Science

The site of a deep-sea mining test in 1979 had lower levels of biodiversity when researchers revisited it in 2023 compared with undisturbed areas nearby

From the perspective of complex systems, the study reveals the universality, specificity, and explanatory power of underlying rules governing urban system evolution.

Scientists have developed an AI-powered tool that detects 64% of brain abnormalities linked to epilepsy that human radiologists miss.

Trigger(nometry) warning: semi-conservative video.

I can’t remember who recommended I watch this video, which features satirist, author, and Triggernometry co-host Konstantin Kisin speaking for 15 minutes at a meeting of the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC). The group is described by Wikipedia as “an international organisation whose aim is to unite conservative voices and propose policy based on traditional Western values.”

The talk is laced with humor, but the message is serious:  Kisin argues that societies based on “Western values” are the most attractive, as shown by the number of potential immigrants; but they are endangered by the negativity and “lies” of those who tell us that “our history is all bad and our country is plagued by prejudice and intolerance.” To that he replies that people espousing such sentiments still prefer to live in the West. (But of course that doesn’t mean that these factors still aren’t at play in the West!)  Kisin then touts both Elon Musk (for “building big things”) and (oy) Jordan Peterson for “reminding us that our lives will improve if we accept that “honesty is better than lies, that responsibility is better than blame, and strength is better than weakness.”

He continues characterizing the West as special: “the most free and prosperous societies in the history of humanity, and we are going to keep them that way.” To accomplish that, he promotes free speech as the highest of Western values, and rejects identity politics, arguing that “multiethnic societies can work; multicultural societies cannot.” Finally, he claims that human beings are good, denying (as he avers) the woke view that “human beings are a pestilence on the planet.”  Kisin calls for more reproduction and making energy “as cheap and abundant as possible.”

The talk finishes with the most inspiring thing Kising says he’s ever heard: that we’re going to die; ergo, we have nothing to lose. “We might as well speak the truth, we might as well reach for the stars, we might as well fight like our lives depended on it—because they do.”  I’m not exactly sure what he means, nor do I feel uplifted or inspired by these words, which don’t really tell us why he thinks the tide is turning. And, at the end, I could see where this optimistic word salad came from: it’s in Wikipedia, too:

[The ARC] is associated with psychologist and political commentator Jordan Peterson. One Australian journalist identified the purpose of ARC as follows: “to replace a sense of division and drift within conservatism, and Western society at large, with a renewed cohesion and purpose”.

Do any readers get inspired by this kind of chest-pounding?  I have to add that I do like Triggernometry, one of the few podcasts I can listen to, but I’m not especially energized by the co-host’s speech.

Type-1 diabetes, IBD, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, coeliac disease and lupus are all caused by the body attacking itself. But new therapies that reset the immune system could offer lasting help

A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket is about to launch a number of missions, including a private lunar lander, a lunar satellite for NASA and a prospecting probe for an asteroid-mining company

If you’re following this site, you’ll know that 22 biologists (including me) sent a letter to three ecology and evolution societies who had issued a statement directed at the President and Congress that biological sex was a spectrum and a continuum in all species. The statement claimed without support that it expressed a consensus view of biologists, although the members of the societies were not polled.

Of course this behavior could not stand, and so Luana Maroja cobbled together a letter to those societies noting that the biological definition of sex was based on the development of the apparatus evolved to produce gametes, and that this showed that all animals and plants had only two sexes: male and female. As Richard Dawkins pointed out, even the three Society Presidents used the sex binary in their own biological work.

The letter has now accumulated more than a hundred signatures.  If you are an anisogamite and want to sign the letter, this is a reminder that the deadline for signatures is in about a week: 5 p.m. Monday, March 3. You can sign it this way (from Luana’s post on Heterodox STEM);

The societies for the Study of Evolution (SSE), the American Society of Naturalists (ASN) and the Society for Systematic Biologists (SSB) issued a declaration addressed to President Trump and all the members of Congress (declaration also archived here), proffering a confusing definition of sex, implying that sex is not binary.

We wrote a short letter explaining that sex is indeed defined by gamete type.

We are now collecting more signatures from biologists who agree to have their name publicly posted. If you are a biologist (or in a field related to biology) want to add your name, just fill in the bottom of this form (it contains the full text of our letter and a link to the tri-societies’ letter).

