npr--2020-08-13--Joe Biden: For The Next 3 Months, All Americans Should Wear A Mask When Outside

Joe Biden : For The Next 3 Months , All Americans Should Wear A Mask When Outside Joe Biden is calling for everyone in the United States to wear a mask , well into the fall .
`` Every single American should be wearing a mask when they 're outside for the next three months , at a minimum , '' Biden said Thursday afternoon in remarks in Wilmington , Del .
`` Every governor should mandate mandatory mask-wearing .
The estimates by the experts are it will save over 40,000 lives . ''
His comments came after a briefing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ running mate , Sen. Kamala Harris of California , and public health experts .
More than 165,000 Americans have died because of COVID-19 .
Unlike President Trump , who took months to wear a mask publicly , Biden has long been consistently wearing a mask and encouraging others to do so .
But he 's never been so explicit about mandates and a timeline .
In an interview with KDKA in Pittsburgh in June , the presumptive Democratic nominee said he would require masks if he were president .
`` I would insist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that mask .
Anyone to reopen would have to make sure that they walked into a business that had masks , '' he said .
The former vice president said he would use the power of the executive branch to do everything possible to make mask-wearing in public a requirement — though mandates have come at the state level , and many governors have opted against such measures .
In remarks at a June event in Wilmington , Biden also said there should be better guidance from the administration around mask-wearing .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the very top of our federal government that everyone needs to wear a mask in public , period , '' he said .
But his statement Thursday was the most direct comment he 's given to date .
`` It 's not about your rights ; it 's about your responsibilities , '' Biden said .
He tried to present the issue as a matter of patriotism to protect fellow Americans .
In a news conference later Thursday , Trump took issue with Biden 's nationwide call for mask-wearing , ignoring that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` [ Biden ] does not identify what authority the president has to issue such a mandate , '' Trump said , `` or why we would be stepping on governors throughout our country . ''
Trump added : `` If the president has the unilateral power to order every single citizen to cover their face in nearly all instances , what other powers does he have ? ''
An NBC News/Survey Monkey poll in late July found a majority of Americans said they wear a mask in public , but there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Far more Democrats , nonwhites and older people said they wear masks every time they leave the house .
Biden and Harris , his vice presidential pick , collectively spoke for about eight minutes Thursday , and walked away without taking questions from the press .

Joe Biden: For The Next 3 Months, All Americans Should Wear A Mask When Outside
Enlarge this image toggle caption Drew Angerer/Getty Images Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Updated at 6:08 p.m. ET
Joe Biden is calling for everyone in the United States to wear a mask, well into the fall.
"Every single American should be wearing a mask when they're outside for the next three months, at a minimum," Biden said Thursday afternoon in remarks in Wilmington, Del. "Every governor should mandate mandatory mask-wearing. The estimates by the experts are it will save over 40,000 lives."
His comments came after a briefing on the coronavirus pandemic with his new running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris of California, and public health experts. More than 165,000 Americans have died because of COVID-19.
Unlike President Trump, who took months to wear a mask publicly, Biden has long been consistently wearing a mask and encouraging others to do so. But he's never been so explicit about mandates and a timeline.
In an interview with KDKA in Pittsburgh in June, the presumptive Democratic nominee said he would require masks if he were president.
"I would insist that everybody out in public be wearing that mask. Anyone to reopen would have to make sure that they walked into a business that had masks," he said.
The former vice president said he would use the power of the executive branch to do everything possible to make mask-wearing in public a requirement — though mandates have come at the state level, and many governors have opted against such measures.
In remarks at a June event in Wilmington, Biden also said there should be better guidance from the administration around mask-wearing.
"We absolutely need a clear message from the very top of our federal government that everyone needs to wear a mask in public, period," he said.
But his statement Thursday was the most direct comment he's given to date.
"It's not about your rights; it's about your responsibilities," Biden said. He tried to present the issue as a matter of patriotism to protect fellow Americans.
In a news conference later Thursday, Trump took issue with Biden's nationwide call for mask-wearing, ignoring that the Democrat urged governors to issue mandates.
"[Biden] does not identify what authority the president has to issue such a mandate," Trump said, "or why we would be stepping on governors throughout our country."
Trump added: "If the president has the unilateral power to order every single citizen to cover their face in nearly all instances, what other powers does he have?"
An NBC News/Survey Monkey poll in late July found a majority of Americans said they wear a mask in public, but there are clear partisan, racial and age divides. Far more Democrats, nonwhites and older people said they wear masks every time they leave the house.
Biden and Harris, his vice presidential pick, collectively spoke for about eight minutes Thursday, and walked away without taking questions from the press.


npr--2020-08-13--Supreme Court Allows Rhode Island To Make Voting By Mail Easier Amid Pandemic

Supreme Court Allows Rhode Island To Make Voting By Mail Easier Amid Pandemic An agreement that makes it easier for Rhode Island residents to vote by mail during the pandemic will remain in place after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an effort by Republicans to block it .
The agreement allows Rhode Islanders to vote in two upcoming elections without requiring voters to fill out mail-in ballots before two witnesses or a notary .
That requirement was already suspended for the presidential primary that took place June 2 .
In its one-page order , the high court said that in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is already the status quo from the last election , `` and many Rhode Island voters may well hold that belief . ''
The two-witness or notary requirement was challenged last month by a federal lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union , Common Cause of Rhode Island , and the League of Women Voters of Rhode Island , along with three voters with significant medical vulnerabilities , whose health could be jeopardized if they catch the coronavirus .
The ACLU hailed the Supreme Court order as `` a victory for basic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are very pleased that the Republican Party 's efforts to turn the fundamental right to vote into an episode of 'Survivor ' has failed , '' ACLU of Rhode Island Executive Director Steven Brown said in a statement .
`` We are grateful that our vulnerable plaintiffs and others like them will be able to vote securely from the safety and privacy of their homes as they did in June , without needing to risk their health or lives . ''
The state had agreed to eliminate the witness requirements for vote by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic , but the Republican National Committee and Rhode Island Republican Party sought to block that decree .
A three-judge panel of the 1st U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals , based in Boston , refused to stay the decree last week , writing of the `` significant '' burden such witness or notary requirements impose in the midst of a pandemic .
`` First , many more voters are likely to want to vote without going to the polls and will thus only vote if they can vote by mail , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , many voters may be deterred by the fear of contagion from interacting with witnesses or a notary .
`` Could a determined and resourceful voter intent on voting manage to work around these impediments ?
Certainly .
But it is also certain that the burdens are much more unusual and substantial than those that voters are generally expected to bear .
Taking an unusual and in fact unnecessary chance with your life is a heavy burden to bear simply to vote , '' the judges concluded .
The state 's Republican Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision .
`` We fear that this decision will create more , not less confusion this election year , '' the Rhode Island GOP said in a statement .
`` The June election was inconsequential , but a chaotic November election will have serious consequences for public confidence in our election system . ''
Rhode Island Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea , a Democrat , welcomed the Supreme Court 's order and said the state would begin sending out requested mail ballots for the Sept. 8 primary , starting Thursday .
`` Your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admission to our democracy , '' Gorbea tweeted .
`` Making it easier to vote safely from home by removing the burden of obtaining two witnesses or a notary is a common-sense step that will protect Rhode Islanders during this pandemic . ''

