GoGreenNation News

Unlocking New Levels of Accuracy With Advanced Timing Chips

Compact chips enhance precision timing for communication, navigation, and various applications. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and its collaborators have delivered a...

NIST researchers test a chip for converting light into microwave signals. Pictured is the chip, which is the fluorescent panel that looks like two tiny vinyl records. The gold box to the left of the chip is the semiconductor laser that emits light to the chip. Credit: K. Palubicki/NISTCompact chips enhance precision timing for communication, navigation, and various applications.The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and its collaborators have delivered a small but mighty advancement in timing technology: compact chips that seamlessly convert light into microwaves. This chip could improve GPS, the quality of phone and internet connections, the accuracy of radar and sensing systems, and other technologies that rely on high-precision timing and communication.This technology reduces something known as timing jitter, which is small, random changes in the timing of microwave signals. Similar to when a musician is trying to keep a steady beat in music, the timing of these signals can sometimes waver a bit. The researchers have reduced these timing wavers to a very small fraction of a second — 15 femtoseconds to be exact, a big improvement over traditional microwave sources — making the signals much more stable and precise in ways that could increase radar sensitivity, the accuracy of analog-to-digital converters and the clarity of astronomical images captured by groups of telescopes.The team’s results were published in Nature. Shining a Light on MicrowavesWhat sets this demonstration apart is the compact design of the components that produce these signals. For the first time, researchers have taken what was once a tabletop-size system and shrunken much of it into a compact chip, about the same size as a digital camera memory card. Reducing timing jitter on a small scale reduces power usage and makes it more usable in everyday devices.Right now, several of the components for this technology are located outside of the chip, as researchers test their effectiveness. The ultimate goal of this project is to integrate all the different parts, such as lasers, modulators, detectors, and optical amplifiers, onto a single chip.By integrating all the components onto a single chip, the team could reduce both the size and power consumption of the system. This means it could be easily incorporated into small devices without requiring lots of energy and specialized training.“The current technology takes several labs and many Ph.D.s to make microwave signals happen,” said Frank Quinlan, NIST physical scientist. “A lot of what this research is about is how we utilize the advantages of optical signals by shrinking the size of components and making everything more accessible.”To accomplish this, researchers use a semiconductor laser, which acts as a very steady flashlight. They direct the light from the laser into a tiny mirror box called a reference cavity, which is like a miniature room where light bounces around. Inside this cavity, some light frequencies are matched to the size of the cavity so that the peaks and valleys of the light waves fit perfectly between the walls. This causes the light to build up power in those frequencies, which is used to keep the laser’s frequency stable. The stable light is then converted into microwaves using a device called a frequency comb, which changes high-frequency light into lower-pitched microwave signals. These precise microwaves are crucial for technologies like navigation systems, communication networks, and radar because they provide accurate timing and synchronization.“The goal is to make all these parts work together effectively on a single platform, which would greatly reduce the loss of signals and remove the need for extra technology,” said Quinlan. “Phase one of this project was to show that all these individual pieces work together. Phase two is putting them together on the chip.”In navigation systems such as GPS, the precise timing of signals is essential for determining location. In communication networks, such as mobile phone and internet systems, accurate timing and synchronization of multiple signals ensure that data is transmitted and received correctly.For example, synchronizing signals is important for busy cell networks to handle multiple phone calls. This precise alignment of signals in time enables the cell network to organize and manage the transmission and reception of data from multiple devices, like your cellphone. This ensures that multiple phone calls can be carried over the network simultaneously without experiencing significant delays or drops.In radar, which is used for detecting objects like airplanes and weather patterns, precise timing is crucial for accurately measuring how long it takes for signals to bounce back.“There are all sorts of applications for this technology. For instance, astronomers who are imaging distant astronomical objects, like black holes, need really low-noise signals and clock synchronization,” said Quinlan. “And this project helps get those low noise signals out of the lab, and into the hands of radar technicians, of astronomers, of environmental scientists, of all these different fields, to increase their sensitivity and ability to measure new things.”Working Together Toward a Shared GoalCreating this type of technological advancement is not done alone. Researchers from the University of Colorado Boulder, the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, the University of California Santa Barbara, the University of Virginia, and Yale University came together to accomplish this shared goal: to revolutionize how we harness light and microwaves for practical applications.“I like to compare our research to a construction project. There’s a lot of moving parts, and you need to make sure everyone is coordinated so the plumber and electrician are showing up at the right time in the project,” said Quinlan. “We all work together really well to keep things moving forward.”This collaborative effort underscores the importance of interdisciplinary research in driving technological progress, Quinlan said.Reference: “Photonic chip-based low-noise microwave oscillator” by Igor Kudelin, William Groman, Qing-Xin Ji, Joel Guo, Megan L. Kelleher, Dahyeon Lee, Takuma Nakamura, Charles A. McLemore, Pedram Shirmohammadi, Samin Hanifi, Haotian Cheng, Naijun Jin, Lue Wu, Samuel Halladay, Yizhi Luo, Zhaowei Dai, Warren Jin, Junwu Bai, Yifan Liu, Wei Zhang, Chao Xiang, Lin Chang, Vladimir Iltchenko, Owen Miller, Andrey Matsko, Steven M. Bowers, Peter T. Rakich, Joe C. Campbell, John E. Bowers, Kerry J. Vahala, Franklyn Quinlan and Scott A. Diddams, 6 March 2024, Nature.DOI: 10.1038/s41586-024-07058-z

Granting legal ‘personhood’ to nature is a growing movement – can it stem biodiversity loss?

The rights-of-nature movement emerged as a response to economic pressures on ecosystems. But the success of projects depends on how well legal liability is defined.