Please fill in all the blanks, including your name, position, and email, and we ask that you have something to do with biology. Also, we will most likely post the letter with names, so if you want to remain publicly anonymous but agree with our sentiments, just write your own personal email to the Society presidents (two of them have emails in the original letter). Nobody’s email will become public if I decide to post the final letter and signers on this site.

It takes about one minute to fill in the form, so if you want to send a message to these three societies, you know what to do.

We have contributions from two people, but I am holding onto those, as it appears that this feature will become sporadic in the future. That’s sad, no?

Venus differs from Earth in many ways including a lack of internal dynamo driving global magnetosphere to shield potential life from solar and cosmic radiation. However, Venus possesses a dense atmosphere and, in a recent study, planetary scientists conducted simulations of the Venusian atmosphere to determine radiation penetration to the lower cloud layers. Their calculations revealed that the atmospheric thickness provides adequate protection for life at what’s considered Venus’s “habitable zone,” located 40–60 km above the surface.

Venus, the second planet from the Sun, is often called Earth’s “sister planet” because of its comparable size and composition. Yet its environment couldn’t be more different or extreme. It has a thick carbon dioxide atmosphere with sulfuric acid clouds that have created a runaway greenhouse effect, making Venus the solar system’s hottest planet—surface temperatures in excess of 475°C. The Venusian landscape features volcanic plains, mountains, and canyons under atmospheric pressure exceeding 90 times Earth’s. Despite these inhospitable conditions, Venus remains an object of scientific interest, with researchers studying its geology and atmosphere.

Venus

In 2020, scientists found phosphine in Venus’s atmosphere which, on Earth, is mostly made by biological processes or in other words – living things. This discovery was somewhat unexpected and facilitated a fresh look at Venus as a possible home for life. Surprisingly perhaps, Venus does have a “habitable zone” in its clouds about 40-60 km up, where the temperature and pressure aren’t too different from Earth’s. While the planet’s surface is totally uninhabitable, high up in the atmosphere might actually support some kind of microbial life that’s adapted to acidic conditions. A new piece of research has been exploring if the thick Venusian atmosphere would protect any such life that may have evolved or whether intense radiation bathes its habitable zone. 

The spectral data from SOFIA overlain atop this image of Venus from NASA’s Mariner 10 spacecraft is what the researchers observed in their study, showing the intensity of light from Venus at different wavelengths. If a significant amount of phosphine were present in Venus’s atmosphere, there would be dips in the graph at the four locations labeled “PH3,” similar to but less pronounced than those seen on the two ends. Credit: Venus: NASA/JPL-Caltech; Spectra: Cordiner et al.

The research, that was led by Luis A. Anchordoqui from the University of New York has revealed surprising results. The team discovered that despite Venus lacking a magnetic field and orbiting closer to the Sun, the radiation levels in its potentially habitable cloud layer are remarkably similar to those at Earth’s surface. Using the AIRES simulation package (AIRshower Extended Simulations – simulates cascades of secondary particles from incoming high energy radiation) the team generated over a billion simulated cosmic ray showers to analyse particle interactions within Venus’s atmosphere. 

Their findings show that at equivalent atmospheric depths, particle fluxes on Venus and Earth are nearly identical, with only about 40% higher radiation detected at the uppermost boundary of Venus’s habitable zone. This suggests Venus’s thick atmosphere provides substantial radiation shielding that might be sufficient for potential microbial life.

The research suggests that cosmic radiation wouldn’t significantly hinder life in Venus’s cloud layer. Any potential microorganisms that were there would face radiation levels similar to those on Earth’s surface. On Earth, life has found a way across a wide range of environments that span many kilometres, this is known as its life reservoir. Venus doesn’t have such a great reservoir so if radiation were to sterilise the habitable clouds, there’s no equivalent to Earth’s subsurface biosphere that could eventually recolonise the region. This means life needs to persist continuously in its atmospheric habitat without being able to move to other parts of the planet.

Source : The Venusian Chronicles

The post Although it Lacks a Magnetic Field, Venus Can Still Protect With in its Atmosphere appeared first on Universe Today.

Why do I find the word particle so problematic that I keep harping on it, to the point that some may reasonably view me as obsessed with the issue? It has to do with the profound difference between the way an electron is viewed in 1920s quantum physics (“Quantum Mechanics”, or QM for short) as opposed to 1950s relativistic Quantum Field Theory (abbreviated as QFT). [The word “relativistic” means “incorporating Einstein’s special theory of relativity of 1905”.] My goal this week is to explain carefully this difference.