Supreme Court Allows Rhode Island To Make Voting By Mail Easier Amid Pandemic
Enlarge this image toggle caption Steven Senne/AP Steven Senne/AP
An agreement that makes it easier for Rhode Island residents to vote by mail during the pandemic will remain in place after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an effort by Republicans to block it.
The agreement allows Rhode Islanders to vote in two upcoming elections without requiring voters to fill out mail-in ballots before two witnesses or a notary. That requirement was already suspended for the presidential primary that took place June 2.
In its one-page order, the high court said that in this case, state officials were defending what is already the status quo from the last election, "and many Rhode Island voters may well hold that belief."
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
The two-witness or notary requirement was challenged last month by a federal lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union, Common Cause of Rhode Island, and the League of Women Voters of Rhode Island, along with three voters with significant medical vulnerabilities, whose health could be jeopardized if they catch the coronavirus.
The ACLU hailed the Supreme Court order as "a victory for basic principles of democracy."
"We are very pleased that the Republican Party's efforts to turn the fundamental right to vote into an episode of 'Survivor' has failed," ACLU of Rhode Island Executive Director Steven Brown said in a statement. "We are grateful that our vulnerable plaintiffs and others like them will be able to vote securely from the safety and privacy of their homes as they did in June, without needing to risk their health or lives."
The state had agreed to eliminate the witness requirements for vote by mail through the 2020 elections due to the pandemic, but the Republican National Committee and Rhode Island Republican Party sought to block that decree.
A three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Boston, refused to stay the decree last week, writing of the "significant" burden such witness or notary requirements impose in the midst of a pandemic.
"First, many more voters are likely to want to vote without going to the polls and will thus only vote if they can vote by mail," the panel wrote. "Second, many voters may be deterred by the fear of contagion from interacting with witnesses or a notary.
"Could a determined and resourceful voter intent on voting manage to work around these impediments? Certainly. But it is also certain that the burdens are much more unusual and substantial than those that voters are generally expected to bear. Taking an unusual and in fact unnecessary chance with your life is a heavy burden to bear simply to vote," the judges concluded.
The state's Republican Party expressed disappointment at the Supreme Court's decision.
"We fear that this decision will create more, not less confusion this election year," the Rhode Island GOP said in a statement. "The June election was inconsequential, but a chaotic November election will have serious consequences for public confidence in our election system."
Rhode Island Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea, a Democrat, welcomed the Supreme Court's order and said the state would begin sending out requested mail ballots for the Sept. 8 primary, starting Thursday.
"Your health should never be the price of admission to our democracy," Gorbea tweeted. "Making it easier to vote safely from home by removing the burden of obtaining two witnesses or a notary is a common-sense step that will protect Rhode Islanders during this pandemic."


npr--2020-08-13--I Want To Expand My Social Bubble. Should I Get A Coronavirus Test First?

I Want To Expand My Social Bubble .
Should I Get A Coronavirus Test First ?
Let 's face it , if you 've been staying home a lot , you 're probably pretty tired of looking at the same faces .
Love them as we do , it feels like well past time to start seeing other people , to visit or host relatives and dear friends .
So how can you do this without unknowingly spreading the virus or getting exposed ?
Recently my husband and I debated this when our son , who lives in another state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home for a visit .
He lives with roommates in a city with a high rate of infection , and he works in a restaurant .
We thought of having him get a diagnostic test to find out if he is infected .
That way , if he got back a negative test , our problems would be solved , right ?
Well , when I called up a few infectious disease specialists to ask if this all made sense , I discovered that using a diagnostic test for the coronavirus this way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I learned .
First , which test are we talking about ?
Currently the most commonly available test that can detect an active infection is the molecular or PCR test , typically collected via a swab in the nose or the back of the throat .
These tests look for the virus 's genetic material — and are highly sensitive .
Another kind of diagnostic test is an antigen test that can detect the coronavirus 's proteins — these are less sensitive , says Daniel Green , a pathologist at Columbia University Irving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accurate .
And finally there are tests that show if your body has developed antibodies because it fought an infection from the coronavirus .
Those tell you about an infection you had in the past , not what you have right now .
If I get a negative result on a PCR diagnostic test , can I be certain I wo n't infect someone I want to spend time with ?
Like everything with this pandemic , the answer is complicated .
The infectious disease experts I spoke to told me there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very helpful .
The first has to do with the length of time it takes to get your test results back these days — up to a week or more in some places for PCR tests .
By the time you get your results back , you could have unknowingly been exposed to the virus , making the original test irrelevant .
The next big reason has to do with accuracy .
While the PCR test is highly accurate in a laboratory setting , out in the real world it can produce some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negatives .
In fact studies show a negative diagnostic test result can be wrong between 5 % and 40 % of the time , depending on the circumstances .
Some of this variation has to do with how well the sample was collected — whether an adequate amount of mucous made it onto the swab , for example .
But it also has to do with timing .
You see , the diagnostic test tells you whether or not you have the virus on the day you took it .
It reflects a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says Dr. Henry Anyimadu , an infectious disease specialist with Hartford HealthCare Medical Group at the Hospital of Central Connecticut .
`` Suppose that I was exposed on the 1st of August and I did n't know it , '' says infectious disease specialist Dr. Aileen Marty of Florida International University .
`` And I took the test on the 2nd of August .
My test result will probably be negative . ''
That 's because the virus typically has at least a four- to five-day incubation period , so in the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not yet be `` enough virus in the upper respiratory system to be detectable , '' Marty says .
Wait , up to 40 % false negative sounds like a lot — is there anything I can do to ensure my results are more reliable ?
Yes , there are some things you can do .
But first remember this , for many of us that false negative rate could be much lower than 40 % , says Green , who was a coauthor on one of the studies about test reliability .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ people in his study were sampled too early , before the diagnostic test could detect the presence of the virus .
So if you want to make sure your test is as reliable as possible , wait several days from the last point you think you could have been exposed before getting the test — and while you wait , self-quarantine to avoid further exposures .
Marty agrees , saying , before you take the test , `` be in a bubble for at least four or five days . ''
Do n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back grocery story visits or have food delivered .
Bottom line , limit your exposure as much as possible leading up to test day .
And then , Marty adds , `` Stay in the bubble until you get your results back . ''
That 's because if you are n't careful , you could be exposed to the virus while waiting for results , and if you do have the virus — even if you do n't have symptoms — you could spread it to others .
So if negative results are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a diagnostic test ?
Yes .
There are definitely times when one should get a test , Anyimadu says .
`` If you 're worried you have COVID-19 based on symptoms , you should get a test . ''
Or , if you think you might have been exposed — for instance , if your roommate , housemate or someone close to you is infected — get a test .
And you should consider a test if you 've traveled to an area with a high rate of coronavirus infection , Anyimadu says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or one you 've spent time in recently has a high rate of infection , check this county-level map .
If the county has more than 10 new daily cases per 100,000 residents , that 's considered high risk .
If I test positive , but I do n't have any symptoms , what should I do ?
If you get a positive test result , our experts say , this is not the time to expand your bubble !
Even If you do n't have any symptoms , you are possibly contagious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Marty says you should isolate yourself for 14 days , learn the symptoms of COVID-19 and monitor yourself .
If you do get sick and your symptoms are getting worse , call your health care provider .
And do n't forget all those folks who live with you .
They too need to be tested whether they have symptoms or not , Marty says , and should self-quarantine .
Marty also suggests people `` connect with their department of health to assist with contact tracing , '' and help health workers reach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been exposed to you .
If you develop any symptoms , keep track of when they kick in so that you will know when you 're no longer contagious .
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , you should isolate yourself for at least 10 days after your first symptom appears .
At that point , as long as you have n't had a fever for at least 24 hours and you 're feeling better , you should be able to mix with others .
If I ca n't rely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I do instead to visit someone safely or merge social bubbles ?
The safest and simplest thing to do if you want complete peace of mind is to quarantine yourself for 14 days before the visit — this is especially important if you 're hoping to visit someone who is older or has an underlying condition .
But short of that , experts say testing can play a role in your decision-making as long as you `` do n't treat a negative test as a get-out-of-jail free card , '' Green says .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of imperfect information that you can add together with the most important factor , your own behavior .
Have you been able to isolate as much as possible before the potential visit with a friend ?
If you have gone out , did you carefully socially distance and wear a mask ?
Have you been avoiding bars and restaurants and indoor gatherings ?
If the answer to these questions is yes , and if you are certain you have n't been around someone with a possible or confirmed case of COVID-19 , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` If you are n't sick or do n't have any particular reason to believe you 're infectious , '' says epidemiologist Justin Lessler from Johns Hopkins University , `` then getting that negative test should increase your confidence . ''
And remember , before you head off on your trip or join friends for an indoor gathering , ask the people you 're visiting about their own behaviors and whether or not they 've also gotten a test .
Remember , you can spread the virus , but you can receive it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way to bring your risk down to zero , '' Anyimadu says .
But the recommended measures of mask-wearing , social distancing and thorough hand washing are still the most important defense against the virus .
And that is true whether you 've had a negative test , a positive test or not even gotten a test at all .
Rob Stein and Carmel Wroth contributed to this report .

