10 interesting stories served every morning and every evening.




1 17,650 shares, 360 trendiness, 0 words and 0 minutes reading time

Verne Troyer, best known as Mini-Me in "Austin Powers," has died

EMBED </>More Videos

Celebrities and no­table fig­ures who have re­cently passed (John Salangsang/Invision/AP)

...

Read the original on abc13.com »

2 10,668 shares, 158 trendiness, 1271 words and 9 minutes reading time

I founded Happy Cow Milk to make a difference in dairying. I failed.

He founded an eth­i­cal dairy­ing com­pany that would al­low calves to stay with their moth­ers. Last week, Glenn Herud had to ad­mit that his en­ter­prise had failed.

I’m a third gen­er­a­tion dairy farmer. The milk busi­ness is the only busi­ness I know. Four years ago I de­cided to find a way to do dairy in a more sus­tain­able way.

I know New Zealanders want this. They want the land treated bet­ter, they want rivers treated bet­ter, and they want an­i­mals treated bet­ter. And they would like the op­tion to buy their milk in some­thing other than plas­tic bot­tles.

I founded Happy Cow Milk to make a dif­fer­ence. But last week I had to ad­mit to my­self that I failed.

I made the de­ci­sion to shut down the busi­ness and I faced the hard truth that I haven’t re­ally made any dif­fer­ence at all. So what went wrong?

In a coun­try awash with milk — with so much in­vested — you’d think a few small changes would be easy. And you’d be wrong.

Let’s say you wanted to set up a new milk brand. You would ap­proach one of the two con­tract milk proces­sors in New Zealand. You’d ask, Can you do glass bot­tles?” And they’d say, No.”

In New Zealand, we can put beer, pasta sauce and even baby food into glass bot­tles, but not milk? No.

So def­i­nitely not reusable glass bot­tles? No.

So you’d ask, what about reusable milk cans or kegs to sup­ply cafes? Again. No.

New Zealand is now very well set up for dairy, but New Zealand dairy is not set up for sus­tain­abil­ity. The farmer, the proces­sor, the re­tailer — none of them are set up for sus­tain­abil­ity.

At this point you might just de­cide that there’s no way around this and put your milk in plas­tic bot­tles. This is what most smart peo­ple would do. But I know that most of the plas­tic milk bot­tles in New Zealand are not ac­tu­ally re­cy­cled. And so I built my own milk fac­tory.

I used two ship­ping con­tain­ers and all of my sav­ings. When the MPI in­spec­tor came, I told him we would be putting our milk in reusable bot­tles and milk cans. After a heavy bar­rage of no’s, I was pleas­antly sur­prised when he said, OK, cool.”

I taught my­self ba­sic process en­gi­neer­ing and mi­cro­bi­ol­ogy. I be­came an ex­pert in the Dairy Processing Code of Practice. My reusable pack­ag­ing hit the mar­kets and cafes and the cus­tomers loved it.

Next, we needed milk. Most milk brands go to Fonterra, which is re­quired by law to sell any com­peti­tor raw milk at the same price that Fonterra pay their farm­ers. When you are choos­ing a bot­tle of milk from the su­per­mar­ket, it’s al­most all Fonterra milk — even the fancy, ex­pen­sive ones.

I wanted to change the dairy in­dus­try and I was­n’t go­ing to do it by buy­ing milk from Fonterra.

So I ap­proached Canterbury farm­ers with a propo­si­tion. I of­fered to pay a 45% pre­mium if they would change a few farm­ing prac­tices and leave the calves with their moth­ers.

I thought they could do it with a small num­ber of the herd and that would in­crease over time. I did that pitch for five years with no tak­ers.

They said leav­ing calves with their moth­ers would­n’t work. And it does­n’t. Not on a con­ven­tional dairy farm, any­way. This is be­cause cows have to walk about 2km to the cow­shed & back again — two times a day.

It’s re­ally hard to walk a herd of cows with new­born ba­bies by their side for 2km down the lane and back again. The calves go un­der fences and then the moth­ers try and fol­low them. It’s chaos. When they do get to the shed, the calves are eas­ily crushed in the crowded hold­ing yard.

Smart peo­ple would just stop there.

But I was­n’t com­fort­able with the prac­tice of re­mov­ing calves from moth­ers and send­ing four-day-old calves to be slaugh­tered. I knew that if con­sumers re­ally un­der­stood this prac­tice, they would­n’t be com­fort­able with it ei­ther. And that day would come.

So I de­vel­oped a whole new way of milk­ing cows. I built a mo­bile cow­shed. We brought the cow­shed to the cows. The cows only have to walk about 30 me­tres to get milked. Once milked, they walk off the plat­form and back to the grass and their baby.

I can’t tell you how hard it was to de­velop that cow­shed and get it ap­proved by MPI. Getting there used up the last of my cap­i­tal.

But we were sell­ing milk and adding cus­tomers and we were fast ap­proach­ing our break-even point.

We strug­gled to con­vince large re­tail­ers to stock our milk in reusable bot­tles. Supermarkets are not re­ally set up to take empty bot­tles back. The ad­min proved cum­ber­some.

Retailers also saw us as a niche” prod­uct that cus­tomers would pay more for. They at­tached a high mar­gin and sud­denly the re­tail price was very high. Demand flat­tened and the break-even point stretched out fur­ther on the hori­zon.

We needed to scale the busi­ness to make it prof­itable. But with­out a smooth path to mar­ket, we could­n’t scale.

There was al­ways an easy so­lu­tion. We could’ve de­cided to be an­other milk brand in a plas­tic bot­tle. But this was­n’t the change I en­vi­sioned.

I com­pletely re­designed my farm to give peo­ple a sus­tain­able, eth­i­cal milk source. I built my own pro­cess­ing plant to give peo­ple sus­tain­able, reusable pack­ag­ing.

It’s easy to do a farm en­vi­ron­ment plan or use a re­cy­clable bot­tle. But these are just in­cre­men­tal changes and piece­meal com­mit­ments to sus­tain­abil­ity. Now it’s clear that to go fur­ther, I would have to re­design and build my own dis­tri­b­u­tion net­work so that we can get a large enough vol­ume of milk to cus­tomers at a rea­son­able price.

I worked out a plan with the help of ad­vi­sors at KPMG and I fig­ured out how much this new net­work would cost.

But last week I hit a wall. I’m out of money. I’m tired. My kids have not had a proper dad. And I’ve been a pretty poor hus­band. I de­cided to ad­mit that this is the end of the road.

On April 5, I typed a mes­sage on Facebook to say I was clos­ing down. I set out to prove that you can do dairy dif­fer­ently in NZ. But in re­al­ity you ac­tu­ally can’t — not with­out some se­ri­ous money be­hind you. Thank you all for your sup­port.”

By the end of the day, there were hun­dred of com­ments, of­fers of sup­port, sug­ges­tions for crowd­fund­ing. Designers, writ­ers, mar­keters I’d worked with of­fered to pitch in. I was over­whelmed.

And then my fa­tal flaw emerged. The one that got me past all those early no’s and sus­tained me through four years of hard graft — my re­lent­less op­ti­mism.

So 24 hours later, I was back on Facebook, sketch­ing out ideas on how Happy Cow V.2 might work.

Change is hard. You have to climb over a lot of no’s to get there. But this story might not be quite over.

If you would like to help our cause please con­sider sign­ing up for up­dates at hap­py­cowmilk.co.nz

The Spinoff’s busi­ness sec­tion is en­abled by our friends at Kiwibank. Kiwibank backs small to medium busi­nesses, so­cial en­ter­prises and Kiwis who in­no­vate to make good things hap­pen.

Check out how Kiwibank can help your busi­ness take the next step.

...

Read the original on thespinoff.co.nz »

3 10,286 shares, 9 trendiness, 3882 words and 33 minutes reading time

New Zealand’s War on Rats Could Change the World

The first thing that hit me about Zealandia was the noise. I was a 15-minute drive from the cen­ter of Wellington, New Zealand’s cap­i­tal city, but in­stead of the honks of horns or the bus­tle of passersby, all I could hear was bird­song. It came in every fla­vor—res­o­nant coos, high-pitched cheeps, and alien notes that seemed to come from oth­er­worldly in­stru­ments.Much of New Zealand, in­clud­ing na­tional parks that sup­pos­edly epit­o­mize the con­cept of wilder­ness, has been so de­nuded of birds that their melodies feel like a rare gift—a fleet­ing thing to make note of be­fore it dis­ap­pears. But Zealandia is a unique 225-hectare ur­ban sanc­tu­ary into which many of the na­tion’s most crit­i­cally en­dan­gered species have been re­lo­cated. There, they are thriv­ing—and singing. There, their tunes are not a scarce trea­sure, but part of the world’s back­ground hum. There, I re­al­ized how the na­tion must have sounded be­fore it was in­vaded by mam­mals.

