every case, there is a path through.

“Saving the planet” can mean many things in practice, but one goal pretty much everyone shares is stopping extinctions. Elizabeth Kolbert’s 2014 Pulitzer Prize–winning book, The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History, reported on scientists sounding the alarm about high extinction rates, and in the years that followed, the idea that we are in the midst of one of the planet’s greatest mass-extinction events has come to feel like a bedrock truth to many greenies. This framing can make extinction feel like a force too huge and powerful to avert.

That’s just not true. As of today, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List, the conservation status of 128,918 species has been assessed. Of those, 902 have gone extinct since the year 1500. This is absolutely too many. One is too many. But to cause an extinction event on the scale of those seen millions of years ago, in which more than 75 percent of species disappeared, we would have to lose all our threatened species within a century and then keep losing species at that same super-high rate for between 240 and 540 more years. In other words, the concept assumes that we won’t save anything, ever, and that hundreds of years into the future, we will still be as inept at protecting biodiversity as we are now.

You might have also heard that we’ve lost something like 60 percent of wild animals since the 1970s? Surely this suggests that a lot more extinctions are imminent? In 2018, The Atlantic’s Ed Yong helpfully explained that this study actually looked at the average decline of a given population (not species) of wild animal. So severe declines in small populations disproportionately increase the average decline.

[Read: Wait, have we really wiped out 60 percent of animals? ]

More recently, a new analysis of the data showed that, indeed, the 60 percent average decline was driven by very severe crashes in a very small number of vertebrate populations. For example, one small population of Australian waterfall frogs declined 99.5 percent over two years. This decline became one data point, which was averaged with 14,000 others, many from stable or increasing populations.

Really, less than 3 percent of vertebrate populations are crashing. Remove the most strongly declining populations, and the average would actually be growing slightly. This means that declines are not the rule everywhere. It means that the specific populations in crisis can be identified and helped. And we have the knowledge to save them, if we can marshal the will and resources.

This targeted approach works for environmental policy too. The Trump administration pushed for more than 100 rollbacks of pollution standards, land protections, and other green policies, with the glee of a team of comic-book villains. Jill Tauber, the vice president of litigation for climate and energy at Earthjustice, told me that her organization has more than 100 lawsuits pending against the Trump administration and that so far, once cases pass any procedural hurdles, her side is winning more than 80 percent of them. Tackled one-by-one, many of his policies can be undone and their damage limited.

Addressing climate change is obviously a cornerstone of environmental protection. Some change has already happened and more is locked in, but as the cost of key technologies such as solar panels and batteries has fallen, the price tag to move the country to net-zero emissions by 2050—as President Joe Biden has pledged—has also dropped. The U.S. could spend about what it already spends on energy—a mere 4 to 6 percent of gross domestic product—and still reach this goal, according to a new report out of Princeton University.

[Read: Earth’s new gilded era]

The necessary changes would have to start immediately, and they aren’t minor. Visualize a huge build-out of solar, wind, and transmission lines, for starters. And although the report is focused on net zero by 2050, faster is always better. If we act now, we could be breathing cleaner air, seeing significantly more turbines on the horizon, riding in electric vehicles more often, and enjoying better public transit in a decade.

To make it happen, though, American citizens must “create a demand for the policy,” according to one of the study’s three principal investigators, Jesse Jenkins, an energy-systems expert at Princeton. “What they need to be able to say clearly to politicians is: ‘I value this; this is an important priority to me.’”

On Wednesday, Biden signed an executive order on climate, which sets a goal of conserving at least 30 percent of the country by 2030, launches a Civilian Climate Corps, and hits pause on fossil-fuel development on public lands. He had already signed an order to return the United States to the Paris Agreement on climate change—an admittedly weak international agreement, but one that could form the basis for more robust future commitments. And he’s canceled the Keystone XL pipeline, a good sign that his administration might actually work toward ending our reliance on fossil fuels. But Jenkins cautions that those who support that goal shouldn’t just check out for the next four years because the “good guys” are in power. “If we don’t keep up that demand for policy, then it is just not going to happen,” he told me.

