Tag Archives: brazil

Here’s a new Olympic sport to consider: Safe sex

Smashing Records

Here’s a new Olympic sport to consider: Safe sex

By on Aug 9, 2016Share

Olympic organizers are supplying attendees with 450,000 condoms — fully three times the number available in London in 2012. “Would you be more inclined to rampantly bang in the country that gave us that guy from Love Actually, or the one that gave us that other guy from Love Actually?” pondered the Official Sexy Times Division of the International Olympic Committee, immediately before buying out several Costcos’ worth of prophylactics.

As Yahoo! Sports reports, the push for protection is partially attributed to anxieties around the Zika virus, which is sexually transmittable. But also, just as a general rule: If you’re going to have casual, celebratory, romping sex, do it with protection. Or as they say — adorably — in Brazil, with “a little shirt:”

I know what you’re thinking: “But wouldn’t it be a fantastic thing if all of these incredible physical specimens combined their perfect genes for a better world? Why are the Olympics cockblocking the beautification of our planet?”

Counterpoint:

Election Guide ★ 2016Making America Green AgainOur experts weigh in on the real issues at stake in this electionGet Grist in your inbox

From:

Here’s a new Olympic sport to consider: Safe sex

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s a new Olympic sport to consider: Safe sex

How Are You Supposed to Win a Gold Medal If You Can’t Get A Cup of Coffee?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Brazil has been the globe’s most prolific coffee-producing nation for 150 years; and coffee culture has long permeated Rio de Janeiro, where you can find everything from a cheap cafezinho (little cup of coffee) at a corner cafe to super fancy brews extracted from the nation’s best coffee beans. But if you’re an athlete holed up in Olympic Village for the games, things are apparently a bit different. Here’s NPR:

BLOCK: This will be the second Olympics for Egyptian archer Ahmed El-Nemr. He’s mostly happy, but there is a problem.
AHMED EL-NEMR: Actually, yes, I have some complains about coffee (laughter).
BLOCK: He’s been shocked to find there is no coffee for athletes in the village apartment buildings or at the sports venues.
NEMR: I asked. They said we are only limited to Coca-Cola products. So…
BLOCK: You’re kidding me.
NEMR: No. Yeah, that’s what they told us in the venue.

What? No coffee for Olympic athletes in the globe’s coffee epicenter, because…Coca-Cola? According to the Daily News, “A Coca-Cola spokeswoman denied the archer’s claim and said there is coffee in the Olympic Village but it isn’t being supplied by the company.” But apparently, it’s not very easy to find. This must not stand. If I were an athlete in Rio, I’d organize a revolt. And I would not be mollified by some crap like this—I’d want a fresh cup of coffee. In solidarity with my coffee-loving brothers and sisters in the Village, I’ve done a Google dive into catering and sponsorships at the Games to try and figure out what’s going on.

I found a Rio 2016 “Taste of the Games” document that lists the sugary beverage behemoth as the “exclusive” provider of non-alcoholic beverages for the 2016 event, including for its 17,500 athletes. (McDonald’s is listed as the exclusive provider of retail food services, and Skol—a Brazilian brand owned by global beer giant AB InBev, maker of Budweiser—is the exclusive beer provider.)

What does “exclusive” mean? “What this means to caterers is that if menus include products from a sponsor product category, the products of that sponsor must be used unless Rio 2016 approves otherwise in writing.” However, “this does not mean that all food and beverage products must be sourced from these organisations alone,” the document continues. Drinks not offered by the sponsor—in the case of Coca-Cola, say, a fresh cup of joe—can be provided, with the stipulation that it be unbranded. Easy enough for a damn cup of coffee.

So, under the terms of the sponsorship, the Olympic village can provide fresh coffee. But is there a right to coffee? Here the document is muddy. It contains this line about services to be provided to the athletes: “Supply of snacks, fruit, isotonic sports, ugh drinks, soft drinks, mineral water, tea and coffee, biscuits, cereal bars and other items at Athletes’ lounges in competition and training venues.”

Note that this clause mentions “Athletes’ lounges in competition and training venues,” but doesn’t mention the living quarters, where El-Nemr tells NPR he’s being denied coffee—and where athletes wake up in the morning. Coffee time, in other words. Here’s what the document says about that region:

• 24/7 catering service at the Main Dining Hall in the Olympic Village
• High-quality menu with wide range of options, in line with different cultural and nutritional needs in every location serving Athletes.

Not to play Olympic Village lawyer, but that last bit to me sounds like a right to coffee—morning coffee fuels many cultures across the globe. If I were an athlete in Rio, I’d print out that doc, put a big circle around that clause, and take it directly to a Rio 16 official, preferably trailed by a band of annoyed and imposingly athletic fellow coffee fiends.

Originally posted here: 

How Are You Supposed to Win a Gold Medal If You Can’t Get A Cup of Coffee?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Prepara, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Are You Supposed to Win a Gold Medal If You Can’t Get A Cup of Coffee?

