scientificamerican--2020-08-28--Coronavirus News Roundup, August 22-August 28

The items below are highlights from the free newsletter , “ Smart , useful , science stuff about COVID-19.
” To receive newsletter issues daily in your inbox , sign up here .
Please consider a monthly contribution to support this newsletter .
Women ’ s immune response to SARS-CoV-2 is stronger than men ’ s immune response to the virus , according to a study published 8/26/20 in Nature and covered the same day by Apoorva Mandavilli at The New York Times .
The finding could explain why men “ are twice as likely to become severely sick and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women of the same age , ” Mandavilli writes .
The study also suggests that older men might need multiple shots of a coronavirus vaccine compared perhaps with young women , who might need just one shot , according to an immunologist quoted in the story .
He 's at the Heinrich Pette Institute and the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf in Germany .
The study leader , a Yale University immunologist , is quoted in the story as saying , “ Women who are older — even very old , like 90 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good , decent immune response ” to SARS-CoV-2 .
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) on 8/26/20 gave emergency-use authorization to Abbott Laboratories ' $ 5 , portable nasal-swab SARS-CoV-2 test that returns results in 15 minutes , reports Sheila Kaplan at The New York Times ( 8/26/20 ) .
The test detects viral fragments called antigens .
Such tests miss more infections than widely used , slower tests that rely on a technology called polymerase chain reaction ( PCR ) .
But the speed of antigen tests , three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approval , could prove useful in relieving test backlogs .
Abbott says its new antigen test will become available in September , the story states .
Autopsies of 11 people who died of COVID-19 revealed that their spleens and lymph nodes lacked sites called germinal centers where B cells ( immune cells ) gather to “ mature and refine their antibody response to the virus , ” writes Jon Cohen at Science ( 8/25/20 ) .
The researchers compared tissue from the people who died of COVID-19 with tissue from 6 people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states .
The finding , which confirms an earlier study ’ s findings in a smaller group , could provide insights into the progression of severe cases of COVID-19 , the story states .
The studies “ establish a profound lack of [ antibody ] responses in the deceased population of COVID-19 patients , ” says a Huazhong University of Science and Technology ( HUST ) researcher who co-authored the smaller study and is quoted in the story .
The missing germinal centers in severe COVID-19 patients could be linked to the biochemical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the dangerous , second phase of the disease , the HUST researcher is quoted as saying .
Meanwhile , a MGH , MIT and Harvard immunologist who is a co-author of the newer study , published earlier this month in the journal Cell , says it won ’ t be difficult to stop SARS-CoV-2 with a vaccine .
He is quoted as saying , “ This is a piece of cake.
” The United States , UK , Japan , and the European Union nations all have pre-ordered in bulk doses of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , reports Ewen Callaway at Nature ( 8/24/20 ) .
Some of these candidate vaccines could be approved in late 2020 or early 2021 at the earliest , the story states .
But only `` 1 billion doses will be available by the fourth quarter of 2021 , ” according to a life-sciences market analytics firm , the story states .
A different organization estimates 2 billion to 4 billion doses will be available by the end of 2021 , the story states .
A chart near the top of the piece illustrates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and number of doses .
Meanwhile , an international effort to secure vaccine doses for people living in a total of 92 low- and middle-income , as well as some wealthier countries , is “ far short of raising the roughly $ 18 billion that it estimates ” will be needed to meet its target number of doses , Callaway reports .
Lower in the piece , a chart illustrates pre-orders made by several countries and regions worldwide .
Callaway writes that “ patents and intellectual property are not what ’ s standing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 vaccines…rather , equitable access and affordable prices require collaboration between governments and vaccine makers , ” according to the head of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative in New York City , which reportedly is co-developing a COVID-19 vaccine .
In an 8/22/20 essay for The Washington Post , Elizabeth Svoboda writes that many people in the U.S. have become desensitized to the risks of SARS-CoV-2 , which has led to some behavioral backsliding , especially in crowded places .
“ This habituation stems from a principle well-known in psychological therapy , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re exposed to a given threat , the less intimidating it seems.
” Some researchers recommend a return to stricter distancing , outdoor masking and stay-at-home orders , the essay suggests .
But we also need authorities to “ supply in-your-face reminders of those mandates , especially visual cues , so people won ’ t draw their own erroneous conclusions about what ’ s safe , ” she writes .
In any case , we should cultivate an awareness of the diminishing effectiveness of our “ snap judgments about COVID-19 ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisions , a la Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman 's “ slow thinking , ” she advises .
Ventilation discussions in public-health circles predate the current pandemic .
Infection control theories born of the U.S. experience with the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918-1919 inspired engineers of the early 20th century to design steam-heating systems for buildings that could be effective in cold weather even with apartment windows open , reports Patrick Sisson for Bloomberg CityLab .
That ’ s right .
Steam-heat radiators were designed to be used with the open windows , allowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ health officials thought ( correctly ) …would ward off airborne diseases , ” Sisson writes .
The piece draws from a 1992 book “ The Lost Art of Steam Heating , ” by heating-systems researcher Dan Holohan .
Radiators were designed , according to Holohan the story states , in response to a New York City Board of Health order that windows should remain open for ventilation in the winter .
“ Anybody who ’ s thrown their windows open in January , when their apartment is stifling , is in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would happen a century ago , ” Sisson writes ( 8/5/20 ) .
You might enjoy : “ Jerry Seinfeld : So You Think New York Is ‘ Dead ’ ( It ’ s not . )
” ( 8/24/20 ) .

The items below are highlights from the free newsletter, “Smart, useful, science stuff about COVID-19.” To receive newsletter issues daily in your inbox, sign up here. Please consider a monthly contribution to support this newsletter.
Women’s immune response to SARS-CoV-2 is stronger than men’s immune response to the virus, according to a study published 8/26/20 in Nature and covered the same day by Apoorva Mandavilli at The New York Times. The finding could explain why men “are twice as likely to become severely sick and to die [from COVID-19] as women of the same age,” Mandavilli writes. The study also suggests that older men might need multiple shots of a coronavirus vaccine compared perhaps with young women, who might need just one shot, according to an immunologist quoted in the story. He's at the Heinrich Pette Institute and the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf in Germany. The study leader, a Yale University immunologist, is quoted in the story as saying, “Women who are older — even very old, like 90 years — the women are still making pretty good, decent immune response” to SARS-CoV-2.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on 8/26/20 gave emergency-use authorization to Abbott Laboratories' $5, portable nasal-swab SARS-CoV-2 test that returns results in 15 minutes, reports Sheila Kaplan at The New York Times (8/26/20). The test detects viral fragments called antigens. Such tests miss more infections than widely used, slower tests that rely on a technology called polymerase chain reaction (PCR). But the speed of antigen tests, three others of which previously received FDA emergency-use approval, could prove useful in relieving test backlogs. Abbott says its new antigen test will become available in September, the story states.
Autopsies of 11 people who died of COVID-19 revealed that their spleens and lymph nodes lacked sites called germinal centers where B cells (immune cells) gather to “mature and refine their antibody response to the virus,” writes Jon Cohen at Science (8/25/20). The researchers compared tissue from the people who died of COVID-19 with tissue from 6 people who died of other causes, the story states. The finding, which confirms an earlier study’s findings in a smaller group, could provide insights into the progression of severe cases of COVID-19, the story states. The studies “establish a profound lack of [antibody] responses in the deceased population of COVID-19 patients,” says a Huazhong University of Science and Technology (HUST) researcher who co-authored the smaller study and is quoted in the story. The missing germinal centers in severe COVID-19 patients could be linked to the biochemical “cytokine storms” that often occur in the dangerous, second phase of the disease, the HUST researcher is quoted as saying. Meanwhile, a MGH, MIT and Harvard immunologist who is a co-author of the newer study, published earlier this month in the journal Cell, says it won’t be difficult to stop SARS-CoV-2 with a vaccine. He is quoted as saying, “This is a piece of cake.”
The United States, UK, Japan, and the European Union nations all have pre-ordered in bulk doses of vaccines under development to protect against SARS-CoV-2, reports Ewen Callaway at Nature (8/24/20). Some of these candidate vaccines could be approved in late 2020 or early 2021 at the earliest, the story states. But only "1 billion doses will be available by the fourth quarter of 2021,” according to a life-sciences market analytics firm, the story states. A different organization estimates 2 billion to 4 billion doses will be available by the end of 2021, the story states. A chart near the top of the piece illustrates pre-order details by vaccine manufacturer, nation and number of doses. Meanwhile, an international effort to secure vaccine doses for people living in a total of 92 low- and middle-income, as well as some wealthier countries, is “far short of raising the roughly $18 billion that it estimates” will be needed to meet its target number of doses, Callaway reports. Lower in the piece, a chart illustrates pre-orders made by several countries and regions worldwide. Callaway writes that “patents and intellectual property are not what’s standing in the way of fair distribution of COVID-19 vaccines…rather, equitable access and affordable prices require collaboration between governments and vaccine makers,” according to the head of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative in New York City, which reportedly is co-developing a COVID-19 vaccine.
In an 8/22/20 essay for The Washington Post, Elizabeth Svoboda writes that many people in the U.S. have become desensitized to the risks of SARS-CoV-2, which has led to some behavioral backsliding, especially in crowded places. “This habituation stems from a principle well-known in psychological therapy,” Svoboda writes. “The more we’re exposed to a given threat, the less intimidating it seems.” Some researchers recommend a return to stricter distancing, outdoor masking and stay-at-home orders, the essay suggests. But we also need authorities to “supply in-your-face reminders of those mandates, especially visual cues, so people won’t draw their own erroneous conclusions about what’s safe,” she writes. In any case, we should cultivate an awareness of the diminishing effectiveness of our “snap judgments about COVID-19’s dangers,” and make more careful decisions, a la Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman's “slow thinking,” she advises.
Ventilation discussions in public-health circles predate the current pandemic. Infection control theories born of the U.S. experience with the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918-1919 inspired engineers of the early 20th century to design steam-heating systems for buildings that could be effective in cold weather even with apartment windows open, reports Patrick Sisson for Bloomberg CityLab. That’s right. Steam-heat radiators were designed to be used with the open windows, allowing fresh air to gush in, which “health officials thought (correctly)…would ward off airborne diseases,” Sisson writes. The piece draws from a 1992 book “The Lost Art of Steam Heating,” by heating-systems researcher Dan Holohan. Radiators were designed, according to Holohan the story states, in response to a New York City Board of Health order that windows should remain open for ventilation in the winter. “Anybody who’s thrown their windows open in January, when their apartment is stifling, is in an odd way, replicating what engineers hoped would happen a century ago,” Sisson writes (8/5/20).
You might enjoy: “Jerry Seinfeld: So You Think New York Is ‘Dead’ (It’s not.)” (8/24/20).


