scientificamerican--2020-10-20--Debunking the False Claim That COVID Death Counts Are Inflated

A persistent falsehood has been circulating on social media : the number of COVID deaths is much lower than the official statistic of more than 218,000 , and therefore the danger of the disease has been overblown .
In August President Trump retweeted a post claiming that only 6 percent of these reported deaths were actually from COVID-19 .
( The tweet originated from a follower of the debunked conspiracy fantasy QAnon . )
Twitter removed the post for containing false information , but fabrications such as these continue to spread .
U.S. Representative Roger Marshall of Kansas complained in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which he claimed that 94 percent of COVID-19 deaths reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “ were the result of 2-3 additional serious illnesses and were of advanced age.
” Now some facts : Researchers know beyond a doubt that the number of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. have surpassed 200,000 .
These numbers are supported by three lines of evidence , including death certificates .
The inaccurate idea that only 6 percent of the deaths were really caused by the coronavirus is “ a gross misinterpretation ” of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anderson , lead mortality statistician at the CDC ’ s National Center for Health Statistics .
The scope of the coronavirus ’ s deadly toll is clear , even if final numbers will not be known until the pandemic is over .
“ We ’ re pretty confident about the scale and order of magnitude of deaths , but we ’ re not clear on the exact number yet , ” says Justin Lessler , an infectious disease epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health .
To understand why the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important to know how they are collected and calculated .
The first source of death data is called case surveillance .
Health care providers are required to report cases and deaths from certain diseases , including measles , mumps and now COVID-19 , to their state ’ s health department , which , in turn , passes this information along to the CDC , Anderson says .
The surveillance data are a kind of “ quick and dirty ” accounting , says Shawna Webster , executive director of the National Association for Public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states gather all the information they can on these diseases , but this is the first pass of the accounting—no one has time to double-check the information or look for missing lab tests , she says .
For that , you have to look for the next source of information : vital records .
This second line of evidence comes from the National Vital Statistics System , which records birth and death certificates .
When somebody dies , a death certificate is filed in the state where the death occurred .
And after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ level , they are sent to the National Center for Health Statistics , which tracks deaths at a national level .
Death certificates are not filed in the system until outstanding test results are in and the information is as complete as possible .
By the time a record gets to the vital records system , “ it is as close to perfect as it ’ s going to get , ” Webster says .
A physician , medical examiner or coroner fills out the cause of mortality on the death certificate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those conditions that caused or contributed to death , Anderson says .
One field lists the sequence of events leading to the death .
“ What we ’ re really trying to get at is the condition or disease that started the chain of events leading to the death , ” Anderson says .
“ For COVID-19 , that might be something like acute respiratory distress due to pneumonia due to COVID-19.
” A second part of the certificate lists other significant conditions that may have contributed to the death yet were not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ led up to it , he says .
These are called comorbidities , and while they can be contributing factors , they can not be directly involved in the chain of cause and effect that ended in death .
Preexisting medical conditions such as diabetes or heart disease are common comorbidities , and they can make a person more vulnerable to the coronavirus , Anderson says , “ but the fact is : they ’ re not dying from that preexisting condition.
” “ When we ask if COVID killed somebody , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they would have if they didn ’ t have the virus ?
’ ” Lessler says .
Even such a person with a potentially life-shortening preexisting condition such as heart disease or diabetes may have lived another five , 10 or many more years , had they not become infected with COVID-19 .
The 6 percent number touted by Trump and QAnon comes from a weekly CDC report stating that in 6 percent of the coronavirus mortality cases it counted , COVID-19 was the only condition listed on the death certificate .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were incomplete because the certifiers only gave the underlying cause of death and not the full causal sequence that led to it , Anderson says .
Even someone who does not have a preexisting condition and dies from COVID-19 will also have comorbidities in the form of symptoms , such as respiratory failure , caused by the coronavirus .
The idea that a death certificate with ailments listed in addition to COVID-19 means that the person did not really die from the virus is simply false , Anderson says .
The surveillance and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ picture of how many deaths are attributable to the coronavirus , but they do not capture all of them , and that is where the final line of evidence come in : excess deaths .
They are the number of deaths that occur above and beyond the historical pattern for that time period , says Steven Woolf , a physician and population health researcher at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine .
In a paper published in JAMA this month , Woolf and his colleagues examined death records in the U.S. from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them with the expected mortality numbers .
They found that there was a 20 percent increase in deaths during this time period—for a total of 225,530 excess deaths—compared with previous years .
Two thirds of these cases were attributed to COVID-19 on the death certificates , and Woolf says there are two types of explanations for the rest : Some of them were COVID-19 deaths that simply were not documented as such , perhaps because the person died at home and was never tested or because the certificate was miscoded .
And some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consequence of the pandemic yet not necessarily the virus itself .
For instance , he says , imagine a patient with chest pain who is scared to go to the hospital because they do not want to get the virus and then dies of a heart attack .
Woolf calls this “ indirect mortality.
” “ The deaths aren ’ t literally caused by the virus itself but the pandemic is claiming lives , ” he says .
The numbers in Woolf ’ s study come from provisional death data , the kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for miscoding or other issues , so it comes with some degree of imprecision .
What builds his confidence in these results , however , is the fact that they have been replicated numerous times by his group and others .
“ All serious analyses of these data are showing that the number of deaths we ’ re hearing on the news is an undercount , ” he says .
COVID-19 is now the third leading cause of death in the U.S .
Whether the number of lives cut short add up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CDC , Johns Hopkins University and the New York Times , respectively , on October 19—it ’ s a staggering number of lives cut short .
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here .
And read coverage from our international network of magazines here .