The Rising Murder Count of Environmental Activists

A new report by Global Witness puts last year’s death toll at 185, a sharp increase, with Brazil leading the way. Continued:   The Rising Murder Count of Environmental Activists ; ; ;

Original post – 

The Rising Murder Count of Environmental Activists

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, horticulture, LAI, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Rising Murder Count of Environmental Activists

Fellow Americans, It’s Time to Stop Panicking About Zika

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On a recent afternoon, in a temperature-controlled room at the University of California-Davis, epidemiologist Chris Barker shows me the life stages of Aedes aegypti, the Zika-carrying mosquito that’s sowing so much panic and confusion. The barely discernable eggs clinging to paper strips. The rice-length larvae, sensitive to light and vibration, wriggling spasmodically in their tanks. The comma-shaped pupae, skittering about in covered baths. And finally, the adults, clinging to the sides of small containers where they feast on sugar water and warm sheep’s blood so the females can nourish their batches of eggs. These particular mosquitoes are not harboring any disease—that would require a high-security biolab—but even this insectary has a screened, air-lock-style foyer and wall-mounted bug zappers with glowing tubes to deal with any fugitives. “Aegypti are not present in nature here” in Northern California, Barker says, “so we certainly don’t want them getting out.”

Nor do our legislators in DC, some of whom have been making frightening statements as they debate how much money to throw at the Zika problem. “We shouldn’t be taking 10 days off as a dangerous virus threatens this nation,” said Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, rebuking his GOP colleagues recently for leaving for spring recess without passing a Zika bill. “And it is threatening us.”

It’s “a life-threatening issue,” stressed Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY), and an impending “healthcare catastrophe,” added Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.). Some Southern Republicans are sounding the alarm, too: “Zika’s shadow is spreading too quickly in Florida,” said Vern Buchanan, the first GOP senator to support the White House’s full $1.9 billion funding request. “The rest of the country should keep in mind that summer is coming and so are the mosquitoes. Congress needs to act quickly.” Erstwhile GOP presidential hopeful and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio piled on as well. “It is just a matter of days, weeks, hours before you will open up a newspaper or turn on the news and it will say that someone in the continental United States was bitten by a mosquito and they contracted Zika,” he said. “When that happens, then everyone is going to be freaked out.”

Rubio is right: This will almost certainly happen at some point, and people will be freaked out. But just how freaked out should we be? To answer that question, and find some perspective on our collective Zika fears, I took a trip out to UC-Davis to meet with Barker and other scientists who actually study mosquitoes and the nasty diseases they carry.

We’ve actually known about Zika for a long time—it was discovered in Africa in 1947 and named after Uganda’s Zika Forest. The biology of the mosquito that’s spreading it is pretty well understood. “Aegypti is the lab rat of the mosquito world,” explains Barker, who also manages California’s surveillance lab for mosquito-borne viruses. Yet until recently, we didn’t worry much about Zika, because outbreaks were rare and the virus seemed pretty benign. Eighty percent of infected people never get sick at all, and for most of the 20 percent who do, it’s not too bad. “Zika is a relatively mild disease—fever, aches, pains, rash, conjunctivitis, and done,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who is overseeing vaccine efforts in the United States, told me recently.

But last year, as a Zika outbreak took off in Brazil and spread rapidly across South and Central America, doctors began seeing an unusual number of microcephaly cases—babies born with tiny heads and often severe brain damage. Microcephaly is caused by other things, too, but it’s rare, and Zika seemed like an obvious suspect. Subsequent experiments yielded alarming revelations about how the virus might be gutting the brains of infants. And the bad news kept coming: “First it was, ‘Is it really causally associated with the congenital abnormalities of microcephaly?'” Fauci said, “Then all of a sudden we definitely know: The first cohort study showed a 29 percent incidence, which is really very high. Then we find out the virus destroys neurological tissue very aggressively. Now, if you ever wanted to compound and confound the spread of an outbreak that already is amazingly strange—the first mosquito-borne virus that results in a congenital abnormality—then you find out it’s sexually transmitted!!”

It didn’t stop there. Scientists have now linked Zika to an increase in Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare condition in which the protein sheath that insulates nerve cells and ensures proper brain function gets eaten away. After learning of this new wrinkle, Fauci recalled, “I was saying, ‘My goodness. Every time you wake up, there’s something else that’s bad about it.'”

As of May 25, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we’ve had 591 confirmed Zika cases in the United States, nearly all of them people bitten by mosquitoes while traveling in Zika-afflicted regions. New York had the most cases (127), followed by Florida (121), California (44), Texas (36), and Pennsylvania (19). Only one case is associated with Guillain-Barré. Eleven of them were from having sex with a person who’d been sick with Zika. The CDC notes that 168 pregnant women have either tested positive for the virus itself or harbor antibodies against it—which means they were exposed at some point, but not necessarily while pregnant. Notably, none of the cases resulted from someone being bitten by domestic mosquitoes.

There’s much we still don’t know about Zika. For instance, we don’t know how high the risk of Guillain-Barré might be in those infected, or how the virus causes it. There’s some evidence that Zika may stimulate an immune response that prompts the body to attack its own brain cells. (If true, that could present complications for vaccine developers, since you obviously don’t want to make a shot that produces such a response.)

We also haven’t determined whether the fetus is at risk if a pregnant woman is infected with Zika but shows no symptoms. Or whether an asymptomatic person can transmit the virus through sex. “So far, the only sexual transmissions that we know of are people who transmitted it when they were symptomatic or very soon after,” says Fauci, who has research teams looking into both questions. “In fact, the ones that are well documented had a rash when they transmitted it. But that’s maybe just the tip of the iceberg.”

