ReportWire

Tag: Media and Journalism

  • Attributing the rising costs of groceries to “price gouging” is not accurate

    Attributing the rising costs of groceries to “price gouging” is not accurate

    [ad_1]

    Fact Check By:
    Craig Jones, Newswise

    Truthfulness: Mostly False

    Claim:

    Grocery stores need to be brought to heel over food prices. This isn’t ‘inflation’ because it isn’t caused by monetary oversupply. It’s just price gouging and we know that because we can literally see that they’re all reporting surplus profits.

    Claim Publisher and Date: Twitter user emmy rākete among others on 2023-01-21

    On social media, complaints regarding the rising costs of groceries are trending. It’s no surprise after all, the price of groceries has gone up around 13% compared to last year. According to the data from the Labor Department, the price of fruits and vegetables increased by 10.4 percent annually, while milk rose 15.2 percent and eggs soared 30.5 percent. Like other sectors of the economy, food prices are susceptible to supply chain complications and geopolitical unrest including the war in Ukraine. But some people have expressed their disdain for grocery store companies, accusing them of “price gouging” to increase their profits, which have been reaching exorbitant heights (corporate profits are at their highest levels in nearly 50 years, according to CBS MoneyWatch).

    For example, this tweet shared by thousands blames the rising prices of groceries on retailers engaged in price gouging: “Grocery stores need to be brought to heel over food prices. This isn’t ‘inflation’ because it isn’t caused by monetary oversupply. It’s just price gouging and we know that because we can literally see that they’re all reporting surplus profits.” 

    Is putting the blame on grocery store managers for your rising costs of orange juice accurate? It’s not quite that simple. The claim of “price gouging” at the grocery store is misleading because of the complex nature of the grocery business. Professor Lisa Jack, School of Accounting, Economics and Finance and lead of the Food Cultures in Transition (FoodCiTi) research group at the University of Portsmouth explains…

    Supermarket profits are complex and care should be taken with attributing them to any one cause. There are three main factors:

    1. Commercial income, also known as suppliers payments or back margin, contributes heavily to supermarket profits. These payments and support from suppliers to the supermarket include volume discounts and marketing fees. These can represent as much as 7% of a supermarket’s income: bottom line profits can average around 1-2% of income. Primary producers are seeing rapidly increasing costs for all inputs and having been squeezed to breaking point over the last 20 years, have no choice but to increase the prices of their output. Similarly for processors, packagers, distributors and every other business supplying supermarkets. The supermarkets themselves claim to be fighting on behalf of consumers to be keeping prices down and there is evidence that they are refusing price increase requests, which implies that commercial income is still being maintained. 
    1. In the last few years, supermarkets have been increasing profits by cutting overhead costs at head offices and in support services. Counterintuitively, the only economy of scale they have is bargaining power – see above. All their activities, including large stores, increase the overhead costs which can be as much as 75% of their spend. A significant amount of recent ‘soaring profits’ come from job losses, which are not sustainable in the long run. 
    1. Since their emergence in the 1920s, the business model for supermarkets has been to sell basics at little or no profit relying on high volumes to break even. Profits come from enticing customers to buy at least one impulse, premium item of food and non-grocery items. 8 of the 10 best sellers in supermarkets are the cheaper (but still higher profit margin) alcohol, confectionery and snacks. Since the pandemic and the cost of living crisis hit, more of us are exchanging going out for buying in ready-meals, alcohol and other treats, and buying more of our non-grocery items from supermarkets. These are where the profits come from, and they are being taken away from other sectors. Unsurprisingly, the food businesses that have the highest margins are those that produce brands of alcohol, confectionery etc – ‘Big Food’.

    Note to Journalists/Editors: The expert quotes are free to use in your relevant articles on this topic. Please attribute them to their proper sources.

    [ad_2]

    Newswise

    Source link

  • International recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of new-onset refractory status epilepticus (NORSE)

    International recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of new-onset refractory status epilepticus (NORSE)

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — The following is the transcript from an episode of ILAE’s podcast, Sharp Waves.

    Sharp Waves episodes are meant for educational purposes only, and not as medical or clinical advice.

    Download the episode 

    You can listen to and download all Sharp Waves episodes, including this one, on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music, or the ILAE website.

    First-line immunotherapy and the ketogenic diet are two main recommendations for treatment of NORSE of unknown cause, according to results from an international consensus group. Dr. Maryam Nabavi Nouri interviews first author Dr. Ronny Wickstrom.

    Dr. Nabavi Nouri: So thank you for joining us on this episode of Sharp Waves – I’m joined by Dr. Ronny Wickstrom from Stockholm. He’s going to tell us about the international consensus recommendation for management of new-onset refractory status epilepticus (NORSE) and febrile infection-related epilepsy syndrome (FIRES), and I know there are two papers published: one is on summary and clinical tools and the other one statements and supporting evidence.

    Dr. Wickstrom: Thanks for the opportunity to present these papers. I’m Ronny Wickstrom; I’m a pediatric neurologist and epileptologist in Stockholm in Sweden. I’m also professor of child neurology at Karolinska. 

    So my field for a long time has been working with neuroinflammatory diseases, both demyelinating diseases and also encephalitis cases of different kinds, and then I work with epilepsy. And these have been my two fields, and these two fields meet in FIRES, so that’s how I came to start with this. 

    I had a case actually, six or seven years ago, a FIRES case, that did not end well, of course, like they often do not. He survived but he had severe sequelae. It sort of puzzled me, this whole FIRES thing and I wasn’t aware of FIRES until then. I’d heard of it, but this is an epilepsy phenotype where we believe that autoimmune or some sort of immunological at least components are involved. So that’s where I came into it, because those were my two worlds met anyway. 

    But when it started out, it started as a FIRES discussion. And we in the pediatric field had some FIRES communities. And what’s happened over the last couple of years, and which I’ve had the privilege of being involved in, is that this has merged with the NORSE community, which was also existing. So NORSE was perceived as an adult disease and FIRES as a pediatric disease, and one of the things we want to emphasize here is that that’s probably not true.

    One of the things we were doing in the FIRES field and also in the NORSE field is there’s a lot of research trying to be done, and there’s some data coming out, but it’s very hard, these are hard areas to study. One of course is that this is new onset, so there’s no population to study until they end up in refractory status epilepticus. And this, it’s very rare, and also it’s rare in a very hyperacute thing, so if you try to set up clinical trials, with standardized sampling and standardized testing and standardized treatment for these patients, it’s very difficult because you’re in a hyperacute situation where you have to do everything for your patient. So designing trials is extremely difficult. 

    We went through all the data before we started this and there’s a lot of case series and case presentations, and even in the larger case series and the ones we tried to compile, for instance, all the children that have been treated with IL-1 inhibition – one of the lessons we learned from that is even though we tried to standardize the data when we looked at it, it really ended up being 26 children, 26 individuals. It’s really, really difficult. That means what you’re left with as a clinician is there’s not a lot of solid data to base anything on. 

    So what we wanted to do with this Delphi approach, which, I’d been a part of another Delphi approach where we tried to summarize treatment in NMDA encephalitis. So I thought one way to do this or to try to summarize what we do know and give some sort of recommendations — we’ve been careful not to call these guidelines or anything like that because they’re not — we don’t have any evidence to say that they are guidelines. This is a recommendation, something to hold onto as a clinician and as a researcher. And we tried to compile this group of people that we thought for one or another reason were important to have as a part of it, and compile recommendations that covered everything from what is NORSE and FIRES, and also diagnostics and workup, treatment and long-term treatment, and then, and that’s the second part of why we undertook this and why I thought it was important, it also provided a possibility to try to bring everyone together because that’s the next step here. 

    This is a very rare and hyperacute and complicated thing. We at least need to try to, I mean we obviously need to study it better and we need large consortia to do this, and we need a common understanding, and common data elements, and speak the same language, and tests standardized and things like that, even if it’s only real-world studies. So the second idea of bringing this together was to create a platform like a solid ground, and this is the first step, to start a research consortium and international consortium where we can do these studies.

