Gay blood donor ban based on fear, not science

(CNN)A month ago, Americans woke up to the horrible news that as we slept, the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history the most violent terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 — had just occurred in Orlando. As the terrible details began to circulate on June 12, we could scarcely comprehend that 49 innocent men and women, who had gone out for a night of dancing and fun with their friends, had been murdered in cold blood.

That day, concerned citizens in Orlando and across the nation mobilized to help the 53 men and women who had been rushed to the hospital from Pulse nightclub. It was clear that blood donations in the area were in high demand. Since the attack took place during LGBT Pride Month and the target was a popular gay club, the LGBT community was eager to help.
    Unfortunately, many healthy gay and bisexual men were unable to help the response effort by donating blood because of the Food and Drug Administration’s discriminatory blood donor deferral policy. Instead, some would-be donors were turned away.
    Up until December 2015, the FDA had held that a man who had sex with another man, even just once in his life, was banned forever from donating blood. This policy was established in the 1980s, at the peak of the AIDS crisis when scientific data was scarce and paranoia was high.
    But by 2009, when I was first elected to Congress, much had changed in our understanding of HIV/AIDS and its transmission. Major scientific advancements in blood screening practices allow us to detect HIV just nine to 11 days after infection through use of the nucleic acid test, or NAT. Unfortunately, the FDA’s blood donation policy did not reflect these scientific advancements.
    I’ve been proud to fight to reverse this prejudiced policy — first shoulder to shoulder with then-Sen. John Kerry, and now with U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee and U.S. Sens. Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth Warren. It took a lot of hard work over the course of six years before the FDA changed the blood donation policy for gay and bisexual men from a lifetime ban to a 12-month deferral. But as the tragedy in Orlando highlighted, the 12-month deferral policy is still discriminatory and does not reflect actual risk factors.
    Our current blood donation policy for gay and bisexual men reinforces tired stereotypes about gay men. Is this really the message we want to send to many healthy young men who go to donate blood for the first time, maybe at their high school blood drive or to help a friend or family member in need — that their blood is worth less because of whom they love?
    It is my hope that through this terrible tragedy we are able to muster the courage to reverse this discriminatory ban once and for all, creating a small piece of good out of an event so endlessly tragic.

    Read more:

    How augmented reality technology erases the human v machine boundary

    Apps such as Pokmon Go turn physical space into a game and as technology has done since the telegraph, we are subtly distributed via these connected tools

    In his 1963 book God and Golem, the founder of the cybernetics movement Norbert Wiener suggested a compelling thought experiment. Imagine cutting off someones hand, he wrote, but leaving intact the key muscles and nerves. Theoretically, a prosthesis could connect directly both to nerves and muscles, giving the subject control of the replacement organ as if it were real.

    So far so sensible: this scenario was a reasonable extrapolation at the time, and is close to becoming a reality today. Wiener, however, went further. Having imagined an artificial hand able to replace its original, he wondered why we should not now imagine the addition of an entirely new kind of limb or sensory organ? There is, he wrote, a prosthesis of parts which we do not have and which we never have had. There was no need to stop at nature. Human-machine integration could in theory blur its boundaries well beyond replacement.

    Its 14 July 2016, and between typing this paragraph and the last I dashed outside with my iPhone to catch a Pokmon lurking next to a tree (a cute orange lizard: Charmander, weight 8.5kg, height 0.6m).

    What would Wiener have made of this? I suspect he would have been delighted. While Im playing Pokmon, my smartphone functions much like a sensory prosthesis. In order to move my avatar around a map, I must move myself. When I get close enough to a target, I hold the device up and through its camera see something superimposed on the world that would otherwise be invisible. Its like having a sixth sense. My Pokmon-gathering escapades place me somewhere between a cyborg and a stamp collector.

    Yet there are also elements in this species of enhancement that clash with Wieners vision. If I had a superhuman prosthetic eye able to see infrared like Arnies beloved cybernetic organism in the Terminator movies I could step outside into the dark with clear vision. I would have access to actuality in a fresh way: a machine-enhanced grasp of whats under my nose. This is the kind of enhancement that technology has offered humans over millennia. We move faster, further; we enhance the strength of our limbs, the reach of our wills; we look deep into space, or at the microscopic order of things. We magnify our scope and capacities.

    None of this is quite like playing Pokmon. What I see and do while lobbing tiny balls at a cartoon orange lizard does not exist outside of the machines Im using. Yet nor is it a straightforward piece of mediation like reading a book or watching a movie. The experience is present on my screen, in my mind, and in the dance of data between mobile device, GPS satellites, mobile networks and distant servers. And everyone else with the right app is welcome to join in.

    A clue to whats going on lies in a term first coined in 1990: augmented reality. Whats on offer is a supplement rather than straightforward enhancement: an act of layering and addition. My smartphone is not helping me to see the world with superhuman acuity (quite the reverse: I nearly fell into a canal while capturing that Charmander). Rather, its like a third eye opening onto the information realm a gaze overlooking the Earths oceans of data.

    In a famous 1974 paper, the philosopher Thomas Nagel asked what it might feel like to be a bat. We cannot begin to discuss such a question, he argued, until we accept that the universe as experienced through a bats sensory organs is alien to our psychological reality. A bats primary sense is sonar. It may share a planet with us, but there is no bridge between our experiences.

    What, I wonder, does it feel like to be an iPhone? I dont mean to imply that machines have feelings. Rather, Im intrigued by the fact that the inputs received by my smartphone its experienced reality, if you like are not tied to any particular location in the way my inputs are. Its world is the network. A query is issued, a matched response is served the device is above and beyond actuality as I experience it. And yet we continuously, solicitously interact. As communications technologies have done since at least the age of the telegraph, I am subtly distributed by my connection to the connected tool: blurred between networked spaces.