The overarching point:

• in QM, an electron really is a particle, at least to the limited extent that QM can handle that notion;
• in QFT, an electron is at best a “particle”, with the word in quotation marks
  • (and I personally prefer the term wavicle.)

I’ve discussed this to some degree already in my article about how the view of an electron has changed over time, but here I’m going to give you a fuller picture. To complete the story will take two or three posts, but today’s post will already convey one of the most important points.

There are two short readings that you may want to dofirst.

• The first is an article about the distinction between physical space (within which all objects actually are located) and the abstract space of possibilities (which consists of all ways that the objects in a physical system could be arranged in physical space.) This issue, essential in quantum physics of any type, will be crucial below.
• The second is a short section of a blog post that explains how QM views an isolated object in a state of definite momentum — i.e. something whose motion (both speed and direction) is precisely known, and whose position is therefore completely unknown, thanks to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

I’ll will review the main point of the second item, and then I’ll start explaining what an isolated object of definite momentum looks like in QFT.

Removing Everything Extraneous

First, though, let’s make things as simple as possible. Though electrons are familiar, they are more complicated than some of their cousins, thanks to their electric charge and “spin”, and the fact that they are fermions. By contrast, bosons with neither charge nor spin are much simpler. In nature, these include Higgs bosons and electrically-neutral pions, but each of these has some unnecessary baggage. For this reason I’ll frame my discussion in terms of imaginary objects even simpler than a Higgs boson. I’ll call these spinless, chargeless objects “Bohrons” in honor of Niels Bohr (and I’ll leave the many puns to my readers.)

For today we’ll just need one, lonely Bohron, not interacting with anything else, and moving along a line. Using 1920s QM in the style of Schrödinger, we’ll take the following viewpoints.

• A Bohron is a particle and exists in physical space, which we’ll take to be just a line — the set of points arranged along what we’ll call the x-axis.
• The Bohron has a property we call position in physical space. We’ll refer to its position as x1.
• For just one Bohron, the space of possibilities is simply all of its possible positions — all possible values of x1. [See Fig. 1]
• The system of one isolated Bohron has a wave function Ψ(x1), a complex number at each point in the space of possibilities. [Note it is not a function of x, the points in physical space; it is a function of x1, the possible positions of the Bohron.]
• The wave function predicts the probability of finding the Bohron at any selected position x1: it is proportional to |Ψ(x1)|2, the square of the absolute value of the complex number Ψ(x1).

Figure 1: For a Bohron moving along a line, physical space is the x-axis where the Bohron (blue dot) is located. The space of possibilities, the set of all possible arrangements of our one-Bohron system (red star) is the the x1-axis. This subtle but important distinction becomes clearer when we have two or more Bohrons; the physical space is unchanged, but possibility space is totally different. A QM State of Definite Momentum

In a previous post, I described states of definite momentum. But I also described states whose momentum is slightly less definite — a broad Gaussian wave packet state, which is a bit more intutive. The wave function for a Bohron in this state is shown in Fig. 2, using three different representations. You can see intuitively that the Bohron’s motion is quite steady, reflecting near definite momentum, while the wave function’s peak is very broad, reflecting great uncertainty in the Bohron’s position.

• Fig. 2a shows the real and imaginary parts of Ψ(x1) in red and blue, along with its absolute-value squared |Ψ(x1)|2 in black.
• Fig. 2b shows the absolute value |Ψ(x1)| in a color that reflects the argument [i.e. the phase] of Ψ(x1).
• Fig. 2c indicates |Ψ(x1)|2, using grayscale, at a grid of x1 values; the Bohron is more likely to be found at or near dark points than at or near lighter ones.

For more details and examples using these representations, see this post.

Figure 2a: The wave function for a wave packet state with near-definite momentum, showing its real (red) and imaginary (blue) parts and its absolute value squared (black.) Figure 2b: The same wave function, with the curve showing its absolute value and colored by its argument. Figure 2c: The same wave function, showing its absolute value squared using gray-scale values on a grid of x1 points. The Bohron is more likely to be found near dark-shaded points.

To get a Bohron of definite momentum P1, we simply take what is plotted in Fig. 2 and make the broad peak wider and wider, so that the uncertainty in the Bohron’s position becomes infinite. Then (as discussed in this post) the wave function for that state, referred to as |P1>, can be drawn as in Fig. 3:

Figure 3a: As in Fig. 2a, but now for a state |P1> of precisely known momentum to the left. Figure 3b: As in Fig. 2b, but now for a state |P1> of precisely known momentum to the left. Figure 3c: As in Fig. 2c, but now for a state |P1> of precisely known momentum; note the probability of finding the Bohron is equal at every point at all times.