*Editor's Note (1/3/21): The number of COVID deaths in the U.S. is now more than 350,000, as of the beginning of January, according to the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center.
A persistent falsehood has been circulating on social media: the number of COVID deaths is much lower than official statistics, and therefore the danger of the disease has been overblown. In August, President Donald Trump retweeted a post claiming that only 6 percent of these reported deaths were actually from COVID-19. (The tweet originated from a follower of the debunked conspiracy fantasy QAnon.) Twitter removed the post for containing false information, but fabrications such as these continue to spread. In September outgoing U.S. Representative Roger Marshall of Kansas—now incoming senator—complained that Facebook had removed a post in which he claimed that 94 percent of COVID-19 deaths reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “were the result of 2-3 additional serious illnesses and were of advanced age.”
Now some facts: Researchers know beyond a doubt that the number of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. surpassed a quarter of a million people by November 2020. This number is supported by three lines of evidence, including death certificates. The inaccurate idea that only 6 percent of the deaths were really caused by the coronavirus is “a gross misinterpretation” of how death certificates work, says Robert Anderson, chief mortality statistician at the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics.
The scope of the coronavirus's deadly toll is clear, even if the exact toll varies by a small fraction depending on the reporting system. “We're pretty confident about the scale and order of magnitude of deaths, but we're not clear on the exact number yet,” says Justin Lessler, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. To understand why the figures converge, even if they contain some uncertainty, it is important to know how they are collected and calculated.
The first source of death data is called case surveillance. Health-care providers are required to report cases and deaths from certain diseases, including measles, mumps and now COVID-19, to state health departments, which pass this information along to the CDC, Anderson says. The surveillance data are a kind of “quick and dirty” accounting, says Shawna Webster, executive director of the National Association for Public Health Statistics and Information Systems. States gather all the information they can on these diseases, but this is the first pass—no one has time to double-check the information or look for missing laboratory tests, she says. For that, you have to look for the next source of information: vital records.
Credit: Youyou Zhou; Sources: U.S. Census, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Center for Health Statistics
Credit: Youyou Zhou; Sources: U.S. Census, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Center for Health Statistics
Credit: Youyou Zhou; Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics
This second line of evidence comes from the National Vital Statistics System, which records birth and death certificates. When somebody dies, a death certificate is filed in the state where the death occurred. After the records are registered at a state level, they are sent to the National Center for Health Statistics, which tracks deaths at a national level. Death certificates are not filed in the system until outstanding test results are in and the information is as complete as possible. By the time a record gets to the vital records system, “it is as close to perfect as it's going to get,” Webster says.
A physician, medical examiner or coroner fills out the cause of mortality on the death certificate. That specialist is instructed to include only conditions that caused or contributed to death, Anderson says. One field lists the sequence of events leading to the death. “What we're really trying to get at is the condition or disease that started the chain of events leading to the death,” Anderson says. “For COVID-19, that might be something like acute respiratory distress due to pneumonia due to COVID-19.” A second part of the certificate lists other conditions that may have contributed to the death yet were not part of the sequence of events that led up to it, he says. These are called comorbidities, and although they can be contributing factors, they cannot be directly involved in the chain of cause and effect that ended in death. Medical conditions such as diabetes or heart disease are common comorbidities, and they can make a person more vulnerable to the coronavirus, Anderson says, “but the fact is: they're not dying from that preexisting condition.”
“When we ask if COVID killed somebody, it means ‘Did they die sooner than they would have if they didn't have the virus?’” Lessler says. Even a person with a potentially life-shortening condition such as heart disease may have lived another five, 10 or more years, had they not become infected with COVID-19.
The 6 percent number touted by Trump and QAnon comes from a weekly CDC report stating that in 6 percent of the coronavirus mortality cases it counted, COVID-19 was the only condition listed on the death certificate. That observation most likely means that those death certificates were incomplete because the certifiers gave only the underlying cause of death and not the full causal sequence that led to it, Anderson says. Even someone who does not have another health condition and dies from COVID-19 will also have comorbidities in the form of symptoms, such as respiratory failure, caused by the coronavirus. The idea that a death certificate with ailments listed in addition to COVID-19 means that the person did not really die from the virus is simply false, Anderson says.
Medical personnel move a deceased patient to a refrigerated truck serving as a makeshift morgue at Brooklyn Hospital Center in New York City on April 9, 2020. Credit: Angela Weiss Getty Images
The surveillance and vital statistics data provide a pretty good picture of how many deaths are attributable to the coronavirus, but they do not capture all of them, and that is where the final line of evidence come in: excess deaths. They are the number of deaths that occur above and beyond the historical pattern for that time period, says Steven Woolf, a physician and population health researcher at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine. In a paper published in October 2020 in JAMA, Woolf and his colleagues examined death records in the U.S. from March 1 through August 1 and compared them with the expected mortality numbers. They found that there was a 20 percent increase in deaths during this time period—for a total of 225,530 excess deaths—compared with previous years.
Two thirds of these cases were attributed to COVID-19 on the death certificates, and Woolf says there are two types of explanations for the rest: Some of them were COVID-19 deaths that simply were not documented as such, perhaps because the person died at home and was never tested or because the certificate was miscoded. And some of the extra deaths were probably a consequence of the pandemic yet not necessarily of the virus itself. For instance, he says, imagine a patient with chest pain who is scared to go to the hospital because he or she does not want to get the virus and then dies of a heart attack. Woolf calls this “indirect mortality.” “The deaths aren't literally caused by the virus itself, but the pandemic is claiming lives,” he says.
The numbers in Woolf's study come from provisional death data, the kind that the CDC has not yet checked for miscoding or other issues. What builds his confidence in these results, however, is that they have been replicated numerous times by his group and others. “All serious analyses of these data are showing that the number of deaths we're hearing on the news is an undercount,” he says.
COVID-19 is now the third leading cause of death in the U.S., and the toll continues to rise as cases, hospitalizations and fatalities surge across the country. The complete number may never be known, even after the pandemic ends, but already it is a staggering number of lives cut short.


scientificamerican--2020-10-20--River Ecosystem Restoration Can Mean Just Add Water

In the 1800s , many rivers in the American West were diverted for irrigation or dammed for generating electricity .
So rapidly expanding cities began tapping into groundwater .
Add climate change into the mix , and you can see how an already arid desert can become even more parched .
The banks of the Santa Cruz River , in southeastern Arizona , were described in 1855 as `` covered with poplars and willows , ash trees and plantains , oaks and walnut trees . ''
But a century later the river was gone .
`` It was the original @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city is here . ''
Ecologist Michael Bogan from the University of Arizona .
Seventy years after it ran dry , the city of Tucson decided to release treated wastewater back into the riverbed .
Around 2.8 million gallons each day .
Bogan went to participate in the festivities when the valves were opened in June 2019 .
`` Everybody was splashing around in the water , excited to see water back in the river .
And what I immediately got sidetracked with was the number of dragonflies that I was seeing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ counted seven different species of dragonflies .
He even saw dragonflies and damselflies mating and laying eggs , at a river that had not existed earlier that day .
`` And so I was like , oh my gosh , I need to study this , this is so cool that these species are coming back so fast . ''
Just three months later , the Bogan 's team had documented roughly the same abundance and diversity of dragonflies that they ’ d seen in other parts of the river that have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mayflies and caddisflies .
These invertebrates are indicators of a healthy aquatic ecosystem .
The results are published in the journal PeerJ .
[ Michael T. Bogan et al .
If you build it , they will come : rapid colonization by dragonflies in a new effluent-dependent river reach ] '' Most important is just add water to these ecosystems .
The species will find a way to get back there if you just put water back into these systems that we 've dried up .
The longer you can put water , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in , that 's great for creating a more diverse habitat and a greater abundance of species .
But really the simple answer is just add water , that 's all we have to do to restore a lot of species . ''
Still , this is a manufactured ecosystem .
It 's not as if this artificially charged river is identical to the natural one that existed a century ago .
`` We like to call them managed ecosystems .
They do have a lot of natural aspects , these species are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But they rely on , in this case , the City of Tucson , and Tucson Water , for releasing that water .
Without the city doing that , they would have nothing . ''
Bogan calls on urban planners and city officials to collaborate with ecologists and biologists to maximize the beneficial effects of biodiversity while still achieving the goals of urban development .

Full Transcript
Reclaimed water brings biodiversity back to the Santa Cruz River. Credit: Rosemary Brandt College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Arizona
In the 1800s, many rivers in the American West were diverted for irrigation or dammed for generating electricity. So rapidly expanding cities began tapping into groundwater. Add climate change into the mix, and you can see how an already arid desert can become even more parched.
The banks of the Santa Cruz River in southeastern Arizona were described in 1855 as “covered with poplars and willows, ash trees and plantains, oaks and walnut trees.” But a century later the river was gone.
“It was the original river of Tucson and the reason the city is here.”
Ecologist Michael Bogan from the University of Arizona. Seventy years after it ran dry, the city of Tucson decided to release treated wastewater back into the riverbed—around 2.8 million gallons each day. Bogan went to participate in the festivities when the valves were opened in June 2019.
“Everybody was splashing around in the water, excited to see water back in the river. And what I immediately got sidetracked with was the number of dragonflies that I was seeing.”
Within a few hours, Bogan counted seven different species of dragonflies. He even saw dragonflies and damselflies mating and laying eggs—at a river that had not existed earlier that day.
“And so I was like, ‘Oh my gosh, I need to study this. This is so cool, that these species are coming back so fast.’”
Just three months later, the Bogan’s team had documented roughly the same abundance and diversity of dragonflies that they’d seen in other parts of the river that have been flowing for years. Also abundant were mayflies and caddis flies. These invertebrates are indicators of a healthy aquatic ecosystem. The results are published in the journal PeerJ. [Michael T. Bogan et al. If you build it, they will come: Rapid colonization by dragonflies in a new effluent-dependent river reach]
“Most important is: just add water to these ecosystems. The species will find a way to get back there if you just put water back into these systems that we’ve dried up. The longer you can put water, and the more water you can put in, that’s great for creating a more diverse habitat and a greater abundance of species. But really, the simple answer is: just add water; that’s all we have to do to restore a lot of species.”
Still, this is a manufactured ecosystem. It’s not as if this artificially charged river is identical to the natural one that existed a century ago.
“We like to call them managed ecosystems. They do have a lot of natural aspects, these species are coming in there on their own. But they rely on, in this case, the City of Tucson and Tucson Water for releasing that water. Without the city doing that, they would have nothing.”
Bogan calls on urban planners and city officials to collaborate with ecologists and biologists to maximize the beneficial effects of biodiversity while still achieving the goals of urban development.
—Jason G. Goldman
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]


scientificamerican--2020-10-20--California's Mega Fires Have Arrived 30 Years Early