    We are barely at the beginning of this process, one characterised by the astonishing intimacy of our interactions with and through digital devices. Information is everywhere and nowhere. It is simultaneous, placeless. Similarly, augmentation trumps enhancement because it is unconstrained by the actual because there is no limit to how far my experience of the world can be supplemented or supplanted. The free download of a single app turns physical space into a gameboard. Gleefully, my phone and I turn presence into play. In augmented reality, all the worlds a screen.

    Today, Pokmon lives on my mobile device. Tomorrow by which I mean within five years it will make the magic leap to retinal projection, into something increasingly labelled mixed reality: the seamless interfacing of informational artefacts and environment.

    As Wiener foretold half a century ago, the boundaries between human and machine experience are not so much interlacing as being erased. Is it a new sensory organ, this ever-more-intimate interface with information? Perhaps. Its certainly a mental prosthesis whose absence already feels crippling. We are beginning our migration towards a networked sensorium. The question is no longer how technology makes us feel. Its whether, without it, we are even ourselves.

    Read more:

    New Mars 2020 rover will be able to ‘hear’ the Red Planet

    (CNN)When the newly developed Mars 2020 rover lands on the Red Planet in February 2021 after embarking on a seven-month cruise through space, we will be able to hear sounds of the landing and the Martian surface for the first time, according to NASA.

    “Not only is there going to be a microphone, there will be several microphones,” said Kenneth Farley, Mars 2020 project scientist. “There will be a microphone as part of [the camera system during entry, descent and landing] and we will also have a microphone on one of the science instruments that will allow us to hear sounds on the surface as we are driving around. So we will have the first sounds coming back from Mars.”
      Then, it’s ready to rove.
      Unlike while it’s on the surface and exploring, the rover’s landing is entirely autonomous, with no help from engineers, This time, a range trigger will be added, which helps the descent vehicle determine if it needs to open the parachute earlier or later than expected. It will also use a suite of cameras to steer away from unsafe landing zones. This enables the rover to land in a more specific destination or a tighter spot. This new technology shrinks the area or margin of error by 50%.
      But where to land? Scientists have narrowed it down to eight possible landing sites. They want it to be able to land safely on a flatter surface that is surrounded by rocky terrain with the signs of habitability they want to study.
      “We want a lot of rocks or rock outcrop, because that’s what tells us the geologic story,” Farley said. “These must date from the days when Mars was wet 3.5 billion years ago. Out of the eight sites, the first half are associated with surface water such as rivers, lakes and deltas recorded in the rocks. The other half are associated with high temperature water circulating through the rocks. On Earth, those are areas where microbial life thrives.”

      See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter.

      Over the next couple of years, they hope to determine the final landing site.
      In the meantime, Curiosity’s observations continue to thrill us, the MAVEN orbiter will arrive in September to study the Martian upper atmosphere and the InSight lander will launch in 2018 to study the interior of the planet. These are part of the continuing Mars Exploration program, which are paving the way for a human landing on the Red Planet.
      “This is taking the first step towards what we’ve wanted for a long time,” Farley said.

      Read more:

      Hope is an embrace of the unknown: Rebecca Solnit on living in dark times

      We may be living through times of unprecedented change, but in uncertainty lies the power to influence the future. Now is not the time to despair, but to act

      Your opponents would love you to believe that its hopeless, that you have no power, that theres no reason to act, that you cant win. Hope is a gift you dont have to surrender, a power you dont have to throw away. And though hope can be an act of defiance, defiance isnt enough reason to hope. But there are good reasons.

      In 2003 and early 2004, I wrote a book to make the case for hope. Hope in the Dark was, in many ways, of its moment it was written against the tremendous despair at the height of the Bush administrations powers and the outset of the war in Iraq. That moment passed long ago, but despair, defeatism, cynicism and the amnesia and assumptions from which they often arise have not dispersed, even as the most wildly, unimaginably magnificent things came to pass. There is a lot of evidence for the defence.

      Coming back to the text more than a dozen tumultuous years later, I believe its premises hold up. Progressive, populist and grassroots constituencies have had many victories. Popular power has continued to be a profound force for change. And the changes we have undergone, both wonderful and terrible, are astonishing.

      This is an extraordinary time full of vital, transformative movements that could not be foreseen. It is also a nightmarish time. Full engagement requires the ability to perceive both. The 21st century has seen the rise of hideous economic inequality, perhaps due to amnesia both of the working people who countenance declines in wages, working conditions and social services, and the elites who forgot that they conceded to some of these things in the hope of avoiding revolution. The attack on civil liberties, including the right to privacy, continues long after its global war on terror justifications have faded away.

      Worse than these is the arrival of climate change, faster, harder and more devastating than scientists anticipated. Hope doesnt mean denying these realities. It means facing them and addressing them by remembering what else the 21st century has brought, including the movements, heroes and shifts in consciousness that address these things now. This has been a truly remarkable decade for movement-building, social change and deep shifts in ideas, perspective and frameworks for large parts of the population (and, of course, backlashes against all those things).


      It is important to say what hope is not: it is not the belief that everything was, is or will be fine. The evidence is all around us of tremendous suffering and destruction. The hope I am interested in is about broad perspectives with specific possibilities, ones that invite or demand that we act. It is also not a sunny everything-is-getting-better narrative, though it may be a counter to the everything-is-getting-worse one. You could call it an account of complexities and uncertainties, with openings. Critical thinking without hope is cynicism, but hope without critical thinking is naivety, the Bulgarian writer Maria Popova recently remarked. And Patrisse Cullors, one of the founders of Black Lives Matter, early on described the movements mission as to Provide hope and inspiration for collective action to build collective power to achieve collective transformation, rooted in grief and rage but pointed towards vision and dreams. It is a statement that acknowledges that grief and hope can coexist.