    Dr. Nabavi Nouri: Thank you. I understand there was a core group, and then a bigger group, an expert panel of 48 people internationally. Of course the Delphi method is quite interesting too, in that in this particular project there was a pre-set of questions and then it led to a stage 1 and a stage 2.

    Dr. Wickstrom: Yeah, so the Delphi methodology is an interesting way of doing things. It’s a standardized way of reaching a consensus, basically that’s what that is. You can be very orthodox or less orthodox and there are different ways of doing it. But the basic principle is the same. The idea is that rather than asking questions, you try to phrase statements like a recommendation or a guideline, if you have enough data for that. And for statements where you reach a consensus that’s all fine, and in statements where you do not reach a consensus for some reason, the idea is that you try to mold or adjust these statements until they are acceptable by the group as a consensus. 

    So a couple of things here. One is of course how do you select the group, how do you choose what group? How do you form the questions or the statements? And then, what is a consensus? I mean 100% is obviously a consensus but is 70% a consensus? There’s no definition, I mean no clear definition on this. We chose the methods that had most often been used in how to do this.

    So a couple of things were unusual in this case. One is that for a Delphi process, having 48 experts is a very large group. It’s almost impossible. Of course this gives you so much input, and so that’s not the problem. The problem of course is if there’s too much input, and trying to get a consensus, and also trying to get all of these people together is very difficult. The other side of that is that I think the people in this group were perfect. I think we could have probably found 48 others too that should have been on this group. Looking at representation, it’s very heavy in Europe and North America and there’s a lot of great research coming out of Asia, for instance, and we have suboptimal representation from Japan, Korea, China, and other places. 

    And then what we did, which is also unusual, is that we had this initial question of, we’re dealing with two things, there are two ways of slicing this if you want to. We’re dealing with adults and children, and should we, are the questions usable for both groups or should we divide them? 

    And also we’re dealing with NORSE and FIRES and those are more or less the same, because NORSE children are perceived to have FIRES and adults have NORSE. So we asked the group, and we were divided on this: Should we perform one Delphi, which is what we did, or should we divide it and do a pediatric and an adult one? 

    The reason we actually decided to go with the Delphi, one Delphi, is that there’s not a whole lot of evidence supporting that this is pediatric disease on one hand and NORSE is different. A lot of evidence points to this being very overlapping diseases or conditions. And if nothing else the traditional or the use of anti-inflammatory treatment in children as, for instance, IL-1 inhibition using anakinra, whereas in adults it’s IL-6 inhibition and in this case it was tocilizumab. There’s no real reason for this, it’s just in adults that’s been used more and it’s different traditions. We felt in this case the differences, we can probably learn more from the differences from the adult and pediatrics sides that it won’t cause a problem. 

    Joining or defining FIRES as a part of NORSE, we corroborated that here. But that’s in the definitions that was published in 2019 and 2018, even. So that was nothing new, but it’s important to emphasize that if you look at adults with NORSE in the Yale cohort for instance right now, their preliminary data show that more than half of the adult NORSE patients actually fulfill FIRES criteria as well. And conversely there are children who don’t fulfill FIRES criteria. But it’s quite rare. It’s obvious that the children, in children, in younger ages, the prevalence of an infection preceding the illness is much higher. It’s not 100% but it’s getting there.

    The important things in this is to try to look at all kinds of NORSE, including FIRES, as a potentially immunological problem. Especially cryptogenic NORSE. So NORSE today is a condition that can include infectious diseases, it can include autoimmune diseases, and if you find that of course you treat that. If you don’t find that and then you’re stuck with, so you have inconclusive results, cases of no etiology, we want to emphasize the importance of trying to break a vicious circle which is probably, I’m not going to say it’s inflammatory but at least it’s immunological. And that’s been more used in the pediatric field because it’s so obvious, I mean from a preceding illness, that this could be some sort of activation, whereas that’s not the case in adults. There are some data looking at refractory status epilepticus in adults showing that immunological treatments are not really on the table, or definitely not as early as they should be. 

    So to think that this is possibly immunological, there’s an immunological component in this and you have to target that, because if you don’t break that circle, none of your regular anti-seizure medications are going to work. So that’s one of the things, to start early with first-line immunotherapy, and escalate early and aggressively to second-line immunotherapy.

    The other thing that’s also in this, which is not primarily immunological, is that we advocate the use of ketogenic diet as early as possible. And that’s also used in pediatrics but not so much in adults. The reason for advocating that is that’s one of the few treatments that has actually been shown in small but still case series to be effective. So we believe that adding ketogenic diet early, which is in this case was defined in the recommendations as seven days, is of importance. 

    Dr. Nabavi Nouri: Thank you. What would be the implications of the results?

    Dr. Wickstrom: The important implication is to look at your local guidelines on how you treat status epilepticus and refractory status epilepticus in your hospitals. We can see, we haven’t shown that here but there’s data showing that a lot of hospitals don’t have clear guidelines on this and the ones that do have them rarely include immunotherapy. So looking at these guidelines, this would affect your local guidelines for refractory status epilepticus and super-refractory status epilepticus, if these are new onset, during the first week of treatment. 

    When it comes to workup and diagnostics, there’s a lot of recommendations on how to do this. And this also differs a little bit. We know that in pediatrics, for instance, we sometimes don’t take all the antibodies that we should do. We know in adult situations, it’s perceived as not so important to look at genetics or metabolic disease, of course because it’s not as prevalent, but it should be part of your workup. So during the first couple of days, during the workup, the implications of these papers is that that it can give you recommendations on where to look and try to widen your screening. 

    And then the big implications is of course the treatment implication from day three, and that includes primary immunotherapy or first line immunotherapy, and then escalating that by day seven.

    Dr. Nabavi-Nouri: Well I think having those timeframes arguably could be altering outcomes, especially when we’re really dealing with, as you mentioned you had one case and it will never leave you for the rest of your career, always trying to understand what you can do better. What would be the next steps of this, next steps of this very impressive consensus group?

    Dr. Wickstrom: So the next step everyone is dreaming about, which we were thinking about, I mean it’s been a couple of years that we’ve been thinking that this should have been started, is clinical trials of treatments. It’s just it’s very, very difficult it turns out. It’s difficult to agree on if we do a treatment, how do we do it, is it head-to-head treatment and if so, what do we use? It’s going to be really, really hard to design those trials at this point. I don’t think we have enough data for anyone because you as a treating clinician, you need to treat your patient the way you think is best, and it’s hard to randomize patients. You have to have compliance from the group. And that was part of doing this, was to increase compliance and let everyone have a say in how to design these clinical trials. 

    I’m hoping we can fairly soon arrive at clinical trials, but I also think we need to think differently than that and think about how we can design real-life studies that are usable. For instance, can we look at some sort of clinical decision support that can serve both the purpose of filling up a biobank of data and possibly samples, at the same time that it offers you as a clinician help.

    But I hope the work that we’ve done is to create awareness in this group and in other groups that there is a consortium or there will be a consortium and this is open – the more people who want to join the better the stronger we can get. And we can use this to do good research, to get funding to do research and also to try to help these children and adults. And hopefully expand into refractory status epilepticus (RSE), because I mean – one debate now is, what actually differs? Why is NORSE different from other RSE? That’s a valid question.  I think in many cases it will be, for instance if you have structural, some sort of etiologies, or if you have an ongoing epilepsy, that’s probably a different sort. But immunological components may be a part even in that case. 

    But I think what NORSE as a concept offers is it offers a sort of umbrella that can help us in forwarding and advancing our knowledge. And maybe in 2 years or 5 or 10 years we’ll decide there’s no such thing as NORSE, it’s just RSE that happens to be new onset and we understand what it is. 

    Dr. Nabavi Nouri: Lastly, and second to last question would be about the CSF cytokines. I’m very intrigued that it made it to the consensus. It’s been a big point of debate for two reasons: one is for clinical availability in terms of using reliable labs that can give you a clinical turnaround time as quickly as you would like to use it as a biomarker to guide treatment, and the other one is always timing, I find, because the cytokine profile can change quite drastically. I see there were two questions in the consensus – one whether it would be used for a biomarker of disease progression and response to treatment, and the other one was a choice of medication. 