In math, the wave function for the state at some fixed moment in time takes a simple form, such as

where i is the square root of -1. This is a special state, because the absolute-value-squared of this function is just 1 for every value of x1, and so the probability of measuring the Bohron to be at any particular x1 is the same everywhere and at all times. This is seen in Fig. 3c, and reflects the fact that in a state with exactly known momentum, the uncertainty on the Bohron’s position is infinite.

Let’s compare the Bohron (the particle itself) in the state |P1> to the wave function that describes it.

• In the state |P1>, the Bohron’s location is completely unknown. Still, its position is a meaningful concept, in the sense that we could measure it. We can’t predict the outcome of that measurement, but the measurement will give us a definite answer, not a vague indefinite one. That’s because the Bohron is a particle; it is not spread out across physical space, even though we don’t know where it is.
• By contrast, the wave function Ψ(x1) is spread out, as is clear in Fig. 3. But caution: it is not spread out across physical space, the points of the x axis. It is spread out across the space of possibilities — across the range of possible positions x1. See Fig. 1 [and read my article on the space of possibilities if this makes no sense to you.]
• Thus neither the Bohron nor its wave function is spread out in physical space!

We do have waves here, and they have a wavelength; that’s the distance between one crest and the next in Fig. 3a, and the distance beween one red band and the next in Fig. 3b. That wavelength is a property of the wave function, not a property of the Bohron. To have a wavelength, an object has to be wave-like, which our QM Bohron is not.

Conversely, the Bohron has a momentum (which is definite in this state, and is something we can measure). This has real effects; if the Bohron hits another particle, some or all of its momentum will be transferred, and the second particle will recoil from the blow. By contrast, the wave function does not have momentum. It cannot hit anything and make it recoil, because, like any wave function, it sits outside the physical system. It merely describes an object with momentum, and tells us the probable outcomes of measurements of that object.

Keep these details of wavelength (the wave function’s purview) and the momentum (the Bohron’s purview) in mind. This is how 1920’s QM organizes things. But in QFT, things are different.

First Step Toward a QFT State of Definite Momentum

Now let’s move to quantum field theory, and start the process of making a Bohron of definite momentum. We’ll take some initial steps today, and finish up in the next post.

Our Bohron is now a “particle”, in quotation marks. Why? Because our Bohron is no longer a dot, with a measurable (even if unknown) position. It is now a ripple in a field, which we’ll call the Bohron field. That said, there’s still something particle-like about the Bohron, because you can only have an integer number (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, …) of Bohrons, and you can never have a fractional number (1/2, 7/10, 2.46, etc.) of Bohrons. This feature is something we’ll discuss in later posts, but we’ll just accept it for now.

As fields go, the Bohron field is a very simple example. At any given moment, the field takes on a value — a real number — at each point in space. Said another way, it is a function of physical space, of the form B(x).

Very, very important: Do not confuse the Bohron field B(x) with a wave function!!

• This field is a function in physical space (not the space of possibilities). B(x) is a function of physical space points x that make up the x-axis, and is not a function of a particle’s position x1, nor is it a function of any other coordinate that might arise in the space of possibilities.
• I’ve chosen the simplest type of QFT field: B(x) is a real number at each location in physical space. This is in contrast to a QM wave function, which is a complex number for each possibility in the space of possibilities.
• The field itself can carry energy and momentum and transport it from place to place. This is unlike a wave function, which can only describe the energy and momentum that may be carried by physical objects.

Now here’s the key distinction. Whereas the Bohron of QM has a position, the Bohron of QFT does not generally have a position. Instead, it has a shape.

If our Bohron is to have a definite momentum P1, the field must ripple in a simple way, taking on a shape proportional to a sine or cosine function from pre-university math. An example would be:

where A is a real number, called the “amplitude” of the wave, and x is a location in physical space.

At some point soon we’ll consider all possible values of A — a part of the space of possibilities for the field B(x) — so remember that A can vary. To remind you, I’ve plotted this shape for A=1 in Fig. 4a and again for A=-3/2 in Fig 4b.