      The tremendous human rights achievements not only in gaining rights but in redefining race, gender, sexuality, embodiment, spirituality and the idea of the good life of the past half-century have flowered during a time of unprecedented ecological destruction and the rise of innovative new means of exploitation. And the rise of new forms of resistance, including resistance enabled by an elegant understanding of that ecology and new ways for people to communicate and organise, and new and exhilarating alliances across distance and difference.

      Rebecca Solnit. Photograph: David Levenson/Getty Images

      Hope locates itself in the premises that we dont know what will happen and that in the spaciousness of uncertainty is room to act. When you recognise uncertainty, you recognise that you may be able to influence the outcomes you alone or you in concert with a few dozen or several million others. Hope is an embrace of the unknown and the unknowable, an alternative to the certainty of both optimists and pessimists. Optimists think it will all be fine without our involvement; pessimists adopt the opposite position; both excuse themselves from acting. It is the belief that what we do matters even though how and when it may matter, who and what it may impact, are not things we can know beforehand. We may not, in fact, know them afterwards either, but they matter all the same, and history is full of people whose influence was most powerful after they were gone.

      There are major movements that failed to achieve their goals; there are also comparatively small gestures that mushroomed into successful revolutions. The self-immolation of impoverished, police-harassed produce-seller Mohamed Bouazizi on 17 December 2010, in Tunisia was the spark that lit a revolution in his country and then across northern Africa and other parts of the Arab world in 2011. And though the civil war in Syria and the counter-revolutions after Egypts extraordinary uprising might be what most remember, Tunisias jasmine revolution toppled a dictator and led to peaceful elections in that country in 2014.

      Whatever else the Arab spring was, it is an extraordinary example of how unpredictable change is and how potent popular power can be. And five years on, it is too soon to draw conclusions about what it all meant. You can tell the genesis story of the Arab spring other ways. The quiet organising going on in the shadows beforehand matters. So does the comic book about Martin Luther King and civil disobedience that was translated into Arabic and widely distributed in Egypt shortly before the uprising. You can tell of Kings civil disobedience tactics being inspired by Gandhis tactics, and Gandhis inspired by Tolstoy and the radical acts of noncooperation and sabotage of British female suffragists.

      So the threads of ideas weave around the world and through the decades and centuries. There is another lineage for the Arab spring in hip-hop, the African-American music thats become a global medium for dissent and outrage; Tunisian hip-hop artist El Gnral was, along with Bouazizi, an instigator of the uprising, and other musicians played roles in articulating the outrage and inspiring the crowds.

      After a rain mushrooms appear on the surface of the earth as if from nowhere. Many come from a sometimes vast underground fungus that remains invisible and largely unknown. What we call mushrooms, mycologists call the fruiting body of the larger, less visible fungus. Uprisings and revolutions are often considered to be spontaneous, but it is the less visible long-term organising and groundwork or underground work that often laid the foundation. Changes in ideas and values also result from work done by writers, scholars, public intellectuals, social activists and participants in social media. To many, it seems insignificant or peripheral until very different outcomes emerge from transformed assumptions about who and what matters, who should be heard and believed, who has rights.

      Ideas at first considered outrageous or ridiculous or extreme gradually become what people think theyve always believed. How the transformation happened is rarely remembered, in part because its compromising: it recalls the mainstream when the mainstream was, say, rabidly homophobic or racist in a way it no longer is; and it recalls that power comes from the shadows and the margins, that our hope is in the dark around the edges, not the limelight of centre stage. Our hope and often our power.


      Changing the story isnt enough in itself, but it has often been foundational to real changes. Making an injury visible and public is usually the first step in remedying it, and political change often follows culture, as what was long tolerated is seen to be intolerable, or what was overlooked becomes obvious. Which means that every conflict is in part a battle over the story we tell, or who tells and who is heard.

      A victory doesnt mean that everything is now going to be nice forever and we can therefore all go and lounge around until the end of time. Some activists are afraid that if we acknowledge victory, people will give up the struggle. I have long been more afraid that people will give up and go home or never get started in the first place if they think no victory is possible or fail to recognise the victories already achieved. Marriage equality is not the end of homophobia, but its something to celebrate. A victory is a milestone on the road, evidence that sometimes we win and encouragement to keep going, not to stop. Or it should be.

      My own inquiry into the grounds for hope has received two great reinforcements in recent years. One came from the recognition of how powerful are the altruistic, idealistic forces already at work in the world. Most of us would say, if asked, that we live in a capitalist society, but vast amounts of how we live our everyday lives our interactions with and commitments to family lives, friendships, avocations, membership in social, spiritual and political organisations are in essence noncapitalist or even anticapitalist, made up of things we do for free, out of love and on principle.

      The Arab spring is an extraordinary example of how potent popular power can be. Photograph: Mahmoud Khaled/AFP/Getty Images

      In a way, capitalism is an ongoing disaster that anticapitalism alleviates, like a mother cleaning up after her childs messes. (Or, to extend the analogy, sometimes disciplining that child to clean up after itself, through legislation or protest, or preventing some of the messes in the first place.) And it might be worth adding that noncapitalist ways of doing things are much older than free-market economic arrangements. Activists often speak as though the solutions we need have not yet been launched or invented, as though we are starting from scratch, when often the real goal is to amplify the power and reach of existing options. What we dream of is already present in the world.