Getting A Coronavirus Test To Make Visiting Family Safe? Not So Fast
Enlarge this image toggle caption Noel Hendrickson/Getty Images Noel Hendrickson/Getty Images
Let's face it, if you've been staying home a lot, you're probably pretty tired of looking at the same faces. Love them as we do, it feels like well past time to start seeing other people, to visit or host relatives and dear friends. So how can you do this without unknowingly spreading the virus or getting exposed?
Recently my husband and I debated this when our son, who lives in another state, said he'd like to come home for a visit. He lives with roommates in a city with a high rate of infection, and he works in a restaurant. We thought of having him get a diagnostic test to find out if he is infected. That way, if he got back a negative test, our problems would be solved, right?
Well, when I called up a few infectious disease specialists to ask if this all made sense, I discovered that using a diagnostic test for the coronavirus this way can be problematic. Here's what I learned.
First, which test are we talking about?
Currently the most commonly available test that can detect an active infection is the molecular or PCR test, typically collected via a swab in the nose or the back of the throat. These tests look for the virus's genetic material — and are highly sensitive. Another kind of diagnostic test is an antigen test that can detect the coronavirus's proteins — these are less sensitive, says Daniel Green, a pathologist at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, and can be less accurate. And finally there are tests that show if your body has developed antibodies because it fought an infection from the coronavirus. Those tell you about an infection you had in the past, not what you have right now.
If I get a negative result on a PCR diagnostic test, can I be certain I won't infect someone I want to spend time with?
Like everything with this pandemic, the answer is complicated. The infectious disease experts I spoke to told me there are two reasons why testing might not be very helpful. The first has to do with the length of time it takes to get your test results back these days — up to a week or more in some places for PCR tests. By the time you get your results back, you could have unknowingly been exposed to the virus, making the original test irrelevant.
The next big reason has to do with accuracy. While the PCR test is highly accurate in a laboratory setting, out in the real world it can produce some false positives and a lot of false negatives. In fact studies show a negative diagnostic test result can be wrong between 5% and 40% of the time, depending on the circumstances.
Some of this variation has to do with how well the sample was collected — whether an adequate amount of mucous made it onto the swab, for example. But it also has to do with timing. You see, the diagnostic test tells you whether or not you have the virus on the day you took it. It reflects a single "pinpoint in time," says Dr. Henry Anyimadu, an infectious disease specialist with Hartford HealthCare Medical Group at the Hospital of Central Connecticut.
"Suppose that I was exposed on the 1st of August and I didn't know it," says infectious disease specialist Dr. Aileen Marty of Florida International University. "And I took the test on the 2nd of August. My test result will probably be negative." That's because the virus typically has at least a four- to five-day incubation period, so in the first few days after exposure, there may not yet be "enough virus in the upper respiratory system to be detectable," Marty says.
Wait, up to 40% false negative sounds like a lot — is there anything I can do to ensure my results are more reliable?
Yes, there are some things you can do. But first remember this, for many of us that false negative rate could be much lower than 40%, says Green, who was a coauthor on one of the studies about test reliability. He points out that many of the people in his study were sampled too early, before the diagnostic test could detect the presence of the virus. So if you want to make sure your test is as reliable as possible, wait several days from the last point you think you could have been exposed before getting the test — and while you wait, self-quarantine to avoid further exposures.
Marty agrees, saying, before you take the test, "be in a bubble for at least four or five days." Don't go to bars and restaurants and scale back grocery story visits or have food delivered. Bottom line, limit your exposure as much as possible leading up to test day. And then, Marty adds, "Stay in the bubble until you get your results back." That's because if you aren't careful, you could be exposed to the virus while waiting for results, and if you do have the virus — even if you don't have symptoms — you could spread it to others.
So if negative results are iffy, is it ever worth getting a diagnostic test?
Yes. There are definitely times when one should get a test, Anyimadu says. "If you're worried you have COVID-19 based on symptoms, you should get a test." Or, if you think you might have been exposed — for instance, if your roommate, housemate or someone close to you is infected — get a test.
And you should consider a test if you've traveled to an area with a high rate of coronavirus infection, Anyimadu says. To find out if your county or one you've spent time in recently has a high rate of infection, check this county-level map. If the county has more than 10 new daily cases per 100,000 residents, that's considered high risk.
If I test positive, but I don't have any symptoms, what should I do?
If you get a positive test result, our experts say, this is not the time to expand your bubble! Even If you don't have any symptoms, you are possibly contagious, and you could still develop symptoms. Marty says you should isolate yourself for 14 days, learn the symptoms of COVID-19 and monitor yourself. If you do get sick and your symptoms are getting worse, call your health care provider. And don't forget all those folks who live with you. They too need to be tested whether they have symptoms or not, Marty says, and should self-quarantine.
Marty also suggests people "connect with their department of health to assist with contact tracing," and help health workers reach out to anyone else who might have been exposed to you.
If you develop any symptoms, keep track of when they kick in so that you will know when you're no longer contagious. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, you should isolate yourself for at least 10 days after your first symptom appears. At that point, as long as you haven't had a fever for at least 24 hours and you're feeling better, you should be able to mix with others.
If I can't rely on negative test results, what do I do instead to visit someone safely or merge social bubbles?
The safest and simplest thing to do if you want complete peace of mind is to quarantine yourself for 14 days before the visit — this is especially important if you're hoping to visit someone who is older or has an underlying condition.
But short of that, experts say testing can play a role in your decision-making as long as you "don't treat a negative test as a get-out-of-jail free card," Green says.
Think of it as one more piece of imperfect information that you can add together with the most important factor, your own behavior. Have you been able to isolate as much as possible before the potential visit with a friend? If you have gone out, did you carefully socially distance and wear a mask? Have you been avoiding bars and restaurants and indoor gatherings?
If the answer to these questions is yes, and if you are certain you haven't been around someone with a possible or confirmed case of COVID-19, then a negative test could be helpful. "If you aren't sick or don't have any particular reason to believe you're infectious," says epidemiologist Justin Lessler from Johns Hopkins University, "then getting that negative test should increase your confidence."
And remember, before you head off on your trip or join friends for an indoor gathering, ask the people you're visiting about their own behaviors and whether or not they've also gotten a test. Remember, you can spread the virus, but you can receive it as well.
"There's no way to bring your risk down to zero," Anyimadu says. But the recommended measures of mask-wearing, social distancing and thorough hand washing are still the most important defense against the virus. And that is true whether you've had a negative test, a positive test or not even gotten a test at all.
Rob Stein and Carmel Wroth contributed to this report.