scientificamerican--2020-08-28--Republican Convention Ignored Climate Threat, But Americans' Attitudes Are Shifting

In four days of speeches lasting more than eight hours at the Republican National Convention , climate change was never mentioned as a threat to the country .
That silence stands apart from the climate alarm bells that have been sounding since Donald Trump accepted his first nomination for president four years ago .
Thousands of Americans have been killed in natural disasters such as hurricanes and wildfires during Trump ’ s first term in office .
Each of those four years has been among the world ’ s hottest on record .
Leaders of other nations have taken action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even Wall Street has begun to take notice of how climate change could affect economic growth .
None of that was apparent during the convention .
Instead , Republican speakers insisted that the real concern was the climate ideas presented by Democrats .
Many experts say that if climate change is left unanswered , it could cost trillions of dollars to the U.S. economy .
Republicans said the real costs would come from Democratic plans to restrain the use of fossil fuels .
“ Biden has promised to abolish the production of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ natural gas—laying waste to the economies of Pennsylvania , Ohio , Texas , North Dakota , Oklahoma , Colorado and New Mexico , ” Trump said .
“ Millions of jobs will be lost , and energy prices will soar.
” ( Biden ’ s plan does not call for a fracking ban ) .
Those sentiments play well with Trump ’ s core supporters , but they ’ re askew from what most voters believe , including younger Republicans , according to polls .
They don ’ t reflect the events that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ online : uncontrolled wildfires in California and the strongest hurricane to hit Louisiana in 160 years .
Even as an unrelinquishing pandemic has killed more than 180,000 people in the United States and kept millions of children across the country from returning to school , climate change remains on the minds of voters , polls show .
Here are five climate themes that have advanced since Trump accepted his first nomination in 2016 .
More than 3,000 Americans have died in natural catastrophes during the past four years ; most of them were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The massive Category 5 storm killed an estimated 2,975 people in Puerto Rico and forced thousands to flee the U.S. territory .
The devastation continues to have ripple effects three years later .
Tens of thousands of people still live under leaky blue tarps .
The island ’ s power supply , never reliable to begin with , has become far worse , and some parts of Puerto Rico were without power for a year .
That was the same year that Hurricane Harvey dumped 60 inches of rain on parts of Houston @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Tens of thousands of homes were damaged , and about 70 people were killed .
Harvey caused more than $ 100 billion in damage , making it one of the costliest disasters to strike the United States .
Record wildfires have also burned across the West .
The 2018 Camp Fire in California was the deadliest ; it killed 85 people and destroyed more than 10,000 homes .
It was fueled by drought , an outcome of climate change .
This week , California continued to battle the second- and third-largest wildfires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fires to climate change .
“ All but three of the Top 20 Largest # Wildfires have occurred since 2000 , with 10 of these large and damaging wildfires occurring in the last decade , ” the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection tweeted yesterday .
“ As fire weather continues to become more extreme , California is adjusting to fight these larger and more destructive wildfires.
” The Trump years have been some of the hottest since record-keeping began after the Civil War , according to NASA .
After a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the all-time annual heat record set in 2016 .
That ’ s a likely outcome , said Gavin Schmidt , director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies .
That ’ s notable because four years ago , the record warmth was fueled by El Niño , a band of warm water covering the tropical Pacific Ocean .
That influence is absent this year , Schmidt said , and long-term trends point to rising heat .
“ We know that the trend is moving up ; on average , every decade is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ The changes we ’ re seeing now are so far outside what would be possible in an un-globally-warmed world.
” Polling shows that voter concern about climate change has been growing for years and that it has not diminished as a result of the coronavirus pandemic .
Concern among some voters has spiked during Trump ’ s tenure .
Before the virus , polling showed climate change was the second-most important issue for Democratic primary voters , behind only health care .
Now , responding to the virus and restoring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public still wants the federal government to address climate change , recent polling shows .
More Americans than ever—about 25 % —view climate change as “ extremely personally important , ” according to a poll released last week by Stanford University , Resources for the Future and ReconMR .
That number is twice as large as it was in 2006 , said the poll , which surveyed 1,000 adults between May and August .
It also found that 82 % of respondents want the federal government to act on climate change .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ had personally experienced the effects of global warming .
“ The COVID-19 pandemic has offered a unique opportunity to learn how people feel about climate change when faced with a global crisis , ” said Ray Kopp , vice president of research and policy engagement at Resources for the Future .
“ The claim that we can ’ t do anything about climate change without crashing the economy , or that we need to focus only on the pandemic and not do anything on climate right now , simply doesn ’ t resonate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The U.S. ( and everyone else ) Since Trump pledged to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement in 2017 , world leaders have pressed him to rejoin and to take the issue seriously .
Among them are German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron .
Last year , Trump said Prince Charles spent 90 minutes talking to him about climate change , trying to convince him to take stronger action and to once again make the United States a world leader .
In response , Trump said he wanted “ good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued to roll back environmental safeguards meant to reduce emissions .
In December , Macron said other governments , including China , Russia and the European Union , would lead the world in reducing emissions .
The yearslong process of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement won ’ t be done until November .
Yesterday , Biden tweeted that if he wins the election , he would rejoin the pact on the first day of his presidency .
This week , it was announced that Exxon Mobil Corp. would be dropped from the Dow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a significant departure , as Exxon was the longest-tenured company on the Dow , having been listed for almost a century .
It ’ s also a reflection of how oil companies have taken a financial hit amid growing concerns about climate change and as a result of declining consumption due to the pandemic .
At the same time , some solar and wind companies have grown bigger than their fossil fuel competitors .
The same factors that have weakened fossil fuel companies , including more aggressive climate targets , helped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Street , business interests are increasingly warning the Federal Reserve and other regulators that climate change could pose a significant risk to the economy .
Earlier this year , 40 investment firms and organizations that handle more than $ 1 trillion in assets urged Fed Chairman Jerome Powell to take action .
They warned him that climate “ threats have the potential to compound in ways we don ’ t yet understand , with disastrous impacts the likes of which we haven ’ t seen before.
” Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net .