      The second reinforcement came out of my investigation of how human beings respond to major urban disasters, from the devastating earthquakes in San Francisco (in 1906) and Mexico City (in 1985) to the blitz in London and Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. The assumption behind much disaster response by the authorities and the logic of bombing civilians is that civilisation is a brittle facade, and behind it lies our true nature as monstrous, selfish, chaotic and violent, or as timid, fragile, and helpless. In fact, in most disasters the majority of people are calm, resourceful, altruistic and creative. And civilian bombing campaigns generally fail to break the will of the people

      What startled me about the response to disaster was not the virtue, since virtue is often the result of diligence and dutifulness, but the passionate joy that shone out from accounts by people who had barely survived. These people who had lost everything, who were living in rubble or ruins, had found agency, meaning, community, immediacy in their work together with other survivors. This century of testimony suggested how much we want lives of meaningful engagement, of membership in civil society, and how much societal effort goes into keeping us away from these fullest, most powerful selves. But people return to those selves, those ways of self-organising, as if by instinct when the situation demands it. Thus a disaster is a lot like a revolution when it comes to disruption and improvisation, to new roles and an unnerving or exhilarating sense that now anything is possible.


      Memory produces hope in the same way that amnesia produces despair, the theologian Walter Brueggemann noted. It is an extraordinary statement, one that reminds us that though hope is about the future, grounds for hope lie in the records and recollections of the past. We can tell of a past that was nothing but defeats, cruelties and injustices, or of a past that was some lovely golden age now irretrievably lost, or we can tell a more complicated and accurate story, one that has room for the best and worst, for atrocities and liberations, for grief and jubilation. A memory commensurate to the complexity of the past and the whole cast of participants, a memory that includes our power, produces that forward-directed energy called hope.

      Amnesia leads to despair in many ways. The status quo would like you to believe it is immutable, inevitable and invulnerable, and lack of memory of a dynamically changing world reinforces this view. In other words, when you dont know how much things have changed, you dont see that they are changing or that they can change. Those who think that way dont remember raids on gay bars when being homosexual was illegal, or rivers that caught fire when unregulated pollution peaked in the 1960s or that there were, worldwide, 70% more seabirds a few decades ago. Thus, they dont recognise the forces of change at work.

      One of the essential aspects of depression is the sense that you will always be mired in this misery, that nothing can or will change. Theres a public equivalent to private depression, a sense that the nation or the society rather than the individual is stuck. Things dont always change for the better, but they change, and we can play a role in that change if we act. Which is where hope comes in, and memory, the collective memory we call history.

      The other affliction amnesia brings is a lack of examples of positive change, of popular power, evidence that we can do it and have done it. George Orwell wrote: Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. Controlling the past begins by knowing it; the stories we tell about who we were and what we did shape what we can and will do. Despair is also often premature: its a form of impatience as well as of certainty.

      News cycles tend to suggest that change happens in small, sudden bursts or not at all. The struggle to get women the vote took nearly three-quarters of a century. For a time people liked to announce that feminism had failed, as though the project of overturning millennia of social arrangements should achieve its final victories in a few decades, or as though it had stopped. Feminism is just starting, and its manifestations matter in rural Himalayan villages, not just major cities.

      People in Timor-Leste display anti-Indonesia banners as they take to the streets in 1998. Photograph: Supri/Reuters

      Other changes result in victories and are then forgotten. For decades, radicals were preoccupied with Timor-Leste, brutally occupied by Indonesia from 1975 to 2002; the liberated country is no longer news. It won its liberty because of valiant struggle from within, but also because of dedicated groups on the outside who pressured and shamed the governments supporting the Indonesian regime. We could learn a lot from the remarkable display of power and solidarity and Timor-Lestes eventual victory, but the whole struggle seems forgotten.

      We need litanies or recitations or monuments to these victories, so that they are landmarks in everyones mind. More broadly, shifts in, say, the status of women are easily overlooked by people who dont remember that, a few decades ago, reproductive rights were not yet a concept, and there was no recourse for exclusion, discrimination, workplace sexual harassment, most forms of rape, and other crimes against women the legal system did not recognise or even countenance. None of the changes were inevitable, either people fought for them and won them.


      Social, cultural or political change does not work in predictable ways or on predictable schedules. The month before the Berlin Wall fell, almost no one anticipated that the Soviet bloc was going to disintegrate all of a sudden (thanks to many factors, including the tremendous power of civil society, nonviolent direct action and hopeful organising going back to the 1970s), any more than anyone, even the participants, foresaw the impact that the Arab spring or Occupy Wall Street or a host of other great uprisings would have. We dont know what is going to happen, or how, or when, and that very uncertainty is the space of hope.

      Those who doubt that these moments matter should note how terrified the authorities and elites are when they erupt. That fear signifies their recognition that popular power is real enough to overturn regimes and rewrite the social contract. And it often has. Sometimes your enemies know what your friends cant believe. Those who dismiss these moments because of their imperfections, limitations, or incompleteness need to look harder at what joy and hope shine out of them and what real changes have emerged because of them, even if not always in the most obvious or recognisable ways.

      Change is rarely straightforward. Sometimes its as complex as chaos theory and as slow as evolution. Even things that seem to happen suddenly arise from deep roots in the past or from long-dormant seeds. A young mans suicide triggers an uprising that inspires other uprisings, but the incident was a spark; the bonfire it lit was laid by activist networks and ideas about civil disobedience, and by the deep desire for justice and freedom that exists everywhere.