npr--2020-08-13--Everyone Needs A Buddy. Even Sharks

Everyone Needs A Buddy. Even Sharks

Everyone Needs A Buddy .
Even Sharks Sharks are often maligned as Hollywood monsters , the lone wolves lurking in the deep , hunting for prey .
( Cue Jaws theme song ) .
But that caricature of sharks is increasingly out of step with what scientists are learning about the animals .
Instead , they say , some species of sharks are social creatures who return day after day to a group of the same fellow sharks .
`` They form these spatially structured social groups where they hang out with the same individuals over multiple years , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Predator Ecology and Conservation Lab at Florida International University .
Papastamatiou 's team studied gray reef sharks populating the waters off Palmyra Atoll , a sunken island ringed by coral reefs , in the central Pacific Ocean between the Hawaiian Islands and Fiji .
They attached small location transmitters to 41 sharks , which allowed them to track the animals ' movements around the reef .
They also outfitted two sharks with small video cameras on their fins , to get what Papastamatiou calls a shark's-eye view of their daily lives .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the researchers found that the same groupings of sharks — ranging from a couple up to as many as 20 — frequently returned to the same parts of the reef over and over again .
They also found that some of the groups stuck together for the duration of the study — longer than previous studies have observed .
The findings appear this week in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B , the Royal Society 's journal for biological research .
The sharks might be motivated to stay together , Papastamatiou says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easier .
`` If we hang out together and I see something , then you can come and try and take advantage of that , '' he says .
`` And alternatively , if you see something , then I can try and take advantage of that . ''
He emphasizes that the sharks do n't cooperatively hunt , but says that as long as the group is n't too large — which would raise competition and conflict — socializing appears to benefit the sharks .
And that may be one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ species .
David Shiffman , who studies shark ecology and conservation at Arizona State University , says he was surprised to learn the sharks stuck together for so long .
`` I mean , I do n't have a lot of friends I do that with , '' he jokes , referring to the four years of camaraderie .
Sharks are smart creatures , Shiffman says .
In addition to knowing where to grab a bite by watching their peers , he says , some species of sharks also can learn to solve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sharks solve them .
Given their intelligence and social abilities , he says perhaps it 's time to drop prejudices about sharks .
`` It turns out that they are a lot smarter than most people think , and they have more complex social behavior and more complex ability to process their environment and learn and change , '' Shiffman says .
As for what to call a group of sharks ?
The name still evokes fear : It 's known as a shiver of sharks .

Everyone Needs A Buddy. Even Sharks
Enlarge this image toggle caption Bernard Radvaner/Corbis/Getty Images Bernard Radvaner/Corbis/Getty Images
Sharks are often maligned as Hollywood monsters, the lone wolves lurking in the deep, hunting for prey. (Cue Jaws theme song).
But that caricature of sharks is increasingly out of step with what scientists are learning about the animals. Instead, they say, some species of sharks are social creatures who return day after day to a group of the same fellow sharks.
"They form these spatially structured social groups where they hang out with the same individuals over multiple years," says Yannis Papastamatiou, who runs the Predator Ecology and Conservation Lab at Florida International University.
Papastamatiou's team studied gray reef sharks populating the waters off Palmyra Atoll, a sunken island ringed by coral reefs, in the central Pacific Ocean between the Hawaiian Islands and Fiji. They attached small location transmitters to 41 sharks, which allowed them to track the animals' movements around the reef. They also outfitted two sharks with small video cameras on their fins, to get what Papastamatiou calls a shark's-eye view of their daily lives.
After tracking the sharks for four years, the researchers found that the same groupings of sharks — ranging from a couple up to as many as 20 — frequently returned to the same parts of the reef over and over again. They also found that some of the groups stuck together for the duration of the study — longer than previous studies have observed.
The findings appear this week in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, the Royal Society's journal for biological research.
The sharks might be motivated to stay together, Papastamatiou says, because it makes hunting for food easier.
"If we hang out together and I see something, then you can come and try and take advantage of that," he says. "And alternatively, if you see something, then I can try and take advantage of that."
He emphasizes that the sharks don't cooperatively hunt, but says that as long as the group isn't too large — which would raise competition and conflict — socializing appears to benefit the sharks. And that may be one of the factors that led to sociality in the species.
David Shiffman, who studies shark ecology and conservation at Arizona State University, says he was surprised to learn the sharks stuck together for so long.
"I mean, I don't have a lot of friends I do that with," he jokes, referring to the four years of camaraderie.
Sharks are smart creatures, Shiffman says. In addition to knowing where to grab a bite by watching their peers, he says, some species of sharks also can learn to solve simple puzzles, just by watching other sharks solve them. Given their intelligence and social abilities, he says perhaps it's time to drop prejudices about sharks.
"It turns out that they are a lot smarter than most people think, and they have more complex social behavior and more complex ability to process their environment and learn and change," Shiffman says.
As for what to call a group of sharks? The name still evokes fear: It's known as a shiver of sharks.


npr--2020-08-13--UAE, Israel Move To Normalize Relations As Israel Halts Planned West Bank Annexations

Updated at 3:20 p.m .
ET Israel and the United Arab Emirates have agreed to forge a path toward normal diplomatic relations , and Israel said as part of the agreement it will suspend its controversial plans to annex more territory in the West Bank .
The historic deal was brokered during a call between leaders of the two nations and President Trump .
The UAE 's leader , Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed , announced on Twitter that the deal calls for `` setting a roadmap towards establishing a bilateral relationship . ''
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Middle East and the launch of a `` new era '' in Israeli relations with the Arab world .
Egypt and Jordan are the only two Arab nations that currently have normal diplomatic relations with Israel .
The UAE has had informal contact with Israel for some time , and relations have been improving .
The White House released a joint statement from the three countries , saying Israel and the UAE `` will meet in the coming weeks to sign bilateral agreements regarding investment , tourism , direct flights , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , healthcare , culture , the environment , the establishment of reciprocal embassies and other areas of mutual benefit . ''
The statement noted the central role Trump played in the talks , saying he asked Israel to suspend its annexation plans as part of the negotiations .
Netanyahu had vowed to annex portions of the occupied West Bank this summer , with support from the Trump administration .
But Israelis were divided on the plan , and a spike in coronavirus infections there pulled the focus away from a debate over annexation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outrage over the annexation proposal , and there was strong opposition from countries outside the region .
Even British Prime Minister Boris Johnson , a self-described `` passionate defender of Israel , '' expressed opposition to the plan .
For decades , the international community has sought to resolve the status of the West Bank through negotiations , not unilateral moves by either side .
Johnson welcomed the news of the deal brokered by the United States .
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has endorsed the deal , too .
So have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ settlers , including vocal supporters of annexation .
But The Associated Press notes that `` harder-line settlers '' have spoken out against the deal , with settler leader David Alhayani saying of Netanyahu , `` The faith in you has expired . ''
Meanwhile , Palestinian official Hanan Ashrawi denounced the deal on Twitter , saying Israel was `` rewarded for not openly declaring what it 's been doing to Palestine illegally and persistently . ''
Ashrawi wrote : `` May you never be sold out by your 'friends , ' `` an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new deal is a significant shift in relations between the UAE and Israel .
Earlier this summer , while still committed to its plans for annexation , Israel announced a groundbreaking partnership with the UAE on the fight against the coronavirus .
The UAE promptly distanced itself from the announcement and said it was just private companies , not the two governments , collaborating .

UAE, Israel Move To Normalize Relations As Israel Halts Planned West Bank Annexations
Enlarge this image toggle caption Doug Mills/Pool/Getty Images Doug Mills/Pool/Getty Images
Updated at 3:20 p.m. ET
Israel and the United Arab Emirates have agreed to forge a path toward normal diplomatic relations, and Israel said as part of the agreement it will suspend its controversial plans to annex more territory in the West Bank.
The historic deal was brokered during a call between leaders of the two nations and President Trump.
The UAE's leader, Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed, announced on Twitter that the deal calls for "setting a roadmap towards establishing a bilateral relationship."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the deal a historic breakthrough toward peace in the Middle East and the launch of a "new era" in Israeli relations with the Arab world.
Egypt and Jordan are the only two Arab nations that currently have normal diplomatic relations with Israel. The UAE has had informal contact with Israel for some time, and relations have been improving.
The White House released a joint statement from the three countries, saying Israel and the UAE "will meet in the coming weeks to sign bilateral agreements regarding investment, tourism, direct flights, security, telecommunications, technology, energy, healthcare, culture, the environment, the establishment of reciprocal embassies and other areas of mutual benefit."
The statement noted the central role Trump played in the talks, saying he asked Israel to suspend its annexation plans as part of the negotiations.
Netanyahu had vowed to annex portions of the occupied West Bank this summer, with support from the Trump administration. But Israelis were divided on the plan, and a spike in coronavirus infections there pulled the focus away from a debate over annexation.
Palestinians and Arab leaders had expressed outrage over the annexation proposal, and there was strong opposition from countries outside the region. Even British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a self-described "passionate defender of Israel," expressed opposition to the plan.
For decades, the international community has sought to resolve the status of the West Bank through negotiations, not unilateral moves by either side.
Johnson welcomed the news of the deal brokered by the United States.
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has endorsed the deal, too.
So have key Israeli lawmakers and even some Israeli settlers, including vocal supporters of annexation. But The Associated Press notes that "harder-line settlers" have spoken out against the deal, with settler leader David Alhayani saying of Netanyahu, "The faith in you has expired."
Meanwhile, Palestinian official Hanan Ashrawi denounced the deal on Twitter, saying Israel was "rewarded for not openly declaring what it's been doing to Palestine illegally and persistently."
Ashrawi wrote: "May you never be sold out by your 'friends,' " an evident reference to the UAE.
The new deal is a significant shift in relations between the UAE and Israel.
Earlier this summer, while still committed to its plans for annexation, Israel announced a groundbreaking partnership with the UAE on the fight against the coronavirus. The UAE promptly distanced itself from the announcement and said it was just private companies, not the two governments, collaborating.