In four days of speeches lasting more than eight hours at the Republican National Convention, climate change was never mentioned as a threat to the country.
That silence stands apart from the climate alarm bells that have been sounding since Donald Trump accepted his first nomination for president four years ago.
Thousands of Americans have been killed in natural disasters such as hurricanes and wildfires during Trump’s first term in office. Each of those four years has been among the world’s hottest on record. Leaders of other nations have taken action as the United States ignores the issue.
Even Wall Street has begun to take notice of how climate change could affect economic growth.
None of that was apparent during the convention. Instead, Republican speakers insisted that the real concern was the climate ideas presented by Democrats. Many experts say that if climate change is left unanswered, it could cost trillions of dollars to the U.S. economy. Republicans said the real costs would come from Democratic plans to restrain the use of fossil fuels.
“Biden has promised to abolish the production of American oil, coal, shale and natural gas—laying waste to the economies of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Colorado and New Mexico,” Trump said. “Millions of jobs will be lost, and energy prices will soar.”
(Biden’s plan does not call for a fracking ban).
Those sentiments play well with Trump’s core supporters, but they’re askew from what most voters believe, including younger Republicans, according to polls. They don’t reflect the events that many Americans are either experiencing or seeing online: uncontrolled wildfires in California and the strongest hurricane to hit Louisiana in 160 years.
Even as an unrelinquishing pandemic has killed more than 180,000 people in the United States and kept millions of children across the country from returning to school, climate change remains on the minds of voters, polls show.
Here are five climate themes that have advanced since Trump accepted his first nomination in 2016.
Natural disasters
More than 3,000 Americans have died in natural catastrophes during the past four years; most of them were victims of Hurricane Maria in 2017.
The massive Category 5 storm killed an estimated 2,975 people in Puerto Rico and forced thousands to flee the U.S. territory. The devastation continues to have ripple effects three years later. Tens of thousands of people still live under leaky blue tarps. The island’s power supply, never reliable to begin with, has become far worse, and some parts of Puerto Rico were without power for a year.
That was the same year that Hurricane Harvey dumped 60 inches of rain on parts of Houston, becoming the wettest cyclone on record. Tens of thousands of homes were damaged, and about 70 people were killed. Harvey caused more than $100 billion in damage, making it one of the costliest disasters to strike the United States.
Record wildfires have also burned across the West. The 2018 Camp Fire in California was the deadliest; it killed 85 people and destroyed more than 10,000 homes. It was fueled by drought, an outcome of climate change. This week, California continued to battle the second- and third-largest wildfires in state history. Officials have connected the fires to climate change.
“All but three of the Top 20 Largest #Wildfires have occurred since 2000, with 10 of these large and damaging wildfires occurring in the last decade,” the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection tweeted yesterday. “As fire weather continues to become more extreme, California is adjusting to fight these larger and more destructive wildfires.”
Heat
The Trump years have been some of the hottest since record-keeping began after the Civil War, according to NASA. After a record-warm July, this year may break the all-time annual heat record set in 2016.
That’s a likely outcome, said Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. That’s notable because four years ago, the record warmth was fueled by El Niño, a band of warm water covering the tropical Pacific Ocean. That influence is absent this year, Schmidt said, and long-term trends point to rising heat.
“We know that the trend is moving up; on average, every decade is warmer than the last,” he said. “The changes we’re seeing now are so far outside what would be possible in an un-globally-warmed world.”
Public opinion
Polling shows that voter concern about climate change has been growing for years and that it has not diminished as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.
Concern among some voters has spiked during Trump’s tenure. Before the virus, polling showed climate change was the second-most important issue for Democratic primary voters, behind only health care.
Now, responding to the virus and restoring the economy top the list. But the public still wants the federal government to address climate change, recent polling shows.
More Americans than ever—about 25%—view climate change as “extremely personally important,” according to a poll released last week by Stanford University, Resources for the Future and ReconMR. That number is twice as large as it was in 2006, said the poll, which surveyed 1,000 adults between May and August.
It also found that 82% of respondents want the federal government to act on climate change. And three-quarters of those surveyed said they had personally experienced the effects of global warming.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has offered a unique opportunity to learn how people feel about climate change when faced with a global crisis,” said Ray Kopp, vice president of research and policy engagement at Resources for the Future.
“The claim that we can’t do anything about climate change without crashing the economy, or that we need to focus only on the pandemic and not do anything on climate right now, simply doesn’t resonate with Americans,” he said.
The U.S. (and everyone else)
Since Trump pledged to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement in 2017, world leaders have pressed him to rejoin and to take the issue seriously. Among them are German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron.
Last year, Trump said Prince Charles spent 90 minutes talking to him about climate change, trying to convince him to take stronger action and to once again make the United States a world leader. In response, Trump said he wanted “good climate,” but his administration has continued to roll back environmental safeguards meant to reduce emissions.
In December, Macron said other governments, including China, Russia and the European Union, would lead the world in reducing emissions.
The yearslong process of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement won’t be done until November. Yesterday, Biden tweeted that if he wins the election, he would rejoin the pact on the first day of his presidency.
Climate hits Wall Street
This week, it was announced that Exxon Mobil Corp. would be dropped from the Dow Jones Industrial Average stock index. It’s a significant departure, as Exxon was the longest-tenured company on the Dow, having been listed for almost a century.
It’s also a reflection of how oil companies have taken a financial hit amid growing concerns about climate change and as a result of declining consumption due to the pandemic.
At the same time, some solar and wind companies have grown bigger than their fossil fuel competitors. The same factors that have weakened fossil fuel companies, including more aggressive climate targets, helped drive clean energy technologies.
On Wall Street, business interests are increasingly warning the Federal Reserve and other regulators that climate change could pose a significant risk to the economy.
Earlier this year, 40 investment firms and organizations that handle more than $1 trillion in assets urged Fed Chairman Jerome Powell to take action. They warned him that climate “threats have the potential to compound in ways we don’t yet understand, with disastrous impacts the likes of which we haven’t seen before.”
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net.


scientificamerican--2020-08-29--Alaska's Salmon are Shrinking

Alaska's Salmon are Shrinking

Every year , salmon come home to Alaska ’ s frigid rivers to mate , lay their eggs , and die .
The state ’ s salmon runs are some of the biggest in the world .
But over the past few decades , those big salmon runs have featured ever smaller salmon .
“ You talk to people up there who ’ ve been fishing for long time , and they ’ re definitely able to tell you that , you know , we just don ’ t see those really large , old salmon that we used to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fellow at the University of Alaska , Fairbanks .
Oke and colleagues at the University of California , Santa Cruz , and elsewhere analyzed records of fish size going back to the 1950s .
They included data on some 12.5 million salmon—each of which had to be measured by someone from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game .
And there ’ s no question about it : salmon have shrunk .
Sockeye salmon today are 2.1 % shorter than their ancestors .
Chum salmon are 2.4 % shorter and Coho are 3.3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , salmon showed the greatest declines at 8 % .
That ’ s an average difference of more than 2 inches in length .
The study is in the journal Nature Communications .
[ K. B. Oke et al , Recent declines in salmon body size impact ecosystems and fisheries ] The researchers haven ’ t nailed down the exact reasons behind this trend .
But their analysis suggests that climate change and competition with wild and hatchery-raised salmon both play a role .
They also discovered that much of the change in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the ocean at a younger age now than in the past .
Oke says fish could be returning earlier because they ’ re reaching maturity faster for some reason—or because the ocean has become a riskier place for older salmon to survive .
“ What could be happening is the salmon that otherwise would have returned large and old just aren ’ t making it that long.
” Whatever the cause , this size shift has massive ramifications for people and the environment .
Oke and her team calculated that catching smaller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Alaska ’ s commercial salmon fisheries by 21 % .
It ’ s also likely reduced the food available to subsistence fishers—many of whom rely on stores of salmon to get them through the long , harsh winter—by as much as 26 % .
On the ecological side , the researchers estimated that smaller fish lay 16 % fewer eggs , which could depress salmon populations in the future .
And , the salmon bring 28 % fewer nutrients into the watersheds where they spawn , according to the study .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carcasses actually fertilize freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems with these marine-derived nutrients that are really important and that get used by all kinds of animals , like bears and songbirds and even taken up into trees.
” With no single factor to blame for shrinking salmon , there ’ s no obvious fix , Oke says .
But there are still plenty of fish in the sea .
They ’ re just smaller than they used to be .
[ The above text is a transcript of this podcast . ]