Figure 4a: The function A cos[P1 x], for the momentum P1 set equal to 1 and the amplitude A set equal to 1. Figure 4b: Same as Fig. 4a, but with A = -3/2 . Initial Comparison of QM and QFT

At first, the plots in Fig. 4 of the QFT Bohron’s shape look very similar to the QM wave function of the Bohron particles, especially as drawn in Fig. 3a. The math formulas for the two look similar, too; compare the formula after Fig. 3 to the one above Fig. 4.

However, appearances are deceiving. In fact, when we look carefully, EVERYTHING IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

• Our QM Bohron with definite momentum has a wave function Ψ(x1), while in QFT it has a shape B(x); they are functions of variables which, though related, are different.
  
  
• On top of that, there’s a wave function in QFT too, which we haven’t drawn yet. When we do, we’ll see that the QFT Bohron’s wave function looks nothing like the QM Bohron’s wave function. That’s because
  • the space of possibilities for the QM wave function is the space of possible positions that the Bohron particle can have, but
  • the space of possibilities for the QFT wave function is the space of all possible shapes that the Bohron field can have.
• The plot in Fig. 4 shows a curve that is both positive and negative but is drawn colorless, in contrast to Fig. 3b, where the curve is positive but colored. That’s because
  • the Bohron field B(x) is a real number with no argument [phase], whereas
  • the QM wave function Ψ(x1) for the state of definite momentum has an always-positive absolute value and a rapidly varying argument [phase].
• The axes in Fig. 4 are labeled differently from the axis in Fig. 3. That’s because (see Fig. 1)
  • the QFT Bohron field B(x) is found in physical space, while
  • the QM wave function Ψ(x1) for the Bohron particle is found in the particle’s space of possibilities.
• The absolute-value-squared of a wave function |Ψ(x1)|2 is interpreted as a probability (specifically, the probability for the particular possibility that the particle is at position x1. There is no such interpretation for the square of the Bohron field |B(x)|2. We will later find a probability interpretation for the QFT wave function, but we are not there yet.
  
  
• Both Fig. 4 and Figs. 3a, 3b show curves with a wavelength, albeit along different axes. But they are very different in every sense
  • In QM, the Bohron has no wavelength; only its wave function has a wavelength — and that involves lengths not in physical space but in the space of possibilities.
  • In QFT,
    • the field ripple corresponding to the QFT Bohron with definite momentum has a physical wavelength;
    • meanwhile the QFT Bohron’s wave function does not have anything resembling a wavelength! The field’s space of possibilities, where the wave function lives, doesn’t even have a recognizable notion of lengths in general, much less wavelengths in particular.

I’ll explain that last statement next time, when we look at the nature of the QFT wave function that corresponds to having a single QFT Bohron.

A Profound Change of Perspective

But before we conclude for the day, let’s take a moment to contemplate the remarkable change of perspective that is coming into our view, as we migrate our thinking from QM of the 1920s to modern QFT. In both cases, our Bohron of definite momentum is certainly associated with a definite wavelength; we can see that both in Fig. 3 and in Fig. 4. The formula for the relation is well-known to scientists; the wavelength λ for a Bohron of momentum P1 is simply

where h is Planck’s famous constant, the mascot of quantum physics. Larger momentum means smaller wavelength, and vice versa. On this, QM and QFT agree.

But compare:

• in QM, this wavelength sits in the wave function, and has nothing to do with waves in physical space;
• in QFT, the wavelength is not found in the field’s wave function; instead it is found in the field itself, and specifically in its ripples, which are waves in physical space.

I’ve summarized this in Table 1.

Table 1: The Bohron with definite momentum has an associated wavelength. In QM, this wavelength appears in the wave function. In QFT it does not; both the wavelength and the momentum are found in the field itself. This has caused no end of confusion.

Let me say that another way. In QM, our Bohron is a particle; it has a position, cannot spread out in physical space, and has no wavelength. In QFT, our Bohron is a “particle”, a wavy object that can spread out in physical space, and can indeed have a wavelength. (This is why I’d rather call it a wavicle.)

[Aside for experts: if anyone thinks I’m spouting nonsense, I encourage the skeptic to simply work out the wave function for phonons (or their counterparts with rest mass) in a QM system of coupled balls and springs, and watch as free QFT and its wave function emerge. Every statement made here is backed up with a long but standard calculation, which I’m happy to show you and discuss.]

I think this little table is deeply revealing both about quantum physics and about its history. It goes a long way toward explaining one of the many reasons why the brilliant founding parents of quantum physics were so utterly confused for a couple of decades. [I’m going to go out on a limb here, because I’m certainly not a historian of physics; if I have parts of the history wrong, please set me straight.]