Scientists predicted climate change would fuel the kind of devastating wildfires that California has seen this year .
Except it wasn ’ t expected to happen for decades .
A major analysis by state researchers projected that the amount of area burned by wildfire could jump 77 % by the end of the century .
Another study by UCLA warned that by 2050 fire on average would scorch twice as much land in Southern California .
A doubling happened this year , instead of three decades from now .
California blazes have blackened 4.1 million acres this year , compared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Gov .
Gavin Newsom ( D ) calls it a climate “ fast-forward ” and a warning for the nation , said Wade Crowfoot , the state Natural Resources Agency secretary .
“ Frankly , we ’ re alarmed because this wildfire destruction that we ’ re seeing in 2020 is the type of destruction that we anticipated experiencing later in the century , ” Crowfoot said in an interview .
In response , the state is boosting actions to curb greenhouse gas pollution faster than planned , Crowfoot said , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threats that we thought would get worse in coming decades , are worse already.
” The recent fires prompted Newsom to ban the sale of new gas-fueled cars in the state beginning in 2036 ( E & E News PM , Sept. 23 ) .
He also wants to preserve one-third of state lands and coastal waters to sequester greenhouse gas emissions ( Climatewire , Oct. 8 ) .
It takes place as climate change-heightened disasters arrive sooner than anticipated around the world , researchers said .
Arctic ice sheets are melting rapidly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ degrees Fahrenheit in July for the first time ( Climatewire , July 16 ) .
Along the U.S. East and Gulf coasts , the intensity of hurricanes has been increasing due to warming waters and higher sea levels .
Flooding in the Midwest last year devastated farms .
“ Whether it ’ s floods or fires , we ’ ve just seen big steps upwards in terms of the nature of the impacts , ” said Katharine Mach , a climate scientist with the University of Miami .
“ These impacts are taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t , necessarily , because we knew this type of thing would happen.
” Scientists blame warming for record-breaking temperatures , less dependable precipitation and reduced moisture in the air , factors that helped create a tinderbox in the West .
The landscape went up in flames when some 12,000 lightning strikes over one August weekend ignited more than 600 fires in Northern California .
Multiple studies warned that wildfires would burn significantly more land in the Golden State in years ahead .
The California Fourth Climate Change Assessment published last year found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blazes could leap 77 % over the next 80 years .
The UCLA study , which included researchers from the University of California , Irvine , saw earlier impacts .
Alex Hall , a climate scientist at UCLA , said the research outlined a gradual increase in fire severity leading up to the midcentury .
“ The massive increase in wildfire size and intensity that we have seen over the past five years , maybe , especially over the past two or three years , is not something that was predicted by climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fires .
When his paper was published in 2015 , he said , “ we thought we were being really apocalyptic ” by predicting that the amount of area burned would double by 2050 .
“ I was worried about making a prediction that was too scary , ” Hall said .
“ Turns out I should have been scarier.
” Climate researchers caution that it ’ s not scientifically appropriate to look at just one year and compare that to forecasts in climate studies .
Scientists look at potential changes over a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model simulations for earlier time frames , said Leroy Westerling , a professor with the University of California , Merced , whose research went into California ’ s Fourth Climate Change Assessment .
Contrasting that against one year ’ s fire damage is “ something of an apples-to-apricots comparison , ” he said .
California ’ s climate assessment relied on the findings of four climate models in its wildfire section , Westerling said .
Those were “ downscaled ” from global studies to get potential impacts in California .
The models represented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and other years that were warmer and drier .
But none included years with California ’ s 2012-2015 drought , which was “ the worst in at least the last 1,200 years , ” Westerling said .
Hall , with UCLA , called it “ a failure of climate science ” that studies didn ’ t foresee an earlier arrival of more extreme fires .
It happened in part , he said , because research has typically looked at how temperatures shaped historical fires and used that to project how further warming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But what ’ s happened historically has not proved a good yardstick .
“ What we ’ re seeing now are new types of behavior that have emerged as a result of climate change , ” Hall said , adding that this behavior was “ not seen in historical records.
” Local climate models traditionally looked at warming ’ s effects on air , water and soil , Hall said .
They haven ’ t folded in ecological effects such as California ’ s decadeslong practice of suppressing fires , which allowed forests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t include the invasion of bark beetles that killed hundreds of thousands of trees , making them more flammable , he said .
Climate science is complex , and “ one year does not make a trend , ” said Crowfoot , California ’ s Natural Resources Agency secretary .
But wildfires in recent years have shattered records for size , destruction and death toll .
“ We can conclude with great certainty that impacts of these climate-driven threats are accelerated or are happening much sooner than we thought , ” he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projections and finds a sort of ensemble average , which mutes extremes , said Max Moritz , wildfire specialist with the University of California Cooperative Extension .
Models also look at “ bookends ” such as a very wet or very dry future , “ because we don ’ t know which is most likely , ” he said .
“ It could be that instead of throwing out the extremes , we should be looking at these very , very unusual but devastating futures , ” Moritz added .
Climate scientists might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he said , because they “ want to deliver scenarios we can have policy and management responses to.
” There ’ s a concern that “ if you scare people with the most extreme projections , there might not be any response.
” Efforts at adaptation haven ’ t kept pace with accelerating climate impacts , said Mach , the University of Miami professor .
When Hurricane Harvey hit Texas and Louisiana in 2017 , hospitals had emergency plans to respond .
But there was a problem .
Many people couldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ roads .
In California , where fires have happened for centuries , one could ask why the state wasn ’ t more prepared , Mach said .
But it ’ s important to note climate change is just one part of the equation .
The state ’ s practice of suppressing most fires sharpened the risk .
And as housing prices soared , people built homes in more remote areas that are prone to burn .
“ When you put all of that together , it is a system that is simply beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk , ” Mach said .
With more people living in wildland-adjacent areas , fires have a larger impact , said Margaret Torn , a senior scientist with the University of California , Berkeley .
“ We ’ re changing how catastrophic a fire is because we have put more properties and lives at risk ... because we ’ re building in fire zones , ” Torn said .
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E & E News .
E & E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at @ @