      Its important to ask not only what those moments produced in the long run but what they were in their heyday. If people find themselves living in a world in which some hopes are realised and some joys are incandescent and some boundaries between individuals and groups are lowered, even for an hour or a day or several months, that matters. Memory of joy and liberation can become a navigational tool, an identity, a gift.

      Illustration by Celyn at BA Reps

      Paul Goodman famously wrote, Suppose you had the revolution you are talking and dreaming about. Suppose your side had won, and you had the kind of society that you wanted. How would you live, you personally, in that society? Start living that way now! Its an argument for tiny and temporary victories, and for the possibility of partial victories in the absence or even the impossibility of total victories.

      Total victory has always seemed like a secular equivalent of paradise: a place where all the problems are solved and theres nothing to do, a fairly boring place. The absolutists of the old left imagined that victory would, when it came, be total and permanent, which is practically the same as saying that victory was and is impossible and will never come.

      It is, in fact, more than possible. It is something that has arrived in innumerable ways, small and large and often incremental, but not in that way that was widely described and expected. So victories slip by unheralded. Failures are more readily detected.

      And then every now and then, the possibilities explode. In these moments of rupture, people find themselves members of a we that did not until then exist, at least not as an entity with agency and identity and potency; new possibilities suddenly emerge, or that old dream of a just society re-emerges and at least for a little while shines. Utopia is sometimes the goal. It is often embedded in the moment itself, and it is a hard moment to explain, since it usually involves hardscrabble ways of living, squabbles and, eventually, disillusion and factionalism. But also more ethereal things: the discovery of personal and collective power, the realisation of dreams, the birth of bigger dreams, a sense of connection that is as emotional as it is political, and lives that change and do not revert to older ways even when the glory subsides.

      Sometimes the earth closes over this moment and it has no obvious consequences; sometimes empires crumble and ideologies fall away like shackles. But you dont know beforehand. People in official institutions devoutly believe they hold the power that matters, though the power we grant them can often be taken back; the violence commanded by governments and militaries often fails, and nonviolent direct-action campaigns often succeed.

      The sleeping giant is one name for the public; when it wakes up, when we wake up, we are no longer only the public: we are civil society, the superpower whose nonviolent means are sometimes, for a shining moment, more powerful than violence, more powerful than regimes and armies. We write history with our feet and with our presence and our collective voice and vision. And yet, and of course, everything in the mainstream media suggests that popular resistance is ridiculous, pointless, or criminal, unless it is far away, was long ago, or, ideally, both. These are the forces that prefer the giant stays asleep.

      Together we are very powerful, and we have a seldom-told, seldom-remembered history of victories and transformations that can give us confidence that, yes, we can change the world because we have many times before. You row forward looking back, and telling this history is part of helping people navigate toward the future. We need a litany, a rosary, a sutra, a mantra, a war chant of our victories. The past is set in daylight, and it can become a torch we can carry into the night that is the future.

      A new edition of Hope in the Dark by Rebecca Solnit is published by Canongate on 28 July.

      Read more:

      Watch A Lava Flow Quietly Eat Away At A Hawaiian Forest

      Breakouts of lava have been slowly consuming sections of forest on the rural southeast corner of Hawaii’s Big Island for several months.

      Kilauea, one of the world’s most active volcanoes, has been continuously erupting for more than 33 years. It claimed one home and threatened a small community in 2014.

      But because the flow isn’t currently staring down any populated areas, the lava is pretty much out of sight and out of mind.

      It’s only when geologists hike out to the flow fields, or when helicopters take to the skies, that we get a peek at the fiery, destructive action taking place.

      And from a bird’s eye view, it’s completely mesmerizing.

      In footage recorded in late April, lobes of molten rock are shown eating away at the edges of a forest, burning trees and other vegetation.

      The flow fields are also seen giving off plumes of steam, which happens after rain falls on them, according to Hawaiian Volcano Observatory geologist Janet Babb. Even though the lava appears dark, suggesting it has cooled, it can still be dangerously hot.

      Though this process happens slowly, it’s an impressive example of how unstoppable nature can be. And the ever-advancing flow field is just one act in Kilauea’s incredible performance.

      The footage also shows red-hot outbreaks oozing through lava fields, and a vigorously spattering lava vent. And if that’s not enough excitement, there’s a pond of lava bubbling nearby.

      Though it’s business as usual for most residents on the Big Island, the burning vegetation can cause trouble in certain conditions.

      It “can be problematic if the wind blows the smoke toward residential areas,” Babb told The Huffington Post. “How much of a problem it creates depends on how much smoke there is, which way it is being blown, how sensitive people in its path are to the smoke.”

      So, if you’re sensitive to smoke, steer clear of this newly barren forest:

      A small lobe of lava cuts through the forest in this USGS photo taken on March 25.

      If you want to follow Kilauea’s activity more closely, check out USGS daily updates here.

      Watch the full video below:

      Read more:


      The House Just Passed Opioid Legislation, But There’s Still A Fight Ahead

      WASHINGTON — In the modern era of Congress, it’s a rare day when lawmakers vote on legislation actually intended to go to the president’s desk. It’s an even rarer occasion when that legislation is meant to help individuals battling opioid addiction — as is the case with the bills the House passed on Wednesday and the raft of legislation it’s expected to pass in the next few days.

      As with most things in Congress, though, this is not an entirely cheery story.

      Lawmakers will pat themselves on the back and issue self-congratulatory press releases this week. And there is, in fact, some reason to celebrate. Republicans and Democrats have managed to find some consensus on an important issue. But there’s concern from lawmakers, the White House and recovery advocates that the measures are just scratching the surface on addiction treatment.