    Dr. Wickstrom: So one of the hypotheses concerning FIRES and also NORSE is that it at least involves, maybe that’s not the whole mechanism, but it involves cytokine release. And that part of the immunological activation is actually the problem. There is some evidence to support that from animal data, and also there’s evidence in humans from blocking IL-1 and IL-6 mainly, with good results. So that’s the idea why cytokines appear to be important. 

    Just as you mentioned, there are several problems with cytokines. One is that it’s hugely complex – it’s really a web of different cytokines and they affect one another. For instance, we know that IL-1, which is a regulator of the proinflammatory system, we hardly ever see it because it has a very short half-life. Just by looking at lab data we have for IL-1, for instance, you would never use an IL-1 blocker, that would be a logical result of that, and still we know that it works. Looking at IL-1 levels doesn’t really help. 

    The second problem with cytokines is that they’re hard to analyze, if you don’t have access to a lab, but they’re also hard to sample. Whereas antibodies are very stable, cytokines are not stable, so you really, if you don’t sample it the right way for instance from the start, then you go to your bacterial or microbiology lab and say do you have any CSF left, and it’s been standing on a lab bench for two hours and cytokines have degenerated.

    I would love to say you should look at cytokines and you should use that, but we don’t know that. But tentatively, if we believe that cytokines are involved in this, it should or could be possible to have it both as a marker of disease and also as disease progression. But just like you said, it’s not a question of whether this goes up and then it goes down and then it’s gone. Inflammation is a tricky thing because it’s an endogenous response you want to have. And one of the consequences of a proinflammatory response – when we say inflammation, we usually mean proinflammation – the other thing is we have anti-inflammation. The proinflammatory cytokines will increase the anti-inflammatory response and we know for instance in studies of encephalitis cases, you really need to look at the ratio between pro- and anti-inflammatory to understand it. 

    Dr. Nabavi Nouri: What do young clinician researchers listening, how can they get more involved in this type of research? Are there any organizations or consensus groups with in the ILAE or within this consortium that they could approach and explore being more involved in this type of research?

    Dr. Wickstrom: Right now this consortium that I’m referring to isn’t really a consortium, it’s something we want to evolve into. But people are there and it’s open, 100% open to everyone who wants to join, both from a learning perspective and because this is an area to which you want to contribute is fantastic. 

    One way of accessing this or being involved is via the NORSE Institute. And that’s NORSEinstitute.org. It’s a North American institute that was started by the mother of a patient who died from this, and she’s done a fantastic job in trying to promote this research and bringing all of us together. You can find the names and email addresses of many of the people who have been part of this, and we regularly update it with published literature and how to find your way to the different ongoing studies, and that’s a way in.

    Dr. Nabavi-Nouri: To conclude, I’d like to ask if there’s anything more that you’d like to add and most importantly any take home messages that we’d like to leave our listeners with.

    Dr. Wickstrom: I really, really want to emphasize the immunological treatment because I can see that’s not working perfectly, of course not, but it could be improved a lot in kids, but even more so in adults, because they’re not using immunological treatment at all, and I’m convinced it will help so many adults with NORSE. And FIRES, probably both NORSE and FIRES. That’s an important take-home message.

    ##

    The recommendations and clinical tools are available now:

    International consensus recommendations for management of new-onset refractory status epilepticus (NORSE) including febrile infection-related epilepsy syndrome (FIRES): Summary and clinical tools

    International consensus recommendations for management of new-onset refractory status epilepticus (NORSE) including febrile infection-related epilepsy syndrome (FIRES): Statements and supporting evidence

    Families affected by NORSE/FIRES can join the NORSE Family Registry and contribute information that may help shape and initiate research. NORSE Family Registry registration is available in multiple languages: English | français | Mandarin | español

     

    Founded in 1909, the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) is a global organization with more than 125 national chapters.

    Through promoting research, education and training to improve the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of the disease, ILAE is working toward a world where no person’s life is limited by epilepsy.

    Website | Facebook | Instagram | YouTube

    Twitter: English French Japanese Portuguese Spanish

    [ad_2]

    International League Against Epilepsy

    Source link

  • Inoculation from the vaccine does not transfer over to blood transfusion patient

    Inoculation from the vaccine does not transfer over to blood transfusion patient

    [ad_1]

    Fact Check By:
    Newswise

    Truthfulness: False

    Claim:

    The parents of Baby Will are right to insist on unvaccinated blood. The safety of the blood supply is unknown. We have a medical community which is not trustable on anything vax related.

    Claim Publisher and Date: Steve Kirsch, among others on 2022-12-04

    In New Zealand, the parents of a baby who needs life-saving open heart surgery insist that his blood transfusion comes from donors who haven’t had the COVID-19 vaccine. Anti-vaccine campaigners have recently used this case to focus on the lingering claim that those who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19 have “clean blood” or “pure blood” and that it’s dangerous for them to receive a transfusion from someone who is vaccinated.  For example, anti-vaccine activist Steve Kirsch claims that because of COVID-19 vaccination, “The safety of the blood supply is unknown.” The parents of the baby have appeared on far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ Infowars podcast, defending their position. 

    The claim is completely false. Blood from an inoculated person cannot transfer any of the messenger RNA to the blood recipient. The vaccines that are available in the U.S. would not pose any risk of infecting either the recipient of the vaccine with the virus that causes COVID-19 or anyone who might receive a blood transfusion from that person, since none of the available vaccines use a live attenuated virus. The Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies have issued guidance to help doctors answer patient questions on the issue.

    “There is absolutely no contraindication,” says Edward Michelson – Professor and Chairman, Department of Emergency Medicine, Paul L. Foster School of Medicine (PLFSOM), Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso.

    “There is no increased risk in receiving blood from vaccinated donors. When it comes to your medical care, you should listen to your doctor, not Alex Jones,” says Dr. Brian Labus, Assistant Professor, School of Public Health at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 

     

     

    [ad_2]

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Positive media coverage of cannabis studies regardless of therapeutic effect

    Positive media coverage of cannabis studies regardless of therapeutic effect

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — In cannabis trials against pain, people who take placebos report feeling largely the same level of pain relief as those who consume the active cannabinoid substance. Still, these studies receive significant media coverage regardless of the clinical outcome, report researchers from Karolinska Institutet in Sweden in a study published in JAMA Network Open.

    “We see that cannabis studies are often described in positive terms in the media regardless of their results,” says the study’s first author Filip Gedin, postdoc researcher at the Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet. “This is problematic and can influence expectations when it comes to the effects of cannabis therapy on pain. The greater the benefit a treatment is assumed to have, the more potential harms can be tolerated.”

    The study is based on an analysis of published clinical studies in which cannabis has been compared with placebo for the treatment of clinical pain. The change in pain intensity before and after treatment were the study’s primary outcome measurement.

    The analysis drew on 20 studies published up to September 2021 involving almost 1,500 individuals.

    The results of the study show that pain is rated as being significantly less intense after treatment with placebo, with a moderate to large effect. The researchers also observed no difference in pain reduction between cannabis and placebo, which corroborates results from another recently published meta-analysis. 

    “There is a distinct and clinically relevant placebo response in studies of cannabis for pain,” says Dr Gedin.

    The researchers also examined a possible connection between the magnitude of the therapeutic effect shown by the cannabis studies and the coverage they receive in the media and in academic journals. Media presence was measured through Altmetric, which is a method of evaluating mentions in the media, in blogs and on social media. Academic impact was measured in terms of citations by other researchers.

    The analysis of media presence included a total of 136 news items in traditional media and in blogs and was categorised as positive, negative or neutral, depending on how the results were presented concerning the effectiveness of cannabis as a treatment for pain.

    The researchers found that the cannabis studies received much greater media attention than other published studies. The coverage was substantial regardless of the magnitude of the placebo response and regardless of the therapeutic effect of cannabis. They also observed no link between the proportion of positively described news about a study and the effect it reported. 