Based on experiments on photons and electrons and on the theoretical insight of Louis de Broglie, it was intuitively clear to the great physicists of the 1920s that electrons and photons, which they were calling particles, do have a wavelength related to their momentum. And yet, in the late 1920s, when they were just inventing the math of QM and didn’t understand QFT yet, the wavelength was always sitting in the wave function. So that made it seem as though maybe the wave function was the particle, or somehow was an aspect of the particle, or that in any case the wave function must carry momentum and be a real physical thing, or… well, clearly it was very confusing. It still confuses many students and science writers today, and perhaps even some professional scientists and philosophers.

In this context, is it surprising that Bohr was led in the late 1920s to suggest that electrons are both particles and waves, depending on experimental context? And is it any wonder that many physicists today, with the benefit of both hindsight and a deep understanding of QFT, don’t share this perspective?

In addition, physicists already knew, from 19th century research, that electromagnetic waves — ripples in the electromagnetic field, which include radio waves and visible light — have both wavelength and momentum. Learning that wave functions for QM have wavelength and describe particles with momentum, as in Fig. 3, some physicists naturally assumed that fields and wave functions are closely related. This led to the suggestion that to build the math of QFT, you must go through the following steps:

• first you take particles and describe them with a wave function, and then
• second, you make this wave function into a field, and describe it using an even bigger wave function.

(This is where the archaic terms “first quantization” and “second quantization” come from.) But this idea was misguided, arising from early conceptual confusions about wave functions. The error becomes more understandable when you imagine what it must have been like to try to make sense of Table 1 for the very first time.

In the next post, we’ll move on to something novel: images depicting the QFT wave function for a single Bohron. I haven’t seen these images anywhere else, so I suspect they’ll be new to most readers.

Tracks and footprints found in New Mexico are by far the earliest evidence of people using primitive vehicles to transport things

NASA's Juno spacecraft swooped in for a close look at a massive thunderstorm on Jupiter, revealing that it may have similarities to storms on Earth

When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was nominated to be Secretary of Health & Human Services, I called him an "extinction-level threat" to public health. Here's how he will attempt to make vaccines extinct in the US.

The post How Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will undermine and ultimately destroy US vaccination programs first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.

When offered a choice of bowls, free-ranging dogs in India tend to approach a yellow one much more than blue or grey

The journey to Mars will subject astronauts to extended periods of exposure to radiation during their months-long travel through space. While NASA’s Artemis 1 mission lasted only a matter of weeks, it provided valuable radiation exposure data that scientists can use to predict the radiation risks for future Mars crews. The measurements not only validated existing radiation prediction models but also revealed unexpected insights about the effectiveness of radiation shielding strategies too. 

Space radiation poses one of the most significant health risks for astronauts travelling beyond Earth’s magnetic field. Unlike the radiation from medical X-rays or nuclear sources on Earth, space radiation includes high-energy galactic cosmic rays and solar particle events that can penetrate traditional shielding materials. When these particles collide with human tissue, they can damage DNA, increase cancer risk and weaken the immune system. The effects are cumulative too, with longer missions like a journey to Mars significantly increasing exposure and health risks. 

Artist’s illustration of ultra-high energy cosmic rays

The International Space Station crews receive radiation doses similar to nuclear power plant workers due to a little protection from Earth’s magnetosphere, but astronauts traveling to Mars would face much higher exposure levels during their multi-month journey. NASA estimates that a mission to Mars could expose astronauts to radiation levels that exceed current career exposure limits, making effective radiation shielding one of the key challenges for deep space exploration.

A full-disk view of Mars, courtesy of VMC. Credit: ESA

A paper recently published by a team led by Tony C Slaba from the Langley Research Centre at NASA, they use computer models and data from on-board detectors to assess the health risk to long term space flight. The data is taken from the International Space Station (ISS,) the Orion Spacecraft, the BioSentinel CubeSat and from receivers on the surface of Mars. Collectively this data enables a full mission profile to be modelled for a Martian journey. The data was captured during the time period of the Artemis-1 mission, just under one month in duration.

NASA’s Orion spacecraft will carry astronauts further into space than ever before using a module based on Europe’s Automated Transfer Vehicles (ATV). Credit: NASA

Space radiation comes in two primary forms that pose risks to astronauts and spacecraft. Solar Particle Events occur during solar storms, releasing intense bursts of energetic particles from the Sun, while Galactic Cosmic Rays represent a constant stream of highly penetrating radiation from deep space. The findings enabled the team to assess current models for accuracy. They found that predictions match actual measurements to within 10-25% for the International Space Station, 4% for deep space conditions, and 10% for the Martian surface. This level of precision gives confidence in the existing models and in planning radiation protection for future missions.