      The House bills come in response to the Senate’s Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, which passed the upper chamber by a 94-1 vote two months ago. CARA co-author Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) has been haranguing his House GOP colleagues ever since, insisting that they take up the Senate legislation, which was the result of three years of bipartisan, bicameral work. The House instead took up a smattering of its own bills, and largely dropped the focus on treatment and recovery, instead emphasizing prevention and law enforcement aspects.

      “I think that’s a fair criticism,” said Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), whose three bills addressing the epidemic are expected to become part of the final package. “I’m hopeful that if we can pass this package of bills… that we’ll be able to combine that with the Senate version that has more of a focus on treatment.”

      But recovery groups warn that by making the process more complicated — a conference committee must now be convened, which takes precious time to create; it must then meet and negotiate the differences between the Senate and House legislation; then each chamber must take up and pass the new packages — Congress could easily run out of time. Meanwhile, more than 100 people are dying every day of overdoses.

      Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), said that the process could move “pretty quick” now that the House has nearly finished its work. “I imagine most of it will be pre-conferenced before they meet,” he said. “[McConnell] has made clear that he wants this done quickly.”

      Portman expressed a similar sentiment Wednesday. “I’m confident that at the end of the day we’ll be able to get together and have one comprehensive package go to the president for his signature and begin to help in our communities around the country,” he said on MSNBC.

      The House is taking up 18 bills this week that try, in various ways, to address the country’s epidemic of opioid addiction, from legislation that would help pregnant mothers battling heroin dependency to bills that would crack down on excessive opioid prescriptions. Perhaps most importantly, some of the legislation is aimed at improving what is a thoroughly broken treatment system, with many addicts stuffed into programs that rely on faith-based or 12-step programs, eschewing evidence-based approaches such as medication-assisted treatment.

      The assorted House and Senate bills try to nudge the system toward a MAT-based approach. One bill would increase access to such medications by lifting the cap on the number of patients a doctor can treat, and allowing physicians’ assistants and nurse practitioners to prescribe them as well.

      Republicans have dubbed Tuesday through Friday “Opioid Week,” and GOP leadership — eager to discuss something that isn’t their party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Donald Trump — devoted its weekly press conference on Wednesday to talking about the legislation.

      Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) acknowledged that most reporters were likely at the press conference to discuss his upcoming meeting with Trump on Thursday, but Ryan said he wanted to talk instead about a meeting he’d had that week with the family of Jason Simcakoski.

      Simcakoski was a Marine who died of a prescription opioid overdose while under the supervision — “or the appearance of it,” Ryan said — of a Department of Veterans Affairs medical center.

      Ryan charged that Simcakoski’s death was the result of mistreatment and loose VA guidelines on the prescription of opioids. Thanks to legislation the House passed Tuesday night — the Jason Simcakoski PROMISE ACT — those sorts of deaths would be rarer, he said. (The bill requires the VA to come up with new patient guidelines for prescribing opioids, with the aim of restricting those drugs.)

      The House is taking up 12 more of those opioid bills on Wednesday, and is expected to continue passing measures dealing with those issues until Friday. Rep. Clark’s legislation to make the overdose reversal drug naloxone easier to get, a bill to create an advisory committee of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to review opioids more stringently before they’re approved — these are all among the topics to be addressed.

      House lawmakers contend that their legislation, as a whole, does more to combat opioid addiction than the Senate version.

      That might depend, however, on your perspective, and on what you think Congress should be doing about the opioid crisis.

      In some cases, the House bills appear to be several steps behind what states are already doing, or seem like they could be potentially harmful. Kentucky and other states have already passed protections for first responders and loved ones who administer naloxone to overdose victims.

      Another bill would establish a pilot grant program for prescribing naloxone to people at risk for an opioid overdose. Many states have already put in place programs to allow residents to receive naloxone without a prescription at all. In fact, Baltimore’s health commissioner issued a blanket naloxone prescription for the entire city last year and has suggested that the medication should be in every medicine cabinet.

      One bill would authorize the U.S. Government Accountability Office to study the capacity of the U.S. treatment system — though the system’s capacity, or lack thereof, is already well-understood. The bill would require the GAO to complete its work within two years.

      Portman, for his part, has suggested the House legislation is still lacking. “More than 70 anti-drug groups have publicly expressed concern that these House bills omit critical initiatives focused on treatment and recovery that are part of CARA,” he wrote Tuesday in an op-ed for The Cincinnati Enquirer.

      “I’m hopeful that we can reach an agreement with the House soon — but that agreement must be comprehensive,” Portman added. “I will insist on it.”

      Others have greeted the House bills with more enthusiasm. Dr. Kelly Clark, president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine, praised the House action and noted that although some bills were catching up to individual states, the goal was to widen the scope of the response to the crisis.

      “It’s a historic day for addiction medicine that the House has recognized the emergency that is the opioid epidemic,” she told The Huffington Post. “ASAM is very grateful to the champions who have been out in the front on these issues.”

      Dr. Clark was especially pleased that a bill expanding access to buprenorphine was expected to clear a legislative hurdle. “There are too many people being doomed to waiting lists because physicians are at their limit,” she said.

      But Dr. Yngvild Olsen, medical director at the Institutes for Behavior Resources Inc. in Baltimore, saw the bills as not going far enough.

      “At a time when opioid-related deaths continue to increase, bold action is needed in Congress to fund the comprehensive effort that is needed to deal with this epidemic,” Olsen said in an email. “That includes education, prevention, naloxone for overdose reversal, and expanding access to treatment with buprenorphine by raising the cap for physicians and permanently allowing trained nurse practitioners and physicians assistants to prescribe buprenorphine.”

      The plan is for the House to combine its 18 opioid bills into one, then go into a rare conference with the Senate to work out the differences. “We intend to put a bill on the president’s desk fast,” Ryan said Wednesday.