Until the 13th cen­tury, the only land mam­mals in New Zealand were bats. In this fur­less world, lo­cal birds evolved a docile tem­pera­ment. Many of them, like the iconic kiwi and the gi­ant kakapo par­rot, lost their pow­ers of flight. Gentle and grounded, they were easy prey for the rats, dogs, cats, stoats, weasels, and pos­sums that were later in­tro­duced by hu­mans. Between them, these preda­tors de­vour more than 26 mil­lion chicks and eggs every year. They have al­ready dri­ven a quar­ter of the na­tion’s unique birds to ex­tinc­tion. Many species now per­sist only in off­shore is­lands where rats and their ilk have been suc­cess­fully erad­i­cated, or in small main­land sites like Zealandia where they are en­cir­cled by preda­tor-proof fences. The songs in those sanc­tu­ar­ies are echoes of the New Zealand that was.But per­haps, they also rep­re­sent the New Zealand that could be.“It’s crazy but it’s am­bi­tious, and I think it might be worth a shot. I think it’s our great chal­lenge.”In re­cent years, many of the coun­try’s con­ser­va­tion­ists and res­i­dents have ral­lied be­hind Predator-Free 2050, an ex­tra­or­di­nar­ily am­bi­tious plan to save the coun­try’s birds by erad­i­cat­ing its in­va­sive preda­tors. Native birds of prey will be un­harmed, but Predator-Free 2050’s re­search strat­egy, which is re­leased to­day, spells doom for rats, pos­sums, and stoats (a large weasel). They are to die, every last one of them. No coun­try, any­where in the world, has man­aged such a task in an area that big. The largest is­land ever cleared of rats, Australia’s Macquarie Island, is just 50 square miles in size. New Zealand is 2,000 times big­ger. But, the coun­try has com­mit­ted to ful­fill­ing its eco­log­i­cal moon­shot within three decades.

Beginning as a grass­roots move­ment, Predator-Free 2050 has picked up huge pub­lic sup­port and of­fi­cial gov­ern­ment back­ing. Former Minister for Conservation Maggie Barry once de­scribed the ini­tia­tive as the most im­por­tant con­ser­va­tion pro­ject in the his­tory of our coun­try.” If it works, Zealandia’s fence would be ir­rel­e­vant; the en­tire na­tion would be a song-filled sanc­tu­ary where ki­wis trun­dle un­threat­ened and kaka­pos once again boom through the night. By co­in­ci­dence, the rise of the Predator-Free 2050 con­ceit took place along­side the birth of a tool that could help make it a re­al­ity—CRISPR, the rev­o­lu­tion­ary tech­nique that al­lows sci­en­tists to edit genes with pre­ci­sion and ease. In its raw power, some con­ser­va­tion­ists see a way of achiev­ing im­pos­si­ble-sound­ing feats like ex­ter­mi­nat­ing an is­land’s rats by spread­ing genes through the wild pop­u­la­tion that make it dif­fi­cult for the an­i­mals to re­pro­duce. Think Children of Men, but for rats. Other sci­en­tists, in­clud­ing at least one gene-edit­ing pi­o­neer, see the po­ten­tial for eco­log­i­cal cat­a­stro­phe, be­gin­ning in an is­land na­tion with good in­ten­tions but even­tu­ally en­velop­ing the globe.In 2007, a re­tiree named Les Kelly re­turned to New Zealand af­ter 25 years of work­ing in Australia, and marked his home­com­ing with a four-month walk­ing tour. And dur­ing that time, he re­al­ized that some­thing had gone hor­ri­bly wrong. The birds he re­mem­bered from his youth were gone. Learning that in­tro­duced pests were re­spon­si­ble, he con­ceived a bold plan to purge them and cham­pi­oned it through a self-cre­ated lobby group called Predator-Free New Zealand. Word got around, and in 2011, a re­gion­ally fa­mous physi­cist named Paul Callaghan men­tioned the idea in a rous­ing speech at Zealandia. It can be done,” he said. It’s crazy but it’s am­bi­tious, and I think it might be worth a shot. I think it’s our great chal­lenge.”

Callaghan died a few months later, but those words, de­liv­ered by a well-liked celebrity, kept gath­er­ing mo­men­tum. They cer­tainly lit a fire in James Russell, a young ecol­o­gist who was born and raised in New Zealand. I grew up in sub­ur­ban Auckland with kakariki—these re­ally rare para­keets that my mother raised,” he tells me. Now, rats kill most of them, and it breaks my heart.” In 2015, he and three col­leagues wrote a pa­per in which they laid out the ben­e­fits of erad­i­cat­ing pests na­tion­wide, and es­ti­mated that a 50-year scheme would cost 9 bil­lion NZD ($6 bil­lion).From there, the idea be­came a move­ment. It stopped be­ing as­pi­ra­tional,” Russell says. The gov­ern­ment got on board, set­ting up a lim­ited com­pany to ad­min­is­ter an ini­tial $28 mil­lion NZD worth of funds. The pub­lic em­braced the idea, too. People who had been in­di­vid­u­ally try­ing to con­trol in­va­sive preda­tors on their own land found com­mon cause be­hind a uni­fy­ing theme.“It was pro­foundly wrong of me to even sug­gest it.”There are, of course, naysay­ers. Some ac­cuse the ini­tia­tive of eco­log­i­cal xeno­pho­bia, un­fairly per­se­cut­ing crea­tures that did­n’t hail from New Zealand but sure as hell are part of it now. But Russell notes that these dis­placed preda­tors are still wreak­ing havoc. Something is go­ing to die,” he says. Either a bird is go­ing to be killed by a rat that we brought here, or we’re go­ing to kill the rat. And I would rather hu­manely kill the rat than have the rat in­hu­manely kill a bird.”

Other skep­tics say that the task is sim­ply too huge. So far, con­ser­va­tion­ists have suc­cess­fully erad­i­cated mam­mals from 100 small is­lands, but these rep­re­sent just 10 per­cent of the off­shore area, and just 0.2 per­cent of the far larger main­land. It’s one thing to cull pests on small, wa­ter­locked pim­ples of land whose forests are al­most en­tirely owned by the gov­ern­ment. It’s quite an­other to re­peat the feat in con­tin­u­ous stretches of land, dot­ted by cities and pri­vate homes. But Russell, ever the op­ti­mist, notes that the daunt­ing as­cent ahead should­n’t dis­tract peo­ple from the path al­ready climbed. In 1963, af­ter decades of un­suc­cess­fully try­ing to save birds from in­va­sive preda­tors, the leg­endary con­ser­va­tion­ist Don Merton fi­nally di­vested a tiny is­land of its rats, by poi­son­ing them by hand. In later decades, when the Department of Conservation started drop­ping poi­soned bait by he­li­copter, larger is­lands be­came rat-free. Heavily vis­ited is­lands just off the coast of Auckland were cleared. The main­land is a much big­ger chal­lenge but one that could be tack­led grad­u­ally, by cre­at­ing large sanc­tu­ar­ies like Zealandia and slowly ex­pand­ing them. This is a 2050 as­pi­ra­tion,” says Russell. It’s not go­ing to be solved in 3 to 5 years.”“It has be­come less about tech­ni­cal fea­si­bil­ity but about cost,” he adds. We could just use the tech to­day but it would be in­fi­nitely ex­pen­sive. We need new con­trol tech­niques that would be or­ders of mag­ni­tude cheaper. And that’s when we get into ques­tions about CRISPR.”

In 2014, Kevin Esvelt, a bi­ol­o­gist at MIT, drew a Venn di­a­gram that trou­bles him to this day. In it, he and his col­leagues laid out sev­eral pos­si­ble uses for gene dri­ves—a nascent tech­nol­ogy for spread­ing de­signer genes through groups of wild an­i­mals. Typically, a given gene has a 50-50 chance of be­ing passed to the next gen­er­a­tion. But gene dri­ves turn that coin toss into a guar­an­tee, al­low­ing traits to zoom through pop­u­la­tions in just a few gen­er­a­tions. There are a few nat­ural ex­am­ples, but with CRISPR, sci­en­tists can de­lib­er­ately en­gi­neer such dri­ves. Suppose you have a pop­u­la­tion of rats, roughly half of which are brown, and the other half white. Now, imag­ine there is a gene that af­fects each rat’s color. It comes in two forms, one lead­ing to brown fur, and the other lead­ing to white fur. A male with two brown copies mates with a fe­male with two white copies, and all their off­spring in­herit one of each. Those off­spring breed them­selves, and the brown and white genes con­tinue cas­cad­ing through the gen­er­a­tions in a 50-50 split. This is the usual story of in­her­i­tance. But you can sub­vert it with CRISPR, by pro­gram­ming the brown gene to cut its coun­ter­part and re­place it with an­other copy of it­self. Now, the rats’ chil­dren are all brown-furred, as are their grand­chil­dren, and soon the whole pop­u­la­tion is brown.For­get fur. The same tech­nique could spread an an­ti­malar­ial gene through a mos­quito pop­u­la­tion, or drought-re­sis­tance through crop plants. The ap­pli­ca­tions are vast, but so are the risks. In the­ory, gene dri­ves spread so quickly and re­lent­lessly that they could rewrite an en­tire wild pop­u­la­tion, and once re­leased, they would be hard to con­tain. If the con­cept of mod­i­fy­ing the genes of or­gan­isms is al­ready dis­taste­ful to some, gene dri­ves mag­nify that dis­taste across na­tional, con­ti­nen­tal, and per­haps even global scales.

Esvelt un­der­stood that from the be­gin­ning. In an early pa­per dis­cussing gene dri­ves, he and his col­leagues dis­cussed the risks, and sug­gested sev­eral safe­guards. But they also in­cluded a pretty Venn di­a­gram that out­lined sev­eral pos­si­ble ap­pli­ca­tions, in­clud­ing us­ing gene dri­ves to con­trol in­va­sive species—like rats. That was ex­actly the kind of in­no­va­tion that New Zealand was af­ter. You could spread a gene that messes with the ro­den­t’s fer­til­ity, or that bi­ases them to­ward one sex or the other. Without need for poi­sons or traps, their pop­u­la­tion would even­tu­ally crash. Please don’t do it, says Esvelt. It was pro­foundly wrong of me to even sug­gest it, be­cause I badly mis­led many con­ser­va­tion­ists who are des­per­ately in need of hope. It was an em­bar­rass­ing mis­take.”Through math­e­mat­i­cal sim­u­la­tions con­ducted with col­leagues at Harvard, he has now shown that gene dri­ves are even more in­va­sive than he ex­pected. Even the weak­est CRISPR-based gene dri­ves would thor­oughly in­vade wild pop­u­la­tions, if just a few car­ri­ers were re­leased. They’re so pow­er­ful that Esvelt says they should­n’t be tested on a small scale. If con­ser­va­tion­ists tried to elim­i­nate rats on a re­mote is­land us­ing gene dri­ves, it would only take a few strongly swim­ming ro­dents to spread the drive to the main­land—and be­yond. You can­not sim­ply se­quester them and wall them off from the wider world,” Esvelt says. They’ll even­tu­ally spread through­out the full range of the species they tar­get. And if that species is the brown rat, you’re talk­ing about the en­tire planet.