Getty Images/Amy ToensingBiodiversity is declining at rates unprecedented in human history. This suggests the ways we currently use to manage our natural environment are failing. One emerging concept focuses on giving legal rights to nature. Many Indigenous peoples have long emphasised the intrinsic value of nature. In 1972, the late University of Southern California law professor Christopher Stone proposed what then seemed like a whimsical idea: to vest legal rights in natural objects to allow a shift from an anthropocentric to an intrinsic worldview. Ecuador was the first country to enshrine rights of nature in its 2008 constitution. Since then, a growing number of countries have followed in awarding rights of nature. This includes Aotearoa New Zealand, where legal personhood was granted to the Whanganui River, the former national park Te Urewera and soon the Taranaki maunga. At its core, the rights-of-nature movement allows persons to take legal action on behalf of natural ecosystems, as opposed to on behalf of people affected by environmental degradation. Ecosystems can become separate entities with their own agency, in the same way other non-human entities such as charitable trusts and organisations can exist as separate entities in law. Read more: What if whales took us to court? A move to grant them legal personhood would include the right to sue But can the movement help stem the loss of biodiversity? There is no easy answer. Our new research shows that many rights-of-nature examples have emerged because current systems were not enough to protect nature from continued economic pressure from development. We find one of the key features of well designed rights-of-nature frameworks lies in defining who is ultimately liable, and what for. The Whanganui River in New Zealand was granted legal personhood in 2017. Shutterstock/Gabor Kovacs Photography Global case studies The design of rights-of-nature frameworks varies widely in geography, legal status, guardianship and who holds liability. We investigated 14 global rights-of-nature examples and categorised them by types of guardianship. For example, in 2008, Ecuador enshrined rights of nature in its constitution because of decades of pressure from large mining companies. This represents a type of public guardianship where every citizen has the right to take legal action on behalf of nature. In New Zealand on the other hand, the former national park Te Urewera was granted legal personhood with Tūhoe trustees as appointed guardians. A legal person is defined as an entity which has the capacity to enter into contracts, incur debts, sue and be sued in its own right, and to be accountable for illegal activities. We define rights-of-nature cases with appointed guardians as “environmental legal personhoods”. Read more: Rights for nature: How granting a river 'personhood' could help protect it We then compared these cases to explore why they emerged and how they are designed. Who advocated on behalf of the environment? What was the exploiting activity putting pressure on the ecosystem? What is the liability status of the guardians? We found that, overwhelmingly, Indigenous people and local communities acted as advocates. For example, the Whanganui River in New Zealand was granted legal personhood in 2017 as a result of hundreds of years of resistance by Indigenous Māori to aggressive colonisation. Since 1848, the Crown has introduced a steamer service, cleared forest from river banks, extracted sand and gravel, and diverted water into a power scheme. This led to ongoing conflict with Whanganui iwi who raised concerns about the river’s health and the desire to preserve the resource for future generations. Response to sustained economic pressure On the other side of the world, the Mar Menor lagoon in Spain was declared a legal person in 2022 due to strong local community advocacy against pollution from agriculture, mining and sewage. The evidence from our research points to a fundamental divide between local communities and external economic interests. The rights-of-nature movement has come as a response to sustained pressure from economic (urban, agricultural and industrial) activity. The features of design, however, vary significantly. For example, the Victorian state government in Australia established the Victorian Environmental Water Holder, an independent statutory body under the state’s Water Act 1989, as a legal person. It manages water entitlements to improve the health of rivers and wetlands. The entity acts indirectly on behalf of the ecosystems, which is not precisely the same as creating legal rights for rivers themselves. The Whanganui River, on the other hand, was itself declared a legal person. Its appointed guardians have the legal status of a charitable entity. This group includes representatives of Whanganui iwi and the government, supported by members of councils, locals, and recreational and commercial users. Liability matters The recent overturning of two rights-of-nature decisions in particular puts the spot light on the importance of liability. In the US, farming operations challenged the Lake Erie Bill of Rights in 2020, which granted Lake Erie the right to “exist, flourish and naturally evolve”. Farmers argued the bill was too vague and would expose them to liability from fertiliser runoff. In India, the Ganges and Yamuna rivers were granted living-person status, where injury to rivers was to be treated equally to injury to human beings. The decision was challenged on the grounds of uncertainty about who the custodians are and who would be liable to pay damage to the families of those who drowned in the rivers. Both these were legally overturned, meaning these natural entities no longer have rights of nature. This suggests attention to legally defining who is liability for what may be an important building block for the movement to protect biodiversity in the future. Our recommendation is that future rights-of-nature frameworks need to have well-defined legal rights and include appointed guardians, established as separate legal entities with limited liability, as well as the support of representatives from interest groups. This research was carried out in collaboration with my colleagues Claire Armstrong and Margrethe Aanesen in Norway. Viktoria Kahui 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.

Longer-lasting ozone holes over Antarctica expose seal pups and penguin chicks to much more UV

Four years of persistent ozone holes have sparked concern about what more UV is doing to Antarctic ecosystems.

Andrew NetherwoodOver the last 25 years, the ozone hole which forming over Antarctica each spring has started to shrink. But over the last four years, even as the hole has shrunk it has persisted for an unusually long time. Our new research found that instead of closing up during November it has stayed open well into December. This is early summer – the crucial period of new plant growth in coastal Antarctica and the peak breeding season for penguins and seals. That’s a worry. When the ozone hole forms, more ultraviolet rays get through the atmosphere. And while penguins and seals have protective covering, their young may be more vulnerable. Why does ozone matter? Over the past half century, we damaged the earth’s protective ozone layer by using chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and related chemicals. Thanks to coordinated global action these chemicals are now banned. Because CFCs have long lifetimes, it will be decades before they are completely removed from the atmosphere. As a result, we still see the ozone hole forming each year. The lion’s share of ozone damage happens over Antarctica. When the hole forms, the UV index doubles, reaching extreme levels. We might expect to see UV days over 14 in summers in Australia or California, but not in polar regions. Luckily, on land most species are dormant and protected under snow when the ozone hole opens in early spring (September to November). Marine life is protected by sea ice cover and Antarctica’s moss forests are under snow. These protective icy covers have helped to protect most life in Antarctica from ozone depletion – until now. Read more: Photos from the field: spying on Antarctic moss using drones, MossCam, smart sensors and AI Unusually long-lived ozone holes A series of unusual events between 2020 and 2023 saw the ozone hole persist into December. The record-breaking 2019–2020 Australian bushfires, the huge underwater volcanic eruption off Tonga, and three consecutive years of La Niña. Volcanoes and bushfires can inject ash and smoke into the stratosphere. Chemical reactions occurring on the surface of these tiny particulates can destroy ozone. Read more: La Niña is finishing an extremely unusual three-year cycle – here's how it affected weather around the world These longer-lasting ozone holes coincided with significant loss of sea ice, which meant many animals and plants would have had fewer places to hide. You can see how the size of the ozone hole in 2019 (top left) and 2020 (top right) differs from the mean ozone hole area between 1979 and 2018. Maps of ozone area for September to December show how the ozone hole disappeared early in 2019 (November, middle panel) but extended into December in 2020 (lower panel) NASA Ozone Watch, CC BY-NC-ND What does stronger UV radiation do to ecosystems? If ozone holes last longer, summer-breeding animals around Antarctica’s vast coastline will be exposed to high levels of reflected UV radiation. More UV can get through, and ice and snow is highly reflective, bouncing these rays around. In humans, high UV exposure increases our risk of skin cancer and cataracts. But we don’t have fur or feathers. While penguins and seals have skin protection, their eyes aren’t protected. Is it doing damage? We don’t know for sure. Very few studies report on what UV radiation does to animals in Antarctica. Most are done in zoos, where researchers study what happens when animals are kept under artificial light. Even so, it is a concern. More UV radiation in early summer could be particularly damaging to young animals, such as penguin chicks and seal pups who hatch or are born in late spring. As plants such as Antarctic hairgrass, Deschampsia antarctica, the cushion plant, Colobanthus quitensis and lots of mosses emerge from under snow in late spring, they will be exposed to maximum UV levels. Antarctic mosses actually produce their own sunscreen to protect themselves from UV radiation, but this comes at the cost of reduced growth. Trillions of tiny phytoplankton live under the sea ice. These microscopic floating algae also make sunscreen compounds, called microsporine amino acids. What about marine creatures? Krill will dive deeper into the water column if the UV radiation is too high, while fish eggs usually have melanin, the same protective compound as humans, though not all fish life stages are as well protected. Four of the past five years have seen sea ice extent reduce, a direct consequence of climate change. Less sea ice means more UV light can penetrate the ocean, where it makes it harder for Antarctic phytoplankton and krill to survive. Much relies on these tiny creatures, who form the base of the food web. If they find it harder to survive, hunger will ripple up the food chain. Antarctica’s waters are also getting warmer and more acidic due to climate change. An uncertain outlook for Antarctica We should, by rights, be celebrating the success of banning CFCS – a rare example of fixing an environmental problem. But that might be premature. Climate change may be delaying the recovery of our ozone layer by, for example, making bushfires more common and more severe. Ozone could also suffer from geoengineering proposals such as spraying sulphates into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight, as well as more frequent rocket launches. If the recent trend continues, and the ozone hole lingers into the summer, we can expect to see more damage done to plants and animals – compounded by other threats. We don’t know if the longer-lasting ozone hole will continue. But we do know climate change is causing the atmosphere to behave in unprecedented ways. To keep ozone recovery on track, we need to take immediate action to reduce the carbon we emit into the atmosphere. Read more: Antarctica's sea ice hit another low this year – understanding how ocean warming is driving the loss is key Sharon Robinson receives funding from the Australian Research Council and is a Deputy Director within the Securing Antarctica’s Environmental Future program. She is Dean Researcher Development at the University of Wollongong and is a member of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) which assesses how ozone depletion impacts life on Earth.Laura Revell receives New Zealand government funding from the Royal Society Te Apārangi (Marsden fund and Rutherford Discovery Fellowships), Deep South National Science Challenge and Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment. She is a member of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) which assesses how ozone depletion impacts life on Earth.Rachele Ossola receives funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation. She is a member of the UN Environmental Program (UNEP) Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP), which assesses how ozone depletion affects life on Earth.