Jenkins also rejects the idea that if we fail to keep warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius, the key target in an influential United Nations report, all is lost. “Any time you see a round number like 2.0 or 1.5 or 20 percent by 2020, that is a political number,” he said. “The reality is that every 10th of a degree matters.” There is no threshold after which it is not worth fighting.

One very good reason to feel overwhelmed is that everything seems screwed up at once. As a country, we’re facing climate change, the pandemic, racial injustice, the threat of dangerous fascist elements—I could go on. Because climate change and extinction have been ongoing problems for as long as many of us can remember, feeling that they’re impossible to engage with right now is only natural.

But many of our problems are so thoroughly tangled up with one another that we may not need to fight them separately. Environmental destruction disproportionately harms people of color and lower-income people. And people of color are, on average, significantly more concerned about climate change than white people. A leading cause of inaction on climate change is the hoarding of power by some of the world’s wealthiest people, who profit from planetary destruction that they don’t have to deal with personally. They can simply crank up the air conditioner, pay more for the last remaining champagne and oysters, or fly to their New Zealand bunker, so they have no incentive to change unsustainable systems that they benefit from. When political power is more fairly distributed, the environment will benefit.

So fighting for racial or economic justice, or against voter suppression, still can mean fighting for the environment. As these links are becoming better understood, the environmental movement is finally working with its natural allies to, for example, fight fossil fuels while promoting investment in Black, Indigenous, brown, and working-class communities.

There will be more crises, more setbacks. But there is no “too late.” In the longer term, we know what we need to do to stop climate change, save species, and make sure everyone breathes clean air and drinks clean water. Not everything can be saved. But 2021 can be better than 2020, and 2031 can be much, much better than 2021, if we demand it.

Oil and gas "existential crisis" looming in rural Alberta

Canada need to start becoming more energy-independent and the country needs to start working toward a national energy strategy to protect itself from volatile market changes, like the cancellation of the Keystone pipeline, says the president of an organization representing rural Alberta municipalities.

Paul McLauchlin, president of Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA), said relying on international energy markets is fraught with risk, but looking inward as a country for an energy strategy – for all types of energy – is something the country can control.

McLauchlin said rural municipalities weren't surprised to hear the Keystone pipeline was cancelled, but said it is now more important than ever for rural Alberta to pivot toward a different energy strategy.

While the cancellation of Keystone last week by U.S. President Joe Biden impacted many rural communities in the east of the province, McLauchlin said the decline in the oil and gas sector is felt across the province overall, with many rural jurisdictions pulling much of their tax base from the industry.

"It's touching on an existential crisis. It definitely is getting close to that," McLauchlin said.

"If you see a negative trajectory in our oil and gas industry, that definitely changes rural Alberta. It's core to the majority of the rural municipalities that I represent. Oil and gas is core to our existence as it is now. "

Without action, McLauchlin said the province runs the risk of becoming the Rust Belt – a region from New York through the Midwest that was once dominated by manufacturing but has now become synonymous with regions facing industrial decline – or northern Scotland in the '80s.

"We don't want to become one of these hollowed-out industrial centres where we've got rusting gas plants and then it becomes a shadow of its former self," he said.

"I think we have to force ourselves to innovate because I don't think (we) have a choice, right? Apathy isn't your choice – that's not going to work."

Municipalities can be leaders in creating a national energy strategy because they are so close to the situations on the ground, he noted – they can build a consensus together and then bring a plan forward to the federal government. An energy plan that deals with the climate change goals the country has and takes the strategy down to a local level is possible, McLauchlin said, allowing small communities to thrive and to utilize the resources and skills in the country.