Together with Neil Gemmell from the University of Otago, who is ad­vis­ing Predator-Free 2050, Esvelt has writ­ten an opin­ion piece ex­plic­itly ask­ing con­ser­va­tion­ists to steer clear of stan­dard gene dri­ves. We want to re­ally drive home—ha ha—that this is a tech­nol­ogy that is­n’t suit­able for the vast ma­jor­ity of po­ten­tial ap­pli­ca­tions that peo­ple imag­ine for it,” he says. (The only pos­si­ble ex­cep­tions, he says, are elim­i­nat­ing cer­tain dis­eases like malaria and schis­to­so­mi­a­sis, which af­fect hun­dreds of mil­lions of lives and have proven hard to con­trol.)It’s not ready yet, ei­ther. Even if gene dri­ves were given a green light to­day, Gemmell says it would take at least 2 to 3 years to de­velop car­rier an­i­mals, an­other 2 years to test those in­di­vid­u­als in a lab, and sev­eral years more to set up a small field trial. And these tech­ni­cal hur­dles pale in com­par­i­son to the po­lit­i­cal ones. Rats are ver­min to many cul­tures, but they’re also holy to some, and they’re likely to be cru­cial parts of many ecosys­tems around the world. Eradicating them is not some­thing that any sin­gle na­tion could do uni­lat­er­ally. It would have to be a global de­ci­sion—and that’s un­likely. Consider how much ef­fort it has taken to reach in­ter­na­tional agree­ments about cli­mate change—an­other cri­sis in which the ac­tions of cer­tain na­tions have dis­pro­por­tion­ately re­shaped the ecosys­tems of the en­tire world. Genetic tools have now be­come so pow­er­ful that they could trig­ger sim­i­lar changes, but faster and per­haps more ir­re­versibly.

In a global so­ci­ety, we can’t act in iso­la­tion,” says Gemmell. Some of these tools we’re think­ing about de­vel­op­ing will cross in­ter­na­tional bor­ders. New Zealand is an is­land na­tion rel­a­tively iso­lated from every­one else, but what if this was a con­ver­sa­tion hap­pen­ing in the United States about erad­i­cat­ing ro­dents? What if Canadians and Mexicans had a dif­fer­ent view? This is some­thing that should be ad­dressed.”“Māori tend to have a pre­cau­tion­ary ap­proach be­cause we’ve al­ready had many cases of wrong­do­ing for the right rea­sons.”Rus­sell agrees with a pre­cau­tion­ary ap­proach but he is­n’t ready to dis­miss gene dri­ves yet. For a start, he feels that Esvelt’s sim­u­la­tions over­es­ti­mate the risk that such dri­ves would es­tab­lish them­selves in the wild. Yes, rats are very good at trav­el­ing and col­o­niz­ing new lands, but they’re sur­pris­ingly bad at in­vad­ing places where other rats al­ready ex­ist. Rats have a strong in­cum­bent ad­van­tage,” he says. You re­ally have to in­tro­duce a lot of in­di­vid­u­als” for them to suc­cess­fully in­vade an al­ready-es­tab­lished pop­u­la­tion. Esvelt thinks that peo­ple would do ex­actly that. Gene-drive rats may not be able to swim or stow away in suf­fi­cient num­bers to oc­cupy new lands, but peo­ple could carry them. There is prece­dent for this: In 1997, farm­ers il­le­gally smug­gled a he­m­or­rhagic virus into New Zealand to con­trol rab­bit pests. They could just as eas­ily smug­gle gene-drive rats in the other di­rec­tion, to con­trol the ro­dents in their own par­tic­u­lar cor­ners of the world. New Zealand has very good biose­cu­rity but it’s mostly fo­cused on stop­ping things from get­ting in,” says Gemmell. I’m not sure we’re that good at stop­ping things from get­ting out.”

If gene dri­ves are de­ployed, it’s not un­rea­son­able to imag­ine a black mar­ket in ge­netic ro­den­ti­cide, which is ex­actly the kind of de­lib­er­ate malfea­sance that Esvelt says sci­en­tists rarely an­tic­i­pate. We don’t con­sider every­thing that will hap­pen when tech­nol­ogy gets in touch with re­al­ity,” he says. All of this as­sumes that genes dri­ves would be used to spread genes that kill or sup­press pests out­right. Instead, con­ser­va­tion­ists could use them to spread genes that are tied to par­tic­u­lar ecosys­tems. Imagine giv­ing all rats in New Zealand a peanut but­ter al­lergy, and then we feed them all peanut but­ter,” Russell says. Well sure,” Esvelt coun­ters, but then you’ve just con­verted all the rats in the world into GMOs with­out ask­ing other coun­tries.” The same prob­lem re­mains: How do you keep the mod­i­fi­ca­tion from spread­ing be­yond New Zealand?Esvelt is work­ing on a cou­ple of tricks for cor­ralling the awe­some power of gene dri­ves. In a ba­sic gene drive, a cho­sen gene has all the com­po­nents it needs to spread it­self. But you could split those com­po­nents be­tween sev­eral genes that are con­nected in a daisy chain, so that gene C is dri­ven by gene B, B is dri­ven by A, and A is dri­ven by noth­ing. If rats with these genes were re­leased into the wild, the A-carriers would ini­tially spread the B and C genes, but would even­tu­ally dis­ap­pear them­selves. After they go, B would fol­low. Ultimately, so would C. These daisy dri­ves,” as Esvelt calls them, are self-ex­haust­ing. They’re de­signed to run out of steam. If they work, they are tools that coun­tries could jus­ti­fi­ably use with­out in­volv­ing the en­tire world.

To be clear, de­spite the buzz around gene dri­ves in New Zealand’s con­ser­va­tion cir­cles, there are no con­crete plans to ac­tu­ally use them. There is cur­rently no re­search be­ing con­ducted in New Zealand to de­velop gene dri­ves for Predator-Free tar­gets, nor are there any plans for such re­search in the near fu­ture,” says Andrea Byrom, di­rec­tor of New Zealand’s Biological-Heritage National Science Challenge. Indeed, Predator-Free 2050’s re­search strat­egy men­tions only the most ex­ploratory of steps, such as se­quenc­ing the genomes of lo­cal rats, talk­ing to in­ter­na­tional ex­perts like Esvelt, and run­ning math­e­mat­i­cal sim­u­la­tions. Genuine re­search into the dri­ves them­selves would­n’t be­gin any ear­lier than 2020, and would de­pend on technological hur­dles be­ing sur­mounted, sup­port­ive pol­icy, and New Zealand/international ap­petite to pro­ceed.”The group has also funded so­cial re­search look­ing into how New Zealanders feel about us­ing ge­netic tech­nolo­gies to con­trol pests. That’s the right or­der, Byrom says: Work out what peo­ple want, and act ac­cord­ingly. The first re­sults, pub­lished this week, showed that 32 per­cent of the 8,000 peo­ple sur­veyed were com­fort­able with tech­nolo­gies like gene dri­ves, 18 per­cent felt that they should never be used, and 50 per­cent were un­de­cided or wanted strong con­trols.“Con­ser­va­tion must be some­thing that hap­pens not just in na­tional parks and the back­coun­try, but in peo­ple’s back­yards.”Much of this work has been done in con­sul­ta­tion with Māori sci­en­tists and tribal lead­ers. But the con­ver­sa­tion hap­pens in pock­ets, around net­works that sci­en­tists have,” says Maui Hudson from the University of Waikato, who stud­ies Māori re­search ethics. That’s good for work­ing out the Māori per­spec­tive on gene dri­ves, but not for ac­tu­ally en­gag­ing those com­mu­ni­ties in the de­bate about the risks. Aroha Te Pareake Mead, a po­lit­i­cal sci­en­tist who has stud­ied in­dige­nous per­spec­tives on biotech­nol­ogy, agrees that there has­n’t yet been a ro­bust and far-rang­ing dis­cus­sion with Māori groups (iwi). The idea of a preda­tor-free New Zealand is widely en­dorsed through­out Māoridom,” she says. It fits with the con­cept of kaiti­aki or guardian­ship—the im­per­a­tive to pro­tect one’s bi­o­log­i­cal her­itage. But the means of achiev­ing that goal are more con­tentious.“We’ve had many ini­tia­tives over the years that have sought to ad­dress en­vi­ron­men­tal con­cerns, with un­in­tended detri­men­tal con­se­quences,” Mead says. Māori tend to have a pre­cau­tion­ary ap­proach be­cause we’ve al­ready had many cases of wrong­do­ing for the right rea­sons. Generally speak­ing, we are sus­pi­cious of any kind of ge­netic mod­i­fi­ca­tion.”