      But the administration has expressed concern that “without the resources necessary to prevent opioid addiction and increase access to treatment and recovery services, [these bills] would do little to help the thousands of Americans struggling with addiction.”

      The White House pointed out this week that it asked Congress in February for $1.1 billion in new funding to combat opioid addiction. The administration further noted that 28,647 people died in 2014 as a result of opioid pain medication and heroin, and that in 2012, 259 million prescriptions were written for prescription opioids, with four out of five heroin users starting with the abuse of prescription opioids.

      “These trends will not change by simply authorizing new grant programs, studies and reports,” the administration said.

      The White House continued that it looks forward to working with Congress to secure funding to address opioid abuse. But it doesn’t exactly sound impressed by everything the House has come up with.

      Of course, this could be an opening gambit for Congress. Getting lawmakers to agree on anything is no small achievement. The House legislation could ultimately evolve into something that more closely resembles the Senate version as far as treatment provisions, and the Senate could add many of the House provisions to its own comprehensive legislation.

      The federal budget is filled with pots of money, which Republicans say can be made available for the new legislation if and when it all passes. But there’s wide agreement that the funding doesn’t add up to the $1.1 billion the White House says is needed. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said on Wednesday that lawmakers not only need to pass the bills — they also have to provide the funding.

      “If we don’t do that, all the speeches that we give this week will amount to empty rhetoric,” he said.

      For more news on the opioid epidemic and the response to it, sign up here to receive Ryan Grim’s newsletter in your inbox.

      Read more:


      Prominent Fisheries Scientist Under Fire For Seafood Industry Funding

      A prominent fisheries scientist who has challenged the need for marine conservation is under investigation by his university after the environmental group Greenpeace accused him of failing to reveal seafood industry funding.

      Ray Hilborn, a professor at the University of Washington’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, received at least $3.56 million over 12 years from fishing and seafood industry groups for research and private consulting, according to documents cited by Greenpeace. The group submitted a complaint to the University of Washington on Wednesday, asking it to investigate whether Hilborn adequately disclosed industry backing and whether the funding is a conflict of interest.

      Greenpeace said Hilborn’s research shows he is a “denier of overfishing.”

      “The seafood industry has given millions of dollars to Ray Hilborn in an attempt to undermine the broad scientific consensus that poor fisheries management has resulted in depleted fish populations and damaged ecosystems,” Greenpeace USA Oceans campaign director John Hocevar said in a statement. He said readers of Hilborn’s work “should at the very least know that corporate interests are underwriting his commentary.”

      University of Washington spokesman Norman G. Arkans said the school takes the accusations “very seriously” and would investigate whether Hilborn had breached policies.

      Hilborn, 68, whose research has earned multiple awards — including the 2016 International Fisheries Science Prize — told HuffPost he “absolutely rejects” the criticism. He said Greenpeace targeted him because his work doesn’t fit the narrative that all marine ecosystems need conservation to prevent overfishing.

      “Greenpeace is unable to attack the science I and my collaborators do; science that threatens their repeated assertions that overfishing is universal and that the oceans are being emptied,” Hilborn wrote on his blog.

      Ron Wurzer via Getty Images
      A studyon salmon populations is one of the papers that Greenpeace has taken issue with.

      The $3.56 million that Hilborn received from industry groups from 2003 to 2015 is just 22 percent of all the funding the scientist brought to the university, according to the Seattle Times.

      Hilborn’s funding sources included companies like Trident Seafoods and Peter Pan Seafoods, as well as the industry group National Fisheries Institute. In some of his scientific papers, Hilborn failed to disclose industry funding, Greenpeace alleged.

      Hilborn acknowledged receiving the $3.56 million in funding, but said the figure includes money from Alaskan community groups that depend on fishing.

      Pascal Rossignol / Reuters
      Greenpeace bills trawling as a damaging fishing practice that is depleting fish stores.

      Greenpeace cited is a 2006 paper published in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences on the orange roughy in New Zealand, which said the fish population needed no changes in fishery management. Hilborn failed to disclose $58,000 in funding from the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council around the time of the study, Greenpeace said.

      Greenpeace also pointed to a 2007 article in the journal Ecosystems, which said current fishing management was working in some places, but not in others. Hilborn should have disclosed in that paper that he was receiving funding from Trident, Peter Pan, the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council and the Bering Sea Fishermen’s Association, Greenpeace said.

      Hilborn argued in his blog post that if he had to disclose every group that contributed to his research on every paper, the list would be “as long as some of the papers.” He said he acknowledges funders of research that is the main subject of each paper.

      Industry funding, he said, helps support student and staff salaries, and pays for field expenses.

      Hilborn said more of his funding has come from environmental foundations than from industry, including the Society for Conservation Biology, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund.

      “I am a vocal advocate for where marine conservation has worked, and identifying where it is not working,” Hilborn said.

      “In fact, it is in the financial interest of fishing communities and industries to find solutions that are sustainable and provide for healthy stocks into the future,” he wrote on his blog. “And funding from these groups should be considered part of an inclusive, transparent and honest research process.”

      Hilborn’s work challenging the claims that marine ecosystems are being depleted by overfishing has drawn the scorn of conservation groups and other scientists for years.

      “The major threat to sustainable jobs, food, recreational opportunity and revenue from U.S. marine fisheries is no longer overfishing, but underfishing,” Hilborn wrote in a 2013 testimony submitted to Congress.

      Industry funding of scientific research has stirred significant debate in recent years. A 2015 New York Times report exposed scientists backed by Coke for downplaying the link between soda and obesity.