    The researchers add the caveat that their study combined trials of varying designs and quality and therefore the results should be interpreted with caution.

    This research was financed by Riksbankens Jubileumsfond (Karin Jensen). The researchers report no potential conflicts of interest.

    Publication: “Placebo Response and media attention in randomized clinical trials assessing cannabis-based therapies for pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis”, Filip Gedin, Sebastian Blomé, Moa Ponten, Maria Lalouni, Jens Fust, Andreé Raquette, Viktor Vadenmark Lundquist, William H. Thompson and Karin Jensen, JAMA Network Open, online 28 November, 2022, doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.43848

    [ad_2]

    Karolinska Institute

    Source link

  • Science in motion: A qualitative analysis of journalists’ use and perception of preprints

    Science in motion: A qualitative analysis of journalists’ use and perception of preprints

    [ad_1]

    Abstract

    This qualitative study explores how and why journalists use preprints—unreviewed research papers—in their reporting. Through thematic analysis of interviews conducted with 19 health and science journalists in the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, it applies a theoretical framework that conceptualizes COVID-19 preprint research as a form of post-normal science, characterized by high scientific uncertainty and societal relevance, urgent need for political decision-making, and value-related policy considerations. Findings suggest that journalists approach the decision to cover preprints as a careful calculation, in which the potential public benefits and the ease of access preprints provided were weighed against risks of spreading misinformation. Journalists described viewing unreviewed studies with extra skepticism and relied on diverse strategies to find, vet, and report on them. Some of these strategies represent standard science journalism, while others, such as labeling unreviewed studies as preprints, mark a departure from the norm. However, journalists also reported barriers to covering preprints, as many felt they lacked the expertise or the time required to fully understand or vet the research. The findings suggest that coverage of preprints is likely to continue post-pandemic, with important implications for scientists, journalists, and the publics who read their work.

    [ad_2]

    Simon Fraser University

    Source link

  • EXPERT: Trump presidential campaign, author of book “News After Trump: Journalism’s Crisis of Relevance in a Changed Media Culture”

    EXPERT: Trump presidential campaign, author of book “News After Trump: Journalism’s Crisis of Relevance in a Changed Media Culture”

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Seth Lewis is an internationally recognized expert on news and technology, with more than 10,000 citations to a body of work that includes nearly 100 journal articles and book chapters. He recently co-authored the book, “News After Trump: Journalism’s Crisis of Relevance in a Changed Media Culture,” which was published by Oxford University Press.

    His research, which broadly addresses the social implications of emerging technologies, focuses on the digital transformation of journalism — from how news is made (news production) to how people make sense of it in their everyday lives (news consumption).

    In addition to being the founding holder of the Shirley Papé Chair in Emerging Media in the School of Journalism and Communication at the University of Oregon, Lewis is a fellow with the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, an affiliate fellow of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School, an affiliated faculty member of the University of Oregon’s Agora Journalism Center and Center for Science Communication Research, and a recent visiting fellow at the University of Oxford’s Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

    He is a two-time winner of the International Communication Association’s award for Outstanding Article of the Year in Journalism Studies — in 2016 for the article “Actors, Actants, Audiences, and Activities in Cross-Media News Work,” and in 2013 for “The Tension Between Professional Control and Open Participation: Journalism and its Boundaries,” as well as an honorable mention distinction in 2014 for “Open Source and Journalism: Toward New Frameworks for Imagining News Innovation.”

    During the past decade, Lewis has been a leader in studying innovations in digital journalism, both in examining developments in journalistic practice as well as in introducing new conceptual frameworks for making sense of change.

    In 2009, he co-organized one of the first major studies of journalists’ use of social media, in an article that has become one of the most-cited papers in the field (Lasorsa, Lewis, & Holton, 2012). Since that time, Lewis’ research has examined developments in digital audience analytics/metrics, open innovation processes, and computer programming and software development, as well as the role and influence of nonprofit foundations and other actors in shaping news innovation (see Google Scholar for a complete list of papers).

    [ad_2]

    University of Oregon

    Source link

  • Media Invited to Acoustical Society of America Meeting in Nashville, Dec. 5-9

    Media Invited to Acoustical Society of America Meeting in Nashville, Dec. 5-9

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — NASHVILLE, Tenn., Nov. 10, 2022 – The Acoustical Society of America (ASA) will hold its 183rd meeting Dec. 5-9 at the Grand Hyatt Nashville Hotel. ASA183 will be an in-person meeting with several hybrid sessions where remote attendance will also be possible.

    The scientific conference brings together acoustical experts and researchers from around the world to share experiments and applications on topics as diverse as dust devils on Mars, therapeutic music apps, 3D printed violins, and using machine learning to detect diarrhea and prevent cholera outbreaks – just to name a few. Conference highlights can be found on social media by searching the #ASA183 hashtag.

    Reporters are invited to attend the meeting at no cost (registration details below) and participate in a series of press conferences featuring a selection of newsworthy sessions. Reporters may also register to join the press conferences virtually. Times and topics will be announced in the coming weeks, and journalists may pre-register here: https://live.webcastplatform.com/go/asa. 

     

    ——————— SAMPLING OF INTERESTING SESSIONS ——————–

    • 1pMU6 – Emotion equalization app: A first study and results.
    • 2aSA4 – Old meets new: 3-D printing and the art of violinmaking
    • 3aPAa6 – Automated detection of dust-devil-induced pressure signatures
    • 5aAB2 – Vocal learning, chorusing seal pups, and the evolution of rhythm.
    • 3pAA1 – Modern movie sound: reality and simulated reality.
    • 1pCA9 – The feces thesis: Using machine learning to detect diarrhea.
    • 1pCA8 – Pneumonia diagnosis algorithm based on room impulse responses using cough sounds
    • 2aAAa7 – Noise from above: A summary of studies regarding the perceived annoyance due to impact sounds

     

    More information on these and all other meeting sessions is available via ASA’s meeting page and in the technical program:

    Main meeting website: https://acousticalsociety.org/asa-meetings/

    Technical program: https://eppro02.ativ.me/web/planner.php?id=ASAFALL22&proof=true

     

    ———————– MORE MEETING INFORMATION ———————–

    ASA PRESS ROOM

    In the coming weeks, ASA’s Press Room will be updated with newsworthy stories and the press conference schedule at https://acoustics.org/asa-press-room/. 

    LAY LANGUAGE PAPERS

    ASA will also share dozens of lay language papers about topics covered at the conference. Lay language papers are 300-500 word summaries of presentations written by scientists for a general audience. They will be accompanied by photos, audio, and video. Learn more at https://acoustics.org/lay-language-papers/.

    PRESS REGISTRATION

    ASA will grant free registration to credentialed and professional freelance journalists. If you are a reporter and would like to attend the meeting or virtual press conferences, contact AIP Media Services at [email protected].  For urgent requests, AIP staff can also help with setting up interviews and obtaining images, sound clips, or background information.

    ABOUT THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA

    The Acoustical Society of America (ASA) is the premier international scientific society in acoustics devoted to the science and technology of sound. Its 7,000 members worldwide represent a broad spectrum of the study of acoustics. ASA publications include The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (the world’s leading journal on acoustics), JASA Express Letters, Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Acoustics Today magazine, books, and standards on acoustics. The society also holds two major scientific meetings each year. See https://acousticalsociety.org/.

    [ad_2]

    Acoustical Society of America (ASA)

    Source link

  • Americans more likely to share COVID-19 misinformation online

    Americans more likely to share COVID-19 misinformation online

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — People living in the United States are more than three times more likely to share misinformation and conspiracy theories about COVID-19 than people in four other English-speaking countries, including Canada, a Simon Fraser University study has found.

    When the entire world stopped in early 2020 due to the pandemic, researchers were presented with a rare opportunity to study the sharing of the same conspiracy theories and other misinformation across multiple countries. 

    SFU political science professor Mark Pickup, along with colleagues from Colorado State University and McMaster University, focused on five Western, English-speaking democracies: the U.S., Canada, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. 

    Researchers found that people in the U.S. were no more likely to report seeing misinformation than people living in any of the other countries but were three times more likely to share these theories with their followers. 