Before heading out to meet Barker and the others, I hopped on the phone for a little Mosquito 101 with Bill Reisen, a veteran UC-Davis mosquito guy and editor of the Journal of Medical Entomology.

Most of the world’s roughly 3,500 known mosquito species, Reisen points out, are pretty meaningless to us humans. And they’re not much interested in us, either. Most mosquitoes are fairly host-specific—consider the genus Uranotaenia, which bites only frogs. Here in the United States, we’re only concerned with the fewer than 10 species that share our habitat, suck our blood, and can spread human diseases. The mosquito of the hour, the one whose life cycles Barker showed me, is capable of transmitting not only Zika, but the related viruses that cause yellow fever, Chikungunya, and dengue fever.

Why would so few species cause problems, yet one be responsible for so many? Well, some mosquitoes are simply better suited as carriers. Biologically speaking, a lot has to happen within their brief life span—a few weeks for aegypti—for a virus to cycle through the insect and into its saliva. (When the female mosquito sticks its proboscis through a person’s skin, some of that saliva gets transferred into our blood.) With malaria, which once was a big problem in the United States, the process is even trickier. “The mosquito must ingest both male and female parasites, which mate in the mosquito and then form a stage that burrows through the gut wall,” Reisen says. “It’s a marvel it works at all.”

UC-Davis virologist Lark Coffey told me that even at the peak of West Nile—a virus that has killed about 1,900 Americans since 2000 and is primarily spread in the United States by mosquitoes of the Culex genus—less than 1 percent of the insects carried the infection. But when zillions are hatching, that’s enough to cause outbreaks. “It’s a numbers game,” Reisen says.

Aedes aegypti is doing pretty well for itself, numbers-wise, around the world. And the mosquito is not, as Sen. Buchanan put it, “coming”—it’s here. Aegypti is well established along the southern border, particularly in the Gulf states, and in recent years it has become entrenched in the greater Los Angeles area. Its cousin Aedes albopictus—which can transmit all the same viruses, albeit less competently—shares and expands upon that turf. On the East Coast, albopictus can range as far north as New England.

These are not native species. Aegypti is an African mosquito that first caught a lift to the New World on slave ships, according to Reisen. Both aegypti and albopictus (a.k.a. the Asian Tiger Mosquito), have continued to spread around the globe via cargo vessels, often hitching a ride in used tires—an ideal breeding spot. Some 15 years ago, albopictus began repopulating Los Angeles, where scientists thought it had been all but eradicated by conventional control methods—insecticides and so forth. “The way they were getting in was this plant,” Barker says, pulling out a small container of Lucky Bamboo, an Asian import shipped in water. “That’s a lovely way to send mosquitoes around the world.” The tricky devils even can get around by slipping into a car and popping out somewhere else—we’re their chauffeurs.

Aedes aegypti has proven particularly hard to stamp out. Unlike the malaria mosquitoes that breed in marshes and other bodies of water where they are fairly easy targets for insecticides and such, aegypti has evolved to thrive in urban areas. In the United States, it’s a backyard-dweller, laying eggs in lawn drains, construction rubble, trash, those little saucers we place under flowerpots—it will happily breed in the filthiest of conditions, Coffey says. The mosquito bites night and day, feeds almost exclusively on people, and has even picked up an odorant receptor gene that makes us humans an especially attractive target.

The hard part is finding them. Truck-mounted neighborhood spraying of insecticides, which keeps some mosquitoes under control, doesn’t penetrate aegypti habitats. You have to go onto people’s properties, and that requires cooperation from renters and homeowners. “You would go to a very nicely landscaped home, and they’ve got endless flowerpots with little cups on the bottom and sprinklers hitting the pots, so these were constantly wet. You’ve got birdbaths and people with rain barrels, saving water,” says Reisen, who has done door-to-door mosquito surveys in Los Angeles. “You go from that pristine environment to people who are hoarders and have endless garbage in their backyards. You find commodes, wheelbarrows full of water.” Next stop: “Homes with Jacuzzis and swimming pools that are no longer maintained, and they’re just a filthy mess full of mosquitoes.”

Multiply that by the “something like 5 million parcels” under the jurisdiction of the greater Los Angeles vector control district,” Reisen says. Even if you had the manpower to clean up those properties, you’d need the homeowners to keep them clean. Otherwise, “six months later, you’ve got the same problem you started with—it’s just endless.”

A massive effort during the 1960s nearly eliminated aegypti from multiple countries in South and Central America, “but it required huge, almost military-type campaigns of going door to door, as well as the use of the new miracle, DDT,” Reisen says. In a 2001 New Yorker profile, Malcolm Gladwell described the man in charge, Fred Soper, as “the General Patton of entomology,” who “seemed equally capable of browbeating man or mosquito.” But Soper’s tyrannical campaigns came to an end, and now, Reisen says, “we’re back probably worse than we were before.”

We’re worse off, in part, because mosquitoes manage to evolve their way around just about every chemical we throw at them—including the most effective pesticide, DDT—now banned in the United States and many other countries because of its effects on wildlife. In his office at UC-Davis, geneticist Greg Lanzaro shows me how the African malaria mosquito Anopheles coluzzii interbred with rival species Anopheles gambiae, and in the process obtained a gambiae gene that bolsters its defenses against the insecticides used on protective bed nets. “That’s the kind of genetic trickery these mosquitoes are capable of,” Lanzaro says. As for California mosquitoes, Reisen adds, they basically laugh off many of the organochlorides, organophosphates, and pyrethroid compounds in our chemical arsenal. For insect populations, the adage that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger is particularly apt.