Despite those reser­va­tions, she en­joyed meet­ing Esvelt two months ago, when he spoke about daisy dri­ves at a com­mu­nity meet­ing. I found him to be re­fresh­ing as a sci­en­tist,” she says. He was­n’t de­fen­sive and he thought that ques­tion­ing the risks was es­sen­tial. That gave the Māori who were pre­sent a lot of com­fort be­cause we’re used to a very dif­fer­ent type of ge­neti­cist who comes in, says this is the best thing since sliced bread, and if you ques­tion it, you’re ig­no­rant and you don’t know the sci­ence. We want to be given a range of tools and to make an in­formed de­ci­sion about the best one for the pur­pose.”Gene dri­ves are not the only game in town. The peo­ple be­hind Predator-Free 2050 are also work­ing on ways of up­grad­ing tried-and-tested tech­nol­ogy. The most com­monly used traps, for ex­am­ple, are sim­ple one-use de­vices that must be man­u­ally checked and re­set. But some com­pa­nies have made self-re­set­ting traps that can re­peat­edly kill dozens of rats with a gas-pow­ered pis­ton to the head, or traps that can spray 100 stoats with tox­ins be­fore need­ing to be re­set. Others are de­vel­op­ing sen­sors that will tell trap­pers when their snares have snagged an an­i­mal, so they don’t have to la­bo­ri­ously check every one. These traps are typ­i­cally baited with food, but food goes off in the field and must be fre­quently re­stocked. Ironically, it also be­comes less ef­fec­tive in well-pro­tected ar­eas where ac­tual prey are com­mon. But stoats, it turns out, are far more at­tracted to the scent of fer­rets—a fel­low species of weasel—than they are to food smells. Scientists are now try­ing to iso­late the chem­i­cals that make Eau de Ferret so en­tic­ing, to turn them into a su­per-lure.

Aerial drops of 1080 poi­son, which have freed so many is­lands from preda­tors, will al­most cer­tainly be part of any main­land cam­paign. Its use is con­tro­ver­sial: It can harm the play­ful kea par­rot, and the oc­ca­sional un­wary pet dog. But con­ser­va­tion­ists could de­ploy poi­sons more ef­fec­tively if they had bet­ter ways of de­tect­ing pests, like foot­pad sen­sors that could track a ro­den­t’s foot­falls, or cam­eras whose im­ages are au­to­mat­i­cally an­a­lyzed by ar­ti­fi­cial in­tel­li­gence. One team is also try­ing to de­velop more spe­cific tox­ins, by an­a­lyz­ing the genome of pos­sums to find chem­i­cals that will af­fect them alone. And Russell be­lieves that for Predator-Free 2050 to suc­ceed, it has to mar­shal the most ef­fec­tive tool around: hu­man en­thu­si­asm. Thousands of vol­un­teer groups al­ready ex­ist around the coun­try, mon­i­tor­ing for in­va­sive species and set­ting traps. That kind of fer­vor has to spread, es­pe­cially if mam­mals are to be ex­iled from cities. Any pock­ets of re­sis­tance or ap­a­thy would cre­ate strong­holds where pests could thrive. Conservation must be some­thing that hap­pens not just in na­tional parks and the back­coun­try, but in peo­ple’s back­yards,” Russell says. They not only al­low it but par­tic­i­pate in it.”Re­gard­less of the tech­nol­ogy that Predator-Free 2050 even­tu­ally set­tles on, there’s no ques­tion that such mea­sures are needed. Consider the kakapo—New Zealand’s en­dear­ing, bum­bling, gi­ant, flight­less par­rot. In the 1960s, peo­ple thought it was ex­tinct. Now, af­ter the dis­cov­ery of a sur­viv­ing pop­u­la­tion and three decades of in­tense work, the pop­u­la­tion stands at 153.

How to Raise the Rarest Kiwi

Every One Of These Endearing Parrots Will Have Its Genome Sequenced

The adults have been re­lo­cated to preda­tor-free is­lands, but in terms of large sites that would hold a de­cent pop­u­la­tion, we’ve sat­u­rated the mar­ket,” says Deidre Vercoe, a man­ager at the Kakapo Recovery pro­gram. Her team will have to start re­leas­ing the birds into places where stoats and rats are still a threat. If Predator-Free 2050 achieved its goal, they could do so with re­laxed smiles rather than grit­ted teeth. Even if Stewart Island, New Zealand’s third-largest is­land, could be stripped of preda­tors, it would be an an­swer for kakapo for many, many years,” she says.New Zealand is far from the only coun­try grap­pling with these is­sues. Over the last seven cen­turies, 60 per­cent of the ver­te­brates that have dis­ap­peared from the planet have dis­ap­peared from is­lands—and in half of those cases, in­va­sive species are the cul­prits. If Predator-Free 2050 makes the right choices, it can in­deed change the world—but not with an un­stop­pable wave of gene-drive ro­dents. Instead, it’ll show other na­tions that is­lands can be pro­tected, that in­va­sive pests can be erad­i­cated, that van­ish­ing wildlife can be saved—even at scales once thought im­pos­si­ble.“Even if we don’t get to the fin­ish line, the fact that we ran most of the marathon will be pretty damn im­pres­sive,” says Russell.

...

Read the original on www.theatlantic.com »

4 6,569 shares, 74 trendiness, 856 words and 7 minutes reading time

Blind since birth, writing code at Amazon since 2013

Click for an ex­tended edi­tion of the video with au­dio de­scrip­tions

Michael Forzano loves when his team­mates ask him for help. There’s no ego in­volved — far from it. For Forzano, it’s the pure sat­is­fac­tion that he is right where he be­longs, writ­ing code at Amazon.

I do feel like I have to prove my­self a lot in life,” said Forzano, a 26-year-old soft­ware en­gi­neer on the re­tail ac­ces­si­bil­ity team. But not at Amazon. People have been so open minded here.”

Forzano has been blind since birth as the re­sult of a ge­netic con­di­tion called Norrie dis­ease. I def­i­nitely had a pretty nor­mal child­hood de­spite my blind­ness,” said Forzano. My par­ents al­ways tried to make sure I was able to do the same things that any­one else would do.”

Forzano also started los­ing his hear­ing at the age of five and uses cochlear im­plants to hear. As a teenager, he be­came in­ter­ested in au­dio games, which are au­dio-based com­puter games, and taught him­self how to pro­gram. He went on to Binghamton University, where he played sax in the pep band and earned a bach­e­lor’s de­gree in com­puter sci­ence.

Right out of col­lege, he in­ter­viewed to be­come a soft­ware en­gi­neer at Amazon. He walked in the door, re­vealed to the in­ter­view­ers that he was blind, and earned him­self a job by im­press­ing them with the code he wrote on his lap­top.

I re­mem­ber when I told my mom that I got the (job) of­fer, she started cry­ing right there on the phone,” said Forzano. At Amazon, he writes code that helps other teams make shop­ping on Amazon more ac­ces­si­ble to peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ties.

Today, the New York na­tive lives with his guide dog, Delta, in down­town Seattle, where he rel­ishes his in­de­pen­dence.

Erik Wang, a fel­low soft­ware de­vel­oper at Amazon, said Forzano reads and writes code even faster than me. He has su­per­pow­ers to spot flaws in the code.”

Forzano said he has a good mental map of the struc­ture of the code,” which al­lows him to help col­leagues and pro­vide unique feed­back to his team.

I feel re­ally lucky to be here at Amazon, just be­ing able to live the same kind of life that any­one else would. Not let­ting my blind­ness hold me back is re­ally em­pow­er­ing.”

Forzano works on a stan­dard lap­top with screen-reader soft­ware, which trans­lates every as­pect of us­ing a com­puter into au­dio cues.

I think it’s re­ally im­por­tant for other blind peo­ple to know what I have done,” Forzano said. There are prob­a­bly a lot of blind peo­ple out there won­der­ing how far they’ll go and what they will be able to do. I def­i­nitely do all I can to make my­self avail­able, as a role model, and let the world know.”

On be­com­ing in­ter­ested in com­put­ers (transcript): So I got in­ter­ested in com­put­ers when I was in high school. I knew a com­mu­nity of blind peo­ple on­line and some of them were de­vel­op­ers, re­ally just as a hobby not as a ca­reer. But one of them in­tro­duced me to pro­gram­ming, specif­i­cally pro­gram­ming games. I was very in­ter­ested in pro­gram­ming au­dio games, which were ba­si­cally games that use sound ef­fects and are con­trolled us­ing the key­board and al­low blind peo­ple to play them. I met this per­son who was a game de­vel­oper and in­tro­duced me to pro­gram­ming, and I just took it from there and taught my­self.”

On his job in­ter­view at Amazon (transcript): I sent in my ap­pli­ca­tion. I was in­ter­viewed on cam­pus. They sent some de­vel­op­ers out to do in­ter­views, and I went in there not ex­pect­ing much. I had not told them in ad­vance that I was blind. I just brought in my lap­top and said, Hey, I’m blind. Can I use my lap­top in­stead of a white­board to write my code for the in­ter­view?’ And they were like, sure no prob­lem. So I did my thing and was ex­tended an of­fer to come to Seattle. My par­ents are re­ally proud. I re­mem­ber when I told my mom that I got the of­fer, she started cry­ing right there on the phone.”

On cod­ing (transcript): At Amazon I work on the Retail Accessibility team. We build tools that help other teams who are build­ing the fea­tures on the web­site to make sure that they are ac­ces­si­ble to cus­tomers with dis­abil­i­ties. I know that my co-work­ers of­ten ask me, Can you tell me how this works?’ Because I have a pretty good men­tal map of the struc­ture of the code and where things are and what part of the sys­tem this par­tic­u­lar com­po­nent is in, or the over­all ar­chi­tec­ture of the sys­tem. I’ve got it in my head. I can tell some­one how some­thing works, where some­thing is, whereas I feel like a lot of my cowork­ers are re­ly­ing on white-board­ing and draw­ing di­a­grams, which is pretty typ­i­cal, I would say, for peo­ple with vi­sion, be­cause they are of­ten vi­sual learn­ers, and just vi­su­ally ori­ented peo­ple. I’ve never had that, so I’ve been able to, I guess, use my brain power to do things non-vi­su­ally.”