    “America is an outlier. Our findings are consistent with recent work about the outsized role that Americans play in sharing misinformation on social media,” Pickup says. 

    According to the study, published in the Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media, there are a few reasons why Americans stand out from the other countries. 

    While people in other countries self-reported that they shared misinformation to make other aware of them or to criticize them, Americans are considerably more likely to share theories to promote or show support for them and use it as a way to connect with others. 

    The polarized political landscape of the U.S., which also played out in debates about COVID-19, also correlated with the sharing of misinformation. Those who identified as conservative and those that trusted the Trump government were more likely to share misinformation online.

    In all countries, those who have populist attitudes and distrust health officials were more likely to share misinformation than those who do not.

    In Canada, the survey found that the number one reason people shared conspiracy theories online was for people to be aware of them and the second-most common reason was to criticize them.

    Facebook was the most common platform for sharing misinformation, accounting for more than half of those sharing misinformation in each country.

    The results are based on their study of thousands of nationally-representative surveys conducted in each country in July 2020 and January 2021.

     

    ABOUT SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

    As Canada’s engaged university, SFU works with communities, organizations and partners to create, share and embrace knowledge that improves life and generates real change. We deliver a world-class education with lifelong value that shapes change-makers, visionaries and problem-solvers. We connect research and innovation to entrepreneurship and industry to deliver sustainable, relevant solutions to today’s problems. With campuses in British Columbia’s three largest cities—Vancouver, Burnaby and Surrey—SFU has eight faculties that deliver 364 undergraduate degree programs and 149 graduate degree programs to more than 37,000 students. The university now boasts more than 180,000 alumni residing in 145+ countries.

    [ad_2]

    Simon Fraser University

    Source link

  • What’s Up with Twitter? Social Media Experts Available

    What’s Up with Twitter? Social Media Experts Available

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — University of Oregon faculty members from our School of Journalism and Communication who research social and mass media trends and developments are available to discuss the recent developments involving Twitter and its new ownership: from a business perspective, what it means for the social media landscape, as well as the broader cultural reverberations it may have.

    Our faculty experts:

    • Damian Radcliffe, Carolyn S. Chambers Professor in Journalism: Damian Radcliffe is an academic expert in news media trends, social media, community journalism, and media policy. As an experienced digital analyst, consultant, journalist, and researcher, he can speak to media policy and the media landscape. His research focuses on the usage of social media and wider trends in local media, technology, the business of media, and journalism innovation. https://uonews.uoregon.edu/damian-radcliffe-school-journalism-and-communication

    Background

    [ad_2]

    University of Oregon

    Source link

  • Research Links Local News, Civic Health of Communities

    Research Links Local News, Civic Health of Communities

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — PORTLAND, Ore., Oct. 20 — A new report from the University of Oregon’s School of Journalism and Communication’s Agora Journalism Center found that Oregonians are unequally served by local news media and that some communities have few places to turn for local news. The report also describes how journalists and civic leaders are deeply worried about the state’s ability to confront its challenges at a time when the number of news outlets is declining, news audiences are shrinking and misinformation is on the rise.

    The report, “Assessing Oregon’s Local News and Information Ecosystem 2022,” is co-authored by Agora Journalism Center’s Research Director Regina Lawrence and Director Andrew DeVigal as well as two UO School of Journalism and Communication doctoral students. The research is the first effort to comprehensively count the number of legacy and start-up news outlets around Oregon and assess the state’s local news and information ecosystem. It includes an interactive map of news outlets around the state that are regularly producing original local news.

    It also involves an extensive review of research demonstrating the importance of local news to community civic health; insights from interviews with over two dozen Oregon journalists, experts and civic leaders; and recommendations for strengthening our local news ecosystem.

    “At a time when Oregon, like so many states around the country, is facing critical challenges, it’s important to recognize the irreplaceable role of local news in our state’s civic health. The decline in local news production in Oregon mirrors national trends, but Oregon can learn from initiatives being tried in other states and be a leader in reversing the decline,” Lawrence said.

    The authors say the report’s findings raise concerns about Oregon’s news and information infrastructure because research shows that areas without local news have lower rates of civic engagement, higher rates of polarization and corruption, and a diminished sense of community connection.

    “The evidence is increasingly clear that the civic health of communities is inextricably linked to the future of local news. Our analysis represents a step toward evaluating the state of the local news and civic information ecosystem in Oregon. We’re eager to collaborate with others who care about strengthening Oregonians’ access to trusted news and information based on the recommendations we outline in the report,” DeVigal said.

    The report includes examples of how many of Oregon’s legacy news outlets are finding ways to adapt, innovate and grow despite the increasingly challenging environment. It also highlights innovations happening around the country to encourage more collaboration among newsrooms to leverage limited resources, guidance and tools from journalistic support organizations, and efforts in some states to implement public funding to sustain local news.

    The full report, available on Agora Journalism Center’s website, is one example of the work the center is doing to improve the future of local news and civic health in Oregon and beyond. 

     

    ###

     

    About Agora Journalism Center

    The Agora Journalism Center at the UO School of Journalism and Communication is the University of Oregon’s forum for the future of local news and civic health in Oregon and beyond. The center was formed in 2014 with the foundational belief that the health of democracy and journalism are inextricably linked. Since then, the center has been a critical champion for the idea that professional journalism must become more participatory and collaborative with the public if journalism is to meaningfully improve communities’ information health and earn the public’s trust in local news media.

    About the University of Oregon

    The University of Oregon, established by the Oregon legislature in 1876, is a premier public research university that serves its students and the people of Oregon, the nation, and the world through the creation and transfer of knowledge in the liberal arts, the natural and social sciences, and the professions. It is designated by the Carnegie Foundation as a top-tier research university and is a member of the prestigious Association of American Universities, a group of more than 60 leading public and private research universities in the United States and Canada. The UO offers over 300 degree and certificate programs. The UO’s tradition of interdisciplinary research continues today in major centers and institutes involving hundreds of researchers, students and supporting staff members. They range from the Phil and Penny Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact to the Institute of Molecular Biology, the Institute of Neuroscience to the Center for High Energy Physics and the Oregon Humanities Center. In addition, the National Security Agency recently designated the UO a National Center of Academic Excellence in Cyber Defense Research, and the UO’s new Center for Translational Neuroscience seeks to inform public policy while translating this knowledge into clinical applications and novel therapies.

    [ad_2]

    University of Oregon

    Source link

  • Climate change does not cause hurricanes, but it is very likely climate change caused Hurricane Ian to be more destructive

    Climate change does not cause hurricanes, but it is very likely climate change caused Hurricane Ian to be more destructive

    [ad_1]

    While towns across Florida and the Carolinas are cleaning up in the aftermath of Hurricane Ian and the death toll climbs, several high-profile climate change skeptics are questioning the connection between the hurricane and human-caused climate change.

    “Blaming any one individual hurricane on man-made climate change is just the absolute height of absurdity,” tweeted conservative pundit Matt Walsh, in a post that was shared over 20,000 times. In another tweet posted on October 3rd, climate skeptic Peter Clack (whose claim has been the subject of a previous fact check) says, “A hurricane is not climate change. Nor is rainfall, storms or winter snow. They are all just the the weather. This concept of weather has been hijacked by a global warming frenzy, that has been relentless for 33 years. We must see a return to common sense.”

    Scientists concede that any direct links between climate change and one weather event are difficult to prove. However, the consensus is that these extreme weather events are being exacerbated by climate change, making them more intense. Therefore, this claim is rated “half true.”

    “It is true that climate change does not cause hurricanes,” says Andrew Dessler, director of Texas Center for Climate Studies and professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M, “However, we can say with very high confidence that the hurricane was more destructive due to climate change.”  

    Hurricane Ian dumped an enormous amount of rain on parts of Florida. Radar estimates and ground observation rainfall shows well-over one foot of rain fell in just 12-24 hours across a swath of the region. In some of the hardest-hit areas such as Placida and Lake Wales, this exceeds the rainfall rates for 1-in-1,000 year flood events, according to NOAA data. 