Full Transcript
Every year, salmon come home to Alaska’s frigid rivers to mate, lay their eggs and die. The state’s salmon runs are some of the biggest in the world. But over the past few decades, those big salmon runs have featured ever smaller salmon.
“You talk to people up there who’ve been fishing for long time, and they’re definitely able to tell you that, you know, we just don’t see those really large, old salmon that we used to see.”
Krista Oke, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Oke and colleagues at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and elsewhere analyzed records of fish size going back to the 1950s. They included data on some 12.5 million salmon—each of which had to be measured by someone from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. And there’s no question about it: salmon have shrunk.
Sockeye salmon today are 2.1 percent shorter than their ancestors. Chum salmon are 2.4 percent shorter, and coho are 3.3 percent shorter. Chinook, or king, salmon showed the greatest declines at 8 percent. That’s an average difference of more than two inches in length. The study is in the journal Nature Communications. [K. B. Oke et al., Recent declines in salmon body size impact ecosystems and fisheries]
The researchers haven’t nailed down the exact reasons behind this trend. But their analysis suggests that climate change and competition with wild and hatchery-raised salmon both play a role. They also discovered that much of the change in body size is due to fish returning from the ocean at a younger age now than in the past.
Oke says fish could be returning earlier because they’re reaching maturity faster for some reason—or because the ocean has become a riskier place for older salmon to survive.
“What could be happening is the salmon that otherwise would have returned large and old just aren’t making it that long.”
Whatever the cause, this size shift has massive ramifications for people and the environment. Oke and her team calculated that catching smaller fish may have already slashed the value of Alaska’s commercial salmon fisheries by 21 percent. It’s also likely reduced the food available to subsistence fishers—many of whom rely on stores of salmon to get them through the long, harsh winter—by as much as 26 percent.
On the ecological side, the researchers estimated that smaller fish lay 16 percent fewer eggs, which could depress salmon populations in the future. And the salmon bring 28 percent fewer nutrients into the watersheds where they spawn, according to the study.
“After they breed and die, their carcasses actually fertilize freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems with these marine-derived nutrients that are really important and that get used by all kinds of animals, like bears and songbirds, and even taken up into trees.”
With no single factor to blame for shrinking salmon, there’s no obvious fix, Oke says. But there are still plenty of fish in the sea. They’re just smaller than they used to be.
— Julia Rosen
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]


scientificamerican--2020-08-29--175 Years of Scientific American: The Good, the Bad, and Debunking