This is some scary stuff, right? And yet, we’ve not seen any Zika transmission by mosquitoes in the United States. To hear the politicians talk, you’d think aegypti are preparing to swarm across the border from points south—tiny illegal immigrants harboring deadly diseases. In reality, the typical aegypti mosquito probably flies only a few hundred meters in its lifetime, Coffey says. A local outbreak would have to begin with a local mosquito biting a Zika-infected traveler and then passing the virus to someone else. And this will probably happen, Fauci told me, because we see it happen with Chikungunya and dengue.

Then again, when was the last time you worried about Chikungunya or dengue—or malaria, for that matter? Those diseases are far scarier than Zika. WHO estimates (conservatively) that malaria infected at least 214 million people last year and killed 438,000, mostly children under five. Then there’s dengue, named from the Swahili phrase ki denga pepo (“a sudden overtaking by a spirit”)—which tells you something about how painful it is. Each year, dengue, also called “breakbone fever,” infects 50-100 million people, sickens about 70 percent of them—half a million very severely—and kills tens of thousands. Brazil, in addition to its Zika problem, is experiencing a record dengue epidemic. Health authorities there tallied 1.6 million cases and 863 deaths last year—and the 2016 toll is on track to be worse. Zika is seldom fatal.

In the United States, over the past six decades, we’ve had 63 small malaria outbreaks caused by local mosquitoes biting stricken travelers and passing the parasite along. The first locally acquired Chikungunya case popped up in Florida in 2014. Our most recent dengue outbreak—in which only a few infections were locally acquired (presumably by mosquitoes)—occurred in Brownsville, Texas, more than a decade ago. These outbreaks have been small and seldom in part because Americans in the South spend a lot of their time in screened, air-conditioned spaces, which minimizes contact with the mosquitoes. (The advent of television is credited as a factor in the decline of malaria in the United States.) Also, compared with the countries that have a lot of infections, American public-health authorities are pretty adept at spotting outbreaks and quashing them before they get out of control.

Only one of the six scientists I interviewed was concerned that Zika might take off in the continental United States. “You would never see Zika virus, Chikungunya virus, or dengue virus sweep across the country the way West Nile did, even in the regions where these mosquitoes are,” Barker told me. “Because that’s just not how it works in our country.”

West Nile is different, because the Culex mosquitoes that spread it also bite birds, which serve as a permanent reservoir for new mosquitoes to be infected with the virus. But health officials kept the dengue and Chikungunya outbreaks in check by using aggressive mosquito control, and by convincing locals to apply repellent, stay indoors with air conditioning, and eliminate standing water from their properties. “So even though I never say never,” Fauci says, “I do not think we are going to have a widespread Zika outbreak in this country.”

It will be a few years, at least, before a vaccine is widely available. In the meantime, the only way Americans are likely to get Zika is by traveling in a Zika zone. If you’re pregnant, or planning on it, you’d be wise to stay far away, and use protection if you’re sleeping with someone who’s been on Zika turf recently. Americans heading to the Olympics in Rio—which has Brazil’s highest infection rates—can protect themselves with long pants, long sleeves, and plenty of DEET.

In the near term, Coffey says, eliminating aegypti is going to be “untenable.” Until we come up with a cutting-edge genetic fix, the holy grail, she says, is an effective single-dose vaccine: “All you ever have to do is see a person once.” The mosquitoes? They’re forever.

Link to original: 

Fellow Americans, It’s Time to Stop Panicking About Zika

Posted in alo, ATTRA, bamboo, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Fellow Americans, It’s Time to Stop Panicking About Zika

How the Fight Against Zika Is Playing Out Across Brazil Right Now

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Brazil is in crisis. Earlier this month, President Dilma Rousseff was ousted from office after a series of scandals led to impeachment proceedings. Newly installed opposition leaders are facing a series of corruption charges of their own. And the Zika virus, first detected in Brazil in April 2015, continues to stymie public health officials concerned about the upcoming Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro.

So far, the new government’s approach toward Zika has been questionable, at best: The new health minister, Ricardo Barros, is an engineer with no previous experience in health administration. And while Barros listed the fight to eradicate the Aedes aegypti mosquito as one of his top priorities when he took over, he’s got his work cut out for himself: Zika has infected 120,161 Brazilians in 2016, with another 1,434 confirmed cases of microcephaly since October (up from around 150 per year).

But how has Zika affected the lives of average Brazilians? Here are some unexpected ways the virus is impacting people on the ground.

There’s no privacy when it comes to Zika: As part of the government’s Aedes aegypti eradication plan, federal health agents have been going door to door to inspect backyards and educate the public. Ever since Rousseff signed a new rule into law in January, these agents have been allowed to force their way into public and private buildings—including people’s homes—to search for mosquito breeding sites if no one answers the door after two separate visits. If necessary, the police can be called upon to help gain entrance.

There’s been a rush on bug repellent: Last November, right after the government announced that the increase of microcephaly cases in northeastern Brazil was probably related to Zika, many Brazilians—especially pregnant women—rushed to drugstores to buy mosquito repellent. But not just any repellent: Experts in the field started to recommend a specific brand, Exposis, which is the only one in Brazil made with Icaridin, an ingredient said to guarantee up to 10 hours of protection.