How Temperate Forests Could Help Limit Climate Change

People understand how saving tropical forests is good for the planet, but temperate forests are equally indispensable in fighting climate change

How Temperate Forests Could Help Limit Climate ChangePeople understand how saving tropical forests is good for the planet, but temperate forests are equally indispensable in fighting climate changeBy Amanda Leland & Steven HamburgBlue Ridge Parkway, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, North Carolina. Itai MinovitzGetty ImagesMuch of the conservation and climate change spotlight falls on tropical forests. Given this, people might forget that forests in the temperate areas—those found in large parts of North America, Europe and higher latitudes in Asia and Australia—also have the power to help limit climate change. As much as preserving tropical rainforests is indispensable to climate progress, policy makers cannot ignore the critical role of temperate forests. This Earth Week, we must turn our attention—and dollars—to these swaths of trees, or face the loss of an important tool in managing global warming.Temperate forests represent about 25 percent of Earth’s arboreal lands. As temperatures have changed, temperate trees face threats from of harmful invasive pests from other regions, loss of forest lands from urban sprawl and farmland expansion, and catastrophic wildfires that are becoming more common and severe. At the same time, they are some of the most well-studied and well-understood ecosystems on Earth—giving us a chance to put science into action in the service of climate progress.To save temperate forests, we need to reduce land-clearing for housing and agriculture, then allow trees to regrow where they have been removed, and thoughtfully manage each acre to promote ecological health. To understand how reforestation and better management will aid in climate restoration, look to forest lands of the eastern U.S.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Between the time of European settlement and the early 20th century, at least 300 million acres of temperate forests in the U.S. were cleared for agriculture and timber—an area three times the size of California. This loss was especially concentrated in the East. But as agriculture moved to other parts of the country, abandoned farm fields throughout the region returned to forest largely through natural regeneration. Eastern forests continue to recover and are currently removing about 34 megatonnes of CO2 per year.But efforts to restore forests won’t matter if we don’t stop harmful pests like the emerald ash borer, hemlock woody adelgid and Asian longhorn beetle—hitchhikers to the U.S. from other parts of the world. Each of them is ravaging native tree species in the eastern US. Most invasive pests arrive on U.S. shores in container ships and airplanes; the federal government needs to do much more to inspect cargo and intercept pests at our ports of entry.But we believe the greatest emerging threat to temperate forests is catastrophic wildfire— wildfires that occur outside normal historic frequency and severity. Ironically, widespread fire suppression, especially in dry forests in the West, has allowed a build-up of dangerous fuel such as deadwood and dense regeneration. These fuels, combined with climate change-induced drought, have led to increasingly frequent and severe fires that kill enormous numbers of trees and spew what we calculate is up to 230 megatonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere in bad fires years in the United States.The effects of these sorts of fires have been most stark in the western U.S., Canada, and Australia, but they are also becoming more troublesome in southern Europe and Chile. The conundrum is that fire can be beneficial and restorative, but it has to be done right. We need to thin out understory trees and strategically apply prescribed fire and cultural burns—those led by Indigenous practitioners steeped in historic fire management practices. In some cases, it involves fire managers letting wildfire burn at lower intensity and when weather conditions allow—without heavy fire suppression tactics.These treatments also reduce stress on the remaining trees. They help combat large-scale insect damage, another phenomenon in western North American forests where, for example, bark beetles kill large numbers of trees. Recent investments through President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provide an opportunity to demonstrate ecological thinning and beneficial fire at scale.We need to protect and better care for the few temperate forests that still contain stands of very old trees. These old forests are some of the most carbon-dense ecosystems, harbor unique biodiversity and offer distinctive opportunities for recreation and respite. As such, governments and landowners must make sure middle-aged forests that regrew after cutting are stewarded into the old-growth forests of tomorrow. President Biden has taken important steps in this direction as well, by instituting, for the first time, rules to protect and steward old-growth forests on federal lands across the U.S.Recent Environmental Defense Fund research shows that conserving and restoring temperate forests, alongside tropical forests, are among the most scientifically sound nature-based climate actions. The U.S. is taking important steps to capitalize on these opportunities, but more needs to be done. We need to take advantage of current public funding for forest conservation and stewardship and, at the same time, promote private investment to support restorative measures and sustainable forestry to capture the climate potential of temperate forests in the U.S. and elsewhere.This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Sugar in baby food: Why Nestlé needs to be held to account in Africa

"In Africa, the number of overweight children under five has increased by nearly 23% since 2000"

As the Public Eye investigation revealed, one example of this is Nestlé's biscuit-flavored cereals for babies aged six months and older: in Senegal and South Africa they contain 6g of added sugar. In Switzerland, where Nestlé is based, the same product has none. In South Africa, Nestlé promotes its wheat cereal Cerelac as a source of 12 essential vitamins and minerals under the theme "little bodies need big support". Yet all Cerelac products sold in this country contain high levels of added sugar. Obesity is increasingly a problem in low- and middle-income countries. In Africa, the number of overweight children under five has increased by nearly 23% since 2000. The World Health Organization has called for a ban on added sugar in products for babies and young children under three years of age.     Why is extra sugar particularly unhealthy for babies? Adding sugar make the foods delicious and, some argue, addictive. The same goes for adding salt and fat to products.   Children shouldn't eat any added sugar before they turn two. Studies show that adding sugar to any food for babies or small children predisposes them to having a sweet tooth. They start preferring sweet things, which is harmful in their diets throughout their lives. Unnecessary sugar contributes to obesity, which has major health effects such as diabetes, high blood pressure and other cardiovascular diseases, cancer and joint problems among others. The rate of overweight children in South Africa is 13%, twice the global average of 6.1%. These extra sugars, fats and salt are harmful to our health throughout our lifetime, but especially to babies as they are still building their bodies. Children eat relatively small amounts of food at this stage. To ensure healthy nutrition, the food they eat must be high in nutrients.   How do multinationals influence health policies? Companies commonly influence public health through lobbying and party donations. This gives politicians and political parties an incentive to align decisions with commercial agendas. Low- and middle-income countries often have to address potential trade-offs:  potential economic growth from an expanding commercial base and potential harms from the same commercial forces.   Research into how South African food companies, particularly large transnationals, go about shaping public health policy in their favour found 107 examples of food industry practices designed to influence public health policy. In many cases companies promise financial support in areas such as funding research. In 2023 a South African food security research centre attached to a university signed a memorandum of understanding with Nestlé signaling their intent to "forge a transformative partnership" to shape "the future of food and nutrition research and education" and transform "Africa's food systems".   What happens in high-income countries? Most high-income countries have clear guidelines about baby foods. One example is the EU directive on processed cereal-based foods and baby foods for infants and young children. Another is the  Swiss Nutrition Policy, which sets out clear guidelines on healthy eating and advertising aimed at children. The global food system is coming under scrutiny not just for health reasons but for the humane treatment of animals, genetically engineered foods, and social and environmental justice.   What should governments in developing countries be doing? South Africa already has limits on salt content  but we need limits on added sugar and oil.   Taxing baby foods as we do sugary beverages is another way of discouraging these harmful additions. We need to make sure that consumers are aware of what's in their food by having large front-of-package warning labels. Take yogurt: many people assume it is healthy, but there is lots of added sugar in many brands. Consumers should be calling for front-of-pack labels that the Department of Health has proposed so that parents can easily identify unhealthy foods.   Susan Goldstein, Associate Professor in the SAMRC Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science - PRICELESS SA (Priority Cost Effective Lessons in Systems Strengthening South Africa), University of the Witwatersrand   This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Comet Geyser Biosignature Bonanza: NASA Perseverance Mars Rover’s 21st Rock Core

The recent acquisition of Perseverance’s 21st core sample, Comet Geyser, from Bunsen Peak reveals significant geological interest due to its composition of carbonate and silica—key...