    “We are 100% sure that the storm surge was more damaging because it was riding on a higher sea level,” adds Dessler, “We are very confident that global warming is also causing more rainfall from hurricanes because warmer air holds more water. Finally, we have some confidence that climate change is increasing the intensity of hurricanes, so this hurricane may have had stronger winds than it would otherwise have had.” 

    “You need to look at trends,” warns Kim Prather, Distinguished Chair in Atmospheric Chemistry at University of California, San Diego. “And there is definitely an increase in the number of major weather related disasters occurring over recent decades.”

    [ad_2]

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Climate change does not cause hurricanes, but it is very likely climate change caused Hurricane Ian to be more destructive

    Climate change does not cause hurricanes, but it is very likely climate change caused Hurricane Ian to be more destructive

    [ad_1]

    While towns across Florida and the Carolinas are cleaning up in the aftermath of Hurricane Ian and the death toll climbs, several high-profile climate change skeptics are questioning the connection between the hurricane and human-caused climate change.

    “Blaming any one individual hurricane on man-made climate change is just the absolute height of absurdity,” tweeted conservative pundit Matt Walsh, in a post that was shared over 20,000 times. In another tweet posted on October 3rd, climate skeptic Peter Clack (whose claim has been the subject of a previous fact check) says, “A hurricane is not climate change. Nor is rainfall, storms or winter snow. They are all just the the weather. This concept of weather has been hijacked by a global warming frenzy, that has been relentless for 33 years. We must see a return to common sense.”

    Scientists concede that any direct links between climate change and one weather event are difficult to prove. However, the consensus is that these extreme weather events are being exacerbated by climate change, making them more intense. Therefore, this claim is rated “half true.”

    “It is true that climate change does not cause hurricanes,” says Andrew Dessler, director of Texas Center for Climate Studies and professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M, “However, we can say with very high confidence that the hurricane was more destructive due to climate change.”  

    Hurricane Ian dumped an enormous amount of rain on parts of Florida. Radar estimates and ground observation rainfall shows well-over one foot of rain fell in just 12-24 hours across a swath of the region. In some of the hardest-hit areas such as Placida and Lake Wales, this exceeds the rainfall rates for 1-in-1,000 year flood events, according to NOAA data. 

    “We are 100% sure that the storm surge was more damaging because it was riding on a higher sea level,” adds Dessler, “We are very confident that global warming is also causing more rainfall from hurricanes because warmer air holds more water. Finally, we have some confidence that climate change is increasing the intensity of hurricanes, so this hurricane may have had stronger winds than it would otherwise have had.” 

    “You need to look at trends,” warns Kim Prather, Distinguished Chair in Atmospheric Chemistry at University of California, San Diego. “And there is definitely an increase in the number of major weather related disasters occurring over recent decades.”

    [ad_2]

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Yes, coffee can help you live longer and protect you from cardiovascular disease, with a few caveats

    Yes, coffee can help you live longer and protect you from cardiovascular disease, with a few caveats

    [ad_1]

    Coffee is one of the world’s most popular beverages. Here in the United States and in 17 other countries, September 29th is celebrated as National Coffee Day. For the rest of the world, October 1st is International Coffee Day.  It is all about celebrating a love of the caffeinated beverage made from the beans of the tropical evergreen coffee plant and paying respect to the world’s coffee farmers. 

    The possible health benefits of coffee have been percolating in the news for years: Coffee can lower your risk for diabetes, coffee may protect against disease and even some cancers. More recently, headlines claim that coffee can extend your life or reduce cardiovascular disease risk. Good news, coffee lovers. The claim is mostly true.   

    New research showed that people that drank two to three cups of coffee a day appear to live longer. The study also found that there was a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. All types of coffee, including ground, instant, and decaf, appeared to provide this health benefit. The research was published on September 27, 2022, in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology

    Maya Vadivloo backs the claim that coffee is good for you, with some caveats. She is the Associate Professor and Director in Health Sciences Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences at the University of Rhode Island. Vadivloo is an expert on nutrition, appearing often on such outlets as Today.com.

    “Based on existing evidence, I would say it is mostly true that coffee consumption appears to protect against cardiovascular and total mortality, with a few caveats.  I believe evidence remains inconclusive about intake >5 cups/day and that the method of preparation may matter, with some question about whether compounds released when boiling coffee (vs. drip or similar methods) may be less favorable (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7524812/).”

    For those who don’t drink our coffee black, are the benefits still there after we add flavorings such as sugar or cream? “The addition of milk etc. to coffee does not eliminate all health benefits,” says Vadiveloo.  “However, in line with other recommendations for a healthy dietary pattern, limiting forms of added sugar and replacing high-fat dairy with low-fat products would be better for health outcomes and energy balance.”

    Is coffee the magic bullet that will help us live longer, healthier lives? Not quite, says Vadiveloo.

    “While I love coffee, I am always cautious of media coverage that suggests there is some ‘magic bullet’ to improve mortality. While I believe there is compelling evidence that 2-3 cups (or even <5 cups of coffee) have cardioprotective and mortality benefits, it’s not a recommendation that exists in isolation.  Regular coffee consumption when part of a heart-healthy diet rich in minimally processed fruits, vegetables, healthy sources of protein (mostly plant sources like nuts and legumes, seafood, and fish), whole grains, heart-healthy vegetable oils, and limited in added sugars, salt, and high fat meats as advocated by the recent American Heart Association dietary guidance (https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001031) is the secret to improving overall health and mortality. (**disclaimer, I was a part of the AHA writing group)

    So I would say, if people enjoy coffee, they should continue to do so as part of a healthy dietary pattern, and to be mindful of what things they add to their coffee to maximize the health benefits.  And further, if people want to replace less healthy beverages in their diet (e.g., sodas and fruit juices) with coffee, that would be a positive step.”

    [ad_2]

    Newswise

    Source link

  • The COVID pandemic is over? Not quite there, say scientists

    The COVID pandemic is over? Not quite there, say scientists

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — In widely covered remarks during an interview with 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley, President Biden claimed, “the pandemic is over.” Biden elaborated, adding, “we still have a problem with COVID, we’re still doing a lot of work on it, but the pandemic is over. If you noticed, no one’s wearing masks, everybody seems to be in pretty good shape. And so I think it’s changing, and I think this is a perfect example of it.” 

    According to the Washington Post, Biden’s remarks caught some senior officials off guard, particularly since the U.S. government has started its fall vaccination campaign. Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced more relaxed COVID-19 guidelines last month, the agency specifically said that the pandemic was not over in a press release issued on August 11th. Therefore, this statement has earned a rating of “Half True.”

    With the rollout of boosters of life-saving vaccines, new treatments, and a large population already infected, the U.S. is in a less vulnerable place than it was in 2020.  However, the death toll, while lower than before, is still at around 400 deaths per day from COVID-19 in the U.S. Many health experts say we’re not out of the woods yet.

    “Saying that the pandemic is over has much larger and more serious ramifications, it means we take away resources allocated by Congress and other agencies. We must be careful about saying it is over. We still need resources to continue vaccination and to address vaccine hesitancy.” says Bernadette Boden-Albala, MPH, DrPH, Founding Dean and Director of the UCI Program in Public Health.

    The end of masking restrictions and relaxing of other major guidelines has given many Americans a sense of moving on from the national health crisis that has festered for more than two years. Biden’s remarks, though perhaps an oversimplification, reflect national sentiment. However, COVID-19 is still very much evident in our U.S. population, and will likely continue for the foreseeable future. 

    “This is in great part due to human behaviors and motivations,” says Halkitis, “including subpar vaccination uptake, which continues to place all of us at risk for infection.” 

    [ad_2]

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Wind turbines recoup the energy required to build them within a year of normal operation

    Wind turbines recoup the energy required to build them within a year of normal operation

    [ad_1]

    There may be two sides to the debate about certain aspects of wind power, but the amount of oil they use is not one of them. 

    Despite the numbers, memes continue to make the rounds on social media claiming the technology is worthless because of the costs to produce them, and the oil required to lubricate its gears. 