Scientists predicted climate change would fuel the kind of devastating wildfires that California has seen this year. Except it wasn’t expected to happen for decades.
A major analysis by state researchers projected that the amount of area burned by wildfire could jump 77% by the end of the century. Another study by UCLA warned that by 2050 fire on average would scorch twice as much land in Southern California.
A doubling happened this year, instead of three decades from now.
California blazes have blackened 4.1 million acres this year, compared with about 2 million acres in 2018. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) calls it a climate “fast-forward” and a warning for the nation, said Wade Crowfoot, the state Natural Resources Agency secretary.
“Frankly, we’re alarmed because this wildfire destruction that we’re seeing in 2020 is the type of destruction that we anticipated experiencing later in the century,” Crowfoot said in an interview.
In response, the state is boosting actions to curb greenhouse gas pollution faster than planned, Crowfoot said, because “these climate risks, these climate-driven threats that we thought would get worse in coming decades, are worse already.”
The recent fires prompted Newsom to ban the sale of new gas-fueled cars in the state beginning in 2036 (E&E News PM, Sept. 23). He also wants to preserve one-third of state lands and coastal waters to sequester greenhouse gas emissions (Climatewire, Oct. 8).
It takes place as climate change-heightened disasters arrive sooner than anticipated around the world, researchers said. Arctic ice sheets are melting rapidly, and parts of Siberia hit 100 degrees Fahrenheit in July for the first time (Climatewire, July 16).
Along the U.S. East and Gulf coasts, the intensity of hurricanes has been increasing due to warming waters and higher sea levels. Flooding in the Midwest last year devastated farms.
“Whether it’s floods or fires, we’ve just seen big steps upwards in terms of the nature of the impacts,” said Katharine Mach, a climate scientist with the University of Miami. “These impacts are taking societies by surprise. They shouldn’t, necessarily, because we knew this type of thing would happen.”
Scientists blame warming for record-breaking temperatures, less dependable precipitation and reduced moisture in the air, factors that helped create a tinderbox in the West. The landscape went up in flames when some 12,000 lightning strikes over one August weekend ignited more than 600 fires in Northern California.
Multiple studies warned that wildfires would burn significantly more land in the Golden State in years ahead.
The California Fourth Climate Change Assessment published last year found that the amount of land burned by blazes could leap 77% over the next 80 years.
The UCLA study, which included researchers from the University of California, Irvine, saw earlier impacts. Alex Hall, a climate scientist at UCLA, said the research outlined a gradual increase in fire severity leading up to the midcentury.
“The massive increase in wildfire size and intensity that we have seen over the past five years, maybe, especially over the past two or three years, is not something that was predicted by climate scientists,” Hall said of California fires.
When his paper was published in 2015, he said, “we thought we were being really apocalyptic” by predicting that the amount of area burned would double by 2050.
“I was worried about making a prediction that was too scary,” Hall said. “Turns out I should have been scarier.”
One year ‘does not make a trend’
Climate researchers caution that it’s not scientifically appropriate to look at just one year and compare that to forecasts in climate studies. Scientists look at potential changes over a number of years and compare those to model simulations for earlier time frames, said Leroy Westerling, a professor with the University of California, Merced, whose research went into California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment.
Contrasting that against one year’s fire damage is “something of an apples-to-apricots comparison,” he said.
California’s climate assessment relied on the findings of four climate models in its wildfire section, Westerling said. Those were “downscaled” from global studies to get potential impacts in California.
The models represented some potential cooler years with more precipitation, and other years that were warmer and drier. But none included years with California’s 2012-2015 drought, which was “the worst in at least the last 1,200 years,” Westerling said.
Hall, with UCLA, called it “a failure of climate science” that studies didn’t foresee an earlier arrival of more extreme fires. It happened in part, he said, because research has typically looked at how temperatures shaped historical fires and used that to project how further warming would change blazes in the future.
But what’s happened historically has not proved a good yardstick.
“What we’re seeing now are new types of behavior that have emerged as a result of climate change,” Hall said, adding that this behavior was “not seen in historical records.”
Local climate models traditionally looked at warming’s effects on air, water and soil, Hall said. They haven’t folded in ecological effects such as California’s decadeslong practice of suppressing fires, which allowed forests to expand. They also didn’t include the invasion of bark beetles that killed hundreds of thousands of trees, making them more flammable, he said.
Climate science is complex, and “one year does not make a trend,” said Crowfoot, California’s Natural Resources Agency secretary. But wildfires in recent years have shattered records for size, destruction and death toll.
“We can conclude with great certainty that impacts of these climate-driven threats are accelerated or are happening much sooner than we thought,” he said.
Scaring people
Climate research takes a lot of projections and finds a sort of ensemble average, which mutes extremes, said Max Moritz, wildfire specialist with the University of California Cooperative Extension. Models also look at “bookends” such as a very wet or very dry future, “because we don’t know which is most likely,” he said.
“It could be that instead of throwing out the extremes, we should be looking at these very, very unusual but devastating futures,” Moritz added.
Climate scientists might hesitate to present the most extreme outcomes, he said, because they “want to deliver scenarios we can have policy and management responses to.” There’s a concern that “if you scare people with the most extreme projections, there might not be any response.”
Efforts at adaptation haven’t kept pace with accelerating climate impacts, said Mach, the University of Miami professor. When Hurricane Harvey hit Texas and Louisiana in 2017, hospitals had emergency plans to respond. But there was a problem. Many people couldn’t get to the hospitals through flooded roads.
In California, where fires have happened for centuries, one could ask why the state wasn’t more prepared, Mach said. But it’s important to note climate change is just one part of the equation. The state’s practice of suppressing most fires sharpened the risk. And as housing prices soared, people built homes in more remote areas that are prone to burn.
“When you put all of that together, it is a system that is simply beyond its current limits, to manage the risk,” Mach said.
With more people living in wildland-adjacent areas, fires have a larger impact, said Margaret Torn, a senior scientist with the University of California, Berkeley.
“We’re changing how catastrophic a fire is because we have put more properties and lives at risk ... because we’re building in fire zones,” Torn said.
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--2020-10-21--When Will Football Stadiums Look Normal Again?

It has been a roller-coaster year for sports , and we ’ re nowhere near done .
In recent weeks , the advent of rapid testing for COVID-19 appears to have led several college conferences , the Big Ten and Pac-12 among them , to reverse earlier decisions and declare that they ’ ll play a fall football season after all .
Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott went so far as to call the conference ’ s agreement with Quidel to provide daily rapid-results testing “ a game-changer ” that will give student-athletes “ the opportunity to pursue their dreams.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks to see how that plays out—but the truth is , it ’ s probably not the biggest challenge facing the sports industry .
No , the biggest challenge is this : How , and how soon , can conferences and leagues get fans back in the stands ?
The abrupt restart of the college season has brought that question to the fore , as have plans by the National Football League ( NFL ) to play a full schedule .
After eight months of watching on our screens and amid clear COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ played in front of a packed house of electric-energy fans is beyond enticing .
It ’ s the feeling of being part of something bigger , something communal , that appeals to so many sports fans .
But considering how many teams themselves are having trouble staying COVID-free , is the idea of fans in the stands even remotely worth considering ?
We ’ ll get to what we know about that ( and what we don ’ t ) in a moment .
For now , staying true to sports , let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the NFL , money driven by in-stadium attendance is estimated to account for about 30 percent of league-wide revenue—somewhere in the area of $ 4 billion to $ 5 billion annually .
So , as you might expect , the NFL is aggressively trying to figure out how soon it can fill the stands .
It has left that decision to the individual teams .
Of the league ’ s 32 franchises , 17 have plans to permit fans or are already doing so , but their approaches vary wildly , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fans per game , while the Pittsburgh Steelers and Philadelphia Eagles have been allowing about 5,500 in recent weeks .
Following tumultuous recent weeks , with games being postponed and rescheduled , fan attendance will continue to be a hot topic .
In college football , the numbers change by the day .
Already some 30 teams have plans to bring back 10,000 or more fans to their stadiums , and many more will do so in the thousands .
Here , too , the financial incentive is powerful ; college football teams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hundreds of millions of dollars annually , and , in high-powered conferences like the SEC , Big Ten and Big-12 , their success often is used to fund other athletic programs at their schools .
All of it matters .
And none of it is possible unless having fans games can be deemed safe .
So , is it ?
“ The idea of just opening a stadium and letting the crowds come back to capacity in clearly really foolish , ” says Mark Rupp , chief of infectious disease at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an interview , Rupp tells me that while there could be ways of limiting crowds and enforcing safety measures , “ I don ’ t think there is any way of taking the risk out of it completely , quite frankly.
” Athletes and staff themselves remain at risk , and that is with teams and programs doing everything they can to ensure safety .
Multiple teams have had outbreaks , requiring 30-plus college games to be rescheduled or cancelled already .
The Big Ten and Mountain West are scheduled to begin in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pac-12 not until early November .
A COVID-19 outbreak roiled the Notre Dame football program , the Florida Gators had a surge of 21 positives on their team , Vanderbilt was forced to postpone a scheduled game due to a lack of available scholarship players , Baylor postponed an Oklahoma State game because of 42 cases amongst players and staff , and TCU postponed its opener against SMU .
Both coach Nick Saban and athletic director Greg Byrne tested positive at Alabama this past week .
According to ESPN , Saban is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At the University of California , Berkeley , defensive lineman Jamian Stephens died of complications from COVID-19 after returning for football practice , leaving his mother to tell the New York Times , “ This is a billion-dollar industry—I get that .
But not at the risk of these boys ’ lives .
Nothing is worth that.
” Back in February , at what has been dubbed “ Game Zero , ” nearly 2,500 Spanish soccer fans of the club Valencia CF traveled to Milan , Italy , to attend a Champions League @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in San Siro Stadium .
No masking , distancing or screening protocols were in place at the time .
The result was described as a “ biological bomb ” —a superspreading event that led to infection both locally and in Spain .
According to a Wall Street Journal report , “ The military drove the dead away by the truckload ” from hospitals in Bergamo , Italy .
With more than 1.1 million deaths around the world having resulted from coronavirus , and U.S. cases escalating , the question remains important : Should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where people tend to come from different places , congregate closely for several hours and then disseminate to various locations ?
Florida football coach Dan Mullen went so far as to ask Gators to “ pack The Swamp ” with 90,000 fans for the LSU game , a remark that drew a bemused response from his own athletic director .
In the end , it didn ’ t matter ; the contest was postponed after an outbreak of positive tests within Mullen ’ s program , including the head coach himself .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have large crowds mingle , ” says Monica Ghandi , an infectious disease expert at the University of California , San Francisco .
In an e-mail exchange , Ghandi tells me she could envision fans returning to stadiums under strict safety protocols ( masking , distancing , employing good hand hygiene ) and at perhaps 10 percent to 20 percent of capacity .
“ COVID-19 is not radioactive , ” Ghandi said , “ and there are ways to keep fans and the college community safe.
” The Centers for Disease Control ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about in-person sporting events definitively , recommending that in deciding whether to attend a sporting event , an individual should consider the prevalence of COVID-19 in the community and one ’ s ability to safely distance six feet apart .
But there is a relevant study to consider , albeit a narrowly focused one .
Published recently as a preprint ( meaning it has not been peer reviewed ) , the study examines the threat that fans attending college sporting events pose to the health of the local community , and it does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the impact of an influx of visitors from areas outside the community .
That ’ s right on the money for many college towns , whose teams may draw fans from all over the state or throughout a region .
These fans flock to the town in a single one- or two-day period , go to restaurants , bars and shops , take part in tailgates , and attend the game itself .
The study ’ s authors thus model multiple hypothetical scenarios , varying the number of infectious visitors , the extent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the university might or might not have the coronavirus under control .
The lead author , Eric Lofgren , an assistant professor at Washington State University , summarizes the conclusions : “ We found in-person sporting events definitely increase the rate of COVID-19 transmission , and this occurs importantly even when things seem like they would be okay.
” The increase in the number of cases in the study ’ s model ranged from 25 percent to 822 percent , notes Lofgren , depending upon factors such as whether the campus had controlled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had a high prevalence of infection , and how extensively they all intermingled .
But the findings all point in the same direction .
The study ’ s conclusion : Schools should “ seriously consider the cancellation of in-person sporting events on college campuses for the duration of the pandemic , or at least until a widespread and effective vaccine is available.
” Adds Lofgren , “ The little weird cardboard standies may possibly be your stadiums ’ population for some time.
” That sounds grim , if unsurprising , given our dismal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far .
But it may not be the end of the conversation .
What happens , for example , if attendance is drastically reduced in those stadiums ?
What happens if fans wear masks and are socially distanced in , say , four-person pods ?
What if high touch surfaces are cleaned often ?
Most significantly , what happens if everyone undergoes rapid testing on game day before they walk in the gate ?
When the Pac-12 ’ s Scott lauded rapid testing , his context was the conference ’ s athletes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the thing that gets fans back into the stands .
Ghandi says that only allowing into the stadium those with negative tests “ would certainly be very safe , ” but the tests themselves would need to be very accurate , and it ’ s not clear that rapid antigen tests are there yet , with a range of sensitivities reported .
Michael McEntee is the chief science officer at eTrueNorth , a company that supports drive-through testing sites on a large scale for the Department of Health and Human Services .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing for 40 years , tells me that new technologies , including rapid turnarounds like one that involves a tongue scrape , are arriving quickly .
At Columbia University , for example , Zev Williams has developed a rapid saliva test where , via an enzymatic reaction , a test-tube solution turns from red to yellow with a positive COVID-19 result .
In a preliminary study , the authors found the test was 97 percent sensitive .
Larger-scale studies are needed , of course , but such rapid testing could reshape our conversation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , coaches and staff must be made safe before that conversation is relevant , of course , and many have their eye on that ball .
Still , imagine this : You walk up to a stadium , but now you present two tickets .
One shows that you have a seat inside ; the other declares you ’ ve tested negative for the virus today .
For fans , that ’ s the game-changer—and it could be a reality sooner rather than later .