This is Scientific American ’ s Science Talk , posted on August 29th , 2020 .
I ’ m Steve Mirsky .
And yesterday was the 175th anniversary of the publication of the first issue of Scientific American .
Our current issue , the September issue , looks at the history of the magazine , from the content to how the word usage has changed to how the look has evolved .
And on this episode of the podcast : That ’ s former Scientific American editor-in-chief John Rennie .
He gave a talk in 2008 to a group of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of our history .
I ’ ve also prepared a segment about a handful of the dumber things we ’ ve done since 1845 .
And we ’ ll also hear a segment sponsored by the Kavli Prize with legendary astrophysicist Alan Guth .
First , part of John Rennie ’ s talk , some of which ran as an episode of Science Talk back in 2008 .
Scientific American has been around since August 28th of 1845 .
It was just four pages long , four big newspaper-like pages ; it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it had poetry , and it had little reports on science and all kinds of things about that…But , you know , having been around since 1845 , this is a very long time obviously .
This is around since basically about the beginning of the second industrial revolution .
This is before the Civil War .
This is so early that we know that Thomas Edison read it as a boy and we know Thomas Edison read it as a boy because he came to the offices of the editors and told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the phonograph for the first time .
Having been around since 1845 , I mean Scientific American has been around since before airplanes , since before automobiles , since before x-rays , since before relativity , obviously .
It has been around since the discovery of electrons ; it has been around since before the germ theory of disease .
It has been around for a very long time , but it has not been around longer than stupidity and that is something that at some level , the editors and writers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during that very long history—and so I 'm going to try to show you just a few highlights , or lowlights as the case may be , of some of Scientific American 's experience with that .
The golden era of Scientific American 's involvement with anything like skepticism was really back in the late teens–1920s ; because during this time , Scientific American was involved with several different projects that were aimed at trying to debunk various things that were of questionable scientific accuracy .
One of them had to do with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critically at different areas of medical quackery , and to that end , this is maybe one that they are probably most famous for .
How many of you have ever heard of the electronic reactions of Abrams [ ERA ] ?
Not too many , probably .
These days it 's not very well-known—take my word for it .
However , at the time in the early 1920s , this was one of the major health fads sweeping the United States .
It was founded by Dr. Albert Abrams , who came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ultimately treatment for disease , and it was so compelling , it was so attractive to a lot of the United States that it actually started to win over different practitioners and the AMA started to see it as a major threat ; and they were mounting their own efforts to try to defeat the spread of the ERA .
And Scientific American was pulled in to try to help debunk this as well and so , let 's start by just taking about the ERA itself .
Dr. Abrams seems to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so ; he seems to have had this idea for approaching diagnosis that involved a device that he called the dynamizer .
This is the magic of how the ERA actually worked .
With the ERA , the patient would give a blood sample or could be a sample of pretty much anything indeed .
Over time , it started to become something so liberal that it went from just blood or other body fluids to the point where Abrams was saying that you could take handwriting or just pictures of people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be inserted into the dynamizer .
Then the wires from the dynamizer would then reach up and be attached to a healthy person , who would have to orient themselves facing west—because that was very important—and they would hold these things here and they would attach the other leads as necessary and then the practitioner would come up and would ( tapping sounds ) , palpate this control person 's belly and listen ( tapping sounds ) ; and from the sounds , he could determine what was wrong with the person who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you see , this is going to be scientific .
So some of you may want to , I guess , [ if ] you ask me to repeat this , I will , because it 's very complicated .
The electronic resonances associated with the diseased Adams would migrate up through the wires and would alter the electronic resonances of this person and so the practitioner could then listen to this and could determine it .
Now , why was [ it ] that he did n't just go and listen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't know , it 's not really clear ; but this was great because Abrams would sell these boxes for like $ 400 to people who [ we ] re licensed to become new ERA practitioners and the great thing was that part of the license was you were not for any reason allowed to open up the box and look inside .
( laughs ) Never could you look inside the box .
And so , you know , he was selling this , he was also then selling different sorts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the devices ; he was minting money .
He made millions of dollars in the early 1920s which was an appreciable sum of money .
Oh !
And this by the way : he did n't just stop with diagnosis , he also moved on to the area of treatment because of course if you can use these resonances to diagnose what 's wrong , by reversing the polarity using a device called the oscilloclast , which is kind of an inverted dynamizer , he could then actually correct the resonances and fix @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was great .
I mean after awhile , he was just fixing pretty much anything with this and he was even being used to , at some point , identify where people might be .
I mean , Abrams at one point did n't stop short of actually taking a photograph of someone and using his dynamizer to look at a map and figure out where that person might be .
Can you imagine why the health authorities thought this might actually be worth stopping ?
So Scientific American stepped into this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ERA , in which they painstakingly , laboriously looked at all the claims for it and treated it exactly the way ; it was a model of investigation , because they basically said , `` All right , Abrams would not cooperate with this , Abrams wanted nothing to do with it , but Scientific American found one practitioner who was willing to cooperate : Dr. X , as he is referred to in the magazine at the time , and Dr. X would consent to this . ''
And so Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how ERA works , this is what you 're supposed to do '' , and the panel Scientific American put together would then say , “ All right , if that 's the case , well let 's try this . ''
So they started them with this great test , in which they gave the ERA practitioner , Dr. X , they gave him a series of pure germ cultures in test tubes and basically said , `` So here it is , this is the purified causative agent of these ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what this is . ''
Because if you can certainly diagnose if someone has , say , syphilis in their bodies from this processing of blood sample and if we give you pure germ culture , you should certainly be able to identify it that way .
And Dr. X agreed that this was a good test , and he then deployed that and the results were actually amazing , because the results were that he did n't get any of them right ; he got all of them wrong .
In fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would 've imagined , that just [ by ] random chance you would 've thought he would 've gotten some of them right .
Well Dr. X did not take this lying down , because he looked at it and said , `` Oh !
Here 's the problem .
You see the labels that you 've written as—some of them have red ink—well the redness of the labels is interfering with the resonance . ''
So they changed that and they kept doing this .
They kept doing this over and over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time they would test it and [ the ] ERA would fail , then there was always some sort of excuse and they would correct for this and they would go back and do it again and again .
And they eventually got to the point where they did somehow find a dynamizer , and they just tore it open and looked inside and they determined that the dynamizer inside was , as you would probably have imagined , a complete rat 's nest of just wires—and in some cases [ they ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would just look complicated , if you even did peek inside .
Some of them did n't even connect to external leads on this thing .
So , after nine months , Scientific American finally came to its own conclusion on all of this .
And their verdict—and this was part of a much longer article denouncing all of this—but as you can see , it basically said , `` This committee finds that the claims advanced on behalf of the Electronic Reactions of Abrams and of electronic practice in general are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have no basis in fact .
In our opinion , the so-called electronic reactions do not occur and the so-called electronic treatments are without value . ''
It was a model example of a kind of thing I think we [ would ] all like to see , when it is possible to try to take some sort of medical quackery and subject it to good skeptical scrutiny all the way through .
Scientific American was not always so successful in this regard .
Because around the same time , another series @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was in looking at the spiritualism movement .
Spiritualism [ was ] very , very big at the time—lots of séances were going on—and Scientific American undertook a competition in which they basically , they were promising two $ 2,500 prizes to any spiritual medium who could demonstrate certain things , being able to demonstrate a physical manifestation to the satisfaction of the investigating board or could otherwise , I think , just show other sorts of proofs of this .
And they went through for months after months , really years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you know , blowing them up .
Harry Houdini was part of the team that would travel around with Scientific American .
I do n't believe that Arthur Conan Doyle was actually part of this , because of course he was little soft on the subject of spiritualism , but he was involved with this a lot as well , and there was one editor , Malcolm Bird , who was—wonderfully named , Malcolm Bird—who was the managing editor of Scientific American at the time , and it 's pretty clear when you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote of their attempts to bust these different séances , that Bird was kind of sympathetic to the spiritualist cause .
It was pretty clear that he actually in lot of cases , really wanted to find a ghost in some of these ; however , the board that they put together , the panel they would send to these séances never , you know , they found what they found—they kept finding fraud after fraud .
This all came to a head however , when it eventually came to look [ ing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spirit medium whose name was Mina Crandon , but she was generally referred to as Margery .
This became sort of the downfall of Scientific American 's ghost-busting crusade , because Margery was , you know ; she would have these various meetings in which she would just seemingly just would show amazing things and prove that she has had amazing contact with the spirit world , often through the medium of Walter—Walter who was the male voice who would speak through her at these times .
People were really quite impressed with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apparently—now this is something I 'm getting directly from Penn Jillette himself , because when he was telling the story back at the amazing meeting last year , Penn Jillette was actually able to elaborate on this because he had met and interviewed the granddaughter of Mina Crandon and the granddaughter was able to confirm certain things—Mina was kind of a looker , particularly by the times , and apparently she would do a lot of her séances in the nude .
( laughs ) This may have sort of softened some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ associated with this and that may in fact have actually affected [ the investigation ] .
When Scientific American 's investigative team showed up and actually started living in Crandon 's house in Boston , Malcolm Bird is just transfixed with Mina ; he just thinks she 's great .
When you read those accounts , he is strongly believing that he has finally , finally found the genuine article , and again , I would only cite what Penn Jillette told me about this : that apparently , according to Margery 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sleeping with all of them , which was convenient—not for Scientific American , however .
Because Scientific American was well on its way toward forking over those $ 5,000 in prize money .
But then it was prepared to do this , while Harry Houdini who was properly part of the team , was not there ; he was off on tour and he heard about the fact .
He was reading that it looked like Scientific American was closing in on doing this , and so he rushed back so he could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of them , and he 's there for the séance .
He is very upset that Malcolm Bird and other members of the panel seemed ready to award this , and in the middle of the séance at one point Harry Houdini , [ leaps ] to his feet and points to some evidence of fakery , and he is denouncing her right in the middle of it .
And Malcolm Bird [ leaps ] to his feet and starts to vigorously defend Mina 's honor , which lead [ s ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then a fistfight of some sort ( laughs ) that broke out between Harry Houdini and Malcolm Bird ; and I think it is probably an excess of my own imagination that imagines [ the fight ] spilling out into the street somehow , because I really ca n't imagine that in a fistfight between Harry Houdini and Malcolm Bird that it would last very long .
However , it was enough to pretty much destroy the ghost-busting attempts of Scientific American at that point .
So we never actually gave out the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Rennie was the seventh editor in chief in Scientific American history .
He ’ s now at Quanta Magazine .
It ’ s been my great good fortune to be at SciAm during his tenure as well as his successors , Mariette DiChristina , now dean of the College of Communications at Boston University , and the recently arrived Laura Helmuth , late of the Washington Post .
Alan Guth is also part of Scientific American ’ s history .
In 1984 , he and Paul Steinhardt published a seminal article titled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a short segment , about six minutes , with Guth , sponsored by the Kavli Prize .
In 2009 Guth was part of a panel discussion at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science .
I ran highlights of that roundtable on this podcast .
Just search for “ Stars of Cosmology ” parts 1 and 2 to get his and his colleagues ’ thoughts on the state of cosmology .
In 175 years you make some errors .
And in the current issue of the magazine , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an article that holds our own feet to the fire about some of the more important errors that this publication has made in the last 175 years .
I , on the other hand , took a few minutes to research some of the less important errors we ’ ve made in the last 175 years .
Way back in 1846 , we shared a terrible notion about boat propellers .
“ It is truly astonishing , ” we wrote , “ that men of capital in England persist in keeping themselves so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Mechanics , as to suppose that a propeller of any form on the screw principle , can compete with the simple Fultonian paddle-wheel.
” What we missed was that as a ship rolls , more of one side of the paddle is submerged , causing that side to put out more power .
The steering issue that results is just one reason for the lack today of paddle-driven aircraft carriers .
Our original take on propellers was clearly a bad spin .
In 1869 we had ideas for a better way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a suspension bridge .
“ J .
W. Morse has devised a bridge which permits of a much lighter construction than a normal suspension bridge and is , consequently , much cheaper to build .
Mr. Morse 's project provides for transportation across the river in a giant platform , suspended by means of cables from a trolley running upon a gantry across the river…the fact that the traveler hangs only 3 feet above the water—and hence is almost at street-level—makes it easy for heavily loaded wagons to cross the river , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returning home on foot after a hard day 's toil in the factory or warehouse.
” As far as I ’ m concerned , if there ’ s anything worse than being 130 feet above the East River it ’ s being 3 feet above the East River .
As you heard from John Rennie , Scientific American in the 1920 ’ s was enthusiastic about debunking séance holders who claimed to communicate with the dead .
But in 1923 we advocated that some mediums—not “ the blatant fraud who swindles widows out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ from their deceased husbands ” —should get compensated for their services .
“ For after all , even a medium must live .
Nobody has ever suggested that the doctor ought to have a job , on the side , as carpenter or hack driver , earning his living from this and giving such time as he can spare from it to the gratuitous healing of disease…the medium , to the people he serves , gives just as real a service as does the doctor…why ask him to give it for nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here at Scientific American are all out of even any small medium largesse .
We weren ’ t all that worried about our own income either , at least in 1849 .
In May of that year we apologized to the readership for bombarding them with two-and-a-half columns of ads .
In the entire issue .
In 1915 we took stock and set forth a stance we still maintain , “ Time and the increasing importance of advertising in modern journalism changed that haughty attitude.
” It ’ s 2020 and we still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( And if human beings ’ driving ability on the ground is any indication , thank goodness . )
But back in 1915 we were looking forward to transparent planes : “ Military authorities await with great interest the development of the new French invisible aeroplane…over the [ aluminum ] framework , instead of canvas , is stretched a transparent material…called ‘ cellon , ’ …a chemical combination of cellulose and acetic acid .
Of almost the same transparency as glass , it does not crack or splinter and has the toughness and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And which is why it ’ s used today for eyeglass frames .
Of course , we can ’ t say for sure that there are no French invisible airplanes .
In 1913 , we reported on the discovery of the fossil skull from that came to known as Piltdown Man : “ In Piltdown Common , Sussex , England , an English paleontologist , Mr. Dawson , discovered , about a year ago , a fairly complete human skull representing the most ancient relic of the human race in the British @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found anywhere.
” And two years later we ran a scholarly analysis of the find , by Professor W.P .
Pycraft of the British Museum .
In that piece , titled Mankind in the Making : The Direct Ancestor of the Modern Man and What He Looked Like , Pycraft wrote , “ While the skull is essentially human , that is to say , it is the skull of a member of the genus Homo , though representing a man of low grade , the jaw , on the other hand , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost that of an ape.
” Piltdown Man was eventually revealed to be a hoax , made of parts of a human skull and an orangutan jaw—when Pycraft said the jaw was “ almost that of an ape ” he was almost right .
Finally , in 1883 we thought that nobody would really want telephones : “ Despite the fact that recent experiments have demonstrated the possibility of telephoning over long circuits , it is to be doubted if the instrument will be used otherwise than locally ... there is no system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Morse code , as interpreted by the sounder…by telephone , it is the sound of a word and not its vowel and consonants which the operator receives and a mistake can easily happen even out of the best conditions.
” Well , yes , that ’ s why the game is called telephone .
Actually , we might ultimately have been somewhat right—with the advent of texting many of us apparently prefer those mini-telegrams to talking .
As comedian Gary Gulman put it , “ To me the phone is just this seldom-used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s it for this episode , get your science news at our website , www.scientificamerican.com .
Where all of our coronavirus coverage is out from behind the paywall , available free .
And follow us on Twitter , where you ’ ll get a tweet whenever a new item hits the website .
Our twitter name is @ sciam .
For Scientific American ’ s Science Talk , I ’ m Steve Mirsky , thanks for clicking on us .