...

Read the original on blog.aboutamazon.com »

5 5,113 shares, 5 trendiness, 0 words and 0 minutes reading time

I was one of the first people on Facebook. I shouldn't have trusted Mark Zuckerberg

What term do you want to search?

...

Read the original on www.theguardian.com »

6 3,458 shares, 45 trendiness, 971 words and 8 minutes reading time

Players Have Crowned A New Best Board Game — And It May Be Tough To Topple

If we’re liv­ing in a golden age of board games, then the web­site BoardGameGeek is the in­ter­net’s sift­ing pan. The bounty of games over­floweth — one can now sit down at a table with friends and set­tle strange and boun­ti­ful is­lands, fight Cold Wars and ter­raform Mars. BoardGameGeek helps sort through it all, a kind of ar­biter of pop­u­lar taste.

A new game now tops those rank­ings: It’s called Gloomhaven, and it’s the cur­rent BoardGameGeek No. 1, hav­ing taken over the top spot this past win­ter. The game has won scads of awards, in­clud­ing more than a hand­ful of Golden Geeks and a Scelto dai Goblin — the gob­lins’ choice. Its place atop the BoardGameGeek list ce­ments its sta­tus as a flag­ship of the cur­rent golden age.

The BoardGameGeek list is valu­able real es­tate in high-end board gam­ing, and the No. 1 spot is, of course, the prime po­si­tion — Boardwalk, if you will. Only seven games have oc­cu­pied it since the site launched in 2000. The seven No. 1s are a mot­ley bunch, in­clud­ing a civ­i­liza­tion-build­ing game set in the an­cient fer­tile cres­cent and a war game set in the 1910s. But they all have some­thing that speaks to what’s en vogue among the kind of peo­ple who go on­line to rate board games: in­ten­sive strat­egy.

But the site rec­og­nizes that its most highly rated games aren’t all for every­one. As with any other medium — books, movies, mu­sic, etc. — you can’t just pick what­ever is rated No. 1 on some chart and ex­pect it to pro­vide a great ex­pe­ri­ence for you,” said W. Eric Martin, a BoardGameGeek news ed­i­tor. You should look for games that match your in­ter­ests.”

Now it’s Gloomhaven’s turn to try to in­ter­est you. Years ago, Isaac Childres, the game’s de­signer, like many bud­ding board gamers, got his start in serious” gam­ing with Settlers of Catan, then logged on to BoardGameGeek and worked his way down its em­pir­i­cally ranked list: the strate­gic farm­ing of Agricola, the cap­i­tal­is­tic in­fra­struc­ture of Power Grid, the cas­tle build­ing of Caylus. The list, in many ways, dic­tates board-game cul­ture. It rep­re­sents an ag­gre­gated con­sen­sus of early adopters and fer­vent fa­nat­ics, which then trick­les down to the broader gam­ing pub­lic — and to fu­ture star game de­sign­ers of top-ranked games.

In Gloomhaven (which re­tails for $215), players will take on the role of a wan­der­ing mer­ce­nary with their own spe­cial set of skills and their own rea­sons for trav­el­ing to this re­mote cor­ner of the world. Players must work to­gether out of ne­ces­sity to clear out men­ac­ing dun­geons and for­got­ten ru­ins.” The game’s web­site likens it to a Choose Your Own Adventure” novel. Just don’t for­get your swords or spells. Childres at­trib­utes his game’s suc­cess, at least among the hard­core denizens of BoardGameGeek, to the way it im­proves on the ap­peal of the role­play­ing of Dungeons & Dragons, in which crawl­ing dun­geons can be­come rote. In Gloomhaven, you have spe­cial abil­i­ties that you can use over and over, and once you use them, you can watch them make cool stuff hap­pen. It’s heavy on the fun stuff, rather than the grind of rep­e­ti­tious orc slay­ing, and as the BoardGameGeek leader­board shows, gamers are ap­pre­cia­tive.

The BoardGameGeek rank­ings, sim­i­lar to movie rank­ings on IMDb, are based on user rat­ings, which run from 1 to 10. Gloomhaven (8.62 Geek Rating) ben­e­fits from rat­ings that are ex­tremely heavy on the 10s — more than half of its raters gave it that max­i­mum score. Contrast this with for­mer No. 1s such as Agricola, whose rat­ings fol­low a more ex­pected bell curve that’s cen­tered around 8, or Twilight Struggle, which is about equally weighted on 8s, 9s and 10s. Only Pandemic Legacy, the No. 1 be­fore Gloomhaven took over, is nearly as heavy on the 10-point rat­ings. Even still, Gloomhaven’s av­er­age user rat­ing (which is slightly dif­fer­ent from its Geek Rating) is a full 0.35 points higher than the sec­ond-place game, which may help it ce­ment a lengthy legacy.

Most of the older No. 1s took a while to climb there, hav­ing been re­leased years ear­lier and hav­ing slowly earned enough high rat­ings from loyal fans to rise to the top. Gloomhaven has been dif­fer­ent: It was re­leased just last year, and even then only to its Kickstarter back­ers. It is­n’t avail­able for wide pub­lic sale quite yet. So its raters so far are likely a spe­cific sub­set of the gam­ing cul­ture — peo­ple who find the con­cept so ap­peal­ing that they were will­ing to shell out cash for a game that did­n’t ex­ist yet. For the most part, peo­ple don’t rate games that they haven’t played,” Martin said.

Given Gloomhaven’s dra­mat­i­cally skewed rat­ings, are the geeks run­ning out of room atop their list? As the top Geek Rating inches closer and closer to the per­fect 10, it will be­come harder and harder to dis­lodge the No. 1. The game has its haters, of course. Very over hyped game,” one user wrote this month, rat­ing it a 3. But those who hope to see it ousted, and to see their fa­vorite to take over, may have a while, or an eter­nity, to wait. When you’re rat­ing on a 1-to-10 scale, a game can only go so high, af­ter all.

But there will al­ways be in­cre­men­tal progress, in hu­man en­deavor gen­er­ally and in board game de­sign specif­i­cally. Human ath­leti­cism al­ways seems to be in­creas­ing,” Childres said. There’s al­ways some­one who is able to reach far­ther and far­ther lim­its, for what­ever rea­son, maybe some small-scale hu­man evo­lu­tion. Board games are evolv­ing as well, stand­ing on the shoul­ders of the great games and it­er­at­ing on them.”

Read more: The Worst Board Games Ever Invented

...

Read the original on fivethirtyeight.com »

7 3,093 shares, 13 trendiness, 963 words and 8 minutes reading time

Go Medieval by Attaching a Book to Your Belt

Girdle books had to be small, and they had to be light. From the bot­tom edges of their bind­ings ex­tended an length of leather, usu­ally gath­ered into a knot at the end. This ex­ten­sion of the cover could be used to carry the book like a purse or could be tucked into a gir­dle or belt. To read, the owner would­n’t even have to de­tach the book; when taken up, the book would be ori­ented cor­rectly, just as if it had been pulled from a shelf.

Used from the 14th to 17th cen­turies, these books were texts that their own­ers needed to keep close at hand: prayer books used by monks and nuns, for ex­am­ple, or law books used by trav­el­ing judges. Though they were valu­able ob­jects—lux­u­ries, even—these books were meant to be con­sulted and read.

These are books that needed to be spe­cially pro­tected be­cause of a lot of use, a lot of wear. Most of them were prob­a­bly used daily,” says Margit J. Smith, au­thor of The Medieval Girdle Book. How many books do you have in your col­lec­tion that you use every day?”

Girdle books were once com­mon enough that they ap­pear more than 800 times in paint­ings and other art of the pe­riod. But to­day there are just 26 gir­dle books known in the world. In her book, a cat­a­logue of what she calls relics of an age long gone by,” Smith has mea­sured, pho­tographed, and in­ves­ti­gated the his­tory of each one.

Smith, a book­binder and re­tired li­brar­ian who was the head of cat­a­logu­ing and preser­va­tion at the University of San Diego’s Copley Library, first be­came in­ter­ested in gir­dle books 15 years ago, and she took a class in Montefiascone, Italy, to learn how to make one. In her prepa­ra­tions, she found that there was lit­tle schol­arly work—lit­tle in­for­ma­tion at all, re­ally—on these once rel­a­tively com­mon ob­jects.

The class took place in sum­mer, and usu­ally, af­ter their work was over, the group would go for a dip in the nearby lake. On one of these ex­cur­sions, Smith was ask­ing an in­struc­tor, Jim Bloxam, where to find more re­search about the books; to­gether, they de­cided to start col­lect­ing im­ages of all known me­dieval gir­dle books—just 24 at that time. After some years of work, Bloxam, a con­ser­va­tor at Cambridge University, had to drop out of the pro­ject, but Smith, who says she’s in­ter­ested in odd things”—she likes to read words back­wards and has writ­ten about the sil­ver­fish that threaten book bind­ings—con­tin­ued vis­it­ing the world’s few re­main­ing gir­dle books.

When li­braries placed these ob­jects, hun­dreds of years old, in front of her, she felt a sense of awe. Then you start look­ing into it, and you see all the de­bris from 500 years ago. There is dust and hair and fin­ger­nail pair­ings and spots of wax from can­dles and era­sures,” she says. Some of the books are so frag­ile that you have to be very care­ful, es­pe­cially when turn­ing pages. But if you start mea­sur­ing, once you get into that, you re­mem­ber what you are there to do, and you’ve over­come the ini­tial awe.” The books, while still trea­sures, be­came ob­jects to be scru­ti­nized.