It has been a roller-coaster year for sports, and we’re nowhere near done. In recent weeks, the advent of rapid testing for COVID-19 appears to have led several college conferences, the Big Ten and Pac-12 among them, to reverse earlier decisions and declare that they’ll play a fall football season after all. Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott went so far as to call the conference’s agreement with Quidel to provide daily rapid-results testing “a game-changer” that will give student-athletes “the opportunity to pursue their dreams.”
We’ll be watching the coming weeks to see how that plays out—but the truth is, it’s probably not the biggest challenge facing the sports industry. No, the biggest challenge is this: How, and how soon, can conferences and leagues get fans back in the stands?
The abrupt restart of the college season has brought that question to the fore, as have plans by the National Football League (NFL) to play a full schedule. After eight months of watching on our screens and amid clear COVID-19 fatigue, the idea of a contest played in front of a packed house of electric-energy fans is beyond enticing. It’s the feeling of being part of something bigger, something communal, that appeals to so many sports fans.
But considering how many teams themselves are having trouble staying COVID-free, is the idea of fans in the stands even remotely worth considering? We’ll get to what we know about that (and what we don’t) in a moment. For now, staying true to sports, let’s look at the statistics.
In the NFL, money driven by in-stadium attendance is estimated to account for about 30 percent of league-wide revenue—somewhere in the area of $4 billion to $5 billion annually. So, as you might expect, the NFL is aggressively trying to figure out how soon it can fill the stands. It has left that decision to the individual teams. Of the league’s 32 franchises, 17 have plans to permit fans or are already doing so, but their approaches vary wildly, with the Dallas Cowboys permitting close to 25,000 fans per game, while the Pittsburgh Steelers and Philadelphia Eagles have been allowing about 5,500 in recent weeks. Following tumultuous recent weeks, with games being postponed and rescheduled, fan attendance will continue to be a hot topic.
In college football, the numbers change by the day. Already some 30 teams have plans to bring back 10,000 or more fans to their stadiums, and many more will do so in the thousands. Here, too, the financial incentive is powerful; college football teams generate revenue that can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, and, in high-powered conferences like the SEC, Big Ten and Big-12, their success often is used to fund other athletic programs at their schools.
All of it matters. And none of it is possible unless having fans games can be deemed safe. So, is it?
“The idea of just opening a stadium and letting the crowds come back to capacity is clearly really foolish,” says Mark Rupp, chief of infectious disease at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. In an interview, Rupp tells me that while there could be ways of limiting crowds and enforcing safety measures, “I don’t think there is any way of taking the risk out of it completely, quite frankly.”
Athletes and staff themselves remain at risk, and that is with teams and programs doing everything they can to ensure safety. Multiple teams have had outbreaks, requiring 30-plus college games to be rescheduled or cancelled already. The Big Ten and Mountain West are scheduled to begin in late October, and the MAC and Pac-12 not until early November.
A COVID-19 outbreak roiled the Notre Dame football program, the Florida Gators had a surge of 21 positives on their team, Vanderbilt was forced to postpone a scheduled game due to a lack of available scholarship players, Baylor postponed an Oklahoma State game because of 42 cases amongst players and staff, and TCU postponed its opener against SMU. Both coach Nick Saban and athletic director Greg Byrne tested positive at Alabama this past week. According to ESPN, Saban is the sixth FBS coach to test positive.
At the University of California, Berkeley, defensive lineman Jamian Stephens died of complications from COVID-19 after returning for football practice, leaving his mother to tell the New York Times, “This is a billion-dollar industry—I get that. But not at the risk of these boys’ lives. Nothing is worth that.”
Back in February, at what has been dubbed “Game Zero,” nearly 2,500 Spanish soccer fans of the club Valencia CF traveled to Milan, Italy, to attend a Champions League match, joining a crowd of 40,000 in San Siro Stadium. No masking, distancing or screening protocols were in place at the time. The result was described as a “biological bomb”—a superspreading event that led to infection both locally and in Spain. According to a Wall Street Journal report, “The military drove the dead away by the truckload” from hospitals in Bergamo, Italy.
With more than 1.1 million deaths around the world having resulted from coronavirus, and U.S. cases escalating, the question remains important: Should we be opening our stadiums to fans, where people tend to come from different places, congregate closely for several hours and then disseminate to various locations? Florida football coach Dan Mullen went so far as to ask Gators to “pack The Swamp” with 90,000 fans for the LSU game, a remark that drew a bemused response from his own athletic director. In the end, it didn’t matter; the contest was postponed after an outbreak of positive tests within Mullen’s program, including the head coach himself.
“Current recommendations worldwide are not to have large crowds mingle,” says Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease expert at the University of California, San Francisco. In an e-mail exchange, Gandhi tells me she could envision fans returning to stadiums under strict safety protocols (masking, distancing, employing good hand hygiene) and at perhaps 10 percent to 20 percent of capacity. “COVID-19 is not radioactive,” Gandhi said, “and there are ways to keep fans and the college community safe.”
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) does not answer the question about in-person sporting events definitively, recommending that in deciding whether to attend a sporting event, an individual should consider the prevalence of COVID-19 in the community and one’s ability to safely distance six feet apart. But there is a relevant study to consider, albeit a narrowly focused one.
Published recently as a preprint (meaning it has not been peer reviewed), the study examines the threat that fans attending college sporting events pose to the health of the local community, and it does so from a very specific angle: the impact of an influx of visitors from areas outside the community. That’s right on the money for many college towns, whose teams may draw fans from all over the state or throughout a region. These fans flock to the town in a single one- or two-day period, go to restaurants, bars and shops, take part in tailgates, and attend the game itself.
The study’s authors thus model multiple hypothetical scenarios, varying the number of infectious visitors, the extent of visitor-student interaction and the extent that the university might or might not have the coronavirus under control. The lead author, Eric Lofgren, an assistant professor at Washington State University, summarizes the conclusions: “We found in-person sporting events definitely increase the rate of COVID-19 transmission, and this occurs importantly even when things seem like they would be okay.”
The increase in the number of cases in the study’s model ranged from 25 percent to 822 percent, notes Lofgren, depending upon factors such as whether the campus had controlled a coronavirus outbreak, whether the visitors had a high prevalence of infection, and how extensively they all intermingled. But the findings all point in the same direction. The study’s conclusion: Schools should “seriously consider the cancellation of in-person sporting events on college campuses for the duration of the pandemic, or at least until a widespread and effective vaccine is available.” Adds Lofgren, “The little weird cardboard standies may possibly be your stadiums’ population for some time.”
That sounds grim, if unsurprising, given our dismal experience with COVID-19 and mass gatherings so far. But it may not be the end of the conversation. What happens, for example, if attendance is drastically reduced in those stadiums? What happens if fans wear masks and are socially distanced in, say, four-person pods? What if high touch surfaces are cleaned often? Most significantly, what happens if everyone undergoes rapid testing on game day before they walk in the gate?
When the Pac-12’s Scott lauded rapid testing, his context was the conference’s athletes, but widespread availability of such testing could be the thing that gets fans back into the stands. Gandhi says that only allowing into the stadium those with negative tests “would certainly be very safe,” but the tests themselves would need to be very accurate, and it’s not clear that rapid antigen tests are there yet, with a range of sensitivities reported.
Michael McEntee is the chief science officer at eTrueNorth, a company that supports drive-through testing sites on a large scale for the Department of Health and Human Services. McEntee, who has worked in point-of-care testing for 40 years, tells me that new technologies, including rapid turnarounds like one that involves a tongue scrape, are arriving quickly. At Columbia University, for example, Zev Williams has developed a rapid saliva test where, via an enzymatic reaction, a test-tube solution turns from red to yellow with a positive COVID-19 result. In a preliminary study, the authors found the test was 97 percent sensitive. Larger-scale studies are needed, of course, but such rapid testing could reshape our conversation about having fans at games.
Players, coaches and staff must be made safe before that conversation is relevant, of course, and many have their eye on that ball. Still, imagine this: You walk up to a stadium, but now you present two tickets. One shows that you have a seat inside; the other declares you’ve tested negative for the virus today. For fans, that’s the game-changer—and it could be a reality sooner rather than later.