They also found that, having assessed traditional shielding approaches, that they are largely ineffective against Galactic Cosmic Rays. In some cases, excessive shielding or inappropriate material choices can even amplify radiation exposure through secondary particle production. This occurs when the ‘original radiation’ creates a cascade of new particles on impact that can be more dangerous than the original radiation! They found that radiation levels vary substantially depending on location and the specific shielding configurations used! Quite the headache for engineers!

Radiation exposure is one of the greatest challenges in human space exploration. The study shows that our models for assessing radiation risk are reliable and that the ability to accurately assess those risks is crucial for protecting astronauts from serious health consequences. Having a good understanding of the risk directly influences how spacecraft are engineered, and plays a key role in mission planning for trips beyond Earth orbit. More work is needed now in the design of radiation protection systems if our space travellers are to be better protected from the long term risks posed by radiation.

Source : Validated space radiation exposure predictions from earth to mars during Artemis-I

The post We Know How Much Radiation Astronauts Will Receive, But We Don’t Know How to Prevent it appeared first on Universe Today.

Anthropogenic climate change is creating a vicious circle where rising temperatures are causing glaciers to melt at an increasing rate. In addition to contributing to rising sea levels, coastal flooding, and extreme weather, the loss of polar ice and glaciers is causing Earth’s oceans to absorb more solar radiation. The loss of glaciers is also depleting regional freshwater resources, leading to elevated levels of drought and the risk of famine. According to new findings by an international research effort, there has been an alarming increase in the rate of glacier loss over the last ten years.

The research was conducted by the Glacier Mass Balance Intercomparison Exercise (GlaMBIE) team, a major research initiative coordinated by the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS). Located at the University of Zurich in collaboration with the University of Edinburgh and Earthwave Ltd, this international data repository and data analyzing service generates community estimates of glacier mass loss globally. The paper that details their research and findings, “Community estimate of global glacier mass changes from 2000 to 2023,” was published on February 19th in the journal Nature.

As part of their efforts, the team coordinated the compilation, standardization, and analysis of field measurements and data from optical, radar, laser, and gravimetry satellite missions. These include satellite observations from NASA’s Terra Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) and Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite-2 (ICESat-2), the NASA-DLR Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace), the GLR’s TanDEM-X mission, and the ESA’s CryoSat missions, and more.

Combining data from multiple sources, the Glambie team produced an annual time series of global glacier loss from 2000 to 2023. In 2000, glaciers covered about 705,221 square km (272,287 mi2) and held an estimated 121,728 billion metric tons (134,182 US tons) of ice. Over the next twenty years, they lost 273 billion tonnes of ice annually, approximately 5% of their total volume, with regional losses ranging from 2% in the Antarctic and Subantarctic to 39% in Central Europe. To put that in perspective, this amounts to what the entire global population consumes in 30 years.

In short, the amount of ice lost rose to 36% during the second half of the study (2012 and 2023) compared to the first half (2000-2011). Glacier mass loss over the whole study period was 18% higher than the meltwater from the Greenland Ice Sheet and more than double that from the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Michael Zemp, a noted glaciologist who co-led the study, said in an ESA press release:

“We compiled 233 estimates of regional glacier mass change from about 450 data contributors organized in 35 research teams. Benefiting from the different observation methods, Glambie not only provides new insights into regional trends and year-to-year variability, but we could also identify differences among observation methods. This means that we can provide a new observational baseline for future studies on the impact of glacier melt on regional water availability and global sea-level rise.”

This photograph, taken in 2012, shows the Golubin Glacier in Kyrgyzstan, in Central Asia. Credit: M. Hoelzle (2012)

Globally, glaciers collectively lost 6,542 tonnes (7,210 tons) of ice, leading to a global sea-level rise of 18 mm (0.7 inches). However, the rate of glacier ice loss increased significantly from 231 billion tonnes per year in the first half of the study period to 314 billion tonnes per year in the second half – an increase of 36%. This rise in water loss has made glaciers the second-largest contributor to global sea-level rise, surpassing the contributions of the Greenland Ice Sheet, Antarctic Ice Sheet, and changes in land water storage. Said UZH glaciologist Inés Dussaillant, who was involved in the Glambie analyses:

“Glaciers are vital freshwater resources, especially for local communities in Central Asia and the Central Andes, where glaciers dominate runoff during warm and dry seasons. But when it comes to sea-level rise, the Arctic and Antarctic regions, with their much larger glacier areas, are the key players. However, almost Thione-quarter of the glacier contribution to sea-level rise originates from Alaska.”