Mastcam-Z image (Sol 1088, zcam05068) of the Comet Geyser core. The partially illuminated core is visible in this image of Perseverance’s coring bit. The diameter of the core is 1.3 cm. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/ASUThe recent acquisition of Perseverance’s 21st core sample, Comet Geyser, from Bunsen Peak reveals significant geological interest due to its composition of carbonate and silica—key minerals for preserving biosignatures.After investigating the high-standing bedrock at the Bunsen Peak workspace deep within the Margin Unit, the unique nature and composition of this rock was deemed worthy for collection of Perseverance’s 21th rock core sample, Comet Geyser!Bunsen Peak is named after a prominent peak in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, USA, and the namesake for Comet Geyser is the silica-sintered cone geyser also in Yellowstone National Park. Although this rock’s origin remains under investigation and the rover team continues to explore different hypotheses, this core is particularly exciting because it appears to be composed primarily of two minerals: carbonate and silica. Carbonate and silica are both excellent minerals for preserving biosignatures (ancient signs of life). These minerals also have the potential to record the environmental conditions in which they formed, making them important minerals for understanding the habitability of Jezero crater billions of years ago.This illustration depicts NASA’s Perseverance rover studying rocks with its robotic arm. Credit: NASA/JPL-CaltechThe presence of carbonate within the Comet Geyser sample suggests that water, carbon dioxide, and chemical elements derived from rocks or sediments in and around the ancient Jezero crater once reacted here to form carbonate. Carbonate minerals from Earth’s rock record are often used to reconstruct ancient climate—including conditions like temperature, precipitation, and aridity—and the history of life. Similarly, silica phases form when water interacts with rocks or sediments. The composition and crystallinity of silica can reveal the extent of the interaction with water, such as the intensity or duration of weathering and the pressure/temperature conditions during formation.On Earth, biosignatures can be preserved in carbonate and silica for millions of years, or even billions of years in the case of silica. Some of the oldest evidence we have of life on Earth is from rocks that contain fragments of microbial cells that were “permineralized” by silica, a fossilization process that entombs the residues of ancient life and protects them from degradation. Thus, rocks containing these materials are considered among the highest priority samples for investigating whether Jezero crater was once host to microbial life.Perseverance’s 21th core sample at Bunsen Peak represents a significant milestone toward a collection of a scientifically diverse set of samples for eventual return to Earth as part of the Mars Sample Return mission.With rock core #21 now onboard, Perseverance presses forward toward its next strategic objective of investigating a location called Bright Angel, which is a light-toned outcrop exposed in the ancient channel wall of Neretva Vallis. Challenges may arise on this journey, as the terrain ahead is littered with sharp boulders and sand that are proving difficult for the rover’s auto-navigation system. The mission’s rover planners are working hard to manually navigate this tricky terrain. In the meantime, the science team is eagerly anticipating the secrets the rocks of Bright Angel may hold!

Why a “fracking refugee” is attending the global plastics treaty negotiations

Jill Hunkler, an Ohio resident who considers herself a “fracking refugee,” is telling her family’s story at the global plastics treaty negotiations in Ottawa this week, where negotiators from about 175 countries are working to advance a treaty to address global plastic pollution.“I was forced to leave my home that I built with my own hands,” she told Environmental Health News. “I lived in Somerset Township, Ohio, where my sister, my mom and I had 13 acres of land and we had spent years building homes on it that we loved, but then 78 fracking well pads were built within five miles of our home.”Air pollution from the fracking operations sickened her and her family, Hunkler said, and they experienced symptoms like headaches, nausea, rashes, body aches and difficulty breathing that they hadn’t experienced before the wells were drilled. The family tried to get help from regulators, but after years of suffering with little action, they opted to move.Her family moved to another property, she said. “But eventually fracking showed up there too, and I moved again to try and escape it. So now I’m twice a fracking refugee.”More than 99% of plastic is made from fossil fuels, and as the world transitions to renewable energy, fossil fuel companies — particularly those invested in fracking — are driving a new plastics boom to stay profitable. For example, in the Ohio River Valley, where Hunkler is from, Shell recently began operations at its massive Pennsylvania plastics plant that converts fracked ethane gas into plastic pellets, many of which are used to create single-use plastic products like bags and packaging.Since starting up in 2022, Shell’s Pennsylvania plastics plant has been fined millions of dollars for violating clean air laws and is being sued by environmental advocacy groups over potential health impacts from harmful emissions. Last week, Pennsylvania’s Attorney General Michelle Henry also announced charges against Shell for violating Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams laws with industrial waste during construction of the pipelines that bring ethane feedstock from fracked natural gas to the plastics plant. Concerns about pollution from the plant have also caused families to move away from the region.After becoming a fracking refugee, Hunkler spent eight years fighting to stop a similar plastics plant from being built near her home in Ohio — a project that has been put on hold indefinitely.“When people think about the health impacts of plastics they tend to think about harmful microplastics in our bodies, which is really important, but it’s also important to look at the devastating public health impacts all the way down the supply chain” Hunkler said. “Fracking and building pipelines in order to create more poisonous plastic is ruining people’s lives.”Tensions at the plastic pollution treaty talksIf the current trajectory for the plastics industry continues unabated, plastic manufacturing is estimated to account for more than a third of the growth in oil demand by 2030 and nearly half by 2050—ahead of trucks, aviation, and shipping, according to the International Energy Agency.The stated goal of the global plastics treaty is to end plastic pollution by 2040. Hunkler, like many other activists, believe this goal won’t be achieved unless plastic production stops. They are supporting a version of the plastic treaty supported by a group of “High Ambition” countries that includes slowing down plastic production via bans, restrictions or caps."It’s important to look at the devastating public health impacts all the way down the supply chain" – Jill Hunkler, an Ohio resident who considers herself a “fracking refugee.” Meanwhile, plastic industry lobbyists – also attending the negotiations in Ottawa – are promoting plastic’s beneficial uses, such as medical products and reducing food waste. The plastics industry, alongside a coalition of mostly fossil-fuel-producing countries, are pushing “chemical recycling” as a solution to plastic pollution, but environmental advocates say the process is energy-intensive, creates toxic air and water pollution, and fails to actually reduce plastic waste. It has also proven difficult to profit from chemical recycling operations — none of the approximately ten operational plants in the US are currently operating at full capacity, according to a report from the advocacy group Beyond Plastic. This month a chemical recycling plant in Oregon was shuttered, and a proposed plant in Pennsylvania was canceled amid concerns about the efficacy and feasibility of chemical recycling.“I hope sharing my story will help the negotiators in Ottawa recognize that fracking and extracting fossil fuels to keep making more plastic is toxic,” Hunkler said. “With the exception of the small amount of plastic that’s needed for medical and other essential uses, we do not need plastic to function as a society. It’s a relatively new product on the planet, and the convenience of it is not worth jeopardizing the health of our children and future generations.”