scientificamerican--2020-10-21--Gallery: The Maya Who Escaped Spanish Conquest

Some 550 years ago the last of the great city-states of the Maya civilization that had flourished in the Americas @ @ @ @ @ .
As drought and warfare tore apart the social and political fabric and the Spanish @ @ @ @ @ for plantations and subjugating Maya people to work on them , many residents of storied @ @ @ @ @ and Palenque fled to the countryside in search of a better life .
Ultimately they @ @ @ @ @ Maya cultures .
Some people , known as the Lacandon Maya , established themselves in @ @ @ @ @ in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas .
Their descendants still live in this region @ @ @ @ @ Hach Winik , “ the true people ” in Yucatec Mayan .

Some 550 years ago the last of the great city-states of the Maya civilization that had flourished in the Americas for centuries met their demise. As drought and warfare tore apart the social and political fabric and the Spanish conquistadors began claiming Maya land for plantations and subjugating Maya people to work on them, many residents of storied stone cities such as Yaxchilan and Palenque fled to the countryside in search of a better life. Ultimately they founded a host of new Maya cultures. Some people, known as the Lacandon Maya, established themselves in the forests around Lake Mensabak in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas. Their descendants still live in this region today. They are the Hach Winik, “the true people” in Yucatec Mayan.
For decades anthropologists thought these modern-day Lacandon were a time capsule of sorts, a Maya group that had survived the collapse and subsequent Spanish conquest intact, unchanged for hundreds of years. Starting in the 1980s, however, as researchers learned more about the Lacandon, it became clear that this was not the case. Although it incorporated elements of classic Maya culture, the Lacandon way of life was distinctive.
For the past 17 years archaeologists Joel Palka of Arizona State University and Fabiola Sanchez Balderas, president of Xanvil, a Mexican organization that studies and supports Maya culture, have been collaborating with the modern Lacandon Maya to learn what they can about the birth of their culture and to understand how their ancestors adapted to a world that was being radically reshaped by forces outside their control. The team's excavations at various sites around Lake Mensabak are the first to explore the Lacandon past. The research is yielding a detailed picture of the lives of Maya people who survived colonialism to carry on the traditions of their ancestors while developing customs, beliefs and survival strategies of their own.
Sacred landscape of Lake Mensabak contains dozens of spiritually important sites. One of the most significant is a limestone cliff that is believed to be both the home of Mensabak—the god of agriculture and rain—and the gateway to the heaven of Mensabak, where the Lacandon people go when they die.
At the base of the cliff lies a bone shrine containing the remains of people who may have been some of the first Lacandon. The skulls have flattened foreheads and craniums that were shaped into two separate lobes during early childhood when the bone was pliable.
Clay pots bearing the faces of gods accompany the bones. Each god pot overflows with a tarry substance that is left over when resin from the seed pods of copal trees is burned and prayers are chanted over the fragrant smoke. Archaeologists draw a direct connection between these god pots and the elaborate ceramic incensarios that Maya people used to make offerings to their gods for 3,000 years. It is one of many examples of cultural continuity between the Lacandon and the ancient Maya.
The Lacandon were not isolated in this area of southern Mexico—and they appear to have fought extensively with neighboring Maya groups. Excavations at a site called Tzibana on the eastern side of the lake are revealing how the Lacandon defended their territory. There, among the village ruins, the archaeologists have found the remains of a defensive wall that was built between two pyramids, which form a choke point in the landscape. Constructed from uncut chunks of limestone, the wall stands a few feet high. Team member Josuhé Lozada Toledo of Mexico's National Institute of Anthropology and History thinks that warriors stood on the wall behind a taller wood palisade, which would have given them cover as they fought with spears and javelins. The hillside below the wall was planted with piñuela, a species of agave that has sharp spines along the edges of its leaves, forming a kind of natural barbed wire. Tzibana may have been the first line of defense against attackers coming from the east.
City dwellers moved to the countryside in search of not only farmland and water for irrigation but also places that held spiritual forces they believed could protect them from a world that offered enemies in every direction. “It wasn't just natural resources but supernatural resources” that drew the Maya to Lake Mensabak, Joel Palka says. Evidence of religion as a driving force in Lacandon society is everywhere here. Ancient paintings of gods and spiritually significant animals adorn the limestone cliffs at Tzibana and other sites around the lake.
A carved serpent at the base of the Tzibana cliffs resembles the Aztec feathered serpent god Quetzalcoatl, according to Palka, and may reflect the influence of the Aztecs on the Lacandon.
El Mirador mountain bridges the underworld (represented by the lake), the world of the living (represented by the land) and the heavens (represented by the sky), according to the Lacandon. They believe that the god Chak Aktun lives here. Palka observes that this mountain rising from the waters of a lake is a natural version of the altepetl ("water mountain"), a concept that formed the basis for Maya and Aztec communities.
The temple pyramids that dominated their stone cities were human-made altepetls. Roughly 2,000 years ago the ancient Maya leveled the top of Mirador and built a massive temple platform there. The team has also found remnants of terraces that form what may have been a pilgrimage route up the side of the mountain to the temple, where visitors would make offerings to Chak Aktun for good health and bountiful crops.
The families live in a village at the southern end of the lake with two churches, an administrative building where a small police force is headquartered, four tiendas that sell essential goods and snacks, and a new tourist center. People grow food for their personal consumption in nearby fields called milpas. A gravel road connects the village to the world outside the rain forest. The Mexican government designated the territory around the lake as the Metzabok Floral and Faunal Protection Area, which offers the land some legal protections that help the Lacandon people to maintain their way of life. They also receive some income from the Mexican government for taking care of the protected area. Rafael Tarano, like his ancestors who settled this area in the aftermath of the Spanish conquest, views religion as essential to meeting whatever challenges the future holds. “I don't know who the true god is, Hesuklisto [Jesus Christ] or Hachakyum,” he says, “but in bad times it is believe or die.”
As a child, Tarano learned the stories of the Lacandon gods—from Mensabak and Chak Aktun to Hachakyum, the supreme creator, to Akyantho, god of foreigners and technology. He also learned how to make the traditional Lacandon offerings at the sacred sites around the lake. But times have changed—and the Lacandon have changed with them. No one makes the offerings anymore, Tarano says. Everyone in the community—about 19 families in all—has either converted to evangelical Christianity or does not practice a religion at all, Fabiola Sanchez Balderas explains.


