In 1918 Flu Pandemic, Timing Was a Killer

Since 1918, four new global flu pandemics have struck. None have come anywhere close to 1918’s toll, leaving scientists to puzzle about why 1918 was so deadly. Adding to the mystery was that people in their late 20s were at greatest risk of dying in 1918. Typically, children and old people are more likely to die in flu outbreaks. The reason why people in their late 20's suffered from the pandemic more severely is because the outbreak of the flu in affected younger people ( in their early 20's or teen years) before hand and an outbreak in the early or mid 1800's affected the older generation, therefore, the middle (late 20's) generation did not experience the flu yet and did not have a great chance at surviving. Their immune systems weren't as strong. In other words, the people in their late 20s were the victims of timing. When they grew up, they didn’t have strong defenses against the 1918 flu. Other factors made the pandemic even worse for those young adults. Vulnerable soldiers were packed in battlefield trenches or aboard troop transport ships. The virus could spread easily from one host to another. And in 1918, doctors could do little to treat the flu. They had no vaccines, no antiviral drugs and no antibiotics to stop the bacterial pneumonia that often came with bad cases of the flu.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/science/in-1918-flu-pandemic-timing-was-a-killer.html?ref=science

Climate Efforts Falling Short, U.N. Panel Says

A United Nations panel warned that governments are not doing enough to avert profound risks in coming decades. But the experts found a silver lining: Not only is there still time to head off the worst, but the political will to do so seems to be rising around the world. Though it remains technically possible to keep planetary warming to a tolerable level, only an intensive push over the next 15 years to bring those emissions under control can achieve the goal, the committee found. “We cannot afford to lose another decade,” said Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chairman of the committee that wrote the report. “If we lose another decade, it becomes extremely costly to achieve climate stabilization.” The report was quickly welcomed in Washington, where President Obama is trying to adopt aggressive climate policies despite congressional opposition. His science adviser, John P. Holdren, said the report showed that “the longer society waits to implement strong measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the more costly and difficult it will become to limit climate change to less than catastrophic levels.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/14/science/earth/un-climate-panel-warns-speedier-action-is-needed-to-avert-disaster.html?ref=earth

Anaerobic treatment of wastewater: A step towards sustainable energy

 Most of the world’s energy supplies have come from coal, oil and gas. Scarcity of natural resources, surging energy prices and global warming had focused attention on renewable energy, and consequently, alternative approaches to producing bio-energy. Over the last five years, one particular technology for the production of biocoal - Hydrothermal Carbonization (HTC) - has undergone significant development and has become a subject of major scientific interest. Hydrothermal carbonization entails a conversion process of biomass. In natural conditions production of coal from biomass is slow and can take up to millions of years, whereas biocoal can be produced in just a few hours. During the process, heat is released and water molecules are split off from carbohydrate and what remains is a carbon-rich material -- the biocoal. However, the ongoing discussion on biomass utilization largely neglects one remarkable aspect of the process, namely, the huge CO₂ and methane emissions produced by biomass residue. No wonder, that researchers continue their quest for novel solutions for the utilization and recycling of by-products of hydrothermal carbonization. In industrial settings, and especially by rising composting costs, the economic business case for the valorization (or recycling) of by-products of hydrothermal carbonization seems a valuable contribution to resource conservation and sustainable energy.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140326114512.htm

Small Area Open Near Fukushima

Japan reopened a small part of the 12-mile evacuation zone around the destroyed Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant on Tuesday, allowing residents to return to live in their homes for the first time since the accident three years ago. It is unclear how many of Tamura’s residents will now go back. Earlier surveys of evacuees found that fewer than half wanted to return because of fears of radiation and the mishap-plagued cleanup at the nearby nuclear plant. Some experts say the most highly radioactive areas to the northwest of the plant may be unlivable for generations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/world/asia/small-area-open-near-fukushima.html?ref=science&_r=0