    For example, one Twitter post reads, “the turbine has to spin continually [sic] for 7 years just to replace the energy it took to manufacture.” See other similar posts here, here and here. 

    The fact is that wind turbines recoup the energy required to build them within a year of normal operation, according to researchers, earning these claims a rating of False.

    Jack Brouwer is a  professor of mechanical & aerospace engineering at the University of California, Irvine. He is also the director of UCI’s Advanced Power and Energy Program and the National Fuel Cell Research Center.

    I refute the claim that “wind power is inefficient and unnecessarily expensive.”  Data regarding wind power costs has been published by many organizations, for example by the International Renewable Energy Association (IRENA) as presented below, which show that wind power costs have been dropping very significantly in the last decade and are becoming competitive with fossil fuel combustion power generation prices on an energy basis (note current prices for onshore wind less than $0.05/kWh and for offshore wind less than $0.10/kWh).  And these prices are likely to continue to decline into the future as the market size and turbine sizes continue to increase.  Regarding the inefficiency claim, wind turbines can convert wind energy into electricity at efficiencies in the range of 20-40%, but efficiency is an inconsequential metric that should not be used to determine the value of wind power since the input wind energy is renewable and available at zero cost, which is very different from the efficiency metric as applied to fuel generation for which fuel must be purchased.

    Stephen C. Nolet, Principal Engineer and Senior Director, Innovation & Technology at TPI Composites, Inc. has this to say…

    There are “notionally” many studies that have offered different conclusions (depending on the bias of the author). However, the consistent response I have seen which always contains a range of time (based upon turbine and siting conditions) report that the embodied energy of the installed turbine (which includes the entire energies in materials, transportation, erection and projected O&M over the life of the turbine) is returned in operation between 4 – 7 mo (120 to ~200 days).

    Mark Bolinger, an engineer at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has this to add…

    “With proper maintenance, wind turbines should be expected to operate for 20 years or longer (industry projections these days are more like 30 years), which means that over their lifetime, wind turbines repay their energy debt many times over.” 

    “Wind is one of the cheapest forms of electricity generation that exists today.”

     

    [ad_2]

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Images from the James Webb Telescope Do Not Disprove The Big Bang Theory

    Images from the James Webb Telescope Do Not Disprove The Big Bang Theory

    [ad_1]

    The Big Bang theory is currently the most popular model we have for the birth of our universe. Observations on the expanding universe, as well as observations of Cosmic background radiation, lingering electromagnetic radiation from the Big Bang, have helped back this theory. However, rumors have spread on the internet that the newly released images from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) somehow suggest the big bang is wrong. We find this claim to be mostly false. Although the spectacular images from JWST may have surprised scientists in how they might change theories on galaxy formation, they by no means negate the Big Bang theory.

    Much of the argument stems from an article written by Eric Lerner (author of the book “The Big Bang Never Happened”). Lerner’s article, published in IAI news, argues that the new James Webb Space Telescope images contradict The Big Bang Hypothesis. Lerner appears to suggest that the distant galaxies seen in the images are older than the Big Bang theory would allow since they seemed to resemble fully formed galaxies. However, the data from JWST suggest that galaxies form more quickly than we think, not that they necessarily contain elements from before the Big Bang or that the universe is not expanding. The observation of these well-formed galaxies at such an early time does not debunk a theory as well supported as the Big Bang. Lerner also cherrypicks quotes from astronomer Allison Kirkpatrick, who said in an article published in Nature, “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.” Kirkpatrick has since explained that she was reacting in awe of what astronomers have learned from the first JWST images, not as proof of astronomers panicking that the Big Bang Theory has been debunked. In an article on CNET, Kirkpatrick suggests that images from JWST “support the Big Bang model because they show us that early galaxies were different than the galaxies we see today – they were much smaller!”

    As reported by Brian Koberlein at Universe Today…

    It’s a common misconception that redshift proves that galaxies are speeding away from us. They aren’t. Distant galaxies aren’t speeding through space. Space itself is expanding, putting greater distance between us. It’s a subtle difference, but it means that galactic redshift is caused by cosmic expansion, not relative motion. It also means that distant galaxies appear a bit larger than they would in a static universe. They are distant and tiny, but the expansion of space gives the illusion of them being larger. As a result, the surface brightness of distant galaxies dims only proportional to redshift.

    Professor Jason Steffen, a former NASA scientist who worked on the agency’s Kepler mission and an expert in astronomy/physics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, responds to the article questioning the Big Bang Hypothesis.

    In short, the evidence is still overwhelmingly in favor of a hot Big Bang as the origin of the universe.  There are many pieces of evidence that come together to motivate this model.  If the Big Bang were to be wrong, it would not likely be wrong for the reasons described, and it is not wrong because of any observations from JWST.

    While the origins of the model stem from observations of the expansion of the universe from galaxy redshifts (the Hubble Law), most of the detailed evidence for the Big Bang comes from the very early universe, the relative abundances of light elements, and the properties of the cosmic microwave background.  The processes that made these occurred within the first half-million years after the Big Bang.  The JWST images are looking at galaxies as they were a half-billion (or more) years after the Big Bang—a factor of 1000 later in time. 

    There is much more uncertainty with how galaxies form and how the first stars form, which are very complicated processes that involve lots of different physical effects, than there is about the first 500,000 years, which was a relatively simple hot plasma of Hydrogen and Helium ions.  (And before that, it was similar to the conditions in the core of the Sun, which we also understand.)

     

     

    [ad_2]

    Newswise

    Source link

  • The increase in funding for the IRS is not going create an army of agents that will come after you

    The increase in funding for the IRS is not going create an army of agents that will come after you

    [ad_1]

    The Inflation Reduction Act that President Biden signed on Tuesday includes a $79 billion injection for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Many political figures and members of the media are reacting incredulously to this long-sought budget increase for the nation’s tax agency. In discussing this budget increase, Senator Chuck Grassley suggested in an interview on Fox News last week that the IRS “are they going to have a strike force that goes in with AK-15s already loaded, ready to shoot some small-business person in Iowa with these? Because I think they are going after middle class and small business people…” On August 11th, Fox News host Brian Kilmeade warned his viewers that “Joe Biden’s new army” of armed IRS agents could “hunt down and kill middle-class taxpayers that don’t pay enough.” We find these hyperbolic claims to be false. Although the IRS intends to hire more people, Treasury Department officials say not all new hires will work on enforcement and increased revenues won’t come from middle-income earners. Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen directed IRS Commissioner Charles P. Rettig not to use the new funding to increase enforcement of taxpayers earning less than $400,000. The IRS is a bureau of the Treasury Department.

    Overall, IRS audits dropped by 44% between 2015 and 2019, according to a 2021 Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report. Last year the Treasury Department had proposed a plan to hire roughly 87,000 IRS employees over the next decade if it was allocated enough money. The IRS will be releasing final numbers for its hiring plans in the coming months, according to a Treasury official. But those employees will not all be hired at the same time, they will not all be auditors and many will be replacing employees who are expected to quit or retire.

    As reported by AP…

    The IRS currently has about 80,000 employees, including clerical workers, customer service representatives, enforcement officials, and others. The agency has lost roughly 50,000 employees over the past five years due to attrition, according to the IRS. More than half of IRS employees who work in enforcement are currently eligible for retirement, said Natasha Sarin, the Treasury Department’s counselor for tax policy and implementation.

    Budget cuts, mostly demanded by Republicans, have also diminished the ranks of enforcement staff, which fell roughly 30% since 2010 despite the fact that the filing population has increased. The IRS-related money in the Inflation Reduction Act is intended to boost efforts against high-end tax evasion, Sarin said.

    Albany Law School Professor Danshera Cords shares her insight on this budget increase to the IRS…

    The Inflation Reduction Act appropriated $79 billion over 10 years to the IRS to improve three areas: taxpayer service, enforcement, and operations. Since 2012, it has been widely reported on the degree to which budget appropriations have resulted in declining service levels, aging IT, and falling staffing levels. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Charles Rettig, an appointee of President Trump, has repeatedly sought budget increases to jump start the hiring and technology to more sophisticated audits of higher income individuals, businesses and crypto-assets. Given the aging infrastructure, computer systems that are out of date, and a filing backlog, the expenditures have long been needed.

    This appropriation is intended to help implement a plan to improve the IRS’s infrastructure in each of these areas. According to IRS data, in FY2012 the IRS had nearly 90,000 full-time employees. As a result of budget reductions, retirements, hiring freezes, the number of employees had dropped 12.9% to 78,661 in FY 2021.

    Restoring the IRS to previous staffing levels with new employees is more likely to help the average taxpayer than threaten them in any way. Moreover, hiring new enforcement staff including auditors, requires time and new personnel need training. Within its FY2021 budget, examination and collections personnel comprised more than five times the budget as investigations, consistent with prior years. New initiatives to combat fraud in higher income brackets require more sophisticated technology and better trained personnel.

    [ad_2]

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Don’t throw away your antidepressants just yet

    Don’t throw away your antidepressants just yet

    [ad_1]

    A study published in Nature Molecular Psychiatry is being used to question the use of SSRIs for people with depression. The study involved a new umbrella review of past studies of depression’s relationship with serotonin levels. One major conclusion is that there is no convincing evidence that low serotonin levels are the primary cause of depression. While the review has made headlines for “debunking” the serotonin imbalance theory, it is important not to jump to conclusions on the efficacy of antidepressants, particularly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). 

    This new study has led to various articles that have focused on how “scientists have called into question the widespread use of antidepressants.”  However, this does not mean that doctors will stop utilizing antidepressants as a treatment option. Instead, it calls for more research about why antidepressants work the way they do.

    A blog entry posted by  Michigan Medicine – University of Michigan on Newswise discusses this recent coverage on antidepressants.

    Srijan Sen, M.D., Ph.D., is concerned about the impact of a new study about the role of serotonin in depression that’s getting a lot of attention.

    Sen notes that mental health experts certainly don’t believe that a simple ‘chemical imbalance’ is the root cause of depression.

    Serotonin is one of the primary brain chemicals, called neurotransmitters, that helps brain cells “talk” to one another by connecting to receptors on cells’ outer surfaces.

    The new study that’s getting lots of attention looks at a lot of older studies about serotonin, and tries to draw conclusions by combining the information from them.

    The study did not conduct new experiments or even combine previous studies in a meta-analysis. But instead, the researchers conducted an “umbrella review” of some, but not all, meta-analyses related to serotonin.

    By coincidence, another such “study of studies” on serotonin and depression was published just a week before the one that’s in the news. It concluded that serotonin transporter gene variations do play a key role in depression risk, in combination with stressful experiences across a person’s life. But that study hasn’t gotten nearly as much attention.

    In other words, Sen says, the science of serotonin’s exact role is far from settled.

    An article by Ruairi J Mackenzie in Technology Networks explains how this study doesn’t quite debunk years of science, since most scientists don’t adhere to the “chemical imbalance” theory on depression in the first place.

    The review article, published by an international research team including first author Prof. Joanna Moncrieff, aimed to assess the available evidence for and against the serotonin theory of depression systematically. The team explain this theory near the start of their paper: “[The theory is] the idea that depression is the result of abnormalities in brain chemicals, particularly serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine or 5-HT).” The theory has been around for decades, but their overarching conclusion is that it is not correct, given that there appears to be no link between measurable serotonin concentration and depression.

    The reaction of many academics to this finding can be summed up, briefly, as “Obviously!” In comments to the UK-based Science Media Centre, Dr. Michael Bloomfield, consultant psychiatrist and head of the translational psychiatry research group at University College London (UCL), said, “The findings from this umbrella review are really unsurprising. Depression has lots of different symptoms and I don’t think I’ve met any serious scientists or psychiatrists who think that all causes of depression are caused by a simple chemical imbalance in serotonin.”

    Criticism of the review call into question how these indirect measures of serotonin function or are merely proxies for serotonin activity. They also question how depression is defined since there are multiple factors that contribute to the cause.*

    Dr. Michael Bloomfield adds…

    What remains possible is that for some people with certain types of depression, that changes in the serotonin system may be contributing to their symptoms. The problem with this review is that it isn’t able to answer that question because it has lumped together depression as if it is a single disorder, which from a biological perspective does not make any sense.

    “Many of us know that taking paracetamol can be helpful for headaches and I don’t think anyone believes that headaches are caused by not enough paracetamol in the brain. The same logic applies to depression and medicines used to treat depression. There is consistent evidence that antidepressant medicines can be helpful in the treatment of depression and can be life-saving. Antidepressant medicines are one type of treatment alongside other types of treatment like psychotherapy (talking therapy). Patients must have access to evidence-based treatments for depression and anyone taking any treatment for depression who is contemplating stopping treatment should discuss this with their doctor first.”

     

    [ad_2]

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Herschel Walker’s claim on how China’s “bad air” would move over to America is grossly inaccurate

    Herschel Walker’s claim on how China’s “bad air” would move over to America is grossly inaccurate

    [ad_1]

    At a campaign event in Georgia, Herschel Walker, the former NFL star who is running for Senate and endorsed by President Trump, shared his thoughts on the “Green New Deal” and efforts to curb climate change with government policy. Walker suggested that U.S. climate efforts were pointless because “China’s bad air” would simply move over into American “air space.” 

    “We in America have some of the cleanest air and cleanest water of anybody in the world,” Walker begins at about the 24 mark in the video of his speech. Under the Green New Deal, he said, the U.S would spend “millions of billions of dollars cleaning our good air up. … Since we don’t control the air, our good air decided to float over to China’s bad air so when China gets our good air, their bad air got to move. So it moves over to our good air space. Then now we got to clean that back up, while they’re messing ours up.”

    “So what we’re doing is just spending money,” he continued. “Until these other countries can get on board and clean what they got up, it ain’t going to help us to start cleaning our stuff up. We’re already doing it the right way.”

    We find nearly every aspect of this claim to be completely inaccurate. Walker’s description of how air circulates around the world is not correct, nor is the simplification of his assessment of “clean air” and “bad air.” The United States does not actively “clean” air now or under the proposed “Green New Deal.” The “Green New Deal” is a nonbinding resolution introduced in Congress in 2019 that lays out a broad vision for how the country might tackle climate change over the next decade in order to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. It didn’t pass the Senate vote. The Green New Deal does not address traditional air pollutants nor does it propose to spend “millions of billions of dollars cleaning our good air up.” Facts on the “Green Neal Deal” can be read here.

    “Bad” air does not take over “good” air or vice versa. Yes, some forms of air pollution can travel to other places. Near-surface pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, can be lofted to high altitudes where strong winds can transport high concentrations across oceans to other continents. However, greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, are responsible for climate change. These greenhouse gasses accumulate in the Earth’s atmosphere on a global scale as a result of human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, which traps heat and warms the entire planet. Also, to suggest curbing pollutants from its local source is pointless because some other locality’s pollutants will take over is missing the point. These harmful air pollutants affect local residents the most. Read more about the harmful effects of air pollution here, here and here. 

    As reported by Jessica McDonald at Factcheck.org

    “Each of these gases can remain in the atmosphere for different amounts of time, ranging from a few years to thousands of years,” the Environmental Protection Agency has explained. “All of these gases remain in the atmosphere long enough to become well mixed, meaning that the amount that is measured in the atmosphere is roughly the same all over the world, regardless of the source of the emissions.”

    “There can be enhanced concentrations near point sources and urban areas, but the levels of atmospheric CO2 over the US aren’t drastically different than over China,” Davis said in an email, referring to carbon dioxide. He noted that in April 2020, carbon dioxide levels over China and the U.S were within three to four parts per million of each other.

    In other words, there is no American “good air” or Chinese “bad air.” When it comes to greenhouse gases, everyone ultimately shares the “air” — and the concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere is increasing. This is raising the global average temperature, which is also causing other effects, such as sea level rise, ice melt and more extreme weather.

     

    [ad_2]

    Newswise

    Source link