According to Paulo Castejón Guerra Vieira, general-director of Osler of Brazil—the lab that produces Exposis—the company had prepared for dengue and chikungunya epidemics but was surprised by the Zika explosion. The resulting shortage led to a repellent black market, with Exposis selling for more than double its already-expensive original price of $16 a bottle. Pregnant women started to stock it. Production increased 30-fold to meet demand. “I had people calling here saying that they were afraid their babies would be born with microcephaly and we should work it out,” Guerra says. “We did everything we could to increase production.” They were finally able to meet demand four months later, in March.

Introducing species-killing, multicolored GM mosquitoes: Millions of genetically modified mosquitoes have been released as part of research projects to reduce mosquito populations across the country. In the most recent test, transgenic mosquitoes helped cause an 82 percent reduction in larvae in a neighborhood in the city of Piracicaba, located the state of São Paulo. (The GM mosquito produced by the company Oxitec has an alteration that prevents offspring from developing.) Two cities in the state of Bahia have seen similar results with transgenic mosquitoes.

In the last few months, residents of Piracicaba have been surprised and a little frightened to find pink, blue, and yellow mosquitoes flying through their homes. These GM insects were actually dyed with powdered paint so the researchers could better control their survival in the wild.

Courtesy Oxitec

In vitro fertilization just got even more complicated: There have been countless reports of couples delaying pregnancy because of the risk of microcephaly. But what about those considering in vitro fertilization? According to new rules, they must first take Zika tests.

The exams started to be mandatory in April, following a resolution by the Brazilian equivalent of the US Food and Drug Administration, and it is now a requirement for the couple and for sperm and egg donors. According to geneticist Ciro Martinhago, who runs a São Paulo laboratory specializing in reproductive genetics, many couples who had gone through fertilization procedures at the end of last year decided to postpone the embryo transfer until the beginning of Brazil’s winter, when there are fewer mosquitoes.

Martinhago’s laboratory was the first in Brazil to offer a molecular test to detect Zika in semen, and he even got requests from men who weren’t going through in vitro but wanted to make sure they weren’t putting their sexual partners in risk. According to a preliminary data published in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, the virus could be detected in semen up to 62 days after the first symptoms. On May 10, the Brazilian Ministry of Health recommended the use of condoms to prevent sexual transmission of Zika, especially among pregnant women.

Poor Brazilians are more affected by microcephaly, and officials aren’t sure why: Microcephaly, the most severe condition so far associated with Zika, seems to be impacting the poor more intensely. According to data released by the Secretary of Social Development, Children, and Youth of Pernambuco, one of the first states affected by the microcephaly outbreak, 69 percent of the 1,947 reported cases through the beginning of May came in families living in extreme poverty.

While low-income populations are more likely to be exposed to the mosquitoes, scientists are already looking at other factors that might be increasing their microcephaly risk—specifically, poor nutrition and exposure to previous infections.

Credit – 

How the Fight Against Zika Is Playing Out Across Brazil Right Now

Posted in FF, GE, LG, Northeastern, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How the Fight Against Zika Is Playing Out Across Brazil Right Now

No, the Summer Olympics Will Not Be Leaving Rio

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Last week, as Brazil was grappling with the ouster of President Dilma Rousseff, University of Ottawa professor Amir Attaran called on the International Olympic Committee to postpone this summer’s Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro—or move them elsewhere—due to the continued threat of the Zika virus. He argued in the Harvard Public Health Review that exposure to the mosquito-borne virus in the heart of Rio, where he said the number of suspected cases has reached 26,000, could result in a “full-blown global health disaster” and should prompt Olympic officials to take action as a “precautionary concession.”

“Simply put,” wrote Attaran, a legal and medical scholar, “Zika infection is more dangerous, and Brazil’s outbreak more extensive, than scientists reckoned a short time ago.”

For months, would-be Olympians have expressed their concerns about the virus. Some even have refused to participate in this year’s Games. On May 12, the World Health Organization and the Pan American Health Organization reiterated a series of precautions for athletes and tourists planning on attending the Games, like avoiding impoverished and overcrowded parts of Rio and urging pregnant women to not visit Zika-stricken areas. And on Tuesday, after Attaran’s article had prompted a new level of scrutiny, WHO chief Dr. Margaret Chan told reporters the Olympics should go ahead as scheduled: “You don’t want to bring a standstill to the world’s movement of people.”

But at this point, is it even possible to move the multibillion-dollar spectacle? I got in touch with two Olympic insiders—A.D. Frazier, who served as chief operating officer of the Atlanta Olympic Committee, and Olympic historian David Wallechinsky—to see what they thought about a last-minute change. They were…less than optimistic. “Just forget it,” Frazier said. “The International Olympic Committee won’t cancel unless Rio goes completely bankrupt.” Wallechinsky was even more blunt: “I understand that this is no joke, but in terms of moving them at the last minute, unless there was suddenly an epidemic of people falling over dead in Rio, it’s not going to happen.”

Here are the three main reasons why:

It would be unprecedented. Wallechinsky, president of the International Society of Olympic Historians, noted that the only times the Olympics have been canceled were during World War I and World War II. They’ve endured violence before and during the Games: Ten days before the 1968 Summer Games in Mexico City, for example, police and military officers opened fire into a crowd of student demonstrators, killing and wounding hundreds; at the 1972 Summer Games in Munich, 11 members of the Israeli team were killed by terrorists; and in 1996, a bombing during the Atlanta Games killed two and injured more than 100. (Atlanta COO Frazier recalled being briefed about dozens of bomb threats each day during the 17-day event.)