npr--2020-08-14--New California Financial Watchdog Would Take Aim At Predatory Lenders Amid Pandemic

New California Financial Watchdog Would Take Aim At Predatory Lenders Amid Pandemic Lawmakers in California are rushing to create a new financial protection watchdog agency by the end of the month .
They say it 's needed because , under the Trump administration , the main federal regulator has been paralyzed .
And they say that during the pandemic that is leaving millions of Americans who are in dire financial straits more vulnerable to predatory lenders , get-out-of-debt-scams and other wrongdoing .
One study last year found that the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 's enforcement activity plunged by 80 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to consumers dropped by 96 % .
`` We are now as states left to do the work ourselves , '' says California Assembly member Monique Limón .
Along with Gov .
Gavin Newsom , she is proposing to create the new state watchdog agency , which would be called the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation .
But a legislative deadline means they need to do it by Aug. 31 .
`` Consumer protections are an area where California wants to show that we care , '' Limón says .
`` As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think that it is very important and it 's the right thing to do . ''
The new agency would give the state broader power and ability to police aggressive debt collectors , credit repair schemes , predatory lenders and other shady financial practices .
Limón proposed the agency before the pandemic .
But she says given the economic fallout , the need for more oversight is greater now .
`` The timing of it is even more important , '' she says , noting that since the Covid outbreak , consumer complaints @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up 40 percent .
State officials say some of those complaints are about mortgage companies , personal loans , and companies that promise to help people get out of debt .
A long list of fair lending and consumer protection groups are backing the proposal .
With upwards of 8 million people applying for unemployment in California alone , `` many people are teetering on the brink of insolvency here , '' says Suzanne Martindale , who works on policy issues for Consumer Reports .
`` A bad loan , a risky payday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that can push someone over the edge into poverty , into bankruptcy and homelessness at the worst possible time in the middle of a public health crisis , '' she says .
`` So , the case is even stronger now . ''
Financial firms of course are not usually big fans of additional regulation .
But Beth Mills with the California Bankers Association says she supports the new agency better policing some of the banks ' competitors .
She says many online lenders for example face much looser regulations than the banks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulation on them to make sure that we 're operating under the same rules , '' Mills says .
But when it comes to the companies that her group represents — which she says are most of the large and small banks and lenders in the state , she says , `` we would like to be exempt from the bill because the banks and financial institutions that we represent are already very heavily regulated at both the state and federal level . ''
And it appears the financial firms have the ear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderate Democrats is pressuring Newsom to allow for large carve-outs for many financial firms , a source close to the negotiations over the proposal tells NPR .
And that could weaken the new agency 's ability to go after companies who take advantage of people .
Richard Cordray , a former director of the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , says that would be a big mistake .
`` I do n't think that the legislature should make it hard for consumers to get their money back when they 've been victimized by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' says Cordray , who has been consulting on the bill .
Cordray says , if it 's done right , the new agency could be a model for other states for how to have a tough financial watchdog agency of their own .
And he says Congress envisioned that when it created the federal CFPB under the Dodd-Frank financial reform act .
`` The financial reform law , '' he says , `` had an implicit promise in it that there would be consumer financial protection at the federal level , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consumer financial protection at the state level and that the two could work in partnership . ''
He says it also envisioned that , `` if one was doing its job and the other was pulling back , there still would be protection for consumers . ''
Cordray says this new agency could live out that promise .
But , a legislative deadline means the bill has to get passed by the end of the month if the agency is to be created this year .
There 's a key hearing with lawmakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new agency would be created by restructuring and expanding the size and authority of an existing agency called the Department of Business Oversight .

New California Financial Watchdog Would Take Aim At Predatory Lenders Amid Pandemic
Enlarge this image toggle caption Rich Pedroncelli/AP Rich Pedroncelli/AP
Lawmakers in California are rushing to create a new financial protection watchdog agency by the end of the month. They say it's needed because, under the Trump administration, the main federal regulator has been paralyzed.
And they say that during the pandemic that is leaving millions of Americans who are in dire financial straits more vulnerable to predatory lenders, get-out-of-debt-scams and other wrongdoing.
One study last year found that the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's enforcement activity plunged by 80% from 2015. And money returned to consumers dropped by 96%.
"We are now as states left to do the work ourselves," says California Assembly member Monique Limón.
Along with Gov. Gavin Newsom, she is proposing to create the new state watchdog agency, which would be called the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation. But a legislative deadline means they need to do it by Aug. 31.
"Consumer protections are an area where California wants to show that we care," Limón says. "As the fifth-largest economy in the world we think that it is very important and it's the right thing to do."
The new agency would give the state broader power and ability to police aggressive debt collectors, credit repair schemes, predatory lenders and other shady financial practices.
Limón proposed the agency before the pandemic. But she says given the economic fallout, the need for more oversight is greater now.
"The timing of it is even more important," she says, noting that since the Covid outbreak, consumer complaints about financial wrongdoing in the state are up 40 percent. State officials say some of those complaints are about mortgage companies, personal loans, and companies that promise to help people get out of debt.
A long list of fair lending and consumer protection groups are backing the proposal. With upwards of 8 million people applying for unemployment in California alone, "many people are teetering on the brink of insolvency here," says Suzanne Martindale , who works on policy issues for Consumer Reports.
"A bad loan, a risky payday product, an aggressive debt collector, that can push someone over the edge into poverty, into bankruptcy and homelessness at the worst possible time in the middle of a public health crisis," she says. "So, the case is even stronger now."
At a recent legislative hearing, small business groups said they want the new agency to protect them from predatory financial practices too.
Financial firms of course are not usually big fans of additional regulation. But Beth Mills with the California Bankers Association says she supports the new agency better policing some of the banks' competitors.
She says many online lenders for example face much looser regulations than the banks do.
"We would welcome greater regulation on them to make sure that we're operating under the same rules," Mills says.
But when it comes to the companies that her group represents — which she says are most of the large and small banks and lenders in the state, she says, "we would like to be exempt from the bill because the banks and financial institutions that we represent are already very heavily regulated at both the state and federal level."
And it appears the financial firms have the ear of some lawmakers. A group of moderate Democrats is pressuring Newsom to allow for large carve-outs for many financial firms, a source close to the negotiations over the proposal tells NPR. And that could weaken the new agency's ability to go after companies who take advantage of people.
Richard Cordray, a former director of the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, says that would be a big mistake.
"I don't think that the legislature should make it hard for consumers to get their money back when they've been victimized by unfair, deceptive and abusive practices," says Cordray, who has been consulting on the bill.
Cordray says, if it's done right, the new agency could be a model for other states for how to have a tough financial watchdog agency of their own. And he says Congress envisioned that when it created the federal CFPB under the Dodd-Frank financial reform act.
"The financial reform law," he says, "had an implicit promise in it that there would be consumer financial protection at the federal level, but there would also be room for significant consumer financial protection at the state level and that the two could work in partnership."
He says it also envisioned that, "if one was doing its job and the other was pulling back, there still would be protection for consumers." Cordray says this new agency could live out that promise.
But, a legislative deadline means the bill has to get passed by the end of the month if the agency is to be created this year. There's a key hearing with lawmakers over the weekend.
Technically, the new agency would be created by restructuring and expanding the size and authority of an existing agency called the Department of Business Oversight.