The part of the book cover that dis­tin­guishes a gir­dle book of­ten looks like a Wee Willie Winkie hat, flopped on top of the book, or a Gandalf-esque beard, stretch­ing down into a neat tri­an­gle. Smith dis­cov­ered that some gir­dle books have just one ex­tended leather cover, while other have two nested cov­ers, with the outer one de­signed for car­ry­ing. But it was­n’t al­ways easy to tell which cat­e­gory a gir­dle book fit into. One of the first things Smith learned as a book­binder was how to tear a book down, to see how it worked. In mod­ern books, it’s pos­si­ble to tease back an end­pa­per and in­spect a book’s se­crets. In the case of the old, rare books, that was­n’t pos­si­ble, so Smith had to run her fin­gers along the bind­ing to feel for ridges and other hints to the book’s in­ner work­ings.

You close your eyes,” she says. As a book­binder, I have learned to trust my fin­gers more than my eyes.”

In the course of her re­search, Smith dis­cov­ered the ex­is­tence of two ad­di­tional gir­dle books. One is in Scotland, the psalter of Neal McBeath, the small­est of all the known gir­dle books. Just 2.5 inches by 1 7/8 inch, the book fit eas­ily into the palm of her hand. It did­n’t have a spine, just the leather wrap­ping, and it showed lit­tle sign of re­pair. In Vienna, she found an­other new gir­dle book, but this one re­fused to give up its se­crets. Years of re­pair work on it had con­cealed most clues about its con­struc­tion. The gir­dle cover, for in­stance, may have been a later ad­di­tion. There are un­usual bumps and pro­tru­sions un­der there,” she says. It’s sort of mys­tery. I’d like to be able to take it apart com­pletely and see what went on be­fore, be­fore the bind­ing was put on.”

Some of the books had sur­prises in­side, as well. One be­longed to a nun, Katharina Röder von Rodeck, who lived at the Frauenalb Convent near Karlsruhe, Germany. She filled the pages with her per­sonal prayers and de­vo­tions, as well as notes about her life—when she took her vows, when German peas­ants re­belled in 1525. At the be­gin­ning of the book, she dec­o­rated five pages with the coats of arms of her par­ents’ fam­i­lies, a gray owl hold­ing a red heart, a skele­ton hold­ing an hour­glass, and mo­tifs of flow­ers and vines that con­tin­ued through­out the book. It gives, writes Smith, a very cheer­ful and friendly im­pres­sion.”

...

Read the original on www.atlasobscura.com »

8 2,193 shares, 17 trendiness, 2572 words and 21 minutes reading time

The Man Who Brought Down Lance Armstrong

Floyd Landis, a for­mer team­mate of the cy­clist’s, just won more than $1 mil­lion in a le­gal case against Armstrong. Here are his thoughts on the suit, cy­cling, and his one­time ri­val.

Floyd Landis, a for­mer team­mate of the cy­clist’s, just won more than $1 mil­lion in a le­gal case against Armstrong. Here are his thoughts on the suit, cy­cling, and his one­time ri­val.

At 5:19 p.m. on Friday, April 30, 2010, Floyd Landis hit send on what would prove the most con­se­quen­tial email of his life. Addressed to the then-CEO of USA Cycling, Steve Johnson, the email bore the sub­ject line nobody is copied on this one so it’s up to you to demon­strate your true col­ors….” It went on to de­tail, year by year, how Landis and other mem­bers of the United States Postal Service team had used il­le­gal per­for­mance-en­hanc­ing drugs and meth­ods to dom­i­nate the sport of cy­cling and claim vic­to­ries at the sport’s pre­mier event, the Tour de France. The email, later in­cluded in Landis’s 2012 af­fi­davit for a United States Anti-Doping Agency (usada) in­ves­ti­ga­tion, clearly im­pli­cated many of his for­mer team­mates—most fa­mously, the seven-time Tour win­ner Lance Armstrong (who de­clined to com­ment for this ar­ti­cle).To hear more fea­ture sto­ries, see our full list or get the Audm iPhone app.

It would take more than two years of in­ves­ti­ga­tion, but in October 2012, us­ada con­cluded that the U. S. Postal Service team un­der Armstrong and its man­ager, Johan Bruyneel, had run the most so­phis­ti­cated, pro­fes­sion­al­ized and suc­cess­ful dop­ing pro­gram that sport has ever seen.” Armstrong’s long­time spon­sor Nike was the first to aban­don him, and the rest fol­lowed. In one day, he lost seven spon­sors and an es­ti­mated $75 mil­lion. A few days later, the International Cycling Union (UCI), which over­sees in­ter­na­tional com­pet­i­tive cy­cling, stripped him of his record seven Tour vic­to­ries. Attempting dam­age con­trol, Armstrong sat down with Oprah in 2013, in an in­ter­view that went ter­ri­bly awry; he sim­ply could not muster the ap­pro­pri­ate level of con­tri­tion. (Among other mis­steps, he made a fat joke.) Since then, he has been forced to sell his Austin man­sion and his Gulfstream jet to pay $15 mil­lion in le­gal fees, plus $21 mil­lion in set­tle­ments.But Landis had­n’t stopped with the email to Johnson. Fearing that the Teflon-like Armstrong would emerge from the ac­cu­sa­tions un­scathed, Landis had also filed a whis­tle-blower law­suit un­der the fed­eral False Claims Act, al­leg­ing that Armstrong and his team had de­frauded the gov­ern­ment by tak­ing the U.S. Postal Service spon­sor­ship money while know­ingly cheat­ing in races. The fed­eral gov­ern­ment joined that law­suit in 2013; on April 19, Armstrong set­tled for $5 mil­lion. And on the grounds of the whis­tle-blower suit, Landis will be awarded $1.1 mil­lion from that set­tle­ment. (Armstrong will also pay $1.65 mil­lion to cover Landis’s le­gal costs.)

When Landis wrote the 2010 email that turned cy­cling on its head, he was at a low point. A year af­ter his own 2006 Tour de France vic­tory, Landis had be­come the first man in the race’s 103-year his­tory to be stripped of his ti­tle be­cause of a dop­ing con­vic­tion. His days were spent in a haze: He con­sumed as much as a fifth of Jack Daniel’s and 15 dou­ble-strength painkillers daily. (He main­tains, how­ever, that he was stone-cold sober when he wrote the email.) His house was fore­closed on, his credit ru­ined. He and his wife, Amber, di­vorced. If you are a hu­man in any way and not a psy­chopath, it’s painful,” he says. My whole life was com­pletely up­side down, and I was not pre­pared for any of it.”A for­mer mil­lion­aire, Landis had spent his en­tire for­tune, and then some, on his le­gal de­fense. But he has got­ten back on his feet, start­ing a cannabis busi­ness in rural Colorado. (The irony—that a life de­stroyed by one form of dope may be re­deemed by an­other—is not lost on him.) Landis is stead­fast that his whis­tle-blower suit is about jus­tice be­ing done, rather than his own po­ten­tial wind­fall. But the money will come in handy in get­ting his new busi­ness off the ground. Landis grew up in Farmersville, Pennsylvania, in a con­ser­v­a­tive Mennonite fam­ily. Like the Amish, some Mennonites avoid mod­ern tech­nol­ogy. Though his fam­ily had elec­tric­ity, there was no ra­dio or tele­vi­sion to oc­cupy young Landis’s time. So he rode his bike.

He saved enough money to buy his first real moun­tain bike at age 15, and promptly won the first race he ever en­tered with it, wear­ing sweat­pants. In 1993, dur­ing his se­nior year of high school, Landis won the U. S. ju­nior na­tional cham­pi­onship, and his ca­reer took off. USA Cycling sent the 17-year-old to France to rep­re­sent America at the world cham­pi­onship. It was his first time on an air­plane. The trip was fairly trau­matic,” he told me. I should have taken that as a sign.”Per­for­mance-en­hanc­ing drugs have been cen­tral to com­pet­i­tive cy­cling for as long as the sport has ex­isted. Early-20th-century rid­ers in the Tour de France took the dan­ger­ous stim­u­lant strych­nine and held ether-soaked hand­ker­chiefs to their mouth to dull the pain caused by pro­pelling a bike for thou­sands of miles.Floyd Landis at the peak of his cy­cling ca­reer (Doug Pensinger / Getty)But Landis claims never to have used per­for­mance-en­hanc­ing drugs be­fore meet­ing Armstrong. He trained ob­ses­sively, once rid­ing his bike 24,000 miles in a sin­gle year. His first pro­fes­sional con­tract, for the Mercury team in 1999, was worth $6,000.By 2002, Armstrong had al­ready won three Tours and was look­ing to for­tify his U.S. Postal Service team to com­pete for a fourth. Landis, still a drug-free ath­lete by his own ac­count, was show­ing promise; he had re­cently placed fourth at the Tour de l’Avenir, in France. U.S. Postal signed the 26-year-old for $60,000 a year. But from his first bike ride with Armstrong, Landis said, their re­la­tion­ship was tense: The guy’s a jerk and every­body knows it, but he was sur­rounded by yes-men, and they were also ter­ri­fied of him, so they laughed at his jokes even if they did­n’t make sense.” The sup­port­ing cast of rid­ers around Armstrong were treated more like re­place­able cogs than es­sen­tial com­po­nents, eas­ily swapped out for any num­ber of other rid­ers.