Jill Hunkler, an Ohio resident who considers herself a “fracking refugee,” is telling her family’s story at the global plastics treaty negotiations in Ottawa this week, where negotiators from about 175 countries are working to advance a treaty to address global plastic pollution.“I was forced to leave my home that I built with my own hands,” she told Environmental Health News. “I lived in Somerset Township, Ohio, where my sister, my mom and I had 13 acres of land and we had spent years building homes on it that we loved, but then 78 fracking well pads were built within five miles of our home.”Air pollution from the fracking operations sickened her and her family, Hunkler said, and they experienced symptoms like headaches, nausea, rashes, body aches and difficulty breathing that they hadn’t experienced before the wells were drilled. The family tried to get help from regulators, but after years of suffering with little action, they opted to move.Her family moved to another property, she said. “But eventually fracking showed up there too, and I moved again to try and escape it. So now I’m twice a fracking refugee.”More than 99% of plastic is made from fossil fuels, and as the world transitions to renewable energy, fossil fuel companies — particularly those invested in fracking — are driving a new plastics boom to stay profitable. For example, in the Ohio River Valley, where Hunkler is from, Shell recently began operations at its massive Pennsylvania plastics plant that converts fracked ethane gas into plastic pellets, many of which are used to create single-use plastic products like bags and packaging.Since starting up in 2022, Shell’s Pennsylvania plastics plant has been fined millions of dollars for violating clean air laws and is being sued by environmental advocacy groups over potential health impacts from harmful emissions. Last week, Pennsylvania’s Attorney General Michelle Henry also announced charges against Shell for violating Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams laws with industrial waste during construction of the pipelines that bring ethane feedstock from fracked natural gas to the plastics plant. Concerns about pollution from the plant have also caused families to move away from the region.After becoming a fracking refugee, Hunkler spent eight years fighting to stop a similar plastics plant from being built near her home in Ohio — a project that has been put on hold indefinitely.“When people think about the health impacts of plastics they tend to think about harmful microplastics in our bodies, which is really important, but it’s also important to look at the devastating public health impacts all the way down the supply chain” Hunkler said. “Fracking and building pipelines in order to create more poisonous plastic is ruining people’s lives.”Tensions at the plastic pollution treaty talksIf the current trajectory for the plastics industry continues unabated, plastic manufacturing is estimated to account for more than a third of the growth in oil demand by 2030 and nearly half by 2050—ahead of trucks, aviation, and shipping, according to the International Energy Agency.The stated goal of the global plastics treaty is to end plastic pollution by 2040. Hunkler, like many other activists, believe this goal won’t be achieved unless plastic production stops. They are supporting a version of the plastic treaty supported by a group of “High Ambition” countries that includes slowing down plastic production via bans, restrictions or caps."It’s important to look at the devastating public health impacts all the way down the supply chain" – Jill Hunkler, an Ohio resident who considers herself a “fracking refugee.” Meanwhile, plastic industry lobbyists – also attending the negotiations in Ottawa – are promoting plastic’s beneficial uses, such as medical products and reducing food waste. The plastics industry, alongside a coalition of mostly fossil-fuel-producing countries, are pushing “chemical recycling” as a solution to plastic pollution, but environmental advocates say the process is energy-intensive, creates toxic air and water pollution, and fails to actually reduce plastic waste. It has also proven difficult to profit from chemical recycling operations — none of the approximately ten operational plants in the US are currently operating at full capacity, according to a report from the advocacy group Beyond Plastic. This month a chemical recycling plant in Oregon was shuttered, and a proposed plant in Pennsylvania was canceled amid concerns about the efficacy and feasibility of chemical recycling.“I hope sharing my story will help the negotiators in Ottawa recognize that fracking and extracting fossil fuels to keep making more plastic is toxic,” Hunkler said. “With the exception of the small amount of plastic that’s needed for medical and other essential uses, we do not need plastic to function as a society. It’s a relatively new product on the planet, and the convenience of it is not worth jeopardizing the health of our children and future generations.”

“Little Home Market”: The Connecticut Company Accused of Fueling an Execution Spree

Evidence points to Absolute Standards as the source of a lethal drug the Trump administration used to restart federal executions after 17 years. The post “Little Home Market”: The Connecticut Company Accused of Fueling an Execution Spree appeared first on The Intercept.