Still, Wallechinsky admitted that Rio 2016’s Zika problem is a unique one. The closest parallel that he could think of came two years ago, when Africa’s Ebola crisis spurred concerns at the summer Youth Olympic Games in Nanjing, China. Officials from China and the International Olympic Committee announced that athletes from affected areas would not be allowed to compete in combat sports or swimming out of fear that athletes could transmit the virus. The event took place as scheduled, but three athletes were unable to compete.

There’s too much cash riding on Rio 2016. “Sponsors and the TV networks have put so much money into these Olympics being in Rio that it’s impossible to imagine moving them at this late date,” Wallechinsky said. The organizing committee, Frazier noted, would have locked in place sponsorship deals and contracts for buses, hotels, and other infrastructure long before the event. Moving the Olympics to a new host city would require advanced notice not just for top international sponsors that typically support the Games, but also for local sponsors like the ones in Brazil helping fund Rio 2016, Wallechinsky said. Local and international sponsor deals account for 52 percent of the Rio Organizing Committee’s revenue, or $962 million, making it the dominant source of funding. (The bulk of those sponsorship agreements were made in 2014, right around the time of World Cup, which was also held in Brazil.)

Earlier this year, organizers trimmed expenses by $500 million to balance its $1.85 billion operating budget, eliminating thousands of seats from venues and taking away televisions from rooms in the Olympic Village. Still, economists project that the overall costs for this year’s events could reach more than $10 billion. “You can’t just pick up and move carte blanche,” Wallechinsky said.

Possible sites would need a “pickup squad” of organizers, fast. Two years ago, rumors surfaced that organizers were considering moving the Rio Games to London—host of the 2012 Olympics—out of concern for Brazil’s preparation. But finding a replacement site at this late stage with available venues is just one piece of the puzzle, Frazier said. Preparing the surrounding roads and infrastructure for a massive influx of athletes, business personnel, and spectators, as well as coordinating a flawless 17-day spectacle in three months with thousands of contractors and vendors, would pose a virtually impossible challenge for the “pickup squad” of organizers who would have come together at the last moment.

And that’s putting aside the travel schedules for the spectators and athletes themselves, as well as the need for safe, comfortable accommodations for athletes at an Olympic village. “The village itself is too complex to start in three months,” Frazier said. “If you’re talking about 15,000 athletes and officials and their safety, do you think somebody would organize a totally secure Olympic village in three months? No, not a chance.” He added that since the Munich Games, the security of the venues and athletes’ housing has been a pressing issue for organizers. Moving an event is one thing, but Frazier noted that moving an entire Games—opening ceremony and all—is “folly.”

“You can’t do it. Two years ago, I would’ve felt differently,” Frazier said. “Today they’ve got three months to go, man. Only a fool would take on the responsibility of taking the Games away from Rio.”

Taken from:

No, the Summer Olympics Will Not Be Leaving Rio

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Prepara, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on No, the Summer Olympics Will Not Be Leaving Rio

Americans Are Gorging Themselves on Cheap Meat

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

While the Dutch and other nations are advising consumers to cut down on red meat, it’s estimated that Americans will eat more beef this year than we have in the last decade.

The Netherlands Nutrition Centre’s new dietary guidelines suggest eating no more than 500 grams (just over one pound) of meat per week, including no more than 300 grams (0.7 pounds) of red meat, which it describes as “high carbon.” The agency wants the Dutch to scale back red meat for health reasons and sustainability. After all, the meat industry produces 14.5 percent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and land for grazing takes up a quarter of the Earth’s non-ice surface. The Dutch agency’s new guidelines also decrease the recommended fish consumption from twice to once per week, and they encourage protein from sources such as unsalted nuts and legumes.

In the United States, on the other hand, diners are piling more meat onto their plates. The USDA has predicted that 2016 will be the biggest year in a decade in Americans’ consumption of beef. We’ll eat an estimated 53.4 pounds, nearly half a pound more per person than last year.

Bloomberg Business compares US chicken and beef consumption since the 1970’s. Source: Bloomberg

According to Bloomberg, the increase could be due to cheaper prices on red meat and the popularity of protein-heavy diets like the paleo diet. Also, there are more cows. Droughts that plagued the Southwest in 2014 meant fewer cows and higher beef prices. However, cattle counts from earlier this year show there are nearly 3.5 million more cows than two years ago.

The Dutch aren’t the only sustainability conscious eaters. Sweden altered its dietary guidelines in 2009, and in 2012 Brazil called for cultivating and eating foods that had “environmental integrity.” Last week, the United Kingdom released its EatWell Guide, which advised Brits to eat less red meat.

It’s unclear whether the USDA will change its guidelines to reflect sustainability any time soon. When “My Plate,” the Obama administration’s food group

The USDA’s “My Plate” guidelines were released in January. The guidelines advised more vegetables, fruits and lean meats, and less sugar. Source: ChooseMyPlate.gov

recommendations, came out earlier this year the government played it safe and only mentioned eating leaner meats. The guidelines instead came down hard on limiting sugar intake.