Once I got to Postal it was like, Look, there are no half mea­sures here,’ and we openly dis­cussed dop­ing pretty much on every bike ride,” Landis said. He claimed in his us­ada af­fi­davit that it was Armstrong who handed him his first per­for­mance-en­hanc­ing drug, a pile of 2.5 mil­ligram testos­terone patches. He then par­tic­i­pated in the pop­u­lar but il­le­gal prac­tice of con­duct­ing blood trans­fu­sions: Cyclists would draw blood in the off-sea­son, bag it, and re­in­fuse it into their body dur­ing races for a boost of oxy­gen-car­ry­ing red blood cells. By 2004, the Armstrong uni­verse had be­come so un­pleas­ant for Landis that he be­gan shop­ping around for an­other team. U.S. Postal wanted to keep him, but it was of­fer­ing far less than he could find else­where. As ne­go­ti­a­tions grew con­tentious, Landis said, the team had Armstrong call to sweet-talk him. That lasted about two min­utes, then he spent 45 min­utes telling me how much he hated me and he was go­ing to de­stroy me,” Landis said.Lan­dis’s re­sent­ment fes­tered. During the 2004 Tour de France, while still rid­ing with the U.S. Postal Service team, Landis signed for the next year with the Swiss pro­fes­sional cy­cling team Phonak. He would fin­ish the Tour help­ing Armstrong race to a sixth vic­tory in Paris, and when Armstrong re­tired af­ter his sev­enth Tour win the fol­low­ing year, amid a swarm of dop­ing al­le­ga­tions, Landis be­came a fa­vorite to win in 2006.Landis was the first Tour de France cham­pion ever to be stripped of the ti­tle be­cause of a failed drug test. Only later would Armstrong have his ti­tles re­voked.And win he did. For four days, Landis would be con­sid­ered the best cy­clist on Earth. Despite a col­lapse on Stage 16 of the Tour, which left him at a seem­ingly in­sur­mount­able time dis­ad­van­tage, Landis pulled him­self back into con­tention over the French moun­tains on Stage 17 in what re­mains pos­si­bly the most spec­tac­u­lar sin­gle-day ride in cy­cling his­tory. At the time trial two days later, he re­cap­tured the lead, and went on to win the Tour—rolling into the Champs-Élysées flanked by his Phonak team­mates—by 57 sec­onds.But a few days af­ter­ward the team man­ager called with life-chang­ing news: Landis had failed the drug test he’d taken af­ter that mag­i­cal Stage 17. Using a method that ex­am­ined the atomic makeup of the testos­terone in his urine, a French lab­o­ra­tory later found that Landis had used syn­thetic testos­terone.

At his first press con­fer­ence af­ter the re­sults were an­nounced, he at­tempted a pal­try ex­cuse, blam­ing the find­ings on his nat­u­rally high testos­terone lev­els. In sub­se­quent in­ter­views he pointed to the two beers and at least four shots of whiskey he’d con­sumed the night be­fore the stage. Armstrong—who pre­sum­ably re­al­ized that if Landis fell and flipped, he him­self could be next—phoned to en­cour­age Landis to be more force­ful in his pub­lic de­nials, Landis claims. He was prac­ticed at this and I was­n’t, so he told me I had to speak with more con­vic­tion,” Landis re­mem­bered. It was com­pletely self-serv­ing. Lance had­n’t talked to me in years be­fore that call.” Nonetheless, he dou­bled down. He mounted a pro­tracted and ex­pen­sive bat­tle to as­sert his in­no­cence, even start­ing an or­ga­ni­za­tion, the Floyd Fairness Fund, to raise money for his fight against the charges. He also pub­lished a book ti­tled Positively False, in which the au­thor Loren Mooney helped him ex­plain his mirac­u­lous Stage 17 ride and his cy­cling suc­cess much as the jour­nal­ist Sally Jenkins had done for Armstrong in his equally iron­i­cally ti­tled bi­og­ra­phy, It’s Not About the Bike. Both nar­ra­tives now read more like fic­tion. Armstrong speaks to Landis dur­ing the 2004 Tour de France. (Martin Bureau / AFP / Getty)In June of 2008, the Switzerland-based Court of Arbitration for Sport up­held the two-year dop­ing ban im­posed on Landis by us­ada. Landis had ex­hausted his ap­peals. To this day, he main­tains that al­though he used per­for­mance-en­hanc­ing drugs to cheat in races dur­ing the lat­ter part of his ca­reer, he was not on testos­terone dur­ing the 2006 Tour, and was some­how set up to take a fall or be made an ex­am­ple of. us­ada’s CEO, Travis Tygart, pub­licly urged Landis to ac­knowl­edge his mis­take and come clean. Friends aban­doned him. Under threat of crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­tion, he agreed to pay back the $478,354 he had raised from donors, on false pre­tenses, for his de­fense.

Since Landis’s days as a pro­fes­sional ath­lete, his fea­tures have soft­ened, from bor­der­line ema­ci­ated to pro­to­typ­i­cally American. As we en­ter a restau­rant bar in Golden, Colorado, no one rec­og­nizes him. His jeans are loose-fit­ting, and his hair is an awk­ward length that re­quires al­most con­stant at­ten­tion to keep out of his eyes. He seems happy and, quite pos­si­bly, at peace with his life. In 2016, he launched his mar­i­juana busi­ness, Floyd’s of Leadville, which spe­cial­izes in treat­ing ath­letes with cannabis-in­fused anal­gesic creams, tinc­tures, and soft­gels. After al­most a decade of us­ing opi­oids to quell the pain left in his own body from eight years of pro­fes­sional cy­cling—he had his hip re­placed in 2006—Landis dis­cov­ered that the pow­er­ful anti-in­flam­ma­tory com­po­nent of mar­i­juana, cannabid­iol, could ac­com­plish sim­i­lar re­sults with­out the hor­rific side ef­fects. Now opi­oid-free, Landis be­lieves in its po­ten­tial: This stuff has done so much for me.”I asked Landis, be­fore the set­tle­ment was an­nounced, about the prospect of the whis­tle-blower suit mak­ing him rich again af­ter his fall from grace, but he de­murred: I don’t care about the money. I don’t care if I get any­thing out of it.” Likewise, when I asked him his feel­ings about tak­ing down his old an­tag­o­nist, he said only, It was never about Lance in the first place. But I had a choice to come clean or not, and if I did, it was go­ing to be me against Lance, be­cause he was go­ing to fight.”

What he was re­ally in­ter­ested in talk­ing about is what he sees as the on­go­ing cor­rup­tion in the up­per ech­e­lons of cy­cling. Since he blew the doors off the sport’s omertà, cy­cling has os­ten­si­bly cleaned up its act. But Landis be­lieves that the speeds at which cy­clists are now rid­ing—on the same sec­tions of European roads he raced—haven’t slowed enough for that to be true, and mount­ing ev­i­dence seems to point to, if not out­right dop­ing, at least gray-area tech­niques. Take Team Sky, from Manchester, England. Team Sky looks ex­actly like what we were do­ing—ex­actly,” Landis said, re­fer­ring to its cur­rent dom­i­nance of the cy­cling world. So they were able to do that with­out drugs, but we weren’t? People haven’t evolved over the last eight years.” Sky has won five of the last six Tours, but the le­git­i­macy of its cham­pi­ons has come un­der scrutiny. A U.K. par­lia­men­tary-com­mit­tee in­ves­ti­ga­tion re­cently con­cluded that Bradley Wiggins, the 2012 win­ner, had crossed an ethical line” by abus­ing the Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) sys­tem, which al­lows an ath­lete to take banned drugs in or­der to treat med­ical con­di­tions. The com­mit­tee ac­cused him of us­ing cor­ti­cos­teroids to im­prove his power-to-weight ra­tio ahead of the race, rather than for the stated pur­pose of treat­ing asthma. (Both Wiggins and Team Sky have de­nied cross­ing any lines to en­hance per­for­mance.) Wiggins’s for­mer team­mate and suc­ces­sor, Chris Froome, who won the past three Tours, failed a drug test dur­ing his win­ning ef­fort at the 2017 Vuelta a España; he had twice the al­lowed limit of the asthma drug salbu­ta­mol in his sys­tem. (Froome has de­nied any wrong­do­ing, and an International Cycling Union in­ves­ti­ga­tion is on­go­ing.)Since re­tir­ing from rac­ing, Landis has be­gun a mar­i­juana busi­ness that spe­cial­izes in treat­ing ath­letes suf­fer­ing from sports-re­lated pain. (Benjamin Rasmussen)

The Mobster Who Bought His Son a Hockey Team

In this drama with­out he­roes, Landis does­n’t think that the dis­grace he and Armstrong have un­der­gone has ul­ti­mately done much good for the sport. Taking me down and tak­ing Armstrong down did noth­ing,” he said. It was an ut­ter fail­ure be­cause the UCI and wada [the World Anti-Doping Agency] are still ly­ing to kids and mak­ing them think that they can be­come top ath­letes clean. And they know that you can’t.” (The UCI said that the TUE sys­tem was strength­ened in 2014 and is now fully safe­guarded.” wada said that it is be­com­ing more and more dif­fi­cult for ath­letes to cheat with­out get­ting caught, and that it is pos­si­ble for ath­letes to suc­ceed with­out dop­ing.)I asked Landis how he felt about be­ing con­sid­ered among the best cy­clists in his­tory. I don’t care, and I don’t even want to be on the fuck­ing list,” he said. Leave me out of it.”This ar­ti­cle ap­pears in the May 2018 print edi­tion with the head­line The Man Who Brought Down Lance Armstrong Isn’t Done With Him Yet.” It has been up­dated to re­flect the set­tle­ment of the law­suit against Armstrong.

...

Read the original on www.theatlantic.com »

9 1,884 shares, 27 trendiness, 253 words and 2 minutes reading time

Electric Scooters Are Causing Havoc. This Man Is Shrugging It Off.