The Intercept has uncovered new details about the small family business in Connecticut identified as having sold a lethal drug to the Federal Bureau of Prisons for use in the Trump administration’s unprecedented execution spree. Beginning in July 2020, the administration killed 13 people in the federal death chamber in Terre Haute, Indiana, over the course of six months. Absolute Standards Inc., located on the outskirts of New Haven, produces and sells materials used to calibrate laboratory and research instruments. The company is registered with Connecticut as a “manufacturer of drugs, cosmetics, and medical devices” and employed just 21 people in the lead-up to the executions, records show. John Criscio, the company’s owner, has denied that Absolute Standards played a role in supplying pentobarbital, a barbiturate used for lethal injection. But according to a source The Intercept interviewed last year, Criscio and the company’s director, Stephen Arpie, acknowledged in a meeting that Absolute Standards produced the active ingredient for pentobarbital for use in the federal executions. The person, who met with Criscio and Arpie about the possibility of obtaining lethal injection drugs, asked that their name be withheld because they were not authorized to speak about the interaction. A separate unnamed pharmacy then used the active ingredient, or API, to make an injectable drug that would stop prisoners’ hearts. “They went about explaining to us how they produce the chemical,” the person said of Criscio and Arpie. “They’d been reading about it in the papers. And they saw that people couldn’t get it. They were like, ‘Well, we make the standard, so we know how to make it. So we can just make it.’ They basically bragged about how they built this little home market.” A second person interviewed by The Intercept said they were also told by Arpie and Criscio that Absolute Standards made drugs for executions. Like many of the 27 states capable of carrying out death sentences, the federal government has fought to keep the identity of its supplier hidden from the public. Earlier this month, the comedy news program “Last Week Tonight With John Oliver” named Absolute Standards as the Bureau of Prisons’ drug supplier, citing an anonymous source. The segment echoed reporting by Reuters, which noted in 2020 that the House Oversight Committee had sent a letter to Absolute Standards suspecting the business was the source of the drugs. At the time, Arpie told Reuters that he did not always keep track of the final use of his products and couldn’t rule out involvement. Interviews conducted by The Intercept and documents obtained under public records laws bolster evidence that Absolute Standards, located in a state that abolished the death penalty in 2012, helped the Trump administration resume federal executions after a 17-year hiatus. A Connecticut congressional staffer raised concerns about the company’s role in the executions as early as April 2021, suggesting that states might be looking to follow the federal government’s lead. “As Absolute Standards has been identified as the only possible supplier of pentobarbital ingredients for executions,” the staffer warned, “the risk that Connecticut medicines will imminently fuel the death penalty in executing states across the country is high.” When asked about pentobarbital, Criscio told The Intercept, “We don’t make that material.” Arpie did not respond to multiple requests for comment, and the BOP declined to comment. The federal prison complex in Terre Haute, Ind., on Aug. 28, 2020. Photo: Michael Conroy/AP In August 2018, Absolute Standards applied to the Drug Enforcement Administration to become a bulk manufacturer of pentobarbital, according to a notice in the Federal Register. The designation allows for the production of chemicals “by means of chemical synthesis or by extraction from other substances.” A few months later, in October, the BOP received its first batch of the API for pentobarbital, according to a declaration by Raul Campos, then-associate warden of the BOP’s Federal Medical Center Carswell in Fort Worth, Texas. The declaration was submitted as part of litigation over the Trump administration’s lethal injection protocol. (The Intercept requested Absolute Standards’ applications to become a bulk manufacturer of pentobarbital in August 2023. On Monday, the DEA declined to hand over those records, stating that they were exempt from disclosure, in part because they included “information that is classified to protect national security.”) For years, pharmaceutical companies refused to sell pentobarbital for use in capital punishment, creating shortages that halted executions in some states that relied on the drug. Acquiring the API marked the end of a yearslong search for the BOP. “We were looking for the drugs domestically and internationally,” a former BOP official with knowledge of the situation told The Intercept last year. The official asked that their name be withheld because they were not authorized to speak about the procurement of execution drugs. “There were a number of leads that looked promising and then ended up being dry.” Read our complete coverage Out for Blood Eager to restart executions, the Trump administration had prioritized locating lethal drugs. But U.S. manufacturers did not want their products to be associated with killing people because they feared it would hurt their bottom line. “There’s such a lobby against the death penalty that any company who becomes identified as providing the drugs gets boycotted,” the BOP official said. “Those companies make more money from legitimate uses of the drug than they do from executions.” It was equally difficult to find drugs internationally, the official added, because of “shady characters” and issues confirming the legitimacy of suppliers. A team within the BOP general counsel’s office, led by then-general counsel Kenneth Hyle, was in charge of vetting potential suppliers. “More often than not, the companies they identified turned out to be nonviable,” the official said. Hyle did not respond to requests for comment. The former official did not remember how the BOP identified Absolute Standards but said there was a team of people calling suppliers off a list. “I know that we had people that were just calling every company that they could to find out if they were able and willing to produce it.” Only a small group of people knew the name of the API supplier, according to the official, who was only aware that it was a small company based in Connecticut. “I had no reason to ask for the name,” the official said. The API failed its first quality assurance test in October 2018, according to the declaration submitted by Campos. Another batch of the pentobarbital ingredient passed testing in February 2019 and was sent to a compounding pharmacy to be made into an injectable solution. The BOP has not revealed the identity of the compounding pharmacy. The former BOP official told The Intercept that they did not remember the name of the pharmacy, only that it was located somewhere in the South. “The fear was that publicity would result in this company no longer wanting … to do business.” Typically, the government logs payments to vendors in an online database, but there is no public record of any BOP payments to Absolute Standards. “I don’t recall how it was done. It was probably not done through their normal payments process,” the former BOP official said. “Everything was done discreetly, because again, the fear was that publicity would result in this company no longer wanting to be willing to do business.” After learning that the BOP had secured execution drugs, officials from other states started inquiring about whether they could buy from the same company. An official from Nebraska, which was prevented in 2015 from importing drugs from India, asked the BOP about its source. The Nebraska Department of Correctional Services did not respond to questions about the communication. In April 2019, an attorney adviser from the Justice Department’s Office of Legislative Affairs emailed colleagues to notify them that a staffer from South Carolina Rep. William Timmons’s office had asked about the federal government’s execution drugs. “Specifically, they ask 1. Does the Federal Government have the ‘cocktail’? 2. Could they transfer it to states under existing law?” the email read. Timmons’s deputy chief of staff, Heather Smith, told The Intercept that the employee who inquired with the BOP no longer worked for the representative. Smith did not know whether the employee ever talked to Absolute Standards. South Carolina has not conducted an execution since May 2011 due to drug shortages. But last September, officials announced that the state had secured pentobarbital. After The Intercept requested records detailing communications between the South Carolina Department of Corrections and Absolute Standards, the corrections team replied that such information was exempt from disclosure, citing in part a state secrecy law that shields records disclosing the identity of people and companies involved in executions. The corrections department did not comment when asked whether its response meant that Absolute Standards was providing the state with execution drugs. In the summer of 2020, as the federal executions got underway, Reps. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., and Jamie Raskin, D-Md., started to raise questions about Absolute Standards’ involvement. They sent a letter to the company on July 14, the same day the government killed Daniel Lewis Lee, the first person to die in the execution spree, stating that they’d seen redacted testing reports “indicating that your company has assisted DOJ in securing and/or testing pentobarbital for death penalty executions.” The lawmakers posed a list of 11 questions to Absolute Standards about its work in the executions. The company did not reply, emails obtained by The Intercept show. There is no public record of further investigation by the lawmakers into Absolute Standards. Pressley’s office did not return multiple requests for comment, and Raskin’s press secretary told The Intercept to contact the House Oversight Committee. Nelly Decker, the communications director for Oversight Committee Democrats, wrote in an email that she had “nothing more to add” on the inquiry. “The risk that Connecticut medicines will imminently fuel the death penalty in executing states across the country is high.” In April 2021, Jennifer Lamb, the district director for Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., brought Absolute Standards to the attention of state Attorney General William Tong. “It appears the company may have supplied the US Department of Justice with ingredients used to make pentobarbital for use in federal executions,” Lamb wrote. “There are several states that are now actively looking to follow the federal government’s lead in acquiring this drug and resuming executions,” she continued. Describing Absolute Standards as the only possible supplier of pentobarbital ingredients for capital punishment, Lamb warned that Connecticut could be complicit in clearing the way for executions across the country. The following month, Tong sent a letter to Absolute Standards informing its owners that “Connecticut has a strong public policy against executions.” Providing drugs to carry them out, he wrote, “is contrary to the values and policies of this state.” Tong requested details about the company’s activities, expressing concern that the business might “also be providing pentobarbital, or contemplating providing the drug, for use by individual states in their attempts to execute human beings.” Connecticut Assistant Attorney General Joshua Perry, named in the letter as the point of contact for future correspondence, declined to comment. After John Oliver named Absolute Standards as the BOP’s source, a spokesperson for Tong told CT Insider that the attorney general was reviewing the company but had not launched an investigation. The outlet also reported that state lawmakers are now exploring legislation to ban Connecticut companies from selling lethal injection drugs. Abe Bonowitz of Death Penalty Action protests near the federal prison complex in Terre Haute, Ind., on July 15, 2020. Photo: Jeremy Hogan/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images Absolute Standards is known for its flexibility in the scientific industry. “They can pivot pretty easily as far as what the needs are of whatever industries,” said Meredith Millay, director of product management at Emerald Scientific, a company focused on cannabis science that has worked with Absolute Standards for a decade and sells products made by the Connecticut business. “If you need something and you can’t find what you need … they are small enough to where you can put in a special request and get custom standards made.” Absolute Standards has boasted about the “world class manufacturing” and “internationally recognized quality” of its analytical reference materials and performance evaluation samples, compounds used to calibrate lab equipment and increase the precision of scientific analysis conducted by a wide range of entities. Criscio started the business in 1990, later employing his son and daughter. The company is registered with the DEA to manufacture Schedule II through V drugs, according to documents filed with the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection. When asked about Absolute Standards and the API for pentobarbital, the DEA said it “does not comment on specific registrants.” In recent years, the company netted contracts with the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency, contracts and invoices obtained through records requests show. In 2017, for example, the company sold the Interior Department $88,500 worth of analytes in substances such as ethanol and soil. State agencies such as the California State Water Resources Control Board and the New York Office of Cannabis Management list Absolute Standards as one of a handful of vendors approved to conduct testing to ensure the quality of lab results. Criscio has vehemently denied his company’s role in executions. Last October, The Intercept visited the Absolute Standards office, a small one-story building covered in weathered aluminum siding. When The Intercept inquired about Criscio at the reception desk, a woman said that he was out for the rest of the week. But later in the afternoon, Criscio arrived at the office, wearing a sweatshirt emblazoned with the NASA logo. “I have no idea what you’re talking about. Nothing to talk about,” Criscio told The Intercept in the parking lot after being asked whether his company supplied execution drugs. “You’re on private property. If I have to, I’ll call the police. Is that what you want me to do?” He then went inside. After The Intercept approached another man outside to ask about pentobarbital, Criscio reemerged and called the police, telling the operator, “I have two people on my property refusing to leave, harassing my employees.” “I’m ready to have a fucking heart attack right now. Get off my fucking property,” he said, growing increasingly agitated. “I do not know what you’re talking about. That’s all I have to say. I’m not gonna say no more.” The Intercept left a note at an address listed for Arpie, the company’s director. He did not reply and has not answered subsequent phone calls, text messages, or emails. In early April, after the John Oliver segment, Criscio maintained that his company did not supply drugs for the federal executions. “Yeah, no, we don’t make that material,” he told The Intercept. “I’m the owner of the company. I’m telling you there’s no comment. Thank you, goodbye.” This story was supported by a grant from Columbia University’s Ira A. Lipman Center for Journalism and Civil and Human Rights, in conjunction with Arnold Ventures. The post “Little Home Market”: The Connecticut Company Accused of Fueling an Execution Spree appeared first on The Intercept.