Natural gas can be a "phenomenal product", McLauchlin said, and in the right situation and treated the right way, can be a low carbon fuel. The country needs to also supply different markets with blue hydrogen, a product made from natural gas in the process of steam methane reformation, with the resulting emissions curtailed through carbon capture and storage or green hydrogen, which is a hydrogen fuel that is created using renewable energy instead of fossil fuels.

Right now, some jurisdictions in southern Alberta are already capitalizing on renewable products and showing a lot of success, with up to 20 per cent of municipal tax assessment coming from renewable energy.

But McLauchlin said the province has to move fast on finding solutions or it will get left behind.

"We have to find the solutions and we have to move fast on this. None of this is theoretical," McLauchlin said.

"(We need to) start to use future planning as the way we deal with our energy industry instead of looking backwards."

Doug Irving, Mayor of Hardisty, where the Keystone pipeline starts, said the news of the project's cancellation was disappointing, but not devastating.

The pipeline is owned by TC Energy and starts at the Hardisty Terminal, which is a major storage and pipeline export hub for the province.

"With all of these pipeline works, we seem to get a lot of ups and downs," Irving said.

"We're all excited and then jobs get cancelled, but they cancelled outside what we can do. The Town of Hardisty really has no say in permits or who approves things."

The project brought some 600 workers into the town, which has a permanent population of 540 people – a huge boom for Hardisty's hospitality industry.

"It's a major economic disruption, that's for sure," Irving said.

"it is a big blow to us."

The Alberta government expected the pipeline to bring 2,000 construction jobs to the province over two years and then generate $30 billion in revenue after it was complete. The government invested $1.5 billion in the project in March 2020 to get construction started on the extension after it was approved by the U.S.

Irving hopes the project will be reconsidered and reviewed and somebody else will issue a permit for it.

"Maybe we can get a reversal on the permit. I don't think it'll happen very quickly. But that's the sort of view of Hardisty. It's outside our control and we have to work around it as best we can and hope for the best in the future."

Jennifer Henderson, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, St. Albert Gazette

Under Biden order, workers refusing unsafe work could stay on unemployment aid


By Ann Saphir, Jonnelle Marte


(Reuters) - Many workers called back by employers resuming or expanding operations despite the ongoing coronavirus pandemic face a dilemma: return to jobs that put them at high risk of the virus, or say no, and risk going without pay or unemployment benefits.

FILE PHOTO: Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Joe Biden talks with a worker at the FCA (Fiat Chrysler Automobiles) Mack Assembly plant in Detroit, Michigan, U.S., March 10, 2020. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid/File Photo

President Joe Biden argues workers should not have to make that choice.

An executive order signed on his second full day in office could make it easier for people to still qualify for jobless benefits if they quit or refuse a job that puts them at undue risk of infection from the coronavirus.

More than 18 million Americans are drawing some form of government unemployment assistance.

The order asks the U.S. Department of Labor to clarify that workers who refuse jobs due to unsafe working conditions can still receive unemployment insurance. A department spokesman told Reuters the agency is developing an Unemployment Insurance Program Letter - the usual mechanism for issuing guidelines or clarifying policies - in response to the order.

The Labor Department also issued new guidance on Friday with recommendations on how employers can protect workers from the virus, which has infected more than 25 million Americans and led to more than 433,500 U.S. deaths since the pandemic began.

“In a period where lots of people have lost jobs and people are desperate for work, people will go and end up working under dangerous conditions and they will do so believing they have no other alternative,” said Ken Jacobs, chair of the UC Berkeley Labor Center.

Assuring them they have the right to refuse unsafe work, and paying them enough to afford not to work, is “vitally important,” Jacobs said. “You want people in the greatest risk groups to stay home.”

SEEKING CLARITY

It’s not clear how many workers have lost unemployment benefits after refusing jobs because of COVID-19 safety concerns, said Andrew Stettner, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation and an expert on unemployment insurance. Still, the new guidance should establish minimum protections for workers, replacing an approach that can vary by state, he said.