Full Transcript
This is Scientific American’s Science Talk, posted on August 29, 2020. I’m Steve Mirsky. And yesterday was the 175th anniversary of the publication of the first issue of Scientific American. Our current issue, the September issue, looks at the history of the magazine, from the content to how the word usage has changed to how the look has evolved. And on this episode of the podcast:
[RENNIE CLIIP]
That’s former Scientific American editor in chief John Rennie. He gave a talk in 2008 to a group of New York City skeptics that went into some of our history. I’ve also prepared a segment about a handful of the dumber things we’ve done since 1845. And we’ll also hear a segment sponsored by the Kavli Prize with legendary astrophysicist Alan Guth. First, part of John Rennie’s talk, some of which ran as an episode of Science Talk back in 2008.
John Rennie:
Scientific American has been around since August 28th of 1845. It was just four pages long, four big newspaper-like pages; it had lots of old patent announcements and it had poetry, and it had little reports on science and all kinds of things about that…But, you know, having been around since 1845, this is a very long time obviously. This is around since basically about the beginning of the second industrial revolution. This is before the Civil War. This is so early that we know that Thomas Edison read it as a boy and we know Thomas Edison read it as a boy because he came to the offices of the editors and told them when he was demonstrating his invention of the phonograph for the first time. Having been around since 1845, I mean Scientific American has been around since before airplanes, since before automobiles, since before x-rays, since before relativity, obviously. It has been around since the discovery of the electrons; it has been around since before the germ theory of disease. It has been around for a very long time, but it has not been around longer than stupidity and that is something that at some level, the editors and writers for Scientific American have always dealt with during that very long history—and so I'm going to try to show you just a few highlights, or lowlights as the case may be, of some of Scientific American's experience with that.
The golden era of Scientific American's involvement with anything like skepticism was really back in the late teens–1920s; because during this time, Scientific American was involved with several different projects that were aimed at trying to debunk various things that were of questionable scientific accuracy. One of them had to do with a whole area; it looked very critically at different areas of medical quackery, and to that end, this is maybe one that they are probably most famous for. How many of you have ever heard of the electronic reactions of Abrams [ERA]? Not too many, probably. These days it's not very well-known—take my word for it. However, at the time in the early 1920s, this was one of the major health fads sweeping the United States. It was founded by Dr. Albert Abrams, who came up with this radiological approach to diagnosis and ultimately treatment for disease, and it was so compelling, it was so attractive to a lot of the United States that it actually started to win over different practitioners and the AMA started to see it as a major threat; and they were mounting their own efforts to try to defeat the spread of the ERA. And Scientific American was pulled in to try to help debunk this as well and so, let's start by just taking about the ERA itself. Dr. Abrams seems to have hit about something around 1916 or so; he seems to have had this idea for approaching diagnosis that involved a device that he called the dynamizer.
This is the magic of how the ERA actually worked. With the ERA, the patient would give a blood sample or could be a sample of pretty much anything indeed. Over time, it started to become something so liberal that it went from just blood or other body fluids to the point where Abrams was saying that you could take handwriting or just pictures of people, and that would be taken and would be inserted into the dynamizer. Then the wires from the dynamizer would then reach up and be attached to a healthy person, who would have to orient themselves facing west—because that was very important—and they would hold these things here and they would attach the other leads as necessary and then the practitioner would come up and would (tapping sounds), palpate this control person's belly and listen (tapping sounds); and from the sounds, he could determine what was wrong with the person who had given the blood sample because, you see, this is going to be scientific. So some of you may want to, I guess, [if] you ask ed me to repeat this, I will, because it's very complicated. The electronic resonances associated with the diseased Adams would migrate up through the wires and would alter the electronic resonances of this person and so the practitioner could then listen to this and could determine it.
Now, why was [it] that he didn't just go and listen to the diseased person, I actually don't know, even it's not really clear; but this was great because Abrams would sell these boxes for like $400 to people who a [we]re licensed to become new ERA practitioners and the great thing was that part of the license was you were not for any reason allowed to open up the box and look inside. (laughs) Never could you look inside the box. And so, you know, he was selling this, he was also then selling different sorts of seminars, teaching people how to use the devices; he was minting money. He made millions of dollars in the early 1920s which was an appreciable sum of money. Oh! And this by the way: he didn't just stop with diagnosis, he also moved on to the area of treatment because of course if you can use these resonances to diagnose what's wrong, by reversing the polarity using a device called the oscilloclast, which is kind of an inverted dynamizer, he could then actually correct the resonances and fix whatever was wrong with you. And it was great.
I mean after awhile, he was just fixing pretty much anything with this and he was even being used to, at some point, identify where people might be. I mean, Abrams at one point didn't stop short of actually taking a photograph of someone and using his dynamizer to look at a map and figure out where that person might be. Can you imagine why the health authorities thought this might actually be worth stopping? So Scientific American stepped into this and they undertook a nine-month investigation of the ERA, in which they painstakingly, laboriously looked at all the claims for it and treated it exactly the way; it was a model of investigation, because they basically said, "All right, Abrams would not cooperate with this, Abrams wanted nothing to do with it, but Scientific American found one practitioner who was willing to cooperate: Dr. X, as he is referred to in the magazine at the time, and Dr. X would consent to this." And so Dr. X would say, "This is how ERA works, this is what you're supposed to do", and the panel of Scientific American put together would then say, “All right, if that's the case, well let's try this."
So they started them with this great test, in which they gave the ERA practitioner, Dr. X, they gave him a series of pure germ cultures in test tubes and basically said, "So here it is, this is the purified causative agent of these; it's unlabeled, just tell us what this is." Because if you can certainly diagnose if someone has, say, syphilis in their bodies from this processing of blood sample and if we give you pure germ culture, you should certainly be able to identify it that way. And Dr. X agreed that this was a good test, and he then deployed that and the results were actually amazing, because the results were that he didn't get any of them right; he got all of them wrong. In fact, he actually—it was beyond what you would've imagined, that just [by] random chance you would've thought he would've gotten some of them right. Well Dr. X did not take this lying down, because he looked at it and said, "Oh! Here's the problem. You see the labels that you've written as—some of them have red ink—well the redness of the labels is interfering with the resonance."
So they changed that and they kept doing this. They kept doing this over and over again, month after month. Every time they would test it and [the] ERA would fail, then there was always some sort of excuse and they would correct for this and they would go back and do it again and again. And they eventually got to the point where they did somehow find a dynamizer, and they just tore it open and looked inside and they determined that the dynamizer inside was, as you would probably have imagined, a complete rat's nest of just wires—and in some cases [they] weren't connected to anything. It would just look complicated, if you even did peek inside. Some of them didn't even connect to external leads on this thing.
So, after nine months, Scientific American finally came to its own conclusion on all of this. And their verdict—and this was part of a much longer article denouncing all of this—but as you can see, it basically said, "This committee finds that the claims advanced on behalf of the Electronic Reactions of Abrams and of electronic practice in general are not substantiated and it is our belief that they have no basis in fact. In our opinion, the so-called electronic reactions do not occur and the so-called electronic treatments are without value." It was a model example of a kind of thing I think we could [would] all like to see, when it is possible to try to take some sort s of medical quackery and subject it to good skeptical scrutiny all the way through.
Scientific American was not always so successful in this regard. Because around the same time, another series of things that it was involved with was in looking at the spiritualism movement. Spiritualism [was] very, very big at the time—lots of séances were going on—and Scientific American undertook a competition in which they basically, they were promising two $2,500 prizes to any spiritual medium who could demonstrate certain things, of being able to demonstrate a physical manifestation to the satisfaction of the investigating board or could otherwise, I think, just show other sorts of proofs of this. And they went through for months after months, really years, looking at different mediums and just, you know, blowing them up. Harry Houdini was part of the team that would travel around with Scientific American. I don't believe that Arthur Conan Doyle was actually part of this, because of course he was little soft on the subject of spiritualism, but he was involved with this a lot as well, and there was one editor, Malcolm Bird, who was—wonderfully named, Malcolm Bird—who was the managing editor of Scientific American at the time, and it's pretty clear when you read back through the accounts that they wrote of their attempts to bust these different séances, that Bird was kind of sympathetic to the spiritualist cause. It was pretty clear that he actually in lot of cases, really wanted to find a ghost in some of these; however, the board that they put together, the panel they would send to these séances never, you know, they found what they found—they kept finding fraud after fraud.