He left Lyft in 2014 and joined Uber as vice pres­i­dent of growth that same year. Lyft sued him for breach­ing a con­fi­den­tial­ity agree­ment and fidu­ciary duty. The lit­i­ga­tion was even­tu­ally set­tled.

Of his time at Uber, which has since been ex­posed as hav­ing had a growth-at-all-costs en­vi­ron­ment, Mr. VanderZanden said: I learned some good things, and I learned some bad things.”

He left Uber in 2016 and moved to Southern California. Last year, he founded Bird to bring elec­tric scoot­ers, al­ready pop­u­lar in cities across China, to America. To date, Bird has raised $115 mil­lion from in­vestors, in­clud­ing Craft Ventures and Index Ventures. Mr. VanderZanden now has a team of more than 100 peo­ple.

He likes word­play. The scoot­ers are called Birds. He calls a group of peo­ple rid­ing on the scoot­ers a flock. The ar­eas where scoot­ers are sup­posed to be gen­er­ally kept are called nests. His mom’s name is Robin.

We might have taken the birds too far,” Mr. VanderZanden said.

Bird ini­tially rolled out its scooter-rental ser­vice in Santa Monica and now op­er­ates in seven cities. The com­pany will not dis­close how many scoot­ers are in op­er­a­tion but said it has sent out 22,500 hel­mets to rid­ers, as part of a com­pli­ance ef­fort for cities that re­quire rid­ers to use hel­mets. Bird has also hit one mil­lion rides.

Mr. VanderZanden said greater Los Angeles, in­clud­ing Santa Monica, has been es­pe­cially ex­cited about Bird and that the area has be­come a trans­porta­tion tech hub.

...

Read the original on www.nytimes.com »

10 1,366 shares, 2 trendiness, 3036 words and 26 minutes reading time

American Drugs in Egyptian Mummies

The re­cent

find­ings of co­caine, nico­tine, and hashish in Egyptian mum­mies by Balabanova

et. al. have been­crit­i­cized on

grounds that: con­t­a­m­i­na­tion of the mum­mies may have oc­curred, im­proper

tech­niques may have been used, chem­i­cal de­com­po­si­tion may have pro­duced the

com­pounds in ques­tion, re­cent mum­mies of drug users were mis­tak­enly

eval­u­ated, that no sim­i­lar cases are known of such com­pounds in long-dead

bod­ies, and es­pe­cially that pre-Columbian transoceanic voy­ages are highly

spec­u­la­tive. These crit­i­cisms are

each dis­cussed in turn.Bal­a­banova

et. al. are shown to have used and con­firmed their find­ings with ac­cepted

meth­ods.The pos­si­bil­ity of the

com­pounds be­ing byprod­ucts of de­com­po­si­tion is shown to be with­out prece­dent

and highly un­likely.The pos­si­bil­ity

that the re­searchers made eval­u­a­tions from­faked mum­mies of re­cent drug users is shown to be highly un­likely in

al­most all cases.Sev­eral ad­di­tional

cases of iden­ti­fied American drugs in mum­mies are dis­cussed.Ad­di­tion­ally, it is shown that sig­nif­i­cant

ev­i­dence ex­ists for con­tact with the Americas in pre-Columbian times.It is de­ter­mined that the orig­i­nal

find­ings are sup­ported by sub­stan­tial ev­i­dence de­spite the ini­tial

crit­i­cisms.[Please re­fer also to

In a one-page

ar­ti­cle ap­pear­ing in Naturwissenschaften, German sci­en­tist Svetla Balabanova

(1992) and two of her col­leagues re­ported find­ings of co­caine, hashish and nico­tine

in Egyptian mum­mies.The find­ings

were im­me­di­ately iden­ti­fied as im­prob­a­ble on the grounds that two of the

sub­stances were known to be de­rived only from American plants - co­caine from and nico­tine from .The sug­ges­tion that such com­pounds could

have found their way to Egypt be­fore Columbus’ dis­cov­ery of America seemed

patently im­pos­si­ble.

The study was

done as part of an on­go­ing pro­gram of in­ves­ti­gat­ing the use of hal­lu­cino­genic

sub­stances in an­cient so­ci­eties.The

au­thors them­selves were quite sur­prised by the find­ings (Discovery, 1997) but

stood y their re­sults de­spite be­ing the ma­jor fo­cus of crit­i­cism in the

fol­low­ing vol­ume of atur­wis­senschaften.Of the nine mum­mies eval­u­ated, all showed signs of co­caine and hashish

Tetrahydrocannabinol), whereas all but one sam­pled pos­i­tive for

nico­tine.It is in­ter­est­ing too that

the con­cen­tra­tions of the com­pounds sug­gest uses other than that of abuse.(For ex­am­ple, mod­ern drug ad­dicts of­ten

have con­cen­tra­tions of co­caine and nico­tine in their hair 75 and 20 times

higher re­spec­tively than that found in the mummy hair sam­ples.) It is even

pos­si­ble that the quan­ti­ties found may be high due to con­cen­tra­tion in body

tis­sues through time.

Without

ques­tion, the study has sparked an in­ter­est in var­i­ous dis­ci­plines.As Balabanova et. al. pre­dicted,

″…the re­sults open up an en­tirely new field of re­search which un­rav­els

as­pects of past hu­man life-style far be­yond [sic] ba­sic bi­o­log­i­cal

re­con­struc­tion.”

The biggest

crit­i­cism of the find­ings of Balabanova et. al. was not nec­es­sar­ily di­rected

at the ex­trac­tion process per se, al­though this was dis­cussed.The biggest crit­i­cism was that co­caine and

nico­tine could not pos­si­bly have been used in Egypt be­fore the dis­cov­ery of

the New World, and that transat­lantic jour­neys were not known - or at least

they are highly spec­u­la­tive.It is

safe to say that the crit­i­cisms of the study would have been min­i­mal or

nonex­is­tent if the find­ings had been made of Old World drugs.Such find­ings, in fact, would not have

been at all un­usual as the use of stim­u­lants were known in Egypt.Poppy seeds and lo­tus plants have been

iden­ti­fied for just this use in man­u­scripts (the Papyrus Ebers) and in

hi­ero­glyphs (as Balabanova et. al. show).

Schafer

(1993) ar­gues that, the de­tec­tion of phar­ma­co­log­i­cally ac­tive

sub­stances in mum­mi­fied ma­te­r­ial never proves their use prior to death.”

He ar­gues that such com­pounds could have been in­tro­duced as part of the mum­mi­fi­ca­tion

process.The sug­ges­tion is that

(especially) nico­tine could have been in­tro­duced around the mummy (and

sub­se­quently ab­sorbed into its tis­sue) as an in­sec­ti­cide (being used as a

preser­v­a­tive) within rel­a­tively mod­ern times.A sim­i­lar crit­i­cism was raised by Bjorn (1993) who won­dered if

nico­tine might have been ab­sorbed by the mum­mies from cig­a­rette smoke in the

mu­se­ums where the mum­mies have been pre­served.Ac­cord­ing to Schafer, the only way to show that the com­pounds

were taken into the bod­ies while they were alive would be to find dif­fer­ent

con­cen­tra­tions at dif­fer­ent dis­tances from the scalp - a pro­ce­dure not

un­der­taken by the au­thors.

Another

in­ter­est­ing crit­i­cism of Schafer (1993) is that Balabanova et. al. might have

been the vic­tims of faked mum­mies.Ap­par­ently peo­ple (living in the not too far dis­tant past) be­lieved

that mum­mies con­tained black tar called bi­tu­men and that it could be ground

up and used to cure var­i­ous ill­nesses.In fact the very word mummy’ comes from the Persian mummia’ mean­ing

bi­tu­men (Discovery, 1997).A busi­ness

seems to have de­vel­oped wherein re­cently dead bod­ies where de­lib­er­ately aged

to ap­pear as mum­mies and that some of the per­pe­tra­tors of such deeds were

drug abusers.

The crit­i­cism

that seems most pop­u­lar is that the iden­ti­fied drugs might have been prod­ucts

of necrochemical and necro­bio­chem­i­cal processes” (Schafer, 1993;

Bjorn, 1993).One ex­pla­na­tion is that

Egyptian priests used at­ropine-al­ka­loid-con­tain­ing plants dur­ing the

mum­mi­fi­ca­tion process that sub­se­quently un­der­went changes in the mummy to

re­sem­ble the iden­ti­fied com­pounds.

Yet an­other

ar­gu­ment is that there is noth­ing in the lit­er­a­ture show­ing that any of the

three com­pounds have been iden­ti­fied in bod­ies that have been dead for some

time.

�In the

study, sam­ples were taken from nine mum­mies that were dated from be­tween 1070

B.C. to 395 A.D.The sam­ples

in­clud­ing hair, skin and mus­cle were taken from the head and ab­domen.Bone tis­sue was also taken from the

skull.All tis­sues were pul­ver­ized

and dis­solved in NaCl so­lu­tion, ho­mog­e­nized, and cen­trifuged.A por­tion of the su­per­natant was ex­tracted

with chlo­ro­form and dried and then dis­solved in a phos­phate buffer.Sam­ples were then mea­sured by both

ra­dioim­munoas­say (Merck; Biermann) and gas chro­matog­ra­phy / mass spec­trom­e­try

(Hewlett Packard) - here­inafter GCMS. �

�This is the

...

Read the original on www.faculty.ucr.edu »

To add this web app to your iOS home screen tap the share button and select "Add to the Home Screen".

10HN is also available as an iOS App

If you visit 10HN only rarely, check out the the best articles from the past week.

If you like 10HN please leave feedback and share

Visit pancik.com for more.