“It’s been very unclear for a claimant to understand whether they can refuse an offer to go back to work,” Stettner said.

Currently some states, including Texas, publish lists of the circumstances in which a worker might be able to keep receiving benefits after turning down a job. For instance, the state offers exceptions for workers age 65 and up, or those with health conditions that put them at high risk.

But other states advise workers of a narrower set of protections, and many make decisions on a case by case basis.

“The goal would be to have some clear standards,” Stettner said.

The new federal guidance, likely to be issued in the coming weeks, would be aimed at making both states and workers aware they should be able to qualify for unemployment benefits after refusing a job that puts them at greater risk because of their age, a health condition or lack of COVID-19 safety protocols, analysts say.

‘WE NEED A STANDARD’

That policy could make a big difference for people in jobs at restaurants or other businesses requiring workers to be in close proximity to others, two recent studies suggest.

Essential workers were 55% more likely to get infected with coronavirus than those who stayed at home, according to a study of the early months of the pandemic in Pennsylvania published this week by researchers at Independence Blue Cross and the Wharton School of Business.

“We all had a hunch that essential workers by the nature of their jobs are probably more exposed, which means they’re probably more likely to get infected – but what we didn’t know was by how much,” said Wharton’s Hummy Song, one of the paper’s authors.

A separate study out last week from the University of California found deaths of working-age Californians increased by 22% in 2020 from what would have been expected based on prior trends, and the deaths were concentrated in certain occupations.

Deaths among workers in food and agriculture, for instance, were 39% higher. Among healthcare workers, deaths were up 20%, the study noted.

The findings indicate there may be better protections in place in health care settings than in restaurants or other fields, said Yea-Hung Chen, one of the study’s authors.

New guidance from the Biden administration could help workers in at least some of those higher-risk sectors keep unemployment benefits and avoid unsafe work - even as it puts pressure on companies to make workplaces safer, said University of California, Berkeley professor Jesse Rothstein.

“We need a standard,” said Rothstein. “The DOL has been AWOL for the last year.”


Reporting by Jonnelle Marte in New York and Ann Saphir in San Francisco; Editing by Dan Burns and Diane Craft

Element of contradictions: Selenium cuts thin line between healthy and toxic

EDMONTON — Sort of silvery in its raw state, sort of metallic but not really, selenium embodies contradiction.

It's fairly rare — the 68th most common element — but often found with coal.

Tiny amounts are essential to health — selenium helps the body fight tissue-damaging free radicals — but too much is harmful.

Scientists say selenium was brought to the Earth's surface by explosive volcano eruptions in the Cretaceous Era, which ended 66 million years ago. It was absorbed and concentrated in the shells of sea creatures, which is why it's relatively common in carbon-rich deposits from that era.

Selenium poisoning has been around for a long time. Scientists say it is likely to have been behind a condition afflicting horses described by Marco Polo in 1295.

It wasn't until 1957 that a firm link was drawn between excess selenium and toxic effects. 

Once dissolved from exposed rock into a water body, selenium is readily absorbed by plants, fungi and algae, which are then eaten by birds and fish. If there's more selenium in the food than the animals can get rid of, it gradually builds up in their bodies.

In fish, it can retard growth, deform skeletons and damage a female's ability to produce and lay eggs. In birds, it reduces the number of eggs that successfully hatch and increases deformities in chicks.

Selenium poisoning in humans is rare. When it has been recorded, it's been blamed for heart and joint damage, tooth and nail decay, lethargy and even bad breath.

Its biggest impact is in lakes or slow-moving rivers. Once it builds up in sediments, it can cycle in the ecosystem for decades.

Scientists say the line between healthy and toxic levels of selenium — especially for fish — is narrow. Two millionths of a gram per litre of water is considered enough to harm aquatic life.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 1. 20

Selenium Facts for Kids (kiddle.co)