      But as public funding for science declines, researchers are turning to industry and other groups for financial support. Some scientific journals, including some that have published Hilborn’s papers, have created or toughened policies for disclosure of that funding.

      Handout . / Reuters
      Sockeye salmon in Bristol Bay, Alaska.

      Read more:


      The personal SOS messages the BBC used to send – BBC News

      Image caption Lord Reith was involved in the creation of the SOS messages

      When somebody is critically ill, people pick up their mobile phones and let their relatives know. But in 1923 the BBC started broadcasting directly to individuals letting them know their loved ones were “dangerously ill”. These SOS messages lasted for 70 years.

      In 1954 my grandfather found out his father was dying through a BBC SOS message. He didn’t hear it himself, but a man at the building site he was working on in the East Riding of Yorkshire, did. “Please head to Dublin where your father is dangerously ill,” it instructed.

      It’s remarkable that the message even made it. It was heard by somebody who deduced it was him even though they only knew him by his nickname, Joe.

      My grandfather had left his home in Ireland almost seven years before, and the relationship between him and his father had broken down.

      Image caption My great-grandfather, the subject of an SOS

      Despite this, on hearing he was the subject of an SOS, he headed straight to Dublin, trusting that the short message was correct. It was – but he was too late to see his father again before he died.

      The impact of that 30-second message was life-changing, both for him and the rest of the family. He re-connected with his mother and secured for my family our link with the Emerald Isle.

      Image caption My grandfather (left) with his mother (centre) and my father (bottom left) on their first trip to Ireland after the SOS

      I tried to find that message in the BBC’s archives, without success. But I listened to many others. They are a snapshot of some of the most intense, personal moments in people’s lives.

      They’re very short, and clinical. “Will Mr and Mrs Little, last heard of eight months ago in the Birmingham area, head to Leeds General Infirmary where Mrs Little’s mother is dangerously ill,” for example. Listening to them leaves more questions than answers – did the subject make it there in time? What happened afterwards? How had they lost contact with their family in the first place?

      These questions were never going to be answered. John Reith, the BBC’s first director-general was personally involved in the creation of the SOS messages and was clear that they were a public service and not entertainment.

      The words were never sensationalised, a few facts such as names, addresses, car registrations, caravan descriptions and phone numbers.

      The first SOS message played out in March 1923, a 30-second appeal to help find a missing six-year-old boy. Listeners got in touch, and the boy was found safe and well.

      Media captionAn SOS message

      This success encouraged the BBC to keep producing them, and an eclectic mixture of “emergencies” followed – a Pelican escaping at St James’ Park, and a callout for a wet nurse for twins born at a hospital in Norfolk in 1937.

      Another message to a bird-lover urged him to contact a Birmingham pet shop after buying parrots there because the seller had subsequently died from what was believed to be Psittacosis or “parrot fever”.

      By the 1930s they were part of the radio furniture and decisions had to be made on how to stem the flow of messages. The BBC arranged to have research done to find out which SOS messages were working.

      The results were in by 1931. For missing persons about 45 out of 190 were successful, but for illness the success rate was higher at about a half. The BBC stopped broadcasting appeals for missing persons.

      Jack Thompson remembers hearing his name on an SOS message and says it was terrifying to suddenly have the presenter talking directly to you, especially after the news bulletin had focused on serious world news stories.

      He was on a camping trip with his wife and three sons in the early 70s and was enjoying “whatever food it is you eat on camping trips” when they heard the radio message: “Will the Thompson family, believed to be travelling somewhere in Surrey contact Chesterfield Hospital as Mrs Thompson’s mother is dangerously ill.” The words are burnt into his memory.

      “We just weren’t expecting it to be for us,” 84-year-old Jack says. “It put us into a bit of a panic and, of course, at that time we didn’t have any phone numbers to call apart from the hospital so it was stressful as they couldn’t give us much information.”

      They were a long way from Chesterfield but headed straight to the hospital. Jack remembers the journey vividly, his wife was scared for the whole way having been startled at the broadcast, and having no details about her mother’s situation. After a long car journey they arrived in time to see Mrs Thompson, who recovered slightly but died soon after. The SOS message had given them the chance to spend time with her at the end.

      While the Thompson family heard the message themselves, often the subjects would be informed by complete strangers – a neighbour down the road, a manager at a hotel they were staying at, somebody recognising a car registration plate.

      Media captionLinda Miller told her SOS story to the BBC’s Eddie Mair Getty Images

      It seems unbelievable that a stranger would recognise a car registration plate from a 30-second clip but this is exactly what happened to Linda Miller. She told her story to the BBC’s Eddie Mair for a Radio 4 documentary in 2011.

      Linda was six when she became very ill with suspected osteomyelitis, inflammation of the bone. She was staying with her aunt while her parents were on holiday in London.

      An SOS message went out but they didn’t hear it. Remarkably a stranger had, and knocked on their car window to alert them to the fact their daughter was ill in a hospital in Sunderland. He had heard the message and recognised their registration plate.

      Miller’s parents rushed to Sunderland. She recovered and was fine, but the stranger kept in touch sending letters to find out how she was.

      A stranger, knocking on a car window to alert parents to the news their daughter was ill. It seems as though the BBC’s 1931 year book summed up the SOS messages perfectly when it wrote that they show the “inherent kindliness of human nature”.

      It is not known when the messages ended, but it was at some point during the 90s. Mobile phones made them redundant, but for those who were directly affected by the SOS messages, my family included, they had a huge impact that lives on today.

      Follow Kathleen Hawkins on Twitter @kat_b_hawkins

      For more from the BBC’s archives visit Rewind on Facebook and Twitter

      Read more: