Wednesday, March 06, 2013

Zapping the myth

A mosquito feeding

One of the world's top advertising awards went this year to a campaign in which a radio station broadcast ultrasound along with its programmes to repel mosquitoes. 


But does it work? 


Definitely not, say scientists.
It was a beautifully simple idea. 

No more need for smelly lotions, chemical gases, smoke or rolled-up newspapers, listeners to Brazilian station Band FM were told - all you need to do to beat mosquitoes is to stick close to the radio.
The station broadcast a high-frequency 15kHz tone under its music in April this year. 

Inaudible to most adults, the tone was supposed to repel mosquitoes, allowing listeners to relax in the open air without fear of getting bitten.
The broadcasts were sponsored by the magazine GoOutside, as part of a radio marketing campaign which went on to win the Grand Prix in the radio category at the Cannes Lions in June - perhaps the most prestigious awards in advertising.


There's just one problem. 

Scientists say it's nonsense.
Bart Knols, an entomologist who chairs the advisory board of the Dutch Malaria Foundation and edits the website Malaria World, claims that there is "no scientific evidence whatsoever" that ultrasound repels mosquitoes.
A 2010 review article examined 10 field studies, in which ultrasonic repellent devices had been put to the test, and concluded that they "have no effect on preventing mosquito bites" and "should not be recommended or used".
It goes on: "Given these findings from 10 carefully conducted studies, it would not be worthwhile to conduct further research on EMRs [electronic mosquito repellents] in preventing mosquitoes biting or in trying to prevent the acquisition of malaria."
A video advert for the prize-winning "repellent radio" campaign makes the claim that "studies have shown that this frequency imitates the sound of a dragonfly, the mosquito's natural predator, thus keeping them away".
In fact dragonflies have a wing beat frequency of between 20 and 170Hz - a much lower frequency than 15kHz. 

But Bart Knols says this lower frequency is equally useless at driving mosquitoes away or stopping them biting.
Following the awards, one of the Cannes judges, Bob Moore, was quoted in Advertising Age as saying: "We did our due diligence and, as far as we know, it worked. It's a fantastic idea."
The radio jury president, Rob McLennan, was reported as saying that the members of the jury had voted with their "gut", and were keen to take the idea to countries where malaria and other mosquito-spread diseases were rampant.
Neither responded to the BBC's requests for an interview.
A dragonflySome devices say they reproduce the sound of dragonfly wing beats
But Knols, who has campaigned on this issue for years, argues that relying on ultrasound technology in such countries is madness. 

People need to protect themselves with bed nets, lotions and anti-malarial drugs, he says - if they put their faith in ultrasound, and stop taking these precautions, they are putting themselves at risk.


Band FM was not the first station to broadcast supposedly mosquito-repelling frequencies, but it's not an idea that has widely caught on.
Far more commonplace are electronic ultrasound gadgets, marketed as repellents in many countries.
In 2005, the British consumer magazine Holiday Which? tested a range of mosquito deterrents. 

The four appliances that used a buzzer were decribed by the magazine'ss editor Lorna Cowan as "a shocking waste of money" which "should be removed from sale".
One, the Lovebug, a ladybird-shaped gadget designed to be clipped on to a baby's cot or child's pushchair - was singled out as a particular cause for concern, because of the likelihood that parents would trust it to keep mosquitoes away, and their children would be hurt as a result.
The Lovebug is still readily available in Europe, though it was withdrawn from the US market after manufacturer Prince Lionheart was reprimanded by the Federal Trade Commission.
One popular online store claims it is a "safe and easy way to keep mosquitoes away from your baby".


In a statement, the president of Prince Lionheart, Kelly McConnell, told the BBC that the Lovebug is "still used successfully around the world".
Prince Lionheart believes the consumer testimonials from real-life experiences with the Lovebug are the truest testament to the efficacy of our product."
A spokesperson for Moziban - another of the devices tested and found wanting by Holiday Which? - also insisted thousands of satisfied customers had written letters of gratitude. 

However, she said it would be "stupid" to rely on it in countries where mosquito-borne diseases are a hazard.
One of the latest products to come equipped with ultrasound marketed as a mosquito deterrent is an air-conditioner from the Korean electronics giant LG. 

It went on the market in Indonesia in 2009 and has just been launched in Nigeria, after laboratory tests in both countries.
The company claims tests show the "Anti-Mosquito" air conditioner deters "on average 64% of malaria-transmitting female Anopheles mosquitoes within 24 hours and 82% overall". 

It does not recommend that the machine is used as a sole preventative measure against malaria.
A spokesperson for the company told the BBC that the air conditioner uses a very wide frequency range, between 30kHZ and 100kHz - a lot higher than the 15kHZ of the "repellent radio".

Bart Knols says it is impossible to know whether the product works without additional information about the tests it was put through.
"It is well known that air conditioners, because of the airflow they produce, dry out insects and kill them," he says. "

So what was the add-on effect of the sound? 


Was that discerned?"
Ultrasound has also been moving in recent years on to telephones. 

As far back as 2003, a South Korean firm launched a downloadable ultrasonic signal that could be played on a mobile phone and was said to be effective against mosquitoes within a radius of one metre.
Today, dozens of apps claiming they can turn smartphones into mobile mosquito repellents are available to download for Apple and Android handsets.
Knols has filmed himself using an iPhone app to generate an ultrasound signal at 15kHz. 

In the video, he is seen reaching with the phone into a cage of Dengue-fever-carrying mosquitoes. 


The mosquitoes are seen eagerly landing on his gloved hand, visibly undeterred by the ultrasound signal.

The app which Knols uses in this demonstration does not advertise itself as a mosquito repellent. 

However, the developer behind one free app which does, called Anti-Mosquito - Sonic Repeller, says his company experimented with different frequencies in creating the technology.
"We are based in Finland and Finland is really the home of mosquitoes," says Niklas Karlstrom from Pico Brothers, whose app is available on several different operating systems.
There are a lot here in the summer.
Based on reviews, there's a lot of people who think it works and a lot of people who don't and are annoyed by the frequency.


The app is free, but since users are potentially being lulled into a false sense of security, they are still, in a sense, being stung.
The misconception that mosquitoes are deterred by ultrasound has been around for nearly 40 years - at least one scientific review of an electronic repellent was published in 1974.
The story about the frequency of the dragonfly's wing beat is not the only rationale that is put forward for the technology. 

It is sometimes claimed that the ultrasonic signal replicates the male mosquito. 


Females who wish to take a blood meal from humans have usually already mated and will therefore, it is suggested, wish to flee from these male mosquitoes.
Knols points out that this explanation also fails by its own logic because male mosquitoes only produce a sound of 700Hz, far lower than an ultrasound frequency. 

In fact, it is thought that female mosquitoes have a very weak sensitivity to sound in general.
He has suggested that the Cannes Lions should rescind the award given to the "repellent radio" campaign and give it to the runner-up instead.
But in a statement, Terry Savage, executive chairman of the Cannes Lions, says that whether or not the campaign was accurate is a matter for the winning advertising agency, Talent, and the advertising regulatory body in Brazil.
Talent - which is part owned by Publicis Groupe, the parent company of Publicis USA, where one of the Cannes Lions judges, Bob Moore, is chief creative officer - refused to comment.
The Brazilian advertisers' self-regulatory body, Conar, told the BBC its members were currently deliberating whether the campaign was in breach of the industry's code of practice.
A spokesperson for Band FM, meanwhile, said it bore no responsibility for checking whether the signal it broadcast really had any effect on mosquitoes
By William Kremer

Tuesday, March 05, 2013

Ever more dying

questions on biodiversity and species loss : Red-Eyed Treefrog

A red-eyed treefrog (Agalychnis callidryas): more than one-third of all amphibians endangered. Photograph: Peter Lilja/Getty Images

New research suggests the chemicals are playing a significant and previously unknown role in the global decline of amphibians.

Widely used pesticides can kill frogs within an hour, new research has revealed.

Suggesting the chemicals are playing a significant and previously unknown role in the catastrophic global decline of amphibians.
The scientists behind the study said it was both "astonishing" and "alarming" that common pesticides could be so toxic at the doses approved by regulatory authorities, adding to growing criticism of how pesticides are tested.
You would not think products registered on the market would have such a toxic effect, said Carsten Brühl, at the University of Koblenz-Landau in Germany. 

It is the simplest effect you can think of: you spray the amphibian with the pesticide and it is dead. 

That should translate into a dramatic effect on populations."
Trenton Garner, an ecologist at the Zoological Society of London, said: "This is a valuable addition to the substantial body of literature detailing how existing standards for the use of agricultural pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers are inadequate for the protection of biodiversity."
Amphibians are the best example of the great extinction of species currentlyunder way, as they are the most threatened and rapidly declining vertebrate group. 

More than a third of all amphibians are included in the IUCN "red list" ofendangered species, with loss of habitat, climate change and disease posing the biggest threats.
Brühl had previously studied how easily frogs can absorb pesticides through their permeable skins, which they can breathe through when underwater. 

But pesticides are not required to be tested on amphibians, said Brühl: 

We could only find one study for one pesticide that was using an exposure likely to occur on farmland.
His team chose widely used fungicides, herbicides and insecticides. 

The most striking results were for a fungicide called pyraclostrobin, sold as the product Headline by the manufacturer BASF and used on 90 different crops across the world. 

It killed all the common European frogs used as test animals within an hour when applied at the rate recommended on the label. 

Other fungicides, herbicides and insecticides also showed acute toxicity, even when applied at just 10% of the label rate, with the insecticide dimethoate, for example, killing 40% of animals within a week.
The study, published on Thursday in Scientific Reports [will be live after embargo], concluded: 

The observation of acute mortality in a vertebrate group caused by commercially available pesticides at recommended field rates is astonishing.

Since 50 years after the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring one would have thought that the development of refined risk-assessment procedures would make such effects virtually impossible.
A BASF spokesman disputed the findings: "This study was performed under laboratory 'worst-case' conditions. 

Under normal agricultural conditions amphibians are not exposed to such pesticide concentrations. 

According to our knowledge, no significant impact on amphibian populations has been reported despite the widespread and global use of the fungicide pyraclostrobin.
Brühl said the method, a single spray directly on to the frogs, sometimes at just 10% of the label rate, was a "realistic worst-case" scenario. 

He added that in the field, multiple sprays of a variety of pesticides was likely and that chemicals might run off into ponds where frogs lived.
Sandra Bell, Friends of the Earth's nature campaigner, said: From frogs to bees, there is mounting evidence that the pesticide bombardment of our farmland is having a major impact on our precious wildlife. 

Strong action is urgently needed to get farmers off the chemical treadmill.
As well as banning the most toxic products, governments must set clear targets for reducing all pesticides and ensure farmers have safe and thoroughly tested alternatives."
Earlier this month, the world's most widely used insecticide was for the first time officially labelled an "unacceptable" danger to bees feeding on flowering crops, by the European Food Safety Agency. 

The agency had previously stated that current "simplistic" regulations contained "major weaknesses".
There is an urgency to address [the amphibian issue] as pesticides will be applied again soon because it's spring, and that's when we have all these migrations to ponds.
We don't have any data from the wild about dead frogs because no one is looking for them – and if you don't look, you don't find. 

But the pesticides are very widely used and so have the potential to have a significant effect on populations.

Damian Carrington

Monday, March 04, 2013

Charles Darwin's island


'
Two hundred years ago, Ascension Island was a barren volcanic edifice.
Today, its peaks are covered by lush tropical "cloud forest".
What happened in the interim is the amazing story of how the architect of evolution, Kew Gardens and the Royal Navy conspired to build a fully functioning, but totally artificial ecosystem.
By a bizarre twist, this great imperial experiment may hold the key to the future colonisation of Mars.
The tiny tropical island of Ascension is not easy to find. 

It is incredibly remote, located 1,600km (1,000 miles) from the coast of Africa and 2,250km (1,400 miles) from South America.
Its existence depends entirely on what geologists call the mid-Atlantic ridge. 

This is a chain of underwater volcanoes formed as the ocean is wrenched apart.
Ascension IslandAscension is one of a number of volcanic islands in the South Atlantic
However, because Ascension occupies a "hot spot" on the ridge, its volcano is especially active. 

A million years ago, molten magma explosively burst above the waves.
A new island was born.
Back in 1836, the young Charles Darwin was coming to the end of his five-year mission to explore strange new worlds and boldly go where no naturalist had gone before.
Aboard HMS Beagle, he called in at Ascension. En route from another remote volcanic island, St Helena, Darwin wasn't expecting much.
"We know we live on a rock, but the poor people of Ascension live on a cinder," the residents of St Helena had joked before his departure.
But arriving on Ascension put an unexpected spring in Darwin's step.
Professor David Catling of the University of Washington, Seattle, is retracing Darwin's travels for a new book. 

He told the BBC: "Awaiting Darwin on Ascension was a letter from his Cambridge mentor, John Henslow.
Darwin's voyage of discovery had already caused a huge sensation in London.
Henslow assured him that on his return, he would take his place among the great men of science.
At this fantastic news, Darwin bounded forth in ecstasy, the sound of his geological hammer ringing from hill to hill.
Everywhere, bright red volcanic cones and rugged black lava signalled the violent forces that had wrought the island.
Yet, thinks Professor Catling, amid this wild desolation, Darwin began to hatch a plot.
Out of the ashes of the volcano, he would create a green oasis - a "Little England".
Island Eden
Darwin's great buddy was Joseph Hooker, the intrepid botanist and explorer.
Only a few years after Darwin's return, Hooker was off on his own adventures, an ambitious slingshot around Antarctica aboard HMS Erebus and Terror. 

Mirroring Darwin's voyage, Hooker called in on Ascension on the way home in 1843.
Ascension was a strategic base for the Royal Navy. 

Originally set up to keep a watchful eye on the exiled emperor Napoleon on nearby St Helena, it was a thriving way station at the time of Hooker's visit.
However, the big problem that impeded further expansion of this imperial outpost was the supply of fresh water.
Young DarwinIn his twenties, Charles Darwin explored the world aboard HMS Beagle
Ascension was an arid island, buffeted by dry trade winds from southern Africa. 

Devoid of trees at the time of Darwin and Hooker's visits, the little rain that did fall quickly evaporated away.
Egged on by Darwin, in 1847 Hooker advised the Royal Navy to set in motion an elaborate plan. 

With the help of Kew Gardens - where Hooker's father was director - shipments of trees were to be sent to Ascension.
The idea was breathtakingly simple. 

Trees would capture more rain, reduce evaporation and create rich, loamy soils. 

The "cinder" would become a garden.
So, beginning in 1850 and continuing year after year, ships started to come. 

Each deposited a motley assortment of plants from botanical gardens in Europe, South Africa and Argentina.
Soon, on the highest peak at 859m (2,817ft), great changes were afoot. 

By the late 1870s, eucalyptus, Norfolk Island pine, bamboo, and banana had all run riot.
Back in England, Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution were busily uprooting the Garden of Eden.
But on a green hill far away, a new "island Eden" was being created.
Life on Mars
Yet could Darwin's secret garden have more far-reaching consequences?
Dr Dave Wilkinson is an ecologist at Liverpool John Moores University, who has written extensively about Ascension Island's strange ecosystem.
He first visited Ascension in 2003.
I remember thinking, this is really weird.
There were all kinds of plants that don't belong together in nature, growing side by side. 

I only later found out about Darwin, Hooker and everything that had happened," he said.
Ascension IslandDarwin's artificial forest captures moisture from clouds that drift over Ascension's peaks
Dr Wilkinson describes the vegetation of "Green Mountain" - as the highest peak is now known - as a "cloud forest". 

The trees capture sea mist, creating a damp oasis amid the aridity.
However, this is a forest with a difference. 

It is totally artificial.
Such ecosystems normally develop over million of years through a slow process of co-evolution. 

By contrast, the Green Mountain cloud forest was cobbled together by the Royal Navy in a matter of decades.
Dr Wilkinson exclaimed: "This is really exciting!"
What it tells us is that we can build a fully functioning ecosystem through a series of chance accidents or trial and error.
In effect, what Darwin, Hooker and the Royal Navy achieved was the world's first experiment in "terra-forming". 

They created a self-sustaining and self-reproducing ecosystem in order to make Ascension Island more habitable.
Wilkinson thinks that the principles that emerge from that experiment could be used to transform future colonies on Mars. 

In other words, rather than trying to improve an environment by force, the best approach might be to work with life to help it "find its own way".
However, to date, scientists have been deaf to the parable of Ascension Island.
It's a terrible waste that no-one is studying it, remarked Wilkinson.
Ascension Island's secret is safe for years to come, it seems.

By Howard Falcon-Lang

Sunday, March 03, 2013

Mega hypocracy



My first task as a young journalist was to cover the “midnight queue” outside Boots in Piccadilly. 

A pathetic line of heroin addicts would wait for the clock to strike 12, then troop in for the new day’s prescription. 

It was there I met Ken Leech of St Anne’s, Soho, “chaplain to the queue” and an early monitor of London’s then incipient drug scene.

A few months later and to Leech’s anger, the 1971 Misuse of Drugs act criminalised heroin and handed the queue and Britain’s entire drugs trade over to the world’s racketeers, crooks and desperadoes. 

It was the greatest ever act of denationalisation. 

The drugs market soared, and untold human misery with it. 

The act was the stupidest and most ineffective ever passed by Parliament. 

No one dares so much as amend it.

Every few months, a committee or research group points up the absurdity of keeping narcotics illegal. 

As the multi-billion-dollar trade rolls its horrors round the globe, it becomes ever more futile to pretend it can be curbed or even regulated by law. 

It has wrecked whole cities in America and is wrecking countries such as Mexico.

In Britain, only two things have changed in the past decade. 

Legal heroin needle exchanges have drastically cut the rate of HIV transmission.

In addition, public opinion has slowly shifted. 

In 2001, the Mail on Sunday headlined a popular majority in favour of reform, at least to “consider” legalisation. 

It led the then home secretary, David Blunkett, to prefer cautions to prison for possession. 

There followed a decline in cannabis use to this day.

Otherwise, nothing has changed. 

Drug use and abuse continue high. 

Some 35,000 people a year are sentenced under the drug laws. 

The market is wholly uncontrolled. 

Every few months some parliamentary body or drugs adviser recommends reform, and is ignored.

Yesterday it was the turn of another cross-party parliamentary group under Lady Meacher to follow a Commons group last year in pronouncing in favour of decriminalisation. 

She addressed the status of “legal highs”, of which new ones flood into Britain via the internet every week.

Rather than try to ban them by the score, Meacher advocates that they should be sold as “class D” drugs by pharmacists, their contents tested for safety and clearly labelled.

If evidence then showed no rise in addiction, other currently illegal pills might be switched to the legal list and sold on the same basis. 

Chemical narcotics would be safer and the profits would go to a better cause than the global drug cartels and their laboratories.

You can tell that an argument is won when its opponents ignore all evidence and cry that change would “send the wrong message”. 

It is the last cry of the unreasoning classes.

To them it does not matter that 40 years of messaging has sent drug use soaring. 

They do not care that between a quarter and half of young people “experiment” with drugs, when they are emotionally and physically most vulnerable. 

They do not care for the £3 billion of public money spent on the consequences, nor the thousands of otherwise innocent people whose lives are ruined. 

None of this matters against a fatuous “message”.

Attempts to control the freedom of young people to cause themselves harm — all drugs do that in some degree — rarely work. 

There is no great difference between countries with draconian regimes, such as Britain and most American states, and those with liberal ones, such as Portugal and the Netherlands. 

Young people take very little notice of government. 

Each side can find statistics to help its case. 

The only robust generalisation is that draconian laws have been counter-productive, and they are more expensive.

What is baffling is the intransigence of British politicians on the subject. 

Plenty are individually reasonable. 

The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, suggested last month that “the war on drugs has been lost on an industrial scale”. 

Sadly he is in office, not in power. 

David Cameron implied the same, but that was before he became Prime Minister. 

Some three-quarters of MPs agree individually. 

They read the surveys, reports and opinion polls — all unanswerable. 

Yet the mere mention of the subject sends most politicians screaming down the road with bags over their heads.

All we can do is keep shouting. 

Usually the problem is that everyone is terrified into timidity. 

Lady Runciman, for six years chair of the independent UK drug policy commission, recently pleaded for the legalised possession. 

But she could not bring herself to tackle the real taboo of supply and suggest the open sale of drugs in shops. 

This now happens in Amsterdam and California, venues visited by British drug researchers with the shivering hesitancy of a parson in a brothel.

Without legal supply, the distribution, price and marketing to the young of drugs remain in the hands of crooks and killers. 

Here Meacher’s report offers at least a glimmer of a way through. 

If the Government could agree to allow “legal highs” to be sold under licence by chemists, it would open the door to the legalisation of currently illegal narcotics. 

This is at present the only game in town.

No one in London buys alcoholic liquor in unmarked bottles from the back of a pub. 

The reason is that it would be dangerous and unnecessary.

For 40 years we have let our children do just that with drugs. 

It is mad. 

The drug laws proliferate criminality and cause public harm. 

Can no one in real authority admit it?

Evening Standard

Saturday, March 02, 2013

Two wise women


Let us listen to two wise women – 


First the British philosopher Mary Midgley. 

She says, in Science and Poetry: 

Out of this fascination with new power there arises our current huge expansion of technology, much of it useful, much not. 

And the sheer size of it dangerously wasteful of resources. 

It is hard for us to break out of this circle of increasing needs because our
age is remarkably preoccupied with the vision of continually improving means 

Rather than saving ourselves trouble by reflecting on ends.

We have become the age of unthinking doing – 

Keep doing,

Don’t stop to think 

There’s no time! 

And there is no time

Because we are too busy doing.

The second wise woman – 



The American philosopher Martha Nussbaum - 

Recognises the monstrous ambition now in play:

The human being, who appears to be thrilling and wonderful, may turn out at the same time to be monstrous in its ambition to simplify and control the world. 

Contingency, an object of terror and loathing, may turn out to be at the same time wonderful, constitutive of what makes a human life beautiful and thrilling.

Only because we do not understand everything and because we cannot control the future is it possible to live and to be human.

Friday, March 01, 2013

Life after dreams


In my life I have watched Rainforest decline accelerate, 

Along with nearly every other environmental threat that we knew about. 


And so with it our story of the people, the one we live by became ever more threadbare


It became harder and harder to believe in fairies


Harder and harder to believe that all is well


That life is getting better and better year by year


When I was younger our mass media still protected that story


But in the last thirty years the incursions of reality have punctured that story. 


We no longer believe our storytellers.


We do not believe our elites. 


We don’t believe the politicians 


We don’t believe the doctors


We don’t believe the professors 


We don’t believe the bankers


We don’t believe the technologists.


Nor the businessmen.


All of them imply that everything is under control.


And we know that it is not. 


We can see every day that it is not so





We have lost the vision of the future we once had.


Most people today have no vision of the future at all. 


And if they do it is often not a positive one

This is new for our society. 


Fifty or a hundred years ago, most people agreed on the general outlines of the future. 


We thought we knew where society was going. 


Even the Marxists and the capitalists agreed on its basic outlines.


A paradise of mechanized leisure and scientifically engineered social harmony.


With spirituality either abolished entirely or relegated to a materially inconsequential corner of life that happened mostly on Sundays. 


Of course there were dissenters from this vision, but this was the general consensus.


Today that is gone.


Today we need to redefine and create a more useful story


One that we can actually believe in.



At times of transition and uncertainty, we must learn to think in
new and unorthodox ways.

We must have the courage to examine and challenge bequeathed dogmas. 


Recently some thinkers have started to look critically at the very idea of efficiency. 


The current political and business mantra


Is efficiency such an unquestioned virtue that we must bow to it regardless of

the consequences?

To many it is clear that this is not so. 



Less efficiency would be beneficial for society at large.

This is becoming more and more clear

This importantly for all those who must spend their lives under its yoke and for the countless individuals who have little choice.


The unrestrained pursuit of efficiency has led to the destruction of tolerance


To the exhaustion of society and the elimination of many jobs at one end of society


And, at the other end to the accumulation of undeserved riches. 

The diminishment of efficiency would benefit both ends of the society in the long run.

Many will find these arguments startlingly new and unacceptable. 

But we are in the period of new thinking and challenging of old dogmas. 

The whole perspective on what is good for society must be examined and changed. 

The old criterion or rather dogma that the Bottom Line should rule
supreme is a pernicious piece of thinking.

It is evil in fact as it all too often overrides all other considerations.

It should be eliminated in favor of something more worthy of human wisdom.

Intelligent human understanding is:

Love each other and not the diabolical Bottom Line.

Yes it is time to become involved on informing yourself as to our options

And yes we have options

We need not hurtle mindlessly to our destruction

We have choices.