scientificamerican--2020-10-21--Vicious Woodpecker Battles Draw an Avian Audience

The Americas ’ western oak woodlands are fragmented into territories that are often fiercely contested—by groups of acorn woodpeckers .
In each location , generations of the birds have transformed the oaks into granaries that store thousands of acorns .
They nest in groups of breeding and nonbreeding members , which cooperatively raise chicks ; when one of the breeding pair in a granary-rich area dies , rival teams of nonbreeding birds sweep in from surrounding territories to fight for a chance to fill it .
These internecine struggles can be deadly , involve multiple coalitions of warriors and last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skirmishes for more than 50 years—but they only recently discovered other woodpeckers were keenly observing the battles , too .
Sahas Barve , an avian biologist at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History , was the lead author of a recent study that tracked this behavior and was published in Current Biology .
He and his colleagues discovered the spectator phenomenon by fitting dozens of birds with ultralight solar-powered radio trackers and monitoring their positions .
“ Power struggles are so chaotic that you can ’ t really [ visually ] track @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Barve says .
Biologists have seen news of a breeding opportunity travel through the woods with astonishing speed .
“ Because animals don ’ t have language , we often assume it ’ s harder for them to transmit information , ” says Christina Riehl , an evolutionary biologist at Princeton University , who was not involved in the study .
“ They ’ re not posting about it on Facebook or talking about it in the streets.
” Researchers do not yet understand how woodpeckers in surrounding territories find out about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within minutes .
The researchers were surprised that the combat attracted not only fighters but also birds that apparently came just to watch—sometimes from kilometers away—for up to an hour at a time .
These spectators left their own granaries undefended , which suggests that the value of the intelligence they can gain about rival coalitions outweighs the risks of gathering it .
“ It helps you judge what you should do in a given situation , ” Riehl says .
Monitoring the relationships between individuals in other groups ( a trait biologists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen among birds , according to Barve .
The new observations show that the woodpeckers “ have a very high-level understanding of social dynamics in their population , ” he says .
“ It highlights how much we don ’ t know about how animals perceive and navigate a complicated social system .
”

The Americas’ western oak woodlands are fragmented into territories that are often fiercely contested—by groups of acorn woodpeckers. In each location, generations of the birds have transformed the oaks into granaries that store thousands of acorns. They nest in groups of breeding and nonbreeding members, which cooperatively raise chicks; when one member of a breeding pair in a granary-rich area dies, rival teams of nonbreeding birds sweep in from surrounding territories to fight for a chance to fill it. These internecine struggles can be deadly, involve multiple coalitions of warriors and last for days. Scientists have studied the skirmishes for more than 50 years—but they only recently discovered other woodpeckers were keenly observing the battles, too.
Sahas Barve, an avian biologist at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, was the lead author of a recent study that tracked this behavior and was published in Current Biology. He and his colleagues discovered the spectator phenomenon by fitting dozens of birds with ultralight solar-powered radio trackers and monitoring their positions. “Power struggles are so chaotic that you can’t really [visually] track the movements of any one animal,” Barve says.
Biologists have seen news of a breeding opportunity travel through the woods with astonishing speed. “Because animals don’t have language, we often assume it’s harder for them to transmit information,” says Christina Riehl, an evolutionary biologist at Princeton University, who was not involved in the study. “They’re not posting about it on Facebook or talking about it in the streets.” Researchers do not yet understand how woodpeckers in surrounding territories find out about these openings, which can trigger battles within minutes.
The researchers were surprised that the combat attracted not only fighters but also birds that apparently came just to watch—sometimes from kilometers away—for up to an hour at a time. These spectators left their own granaries undefended, which suggests that the value of the intelligence they can gain about rival coalitions outweighs the risks of gathering it. “It helps you judge what you should do in a given situation,” Riehl says.
Monitoring the relationships between individuals in other groups (a trait biologists call triadic awareness) has rarely been seen among birds, according to Barve. The new observations show that the woodpeckers “have a very high-level understanding of social dynamics in their population,” he says. “It highlights how much we don’t know about how animals perceive and navigate a complicated social system.”
A version of this article with the title “Bird Battles” was adapted for inclusion in the December 2020 issue of Scientific American.


scientificamerican--2020-10-21--Upcoming Supreme Court Ruling Could Jeopardize Health Insurance for People with COVID

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg—and President Donald Trump ’ s controversial nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to fill her seat—have ignited concerns over how a court with a six-to-three conservative majority might rule on an upcoming case on the Affordable Care Act ( ACA ) .
The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on Barrett ’ s confirmation this Thursday .
On November 10 the court will hear Texas v. California .
That case will decide whether to uphold a lower court ’ s ruling that the ACA ’ s individual mandate to purchase health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declare that the mandate is “ severable ” from the rest of it .
If the ACA as a whole is struck down , 20 million people in the U.S. would lose their insurance .
Even if it is partially struck down , up to 129 million could lose protections for preexisting conditions—including the more than eight million who have had COVID-19 .
If she is confirmed before the case is heard , Barrett has given no assurances that she will vote to uphold the landmark health care law .
Many legal scholars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ACA is very weak .
But even if the court severs the mandate from most of the law—as Justice Brett Kavanaugh and others have hinted—and strikes down only parts of it , that decision could still do significant damage because the ACA is so intricately tied to the health care system , a number of experts say .
Invalidating the law would “ throw the nation into economic chaos , in addition to people not having health insurance , ” says Georges Benjamin , executive director of the American Public Health Association , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The unintended consequences of even a small tinkering of the ACA could have enormous implications.
” In 2012 the Supreme Court ruled in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius that the ACA ’ s individual mandate was constitutional because the penalty for not being insured could be considered a tax .
But in 2017 Congress passed a tax bill that lowered the penalty to $ 0 , beginning in January 2019 .
As a result , Texas and other states filed a civil suit claiming the mandate was unconstitutional in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and nonseverable , making the entire law unconstitutional—but he did not overturn it .
The decision was appealed and eventually made it to the Supreme Court , which is now preparing to hear the case .
A range of different outcomes is possible , according to Katie Keith , a part-time research faculty member at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University and a principal at the consulting firm Keith Policy Solutions .
First , the court will have to determine whether the plaintiffs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ If the answer is no , the case kind of goes away , ” she says .
Second , it must decide whether the mandate is constitutional or not .
“ Reasonable minds could disagree , ” she says , but the case also goes away if the mandate is found to be constitutional .
And the final question is whether the mandate is not essential to the rest of the law and can be severed from it .
Keith thinks this is the most likely outcome .
“ We ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she says .
“ The mandate has been zero for two years , and the sky has not fallen.
” Assuming the court determines the mandate is unconstitutional and severable from some or most of the rest of the law , it would also have to decide which parts to keep .
Justices Kavanaugh and John Roberts have supported the notion of severability in a previous case .
This suggests they might vote to sever the mandate while keeping most of the ACA intact , Keith says .
Nevertheless , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could still be struck down—including , very importantly , the requirement that insurance companies cover preexisting conditions .
That decision could affect the millions of Americans who now have , or previously had , COVID-19 .
Even though most cases of the disease are mild , there have been numerous reports of symptoms lingering for months after infection , as well as heart and lung damage .
COVID is “ not an acute episodic disease—it has a long tail ” and could therefore easily qualify as a preexisting condition , says Benjamin , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department of Health and Mental Hygiene , a position in which he oversaw the expansion of the state ’ s Medicaid program .
“ I would assume [ COVID is ] a chronic condition.
” But he contends that if the justices on the court cared about access to health care , “ they would care about the 20 million people who would lose health insurance ” if the ACA were struck down .
Although Barrett has been tight-lipped about how she might rule on any particular case , she has criticized the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ACA .
“ Obviously , the future of the ACA [ would be ] less secure with Judge Barrett on the court , as opposed to Ginsburg , ” says Tim Jost , an emeritus professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law .
“ We don ’ t know much about Barrett ’ s views on severability .
She ’ s kind of a blank slate.
” The plaintiffs ’ argument that the ACA is entirely dependent on the individual mandate is “ absurd—it ’ s factually not true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court should look at what Congress thought it was doing in 2017 , ” when it reduced the mandate penalty to zero .
He thinks it is clear that senators and representatives did not intend to get rid of the law entirely .
“ If what Congress thinks matters , [ the court ] should not invalidate the law , ” he adds .
But Barrett considers herself a textualist , someone who believes laws and the Constitution should be strictly interpreted with regard to the words used in them .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ is they believe ‘ the law means what I say it means.
’ ” The ACA is an extremely complex health care law , and striking down even parts of it would be incredibly disruptive—especially in the midst of a pandemic .
“ Anything can happen , ” Keith says .
“ There ’ s absolutely room for [ the court ] to strike parts of the ACA and cause some chaos.
” Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here .
And read coverage from our international network @ @ @ @