The Difficulty of Enforcing Laws on Feeding Wild Animals

There is a certain intimacy felt when gazing into the eyes, the “windows of the soul” if you will, of a wild animal. To see a wild creature, in all its splendor, behaving naturally in its native habitat is an experience that can’t be replicated in any zoo or animal sanctuary. When it comes to […] The post The Difficulty of Enforcing Laws on Feeding Wild Animals appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

There is a certain intimacy felt when gazing into the eyes, the “windows of the soul” if you will, of a wild animal. To see a wild creature, in all its splendor, behaving naturally in its native habitat is an experience that can’t be replicated in any zoo or animal sanctuary. When it comes to wildlife tourism, people will pay big money for these experiences, and when done in a manner that doesn’t alter the animal’s natural behavior, they can provide opportunities to increase appreciation and awareness of the intrinsic value of these animals, which in turn promotes empathy for other living creatures. However, due to a lack of information available, many tourists support unscrupulous tour operators who create unnatural experiences by feeding wild animals in order to provide their clients with an up-close and personal encounter. People’s unawareness of the dangers of feeding wild animals, and tour operators’ willingness to exploit this ignorance, happens everywhere. While Costa Rica has earned the reputation as one of the most environmentally-conscious countries in the world, with strong environmental laws to boot, the illegal practice of feeding wild animals for profit continues in the country, often openly and without legal repercussions. In places where wild animals are known to gather, frequently there are signs that state “Don’t Feed the Wildlife.” Often these signs are expressed through images of a hand feeding an animal, with the universal prohibition sign of a red circle and slash across the image, making the undesired action clear, but offering little else in the way of context. This begs the question of why it is wrong to feed wild animals. If confronted with this question directly, many probably would not be able to provide a complete response. While some may say that it makes the animal more aggressive or that it is bad for its health – both of which are true – most do not realize that feeding wild animals also changes their natural behaviors, which has dire consequences for the creatures’ survival. Since every wild animal needs to utilize its skills in foraging or hunting in order to survive, by feeding these animals, humans interrupt this natural process so that the animal can become dependent on handouts and forget how to use the skills they need to obtain their own food, which can result in death from starvation. Essentially, the action of feeding enables these creatures by encouraging them to engage in behaviors that are damaging to their own health, which is not altogether different from financially supporting a person with a substance abuse problem. Often the signs in Costa Rica instruct visitors to not feed the wildlife, but offer little in explanations why they shouldn’t do so (photo by Dana Kaleta from SpecialPlacesofCostaRica.com). The practice of feeding wildlife in Costa Rica by tour operators is especially prevalent with the crocodiles and monkeys in the Central Pacific. The town of Tárcoles is famous for its “Crocodile Bridge” and it is not a closely-guarded secret that many of the tour operators that run the boat trips in the Tárcoles River are feeding these crocs. Being reptiles, and by nature cold-blooded, crocodiles spend much of the day lying still and sunning themselves on river banks to regulate their body temperatures. However, seeing a crocodile lie around does not garner the same amount of excitement as seeing it spring into action when on the hunt. YouTube videos of crocodiles hunting are dramatic, and in order to replicate these exhilarating experiences many tour operators will feed the crocs at Tárcoles, with guides taking personal risks by getting extremely close to the animals in order to provide tourists with a sensational Instagram-worthy video. Not only is this practice detrimental to the animals’ survival, as previously stated, but it also habituates these predators to humans. Even though the American Crocodile, the species found in Costa Rica, is not likely to eat a human, when an individual starts to associate humans with food, the predator will instinctively go after the source of the food, and often has difficulty distinguishing between the food that the person is feeding it and the person themself. In essence, it could literally “bite the hand that feeds it” and the results may be deadly. A former employee of one of three main tour operators in Tárcoles claimed that all of the companies have been feeding the crocodiles for years, and although it is against the law, there have been little to no fines or repercussions for these actions. Ariel Darío Lara Araya, the Wildlife Program Coordinator for the Central Pacific Conservation Area of SINAC (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación), the government agency in charge of overseeing wildlife protection, said that the wildlife conservation law (N° 7317, Article 116) states explicitly that it is illegal to feed wild animals in Costa Rica. However, enforcing this law is difficult because SINAC needs physical evidence to prove the law has been violated. Crocodiles in the Tárcoles River are known to be fed by guides who work for the local tour operators (photo by Josh Edelson for DailyMail.com). A system in place, SITADA (Sistema Integrado de Trámite de Denuncias Ambientales), allows environmental complaints to be made, and SINAC conducts investigations based on these complaints, but when they go to the sites of where these alleged infractions are incurring, it is difficult to find conclusive evidence, without catching the offenders redhanded. While visual evidence, such as online photos or videos of guides feeding crocodiles, can be sent to the prosecutor’s office for due process, if deemed an infraction has taken place, the punishments usually involve negligible fines. While a more powerful deterrent may be the threat of closing down the business, SINAC does not have the authority to take this action, since the businesses that allegedly feed the animals are not categorized under “wildlife management,” as stipulated by the environmental legislation, so SINAC has little more they can do to discourage breaking environmental laws. Not to be outdone by the crocodile tours, just north of Quepos, there are companies that offer clients an intimate experience with White-faced Capuchin Monkeys by taking them on boats into the mangroves of Isla Damas, and encouraging them to feed the monkeys right out of their own hands. On many accounts, the monkeys crawl over the guests to get to the food. Although these primates may not present the same immediate physical danger that a crocodile may pose, the animals are equally harmed from a behavioral point of view when people feed them. Just a few kilometers south of Damas, in Manuel Antonio National Park, one can see the most egregious display of what happens when people feed the Capuchin Monkeys. Here it is well known that the monkeys are so accustomed to being fed by the park visitors, that they now aggressively steal food, as well as backpacks, purses, or any belonging that may contain something edible. While the park states that people should not feed the animals, and have even put up signs that state this explicitly, the monkeys lie in wait near the kiosks that sell food next to the beach. In fact, many guests find it charming and amusing to see these little thieves in action. There is no visible enforcement here of any significance, which in part is due to a lack of government resources that prevents SINAC from carrying out its responsibilities in preventing human-wildlife interactions. According to Mr. Lara, a measure enacted on February 21, 2021 prohibits visitors from bringing food into Manuel Antonio National Park, and although park officials check the bags of all guests upon entering the park, there are those that smuggle in food without detection. In Manuel Antonio National Park, the White-faced Capuchin Monkeys are infamous for stealing food from visitors (photo by Landon Carlson from UnevenSidewalks.com). In addition, the park only has about 3 to 5 rangers to administer the rules, due to a policy within MINAE (Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía – the ministry which oversees SINAC) that allocates all resources equally among the national parks in the Central Pacific Conservation Area. This means that a scarcely-visited national park, such as La Cangreja, has the same number of staff as Manuel Antonio, one of the most visited parks in the country. There are some ways to address this problem. A better informed consumer will make more responsible decisions. Therefore, one idea is to start with better signage that doesn’t just say “Don’t Feed the Wildlife,” but explains why we shouldn’t feed them. Most tourists, both domestic and international, don’t want to see Costa Rica’s famous wild animals harmed, especially through actions of their own making. Therefore, clear and carefully-worded signs, placed strategically in plain view in the areas where feedings are most common, could help raise awareness of the threats associated with feeding animals. While SINAC takes the feeding of wild animals seriously, it is clear that a lack of funding and inability to enforce environmental laws on the books has handcuffed the agency, preventing it from taking significant action to curb these malpractices. Through community advocacy, governments can be influenced to allocate funds and personnel in areas where feeding is more pervasive, such as in Manuel Antonio or Tárcoles. Through the implementation of an additional tax on park entrances and services, income could be generated for additional staff for SINAC to help conduct more thorough investigations of tour operators who are allegedly feeding wildlife. Any additional income could be used to hire more park rangers that could make sure that visitors are not feeding animals in the parks. They should serve not to intimidate tourists, but rather to inform them of the proper way to interact with the wildlife. Instead of simply being told to stop, a person is most likely to change their behavior if they know the reasons why their actions are harmful. It is important to do this in a manner that does not scold, but rather educates. Wagging a finger at someone usually results in the person digging in their heels and doubling down on their behaviors. While education is important, not to be overlooked is the way in which we educate others, if the ultimate goal is to affect change for the wellbeing of Costa Rica’s most charismatic denizens. About the Author Ryan Meczkowski is a Naturalist Guide and Founder of CR Naturalist Experiences, which offersnight tours and educational nature excursions in Uvita de Osa. Email: cr.naturalist@gmail.comWhatsApp +506 6132 9436 The post The Difficulty of Enforcing Laws on Feeding Wild Animals appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Bird flu in milk is alarming — but not for the reason you think