See the original post – 

Americans Are Gorging Themselves on Cheap Meat

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Americans Are Gorging Themselves on Cheap Meat

Cuba’s Organic Revolution: Coming to Your Fridge?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

When President Barack Obama earlier this week became the first sitting US president to visit Cuba since the revolution, he brought along a veritable army of representatives of US business interests—including agribusiness lobbyists. Among the most prominent was Devry Boughner Vorwerk, a former Cargill executive who now chairs the US Agriculture Coalition for Cuba.

The Coalition launched early last year, soon after Obama announced he would ease trade and travel restrictions imposed by the long-standing US embargo against Cuba, and that he would prod Congress to revoke the trade ban altogether. It’s a conglomeration of grain-trading giants like Cargill (the globe’s largest grain trader and the biggest privately owned US company), Archer Daniels Midland, and Bunge, as well as industry groups including the North American Meat Institute and the American Soybean Association. The group represents what might just be the wedge that will ultimately convince the GOP-led Congress to put aside its staunch anti-communism and agree to lift the embargo: As much as heartland Republican politicians despise the Castro family and all it represents, they love the agribusiness interests that dominate their states.

It’s easy to see why US agribusiness has set its sights on the island nation just 90 miles southeast of Florida and quite close to the Gulf of Mexico ports through which most American grain and meat exports flow. Before the revolution, the United States and Cuba maintained a robust trade in foodstuffs. At inflation-adjusted prices, pre-1959 Cuba imported about $600 million worth of US food—mostly meat and rice—according to a 2015 US Department of Agriculture report. Cuba, in turn, sent about $2.2 billion (current dollars) worth of sugar, tobacco, and pineapples our way. But then the revolution launched an era marked by a thwarted CIA-led coup and attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro, culminating in an embargo banning US trade with Cuba.

In 2000, Congress eased the embargo on food exports to Cuba, but in the 15 years since, they’ve rarely reached pre-revolutionary levels. Cuba is reluctant to trade with its old enemy, and lingering restrictions from the embargo make it difficult to do so. While US companies like Cargill are allowed to sell their goods to Cuba, they’re still prohibited from financing the sales with credit—they are required under the embargo’s terms to demand cash up front. That leaves them at a big disadvantage compared with companies from other exporting nations that don’t restrict Cuban trade.

While Obama would like to end the credit restrictions, he can’t do so by executive order. That’s why the US Agriculture Coalition for Cuba is pushing Congress to repeal the embargo altogether. To get an idea of what kind business opportunity post-embargo Cuba might offer US agribusiness, the 2015 USDA report points to another Caribbean island nation with a similar population size and per-capita income: the Dominican Republic. US agribusiness firms export about $1.1 billion worth of goods to the DR annually, representing more than 40 percent of its food imports. In 2014, the USDA reports, US companies exported $286 million worth of food to Cuba, accounting for just 15 percent of its food imports, and less than competitors based in Brazil and the European Union.

So, there’s a lot of money on the table, which might explain why US agribusiness firms are licking their chops at the prospect of open trade with Cuba. But what do the thawing of US-Cuba relations and the potential end of the embargo mean for Cuba’s domestic farms and urban gardens growing vegetable and fruits for local consumption?

As readers might remember, necessity forced Cuba to embark on a remarkable experiment in essentially organic, local food production in the mid-1990s—a story explored in-depth by the climate writer Bill McKibben in this 2005 Harper’s piece and by scholar-activist Peter Rosset here. The short version: Until the 1990s, the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc nations propped up Cuba’s food supply by sending over boat loads of wheat and rice, as well farm machinery and petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides, which the communist nation put to use on large, state-run farms. In exchange, Cuba exported its old colonial-era crop, sugar, at a wildly inflated price. When the Soviet Union collapsed, those perks dried up, and Cuba’s sugar exports didn’t earn nearly enough on the open market to maintain the same level of food and farm-supply imports.

The result was what became known in Cuba as “the Special Period.” According to McKibben, citing the Food and Agriculture Organization, per-capita food intake on the island plunged from 3,000 calories in 1989 to 1,900 four years later, the equivalent of removing one meal per person a day. What happened next has been described as an “agro-ecological revolution.” Here’s McKibben:

Cuba had learned to stop exporting sugar and instead started growing its own food again, growing it on small private farms and thousands of pocket-sized urban market gardens—and, lacking chemicals and fertilizers, much of that food became de facto organic. Somehow, the combination worked. Cubans have as much food as they did before the Soviet Union collapsed. They’re still short of meat, and the milk supply remains a real problem, but their caloric intake has returned to normal—they’ve gotten that meal back.

Jullia Wright, a senior research fellow at the United Kingdom’s Coventry University who studies Cuba’s post-Soviet food system, told me that the nation’s urban-farming networks remain highly productive today. The government doesn’t keep precise data on how heavily Cuba’s urban dwellers rely on these operations for food, but they supply a “high percentage” of the leafy greens, fruits, herbs, fresh corn (for human consumption), beans, and small livestock consumed in cities, she says.

Of course, most of what Cargill and its US peers want to export into Cuba doesn’t compete directly with these products—they’re more interested in exporting things like corn and soybeans. At least initially, they’ll be be trying to displace commodity-crop producers in Brazil, Canada, and the European Union, not market gardeners in Havana.