npr--2020-08-14--Trump Campaign Trying to Win over Black Voters, But President Remains a Tough Sell

Trump Campaign Trying to Win over Black Voters , But President Remains a Tough Sell President Trump has been arguing that 's he 's been the best president for Black Americans outside of Abraham Lincoln , but with less than 100 days before the election , it 's not clear that his campaign to reach African Americans is changing many minds .
Trump won just 8 percent of the Black vote in 2016 .
Polls now show the vast majority of Black voters backing Trump 's Democratic rival , former Vice President Joe Biden .
But , in swing states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the presidential race could be tight , squeezing out a few more Black votes could make a difference for Trump .
Trump started out the year with a State of the Union address that highlighted issues aimed at appealing to African Americans : rising Black employment opportunities , funding for historically Black colleges and universities and tax breaks for investments in poor communities .
His campaign also announced plans to open more than a dozen field offices in critical cities with large African American communities , like Milwaukee and Detroit .
But , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Voices for Trump '' events , the coronavirus pandemic shut down in-person campaigning for months .
And during that time , the election landscape shifted .
The economic shock caused by the response to the pandemic wiped out one of the campaign 's key talking points — low black unemployment .
And polls showed that most Americans of all races blamed Trump for increasing racial tensions after massive protests broke out about the killing of a Black man , George Floyd , in police custody .
Now , where local regulations allow , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempting to make the case for re-electing Trump .
`` We 're in the communities , because we knew we could not depend on the mainstream press to tell Americans exactly what this president is doing and has done for them , '' said senior campaign adviser Katrina Pierson .
`` So we 're on the ground making sure that they stay informed . ''
In a state like Wisconsin , which Trump won by less than 1 percent , Democrats and Republicans are fighting for every vote .
The Milwaukee field office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city .
Back in late February — before the pandemic hit — the campaign held a panel discussion in the store-front office with speakers brought in from around the country to talk to about 50 people in attendance about the importance of Black Republicans .
According to Pierson , that office now has about eight people on staff .
In recent weeks , the Milwaukee office has hosted a cookout and a movie night , screening a documentary about Black conservatives .
These events `` allowed for us to connect with people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paris Dennard , a senior adviser on Black media for the Republican National Committee .
`` That 's when we can have more personal dialogue .
That 's when we can answer questions easier , and that 's when we can really form relationships , '' Dennard said .
But , gaining support for any Republican in these Democratic strongholds is not going to be easy and polls have shown that a majority of Black voters believe Trump is racist .
Orlando Owens is a Black Republican running for the Wisconsin state legislature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been held by Democrats for decades .
Owens has been knocking on doors making the case for his own campaign , but he said that residents do bring up Trump and not necessarily in a good way .
`` I see some that like President Trump .
I see a lot more that question his moves , '' Owens said .
He said he never bashes Trump ; instead he focuses on what he could do for his district by working with the Republican majority in the state capital .
Some people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote for Trump , if they vote for him .
He said he tells them : `` You do whatever you think you need to do on the presidential level .
But you do n't have to vote for a straight party .
You can vote for each individual race ... and people smile . ''
Back in February , Quinn Taylor was one of the Milwaukee residents who attended the Trump campaign panel discussion .
Taylor , who is African American , says he 's still open to voting for Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be more thoughtful and presidential .
`` I do n't think he made one correct decision regarding the coronavirus , '' Taylor said .
`` I think we really could 've came out of this a whole lot better if he took it seriously . ''
Taylor said he liked that Trump was talking more about social distancing and wearing masks , but he 's not sure how long that will last .
Even though Taylor attended a campaign event , he said he has n't heard much from the campaign other than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like to see them do more to help the community .
RNC adviser Dennard acknowledged that the campaign has more work to do to make sure its connections have lasting impact .
`` That 's something we are going to work on , making sure that people who have a genuine interest and want to hear more about the Republican Party give the president a first look , '' Dennard said .
`` We want to make sure that we meet them . ''

Trump Campaign Trying To Win Over Black Voters, But President Remains A Tough Sell
Enlarge this image toggle caption Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
President Trump has been arguing that he has been the best president for Black Americans outside of Abraham Lincoln, but with less than 100 days before the election, it's not clear that his campaign to reach African Americans is changing many minds.
Trump won just 8% of the Black vote in 2016. Current polls show the vast majority of Black voters backing Trump's Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden. But, in swing states like Wisconsin and North Carolina, where the presidential race could be tight, squeezing out a few more Black votes could make a difference for Trump.
Trump started out the year with a State of the Union address that highlighted issues aimed at appealing to African Americans: rising Black employment opportunities, funding for historically Black colleges and universities, and tax breaks for investments in poor communities.
His campaign also announced plans to open more than a dozen field offices in critical cities with large African American communities, like Milwaukee and Detroit.
But shortly after they began holding "Black Voices for Trump" events, the coronavirus pandemic shut down in-person campaigning for months. And during that time, the election landscape shifted.
The economic shock caused by the response to the pandemic wiped out one of the campaign's key talking points — low Black unemployment. And polls showed that most Americans of all races blamed Trump for increasing racial tensions after massive protests broke out about the killing of a Black man, George Floyd, in police custody.
Now, where local regulations allow, the campaign is back in the field attempting to make the case for reelecting Trump.
"We're in the communities, because we knew we could not depend on the mainstream press to tell Americans exactly what this president is doing and has done for them," said senior campaign adviser Katrina Pierson. "So we're on the ground making sure that they stay informed."
In a state like Wisconsin, which Trump won by less than 1%, Democrats and Republicans are fighting for every vote.
The Milwaukee field office is the first ever for Republicans in the city. Back in late February — before the pandemic hit — the campaign held a panel discussion in the storefront office with speakers brought in from across the country to talk to about 50 people in attendance about the importance of Black Republicans.
According to Pierson, that office now has about eight people on staff. In recent weeks, the Milwaukee office has hosted a cookout and a movie night, screening a documentary about Black conservatives.
These events "allowed for us to connect with people in a smaller setting," said Paris Dennard, a senior adviser on Black media for the Republican National Committee.
"That's when we can have more personal dialogue. That's when we can answer questions easier, and that's when we can really form relationships," Dennard said.
But gaining support for any Republican in these Democratic strongholds is not going to be easy, and polls have shown that a majority of Black voters believe Trump is racist.
Orlando Owens is a Black Republican running for the Wisconsin state legislature representing part of Milwaukee. The seat has been held by Democrats for decades.
Owens has been knocking on doors making the case for his own campaign, but he said that residents do bring up Trump and not necessarily in a good way.
"I see some that like President Trump. I see a lot more that question his moves," Owens said.
He said he never bashes Trump. Instead he focuses on what he could do for his district by working with the Republican majority in the state capital.
Some people have asked Owens whether they would have to vote for Trump if they vote for him.
He said he tells them: "You do whatever you think you need to do on the presidential level. But you don't have to vote for a straight party. You can vote for each individual race ... and people smile."
Back in February, Quinn Taylor was one of the Milwaukee residents who attended the Trump campaign panel discussion.
Taylor, who is African American, says he's still open to voting for Trump. But he wants him to be more thoughtful and presidential.
"I don't think he made one correct decision regarding the coronavirus," Taylor said. "I think we really could've came out of this a whole lot better if he took it seriously."
Taylor said he liked that Trump was talking more about social distancing and wearing masks, but he's not sure how long that will last.
Even though Taylor attended a campaign event, he said he hasn't heard much from the campaign other than generic emails. He said he would like to see them do more to help the community.
RNC adviser Dennard acknowledged that the campaign has more work to do to make sure its connections have lasting impact.
"That's something we are going to work on, making sure that people who have a genuine interest and want to hear more about the Republican Party give the president a first look," Dennard said. "We want to make sure that we meet them."