This all came to a head however, when it eventually came to look[ing] at the case of a famous spirit medium whose name was Mina Crandon, but she was generally referred to as Margery. This became sort of the downfall of Scientific American's ghost-busting crusade, because Margery was, you know; she would have these various meetings in which she would just seemingly just would show amazing things and prove that she has had amazing contact with the spirit world, often through the medium of Walter—Walter who was the male voice who would speak through her at these times. People were really quite impressed with the job that she was doing and apparently—now this is something I'm getting directly from Penn Jillette himself, because when he was telling the story back at the amazing meeting last year, Penn Jillette was actually able to elaborate on this because he had met and interviewed the granddaughter of Mina Crandon and the granddaughter was able to confirm certain things—Mina was kind of a looker, particularly by the times, and apparently she would do a lot of her séances in the nude. (laughs) This may have sort of softened some of the skepticism (laughs) that was associated with this and that may in fact have actually affected [the investigation]. When Scientific American's investigative team showed up and actually started living in the Crandon's house in Boston, Malcolm Bird is just transfixed with Mina; he just thinks she's great.
When you read those accounts, he is strongly believing that he has finally, finally found the genuine article, and again, I would only cite what Penn Jillette told me about this: that apparently, according to Margery's granddaughter, yes, she really was sleeping with all of them, which was convenient—not for Scientific American, however. Because Scientific American was well on its way toward forking over those $5,000 in prize money. But then it was prepared to do this, while Harry Houdini who was properly part of the team, was not there; he was off on tour and he heard about the fact. He was reading that it looked like Scientific American was closing in on doing this, and so he rushed back so he could be there for another séance that involved all of them, and he's there for the séance. He is very upset that Malcolm Bird and other members of the panel seemed ready to award this, and in the middle of the séance at one point Harry Houdini, leaks [leaps] to his feet and points to some evidence of fakery, and he is denouncing her right in the middle of it. And Malcolm Bird leaks [leaps] to his feet and starts to vigorously defend Mina's honor, which lead[s] to what I get the impression was then a fistfight of some sort (laughs) that broke out between Harry Houdini and Malcolm Bird; and I think it is probably an excess of my own imagination that imagines [the fight] spilling out into the street somehow, because I really can't imagine that in a fistfight between Harry Houdini and Malcolm Bird that it would last very long. However, it was enough to pretty much destroy the ghost-busting attempts of Scientific American at that point. So we never actually gave out the $5,000 in prizes. Yay!
Steve Mirsky:
John Rennie was the seventh editor in chief in Scientific American history. He’s now at Quanta Magazine. It’s been my great good fortune to be at SciAm during his tenure as well as his successors, Mariette DiChristina, now dean of the College of Communications at Boston University, and the recently arrived Laura Helmuth, late of the Washington Post.
Alan Guth is also part of Scientific American’s history. In 1984, he and Paul Steinhardt published a seminal article titled “The Inflationary Universe.” Here’s a short segment, about six minutes, with Guth, sponsored by the Kavli Prize.
[GUTH KAVLI SEGMENT]
In 2009 Guth was part of a panel discussion at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. I ran highlights of that roundtable on this podcast. Just search for “Stars of Cosmology” parts 1 and 2 to get his and his colleagues’ thoughts on the state of cosmology.
In 175 years you make some errors. And in the current issue of the magazine, the September issue, there’s an article that holds our own feet to the fire about some of the more important errors that this publication has made in the last 175 years. I, on the other hand, took a few minutes to research some of the less important errors we’ve made in the last 175 years.
Way back in 1846, we shared a terrible notion about boat propellers. “It is truly astonishing,” we wrote, “that men of capital in England persist in keeping themselves so totally ignorant of the plain philosophical principles of Mechanics, as to suppose that a propeller of any form on the screw principle, can compete with the simple Fultonian paddle-wheel.” What we missed was that as a ship rolls, more of one side of the paddle is submerged, causing that side to put out more power. The steering issue that results is just one reason for the lack today of paddle-driven aircraft carriers. Our original take on propellers was clearly a bad spin.
In 1869 we had ideas for a better way to get between Manhattan and Brooklyn than by a suspension bridge. “J. W. Morse has devised a bridge which permits of a much lighter construction than a normal suspension bridge and is, consequently, much cheaper to build. Mr. Morse's project provides for transportation across the river in a giant platform, suspended by means of cables from a trolley running upon a gantry across the river…the fact that the traveler hangs only 3 feet above the water—and hence is almost at street-level—makes it easy for heavily loaded wagons to cross the river, and will also be appreciated by the workman returning home on foot after a hard day's toil in the factory or warehouse.” As far as I’m concerned, if there’s anything worse than being 130 feet above the East River it’s being 3 feet above the East River.
As you heard from John Rennie, Scientific American in the 1920’s was enthusiastic about debunking séance holders who claimed to communicate with the dead. But in 1923 we advocated that some mediums—not “the blatant fraud who swindles widows out of their insurance money through ‘messages’ from their deceased husbands”—should get compensated for their services. “For after all, even a medium must live. Nobody has ever suggested that the doctor ought to have a job, on the side, as carpenter or hack driver, earning his living from this and giving such time as he can spare from it to the gratuitous healing of disease…the medium, to the people he serves, gives just as real a service as does the doctor…why ask him to give it for nothing?” A century later, we here at Scientific American are all out of even any small medium largesse.
We weren’t all that worried about our own income either, at least in 1849. In May of that year we apologized to the readership for bombarding them with two-and-a-half columns of ads. In the entire issue. In 1915 we took stock and set forth a stance we still maintain, “Time and the increasing importance of advertising in modern journalism changed that haughty attitude.”
It’s 2020 and we still don’t have flying cars. (And if human beings’ driving ability on the ground is any indication, thank goodness.) But back in 1915 we were looking forward to transparent planes: “Military authorities await with great interest the development of the new French invisible aeroplane…over the [aluminum] framework, instead of canvas, is stretched a transparent material…called ‘cellon,’…a chemical combination of cellulose and acetic acid. Of almost the same transparency as glass, it does not crack or splinter and has the toughness and pliability of rubber.” Which is true. And which is why it’s used today for eyeglass frames. Of course, we can’t say for sure that there are no French invisible airplanes.
In 1913, we reported on the discovery of the fossil skull from that came to known as Piltdown Man: “In Piltdown Common, Sussex, England, an English paleontologist, Mr. Dawson, discovered, about a year ago, a fairly complete human skull representing the most ancient relic of the human race in the British Isles, and one of the oldest found anywhere.” And two years later we ran a scholarly analysis of the find, by Professor W. P. Pycraft of the British Museum. In that piece, titled “Mankind in the Making: The Direct Ancestor of the Modern Man and What He Looked Like, ”Pycraft wrote, “While the skull is essentially human, that is to say, it is the skull of a member of the genus Homo, though representing a man of low grade, the jaw, on the other hand, as we have already remarked, is almost that of an ape.” Piltdown Man was eventually revealed to be a hoax, made of parts of a human skull and an orangutan jaw—when Pycraft said the jaw was “almost that of an ape” he was almost right.
Finally, in 1883 we thought that nobody would really want telephones: “Despite the fact that recent experiments have demonstrated the possibility of telephoning over long circuits, it is to be doubted if the instrument will be used otherwise than locally...there is no system of signals as clear as the present Morse code, as interpreted by the sounder…by telephone, it is the sound of a word and not its vowel and consonants which the operator receives and a mistake can easily happen even out of the best conditions.” Well, yes, that’s why the game is called telephone. Actually, we might ultimately have been somewhat right—with the advent of texting many of us apparently prefer those mini-telegrams to talking. As comedian Gary Gulman put it, “To me the phone is just this seldom-used app on my phone.”
That’s it for this episode, get your science news at our Web site: www.ScientificAmerican.com, where all of our coronavirus coverage is out from behind the paywall, available free.
And follow us on Twitter, where you’ll get a tweet whenever a new item hits the Web site. Our twitter name is @sciam. For Scientific American’s Science Talk, I’m Steve Mirsky. Thanks for clicking on us.