For that reason, the eventual end of the embargo don’t present an immediate threat to Cuba’s small producers, said Miguel Altieri, a professor in the department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management at the University of California–Berkeley who visits Cuba regularly. “The basic situation hasn’t changed for the peasant movement,” he said. Even if US firms eventually buy land in Cuba to grow export crops—say, pineapples or mangoes—it wouldn’t necessarily affect the smallholder movement, he said, because only about 70 percent of Cuba’s arable rural land is currently in production. So there’s room for both the kind of industrial production that might interest US agribusiness firms and the small operations currently supplying Cubans with fresh food.

The problem, Altieri said, is that unlike those agribusiness lobbyists now on the ground in Havana, the main smallholder groups are “not actively involved in the conversations about the transitions in Cuba.” The first generation of small-scale ag leaders were close to Cuban President Raul Castro—”they could go to Raul and say, ‘Hey, man, don’t forget about us—we’re important,'” he said. But that generation has passed away or retired, and the new leaders don’t have nearly the same access to decision-makers, Atieri said.

With the right policies in place, Cuba’s highly productive small farms could both feed Cuba and earn foreign exchange by exporting, Altieri said. The worst-case scenario is that the small farmers now feeding Cubans will start exporting their crops to the United States en masse to take advantage of higher prices, removing a reliable source of affordable food from the island, he added. He said that such a situation could be avoided if Cuban policymakers put incentives into place to ensure that about a third of farmland remains devoted to providing food to Cubans, but it remains to be seen whether the government views Cuba’s robust domestic food system as an “achievement of the revolution” that’s as much worth preserving and expanding as gains in health care and literacy.

Meanwhile, US Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who accompanied Obama on his Cuba foray, has articulated a post-embargo vision of Cuba as a major supplier of organic vegetables to the US market. In an interview with Modern Farmer after he led a trade delegation on a trip to the island in November, Vilsack marveled at the productivity of Cuba’s farms, noting the “impressive array of root vegetables,” the “fairly significant garlic production,” and the bounty of citrus and avocados. “I think they just have an unlimited opportunity” for exporting organic produce to the United States, he said.

More: 

Cuba’s Organic Revolution: Coming to Your Fridge?

Posted in alo, alternative energy, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, oven, Radius, solar, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Cuba’s Organic Revolution: Coming to Your Fridge?

The NSA spied on top-secret climate negotiations between world leaders

The NSA spied on top-secret climate negotiations between world leaders

By on 24 Feb 2016commentsShare

Climate negotiations between the world’s powerhouses usually take place behind closed doors — unless, that is, the U.S. government is secretly listening in.

A batch of documents released by WikiLeaks on Tuesday reveal that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) spied on communications regarding international climate change agreements, including negotiations in 2008 between United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whom the NSA had reportedly been spying on for decades. The NSA listened in on a private meeting between the two leaders ahead of a 2009 conference in Copenhagen, and gleaned information about their hopes that the European Union play a major role in climate change mitigation, adding Merkel thought the “tough issue” would involve carbon trading.

An excerpt from one of the NSA memos reads:

Ban Ki-moon, in an exchange on 10 December with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, pointed out that the world would be watching the EU with “keen interest” for reassurances that it will maintain its leadership role in combating climate change … Ban also maintained that since the new U.S. administration will have a very engaging and proactive attitude on the issue, the time is right for the EU and the whole world to create conditions necessary for reaching a meaningful deal at the 2009 UN Climate Talks … Merkel believed that the climate-change issue should be discussed at the heads-of-state level, otherwise it would not work.

In a statement, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange accused “a country intent on protecting its largest oil companies” of bugging Ki-moon’s efforts to save the planet.

It’s not the first time we’ve discovered that the NSA has attempted to spy on other countries’ efforts to combat climate change. In 2014, world governments were furious to learn from a batch of documents released by the whistleblower Edward Snowden that the NSA had monitored communications between leaders of Brazil, South Africa, India, China, and several other countries. The NSA funneled information about other countries’ positions on climate change issues to U.S. negotiators for the 2009 climate conference in Copenhagen — a gathering widely considered to be a failure.

The newest climate memos, part of a larger group of WikiLeaks documents spanning 2007 to 2011, give rare insight into leaders’ hopes for the Copenhagen summit.

It’s not clear exactly what kind of advantage the U.S. managed to gain by intercepting communications between Ki-moon and Merkel, but it likely didn’t make the outcome of the Copenhagen conference any better. Just as we finally learn the full extent of the political maneuvering behind Copenhagen, the world has mostly moved on: In December, the world reached a new climate accord in Paris — one that, hopefully, will lead to real and lasting change.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

Continued here: 

The NSA spied on top-secret climate negotiations between world leaders

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, Hagen, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The NSA spied on top-secret climate negotiations between world leaders

Dot Earth Blog: As W.H.O. Declares Zika a Global Health Emergency, a Look at the World’s Failed Mosquito Policies

Areas stricken in Zika virus outbreak were once free of the mosquito that carries this and other dangerous diseases. View post:  Dot Earth Blog: As W.H.O. Declares Zika a Global Health Emergency, a Look at the World’s Failed Mosquito Policies ; ; ;

See the original post – 

Dot Earth Blog: As W.H.O. Declares Zika a Global Health Emergency, a Look at the World’s Failed Mosquito Policies

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, Oster, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dot Earth Blog: As W.H.O. Declares Zika a Global Health Emergency, a Look at the World’s Failed Mosquito Policies