npr--2020-08-14--After Beirut, Experts Warn Of 'Dangerous Gaps' In U.S. Oversight Of Ammonium Nitrate

After Beirut , Experts Warn Of 'Dangerous Gaps ' In U.S .
Oversight Of Ammonium Nitrate The catastrophic explosion in Beirut , Lebanon last week has renewed calls here in the U.S. to strengthen oversight of ammonium nitrate or AN , a chemical compound used in some farm fertilizers .
Officials in Beirut believe the giant blast , which killed more than 200 people and damaged half of the city , was likely an accident caused by fire and negligent storage of some 2,750 tons of the chemical .
In addition to farming and mining , AN has been used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Baghdad .
It 's highly explosive .
It 's been an ingredient of choice for improvised explosive devices and car bombs that have killed scores of soldiers and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan .
And the Beirut debacle surely was n't shocking to residents of the small Texas town of West – population 2,900 .
A 2013 fertilizer plant fire there ignited more than 250 tons of ammonium nitrate improperly stored in flammable wooden boxes .
The explosion leveled or damaged more than 150 buildings .
It also killed 15 people , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them from local volunteer departments .
On NPR 's Morning Edition after the blast , the Texas Department of Public Safety 's D.L .
Wilson described what he saw .
`` I can tell you I was there , '' he says .
`` I walked through the blast area .
I searched some houses earlier tonight , massive , just like Iraq , just like the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City . ''
Given the amount of the chemical on hand , the West Fertilizer Company was supposed to report its ammonium @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Homeland Security .
According to federal officials , it did not .
A state agency in Texas did know about the AN .
But it failed to share that information with DHS .
As one congressman later put it in a federal hearing , `` DHS did not even know the plant existed until it blew up . ''
It 's exactly that jumble of federal and state agencies regulating ammonium nitrate – and longstanding concerns about a lack of clear coordination – that has experts , once again , sounding the alarm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department of Homeland Security , the Environmental Protection Agency , the Occupational Safety and Health Administration , the Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives , the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board as well as the departments of Transportation and Agriculture all have some piece of ammonium nitrate oversight .
Experts say that is a patchwork with dangerous gaps .
`` Why we , after 9/11 and Oklahoma City and West , Texas , continue to flirt with disaster with this material is beyond me , '' says environmental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and safety expert .
Hind spent nearly three decades as Greenpeace 's legislative director in Washington , D.C .
He says federal oversight of ammonium nitrate storage , transport , processing and use today remains a morass of vague and slippery regulations , despite repeated attempts to strengthen the rules .
AN is relatively stable under the right conditions .
But when contaminated by dirt , certain kinds of wood , oil or myriad other things , Hind says , AN can become powerful explosives that today `` go largely unseen and under-regulated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and agriculture lobby , the fertilizer people . ''
Hind says the Beirut explosion should be a wake-up call to finally tighten federal oversight .
`` They say it 's stable , '' Hind says .
`` But when you look at what all the rules are ... you can see this stuff has got to be handled very , very carefully and monitored while it 's being handled - and constantly inspected .
And that 's not happening . ''
Critics say OSHA , the EPA and other federal agencies have consistently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chemical .
At the time of the West , Texas explosion , OSHA had not inspected the West Fertilizer company for nearly 30 years .
`` OSHA inspections are few and far between , '' Hind says , `` with depleted funding and litigation now hamstringing their regulatory process . ''
In its detailed report of the explosion , the Chemical Safety Board said West , Texas was hardly the only risky site .
`` We highlighted the number of places that AN is stored in facilities that have not been reviewed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ran the CSB during the final stages of the investigation .
`` We show that the landscape throughout the United States is replete with AN risks '' Risks that are still out there .
After the explosion in West , OSHA recognized that America 's ammonium nitrate rules were painfully out of date , given the potential for accidents or terrorist attacks .
OSHA tried to close what 's called the `` retail exemption '' arguing that the definition of 'retail ' was dangerously vague .
That `` allowed facilities with large amounts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ' '' says a senior aide on the U.S. House Education and Labor Committee which oversees worker health and safety .
He asked not to be named .
Closing that loophole , the official says , would have bolstered oversight of hazardous chemicals .
But industry sued arguing that OSHA was n't following proper federal rules-making procedure .
A federal court agreed .
That industry victory meant thousands of facilities storing large amounts of highly hazardous chemicals would remain exempt from safety management guidelines set by OSHA .
There remains `` enormous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ OSHA 's Process Safety Management ( PSM ) standards , '' the official says .
David Michaels led OSHA as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health during the Obama Administration .
He said on that rule and many others , the chemical , fertilizer and agriculture lobbies `` opposed any attempt to strengthen regulations . ''
Now a professor of environmental and occupational health at The George Washington University , Michaels says those industries have repeatedly , successfully blocked enforcement of new safety provisions for AN .
So the old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dangerous , remain in place today .
`` They allow ammonium nitrate to be stored in wooden buildings , for example , without sprinklers , '' Michaels says .
`` That is currently allowed under the OSHA ammonium nitrate standards because OSHA has n't updated that since when OSHA began almost exactly 50 years ago .
And it was an old standard then . ''
AN was left off an EPA list of `` highly hazardous '' substances flagged for special attention at the end of the Obama administration .
The agency did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , would require some facilities to consider safety and accident prevention .
It 's not clear that rule is being adequately enforced .
Several federal agencies who oversee ammonium nitrate declined NPR 's requests for interviews and to answer specific questions about current oversight .
An EPA spokeswoman , in an email , said : `` Chemical accident prevention and preparedness is a priority for the EPA .
The Agency has made compliance with the chemical accident prevention and preparedness provisions of the Clean Air Act Section 112 ( r ) a National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then- President Obama ordered federal agencies to get together and come up with proposals to bring the handling and storage of AN into the 21st century .
Following that executive order , OSHA started the lengthy process to change its safety management standards for dangerous chemicals - including AN .
Environmental groups did n't think the proposed options went far enough .
Industry said they went too far .
But that reform process , former OSHA head Michaels notes , came to a screeching halt under the Trump administration .
`` We said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked all of our stakeholders to weigh in .
And , of course , all those activities were immediately shelved by President Trump .
And so any efforts to safeguard communities and workers in the event of an ammonium nitrate explosion simply stopped , '' he said .
Since taking office the Trump administration has moved to diminish or undo nearly 100 major environmental and climate regulations , arguing that they stifle business and the economy .
Those rollbacks include federal rules governing clean air , water and toxic chemicals .
Dozens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court .
The attempted rollbacks , though , have put even more pressure on states and industry to regulate themselves .
For their part , the agriculture and fertilizer lobbies argue that self-regulation is adequate , when combined with current federal and state guidelines , to prevent future disasters like Beirut or West , Texas .
`` There are robust regulations in place , '' said Richard Gupton , senior vice president for public policy and counsel at the Agricultural Retailers Association .
`` There has not been any accident at a facility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a number of ( federal ) regulations to ensure the safe storage , handling and transportation of the product . ''
Gupton points out they created an industry-led oversight and inspection program called Responsible Ag and have voluntarily bolstered their own standards and protocols for AN storage '' We created Responsible Ag to make sure these facilities are operating in a safe and secure way to protect employees and local communities , '' Gupton says .
`` And we 'll gladly work on updating regulations - where needed and where appropriate - but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule-making process . ''
But watchdog groups say voluntary , self-regulation of AN is hardly enough .
Katherine Lemos , the current head of the federal Chemical Safety Board , hopes the Beirut tragedy spurs new efforts to improve storage and handling of the chemical here , something her agency recommended several years ago in their report on the disaster in West , Texas .
`` We are about preventing catastrophic explosion .
This is preventable .
We really need to push on it .
I think it 's critical .
That 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She points out that the U.S. still fails to adequately restrict the storage of large amounts of ammonium nitrate near schools , nursing homes , hospitals , and homes .
Of the Chemical Safety Board 's 19 safety recommendations following the West , Texas disaster , 12 remain unimplemented today .