Dairy cows at an operation in Lodi, California, in 2020. | Jessica Christian/The San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images The US Department of Agriculture’s failed response to bird flu in cows, explained. Bird flu has had a busy couple of years. Since 2022, it’s ravaged the US poultry industry, as more than 90 million farmed birds — mostly egg-laying hens and turkeys — have either died from the virus or have been brutally killed in an attempt to stop the spread. Last month, confirmation that the virus — a strain of highly pathogenic avian influenza known as H5N1 — had infected US dairy cows alarmed infectious disease experts, who worry that transmission to cows will allow the virus more opportunities to evolve. One dairy worker fell ill, increasing concerns about human risk levels. Now it’s in the milk supply. On Tuesday, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) confirmed that genetic evidence of the virus had been found in commercially purchased milk. However, it’s unclear whether the milk contains live virus or mere fragments of the virus that were killed by pasteurization, a process that destroys harmful bacteria, but remain detectable. The FDA said it’ll soon release a nationwide survey of tested milk and that for now, the commercial milk supply remains safe, a claim that numerous independent experts have confirmed. The news that the bird flu has been found in the US milk supply may raise alarm among some consumers, and the FDA has been criticized for prematurely assuring the safety of milk without hard data. But the real problem, which has received little attention, is the tepid and opaque response from the federal agency tasked with stopping the on-farm spread of the disease: the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). What we know — and what we don’t — depends on the USDA Ever since the virus was detected on a Texas dairy farm in late March, infectious disease experts around the world have roundly criticized the USDA on multiple fronts. It took nearly a month for the agency to upload data containing genetic sequences of the virus, which scientists use to better understand its threat level. And once the sequence was uploaded, it was incomplete, lacking specifics that researchers say they needed to properly study the data. “It’s as if the USDA is intentionally trying to hide data from the world,” Rick Bright, a former director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority at the US Department of Health and Human Services, told STAT. A Dutch virologist told STAT it should’ve taken the USDA days, not weeks, to share data and updates. Beyond the data obfuscation, there’s insufficient monitoring. The virus may have started circulating on US dairy farms months before it was detected, according to Michael Worobey, a biology professor at the University of Arizona. That suggests the need for better and more proactive pathogen monitoring on the part of the USDA. And once H5N1 was confirmed in dairy cows, the USDA didn’t require dairy farms to conduct routine testing nor report positive H5N1 tests. The USDA has even tolerated uncooperative farmers, despite the high stakes of the disease spread. “There has been a little bit of reluctance for some of the producers to allow us to gather information from their farms,” said Michael Watson, administrator of USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, in a press conference on Wednesday. But, he added, “that has been improving.” This voluntary approach is a recurring theme in USDA policy; there’s even uncertainty as to whether the agency is enforcing orders for farmers to toss milk from infected cows to ensure it doesn’t wind up in the food supply, which could explain how traces of it were found in store-bought milk. Last week, the New York Times reported that North Carolina officials confirmed there were asymptomatic cows in the state, which could also explain why the virus was detected in the commercial milk supply. It also suggests more herds may be infected than previously thought. On Wednesday, a month after the first confirmation, the USDA finally issued a federal order requiring that laboratories and state veterinarians report farms with positive H5N1 tests and that lactating dairy cows must test negative for bird flu before crossing state lines (and cooperate with investigators). At a Wednesday press conference, the agency didn’t specify how the order will be enforced. Why regulation and response go hand-in-hand The USDA’s sluggish response to a rapidly moving virus may leave some foreign observers scratching their heads. But much of it can be explained by an irresolvable conflict baked into its mission. The agency, according to food industry scholars Gabriel Rosenberg and Jan Dutkiewicz, has “the oxymoronic double mandate of both promoting and regulating all of American agriculture—two disparate tasks that, when combined, effectively put the fox in charge of the henhouse.” More often than not, it’s heavy on the promotion and light on the regulation. The paradox has been at the center of its response to the bird flu’s decimation of the US poultry industry in recent years. While the USDA is developing several bird flu vaccines, it’s long been stubbornly opposed to a broad vaccination campaign due to industry fears that it’ll disrupt trade, a major source of revenue for US poultry companies, despite pleas from experts to give birds a bird flu shot. USDA has also been deferential to industry on matters of pollution, labor, political corruption, false advertising, and animal cruelty across numerous sectors. And it’s not the only agency that too often takes a hands-off approach to problems stemming from food production. The FDA has failed to stringently regulate antibiotics used in animal farming, a pressing public health threat that, in recent years, some European regulators have addressed in earnest. Agriculture is a top source of US water and air pollution, due in large part to congressional loopholes and weak enforcement on the part of the US Environmental Protection Agency. It all adds up to what food industry experts call “agricultural exceptionalism,” in which the food industry operates under a different set of regulations than the rest of the economy. The justification of such exceptionalism is that it’s necessary, given the importance of an abundant food supply. But that’s all the more reason not to give farmers and ranchers carte blanche to let disease circulate on American farms unchecked.