Editor’s Note (11/9/20): On Tuesday the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case California v. Texas, which will decide whether to uphold a lower court’s ruling that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because of the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. The decision, which likely will not come for several months, could strip protections for people with preexisting conditions, including COVID-19.
The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg—and President Donald Trump’s controversial nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to fill her seat—have ignited concerns over how a court with a six-to-three conservative majority might rule on an upcoming case on the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on Barrett’s confirmation this Thursday. On November 10 the court will hear California v. Texas. That case will decide whether to uphold a lower court’s ruling that the ACA’s individual mandate to purchase health insurance makes the entire act unconstitutional—or to declare that the mandate is “severable” from the rest of it. If the ACA as a whole is struck down, 20 million people in the U.S. would lose their insurance. Even if it is partially struck down, up to 129 million could lose protections for preexisting conditions—including the more than eight million who have had COVID-19. If she is confirmed before the case is heard, Barrett has given no assurances that she will vote to uphold the landmark health care law.
Many legal scholars say the case for nixing the entire ACA is very weak. But even if the court severs the mandate from most of the law—as Justice Brett Kavanaugh and others have hinted—and strikes down only parts of it, that decision could still do significant damage because the ACA is so intricately tied to the health care system, a number of experts say. Invalidating the law would “throw the nation into economic chaos, in addition to people not having health insurance,” says Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, a professional organization that promotes public health. “The unintended consequences of even a small tinkering of the ACA could have enormous implications.”
In 2012 the Supreme Court ruled in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius that the ACA’s individual mandate was constitutional because the penalty for not being insured could be considered a tax. But in 2017 Congress passed a tax bill that lowered the penalty to $0, beginning in January 2019. As a result, Texas and other states filed a civil suit claiming the mandate was unconstitutional in 2018. A federal judge in Texas ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and nonseverable, making the entire law unconstitutional—but he did not overturn it. The decision was appealed and eventually made it to the Supreme Court, which is now preparing to hear the case.
A range of different outcomes is possible, according to Katie Keith, a part-time research faculty member at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University and a principal at the consulting firm Keith Policy Solutions. First, the court will have to determine whether the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the mandate. “If the answer is no, the case kind of goes away,” she says. Second, it must decide whether the mandate is constitutional or not. “Reasonable minds could disagree,” she says, but the case also goes away if the mandate is found to be constitutional. And the final question is whether the mandate is not essential to the rest of the law and can be severed from it. Keith thinks this is the most likely outcome. “We’re kind of living in that world now,” she says. “The mandate has been zero for two years, and the sky has not fallen.”
Assuming the court determines the mandate is unconstitutional and severable from some or most of the rest of the law, it would also have to decide which parts to keep. Justices Kavanaugh and John Roberts have supported the notion of severability in a previous case. This suggests they might vote to sever the mandate while keeping most of the ACA intact, Keith says. Nevertheless, she worries that some parts of the law could still be struck down—including, very importantly, the requirement that insurance companies cover preexisting conditions. That decision could affect the millions of Americans who now have, or previously had, COVID-19. Even though most cases of the disease are mild, there have been numerous reports of symptoms lingering for months after infection, as well as heart and lung damage.
COVID is “not an acute episodic disease—it has a long tail” and could therefore easily qualify as a preexisting condition, says Benjamin, who was formerly secretary of the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, a position in which he oversaw the expansion of the state’s Medicaid program. “I would assume [COVID is] a chronic condition.” But he contends that if the justices on the court cared about access to health care, “they would care about the 20 million people who would lose health insurance” if the ACA were struck down.
Although Barrett has been tight-lipped about how she might rule on any particular case, she has criticized the court’s 2012 decision that upheld the ACA. “Obviously, the future of the ACA [would be] less secure with Judge Barrett on the court, as opposed to Ginsburg,” says Tim Jost, an emeritus professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law. “We don’t know much about Barrett’s views on severability. She’s kind of a blank slate.”
The plaintiffs’ argument that the ACA is entirely dependent on the individual mandate is “absurd—it’s factually not true,” Jost says. “The court should look at what Congress thought it was doing in 2017,” when it reduced the mandate penalty to zero. He thinks it is clear that senators and representatives did not intend to get rid of the law entirely. “If what Congress thinks matters, [the court] should not invalidate the law,” he adds. But Barrett considers herself a textualist, someone who believes laws and the Constitution should be strictly interpreted with regard to the words used in them. “The problem with textualists,” Jost says, “is they believe ‘the law means what I say it means.’”
The ACA is an extremely complex health care law, and striking down even parts of it would be incredibly disruptive—especially in the midst of a pandemic. “Anything can happen,” Keith says. “There’s absolutely room for [the court] to strike parts of the ACA and cause some chaos.”
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here. And read coverage from our international network of magazines here.


scientificamerican--2020-10-21--Apple-Sized Stars, a Potato-Shaped Earth and the Force That Creates Our Reality

Life ’ s up and downs may seem as inevitable as gravity , but somehow 2020 feels worse than usual .
Just as a thought experiment , what if this year actually did get so weird that it even ushered in a change in how gravity affects our material universe ?
In the video Did the Universe Have to Be the Way That It Is ?
we examine what our universe—and more specifically , our lives—might look like with some tweaks to the physics responsible for the world as we know it .
If gravity were just a little stronger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ curvature of spacetime would be greater , and matter could more easily collapse in on itself .
This arrangement would make stars , galaxies and planets extremely diminutive , compared with the ones in our reality .
Not only would we have less space on Earth , but our sun would deplete its nuclear fuel much more rapidly—meaning that evolution , and life itself , would be greatly curtailed .
If gravity were weaker , Earth would be gigantic , and it might be oddly shaped like some asteroids—or a potato .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our planet , we might find ourselves , say , jumping to grab a rebound in a basketball game , only to accidentally end up in the upper atmosphere or orbiting the globe as a tiny human space station .
What if we weren ’ t three-dimensional at all ?
( Imagine people as paper cutouts . )
If we lived in two dimensions , gravity would act very differently .
Although we would still have the spacetime curvature noted in Einstein ’ s general theory of relativity , such curvature would no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of flattened universe , we could instead have “ scalar gravity , ” in which Newton ’ s description of gravity would have been the final word , and black holes would be relegated to science fiction .
Thankfully , even though 2020 seems topsy-turvy , we still have gravity to keep us grounded .

Life’s up and downs may seem as inevitable as gravity, but somehow 2020 feels worse than usual. Just as a thought experiment, what if this year actually did get so weird that it even ushered in a change in how gravity affects our material universe?
In the video Did the Universe Have to Be the Way That It Is? we examine what our universe—and more specifically, our lives—might look like with some tweaks to the physics responsible for the world as we know it.
If gravity were just a little stronger in our own three-dimensional world, the curvature of spacetime would be greater, and matter could more easily collapse in on itself. This arrangement would make stars, galaxies and planets extremely diminutive, compared with the ones in our reality. Not only would we have less space on Earth, but our sun would deplete its nuclear fuel much more rapidly—meaning that evolution, and life itself, would be greatly curtailed.
If gravity were weaker, Earth would be gigantic, and it might be oddly shaped like some asteroids—or a potato. And rather than walking on the surface of our planet, we might find ourselves, say, jumping to grab a rebound in a basketball game, only to accidentally end up in the upper atmosphere or orbiting the globe as a tiny human space station.
What if we weren’t three-dimensional at all? (Imagine people as paper cutouts.) If we lived in two dimensions, gravity would act very differently. Although we would still have the spacetime curvature noted in Einstein’s general theory of relativity, such curvature would no longer produce gravitational forces. For this sort of flattened universe, we could instead have “scalar gravity,” in which Newton’s description of gravity would have been the final word, and black holes would be relegated to science fiction.
Thankfully, even though 2020 seems topsy-turvy, we still have gravity to keep us grounded.