scientificamerican--2020-08-29--What Climate Change Does to the Human Body

The wildfire season is off to a roaring start .
The hot summer is worsening drought and drying out vegetation—an unfortunately ideal environment for wildfires to rage .
But that ’ s just one consequence of global warming ; it ’ s also leading to flooding , torrential rainstorms and heat-related deaths .
In fact , the climate crisis has led to a widespread public health crisis .
And as an ear , nose and throat physician , I see the effects more and more often .
I vividly remember a patient who came in late for her appointment during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ walked in , she said , “ I ’ m so sorry I ’ m late , I was up all night walking my grandbaby around the train station.
” Without air conditioning at home , the child was sweating through her clothes in the heat of the night , putting her at risk for dehydration .
July 2019 was the hottest July on record ; September 2019 was the hottest on record ; January 2020 was the hottest on record ; May 2020 was the hottest on record .
This is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Carbon dioxide , an important greenhouse gas contributing to global warming , has increased by 9 percent since 2005 and by 31 percent since 1950 .
A U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change special report pointed out that the world has already warmed about one degree Celsius from pre-industrial levels .
It stressed the urgency to act to limit warming to 1.5 degrees , and that a two-degree increase will lead to unprecedented extreme heat , water scarcity and food shortages around the globe .
Heat affects every part of our body @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , heat stroke , anxiety , impaired cognitive function and even premature death from heart and lung disease .
Across the country , the health concerns of the climate crisis are increasingly being recognized , pushing thousands of medical providers—doctors , nurses , pharmacists , therapists , medical students—to become advocates for change .
In my own practice , I explain to patients how the climate crisis affects their health .
For example , apart from contributing to global warming , rising carbon dioxide levels increase the amount of pollen that plants produce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ photosynthesis .
This rise in pollen levels can lead to worsening allergy symptoms .
Another example is fine particulate matter ( known as PM ) associated with air pollution , much of it linked to the burning of fossil fuels that help drive the warming .
When we breathe in these particles , they travel down the airway and settle in the tiny air sacs called alveoli of the lungs , causing inflammation and potentially worsening asthma symptoms .
The explanations are simple , but the health risks are widespread and complex .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in hotter weather , can also harm people with asthma and other respiratory diseases .
And that harm falls disproportionately on the poor .
Wealthier people living in North America have a per capita carbon footprint that is 25 percent higher than those of lower-income residents , with some affluent suburbs producing emissions 15 times higher than nearby neighborhoods .
These carbon emissions contribute to global warming , and the subsequent health consequences are felt far beyond the neighborhood that produces them .
Older adults , children , low-income communities and communities of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the health impacts of climate change .
The climate crisis is thus leading to a disproportionate public health crisis—and worse , it is a threat multiplier .
At a time when many Americans are economically challenged , continued heat waves and the higher energy bills they trigger threaten access to water and energy security .
The economic benefits of a low-carbon economy are clear .
Estimates suggest that without climate investments , the United States will face economic damage from climate change equivalent to 1–3 percent of GDP per year by 2100 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is happening .
The climate crisis has unfairly been labeled as political , when in fact , people recognize that something needs to be done about it .
Even for those who are seemingly unaffected , there is increasing global recognition that the safeguards of living in a protected community and affording expert medical care will eventually fail if global warming continues unchecked .
Unfortunately , there will be no vaccine in six months or a year for the climate crisis .
The only treatment is collective climate action in the present .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders , and we must mandate it of ourselves .
It can be as simple as educating family and friends , while making sustainable shopping and traveling choices .
It includes eating less meat , unplugging electronics and raising a voice against the fossil fuel industry .
With a rise in demand for absentee ballots for the election this November , it is crucial to request mail-in ballots right away to make sure our voices are heard .
The United States is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases , and we must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and policy change work , as evidenced by the Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments , which are projected to save 230,000 lives in 2020 .
The climate crisis is a public health issue , and we must start healing the planet in order to heal each other .
Fighting against the climate crisis is one of the most patriotic things we can do right now ; it will protect our health and the health of our neighbors across the country and the globe , and will allow all of us to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home we have .

The wildfire season is off to a roaring start. The hot summer is worsening drought and drying out vegetation—an unfortunately ideal environment for wildfires to rage. But that’s just one consequence of global warming; it’s also leading to flooding, torrential rainstorms and heat-related deaths. In fact, the climate crisis has led to a widespread public health crisis. And as an ear, nose and throat physician, I see the effects more and more often.
I vividly remember a patient who came in late for her appointment during a July heat wave. When I walked in, she said, “I’m so sorry I’m late, I was up all night walking my grandbaby around the train station.” Without air conditioning at home, the child was sweating through her clothes in the heat of the night, putting her at risk for dehydration.
July 2019 was the hottest July on record; September 2019 was the hottest on record; January 2020 was the hottest on record; May 2020 was the hottest on record. This is not a coincidence. It is a pattern. Carbon dioxide, an important greenhouse gas contributing to global warming, has increased by 9 percent since 2005 and by 31 percent since 1950. A U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change special report pointed out that the world has already warmed about one degree Celsius from pre-industrial levels. It stressed the urgency to act to limit warming to 1.5 degrees, and that a two-degree increase will lead to unprecedented extreme heat, water scarcity and food shortages around the globe.
Heat affects every part of our body. It can lead to heat exhaustion, heat stroke, anxiety, impaired cognitive function and even premature death from heart and lung disease. Across the country, the health concerns of the climate crisis are increasingly being recognized, pushing thousands of medical providers—doctors, nurses, pharmacists, therapists, medical students—to become advocates for change.
In my own practice, I explain to patients how the climate crisis affects their health. For example, apart from contributing to global warming, rising carbon dioxide levels increase the amount of pollen that plants produce as a consequence of higher rates of photosynthesis. This rise in pollen levels can lead to worsening allergy symptoms. Another example is fine particulate matter (known as PM 2.5 ) associated with air pollution, much of it linked to the burning of fossil fuels that help drive the warming. When we breathe in these particles, they travel down the airway and settle in the tiny air sacs called alveoli of the lungs, causing inflammation and potentially worsening asthma symptoms. The explanations are simple, but the health risks are widespread and complex. Ground-level ozone pollution, which is worse in hotter weather, can also harm people with asthma and other respiratory diseases.
And that harm falls disproportionately on the poor. Wealthier people living in North America have a per capita carbon footprint that is 25 percent higher than those of lower-income residents, with some affluent suburbs producing emissions 15 times higher than nearby neighborhoods. These carbon emissions contribute to global warming, and the subsequent health consequences are felt far beyond the neighborhood that produces them. Older adults, children, low-income communities and communities of color are less resilient on average to the health impacts of climate change.
The climate crisis is thus leading to a disproportionate public health crisis—and worse, it is a threat multiplier. At a time when many Americans are economically challenged, continued heat waves and the higher energy bills they trigger threaten access to water and energy security. The economic benefits of a low-carbon economy are clear. Estimates suggest that without climate investments, the United States will face economic damage from climate change equivalent to 1–3 percent of GDP per year by 2100.
The majority of Americans think global warming is happening. The climate crisis has unfairly been labeled as political, when in fact, people recognize that something needs to be done about it. Even for those who are seemingly unaffected, there is increasing global recognition that the safeguards of living in a protected community and affording expert medical care will eventually fail if global warming continues unchecked. Unfortunately, there will be no vaccine in six months or a year for the climate crisis. The only treatment is collective climate action in the present.
Climate action is required of our elected leaders, and we must mandate it of ourselves. It can be as simple as educating family and friends, while making sustainable shopping and traveling choices. It includes eating less meat, unplugging electronics and raising a voice against the fossil fuel industry. With a rise in demand for absentee ballots for the election this November, it is crucial to request mail-in ballots right away to make sure our voices are heard. The United States is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and we must vote for green policy. Legislative action and policy change work, as evidenced by the Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments, which are projected to save 230,000 lives in 2020.
The climate crisis is a public health issue, and we must start healing the planet in order to heal each other. Fighting against the climate crisis is one of the most patriotic things we can do right now; it will protect our health and the health of our neighbors across the country and the globe, and will allow all of us to live on this planet, the only home we have.