After Beirut, Experts Warn Of 'Dangerous Gaps' In U.S. Oversight Of Ammonium Nitrate
Enlarge this image toggle caption STR/AFP via Getty Images STR/AFP via Getty Images
The catastrophic explosion in Beirut last week has renewed calls in the U.S. to strengthen oversight of ammonium nitrate or AN, a chemical compound used in some farm fertilizers.
Officials in Beirut believe the giant blast, which killed more than 200 people and damaged half of the city, was likely an accident caused by fire and negligent storage of some 2,750 tons of the chemical.
In addition to farming and mining, AN has been used in terrorist attacks from Oklahoma City to Baghdad. It's highly explosive. It has been an ingredient of choice for improvised explosive devices and car bombs that have killed scores of soldiers and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Beirut explosion surely wasn't shocking to residents of the small Texas town of West, population 2,900.
A 2013 fertilizer plant fire there ignited more than 250 tons of ammonium nitrate improperly stored in flammable wooden boxes. The explosion leveled or damaged more than 150 buildings. It also killed 15 people, including 12 firefighters, almost all of them from local volunteer departments.
On NPR's Morning Edition after the blast, the Texas Department of Public Safety's D.L. Wilson described what he saw.
"I can tell you I was there," he says. "I walked through the blast area. I searched some houses earlier tonight, massive, just like Iraq, just like the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City."
Given the amount of the chemical on hand, the West Fertilizer Company was supposed to report its ammonium nitrate stockpile to the federal Department of Homeland Security. According to federal officials, it did not. A state agency in Texas did know about the AN. But it failed to share that information with DHS. As one congressman later put it in a federal hearing, "DHS did not even know the plant existed until it blew up."
It's exactly that jumble of federal and state agencies regulating ammonium nitrate – and longstanding concerns about a lack of clear coordination – that has experts, once again, sounding the alarm.
On the federal side, the Department of Homeland Security, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board as well as the departments of Transportation and Agriculture all have some piece of ammonium nitrate oversight.
Experts say that is a patchwork with dangerous gaps.
"Why we, after 9/11 and Oklahoma City and West, Texas, continue to flirt with disaster with this material is beyond me," says environmental consultant Rick Hind, a chemical hazards and safety expert. Hind spent nearly three decades as Greenpeace's legislative director in Washington, D.C. He says federal oversight of ammonium nitrate storage, transport, processing and use remains a morass of vague and slippery regulations, despite repeated attempts to strengthen the rules.
AN is relatively stable under the right conditions. But when contaminated by dirt, certain kinds of wood, oil or myriad other things, Hind says, AN can become powerful explosives that today "go largely unseen and under-regulated because of the magic of the chemical and agriculture lobby, the fertilizer people."
Hind says the Beirut explosion should be a wake-up call to finally tighten federal oversight.
"They say it's stable," Hind says. "But when you look at what all the rules are ... you can see this stuff has got to be handled very, very carefully and monitored while it's being handled — and constantly inspected. And that's not happening."
Critics say OSHA, the EPA and other federal agencies have consistently failed to adequately inspect facilities storing the chemical. At the time of the West, Texas, explosion, OSHA had not inspected the West Fertilizer company for nearly 30 years.
"OSHA inspections are few and far between," Hind says, "with depleted funding and litigation now hamstringing their regulatory process."
In its detailed report of the explosion, the Chemical Safety Board said West, Texas, was hardly the only risky site.
"We highlighted the number of places that AN is stored in facilities that have not been reviewed," says Vanessa Allen Sutherland, who ran the CSB during the final stages of the investigation. "We show that the landscape throughout the United States is replete with AN risks"
Those risks are still out there.
After the explosion in West, OSHA recognized that America's ammonium nitrate rules were painfully out of date, given the potential for accidents or terrorist attacks.
OSHA tried to close what's called the "retail exemption," arguing that the definition of "retail" was dangerously vague.
It "allowed facilities with large amounts of bulk material to be considered 'retail,' " says a senior aide on the U.S. House Education and Labor Committee, which oversees worker health and safety. He asked not to be named. Closing that loophole, the official says, would have bolstered oversight of hazardous chemicals.
But industry sued arguing that OSHA wasn't following proper federal rules-making procedure. A federal court agreed. That industry victory meant thousands of facilities storing large amounts of highly hazardous chemicals would remain exempt from safety management guidelines set by OSHA. There remains "enormous industry opposition to covering ammonium nitrate under OSHA's Process Safety Management (PSM) standards," the official says.
David Michaels led OSHA as assistant secretary of labor for Occupational Safety and Health during the Obama administration. He said on that rule and many others, the chemical, fertilizer and agriculture lobbies "opposed any attempt to strengthen regulations."
Now a professor of environmental and occupational health at The George Washington University, Michaels says those industries have repeatedly successfully blocked enforcement of new safety provisions for AN. So the old rules, which Michaels calls ludicrous and dangerous, remain in place.
"They allow ammonium nitrate to be stored in wooden buildings, for example, without sprinklers," Michaels says. "That is currently allowed under the OSHA ammonium nitrate standards because OSHA hasn't updated that since when OSHA began almost exactly 50 years ago. And it was an old standard then."
AN was left off an EPA list of "highly hazardous" substances flagged for special attention at the end of the Obama administration. The agency did issue a rule that, in theory, would require some facilities to consider safety and accident prevention. It's not clear if that rule is being adequately enforced.
Several federal agencies that oversee ammonium nitrate declined NPR's requests for interviews and to answer specific questions about current oversight.
An EPA spokeswoman, in an email, said: "Chemical accident prevention and preparedness is a priority for the EPA. The Agency has made compliance with the chemical accident prevention and preparedness provisions of the Clean Air Act Section 112(r) a National Compliance Initiative."
In 2013, President Barack Obama ordered federal agencies to get together and come up with proposals to bring the handling and storage of AN into the 21st century.
Following that executive order, OSHA started the lengthy process to change its safety management standards for dangerous chemicals - including AN.
Environmental groups didn't think the proposed options went far enough. Industry said they went too far.
But that reform process, former OSHA head Michaels notes, came to a screeching halt under the Trump administration.
"We said 'this is important,' and we asked all of our stakeholders to weigh in. And, of course, all those activities were immediately shelved by President Trump. And so any efforts to safeguard communities and workers in the event of an ammonium nitrate explosion simply stopped," he said.
Since taking office, the Trump administration has moved to diminish or undo nearly 100 major environmental and climate regulations, arguing that they stifle business and the economy. Those rollbacks include federal rules governing clean air, water and toxic chemicals. Dozens of those actions are being challenged in court. The attempted rollbacks, though, have put even more pressure on states and industry to regulate themselves.
For their part, the agriculture and fertilizer lobbies argue that self-regulation is adequate, when combined with current federal and state guidelines, to prevent future disasters like Beirut or West, Texas.
"There are robust regulations in place," said Richard Gupton, senior vice president for public policy and counsel at the Agricultural Retailers Association. "There has not been any accident at a facility complying with existing regulations. There's a number of (federal) regulations to ensure the safe storage, handling and transportation of the product."
Gupton points out companies have created an industry-led oversight and inspection program called Responsible Ag and have voluntarily bolstered their own standards and protocols for AN storage
"We created Responsible Ag to make sure these facilities are operating in a safe and secure way to protect employees and local communities," Gupton says. "And we'll gladly work on updating regulations — where needed and where appropriate — but it needs to go through a proper rule-making process."
But watchdog groups say voluntary, self-regulation of AN is hardly enough.
Katherine Lemos, the current head of the federal Chemical Safety Board, hopes the Beirut tragedy spurs new efforts to improve storage and handling of the chemical here, something her agency recommended several years ago in its report on the disaster in West, Texas.
"We are about preventing catastrophic explosion. This is preventable. We really need to push on it. I think it's critical. That's our job," Lemos says.
She points out that the U.S. still fails to adequately restrict the storage of large amounts of ammonium nitrate near schools, nursing homes, hospitals and homes.
Of the Chemical Safety Board's 19 safety recommendations following the West, Texas, disaster, 12 remain unimplemented.