These results will provide environmental scientists with a refined baseline for interpreting observational differences arising from different methods and for calibrating models. They hope this will help future studies of global ice loss by narrowing the projection uncertainties for the twenty-first century. These research findings are the culmination of many years of cooperative studies and observations, which included the use of satellites that were not specifically designed to monitor glaciers globally. As co-author Noel Gourmelen, a lecturer in Earth Observation of the Cryosphere at the University of Edinburgh, said:

“The research is the result of sustained efforts by the community and by space agencies over many years, to exploit a variety of satellites that were not initially specifically designed for the task of monitoring glaciers globally. This legacy is already producing impact with satellite missions being designed to allow operational monitoring of future glacier evolution, such as Europe’s Copernicus CRISTAL mission which builds on the legacy of ESA’s CryoSat.”

The study also marks an important milestone since it was released in time for the United Nations’ International Year of Glaciers’ Preservation and the Decade of Action for Cryospheric Sciences (2025–2034). Said Livia Jakob, the Chief Scientific Officer & Co-Founder at Earthwave, hosted a large workshop with all the participants to discuss the findings. “Bringing together so many different research teams from across the globe in a joint effort to increase our understanding and certainty of glacier ice loss has been extremely valuable. This initiative has also fostered a stronger sense of collaboration within the community.”

The study also illustrates the importance of collective action on climate change, which is accelerating at an alarming rate. Research that quantifies glacial loss, rising sea levels, and other impacts is key to preparing for the worst. It’s also essential to the development of proper adaptation, mitigation, and restoration strategies consistent with the recommendations made by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Further Reading: ESA

The post Glaciers Worldwide are Melting Faster Causing Sea Levels to Rise More appeared first on Universe Today.

Satellites often face a disappointing end: despite having fully working systems, they are often de-orbited after their propellant runs out. However, a breakthrough is on the cards with the launch of China’s Shijian-25 satellite which has been launched into orbit to test orbital refuelling operations. The plan; docking with satellite Beidou-3 G7 and transferring 142 kilograms of hydrazine to extend its life by 8 years! It’s success will mean China plans to develop a network of orbital refuelling stations!

Like cars on Earth, satellites need fuel to manoeuvre and for their constantly decaying orbits to be boosted. But unlike vehicles on the ground, when satellites run out of propellant, they become expensive space debris. This challenge has driven the development of orbital refuelling technology, which could extend satellite lifespans and transform space operations.

An artist’s conception of ERS-2 in orbit. ESA

The International Space Station (ISS) offers one of the most well known examples of an orbiting ‘satellite’ and it too needs to deal with boosting its orbit. The problem is the drag imposed upon the structures by gas in our atmosphere. In the case of the ISS, docked supply craft are typically used to fire their engines to reposition ISS to the correct altitude. Without these periodic “orbital boosts,” the ISS would eventually lose altitude and reenter the atmosphere.

The International Space Station (ISS) in orbit. Credit: NASA

A significant milestone in autonomous refuelling came in 2007 with DARPA’s Orbital Express mission. This demonstration involved two spacecraft: the ASTRO servicing vehicle and a prototype modular satellite called NextSat. Over three months, they performed multiple autonomous fuel transfers and component replacements, proving that robotic spacecraft could conduct complex servicing operations without direct human control.

The technology continues to advance with China’s Shijian-25 satellite (launched on 6 January 2025) representing another step forward in orbital refuelling capabilities. The mission aims to demonstrate refuelling operations in geosynchronous orbit approximately 36,000 kilometres above Earth. This is particularly significant because geosynchronous orbits often host communications satellites that benefit from life extension.

The technical challenges of orbital refuelling are considerable though. Spacecraft must achieve extremely precise rendezvous and docking while travelling in excess of 28,000 kilometres per hour. The fuel transfer system must prevent leaks, which could be hazardous to both spacecraft and create hazardous debris. Adding to the challenge is that many satellites were never designed with refuelling in mind, lacking any form of standardised fuel ports or docking interfaces.

Orange balls of light fly across the sky as debris from a SpaceX rocket launched in Texas is spotted over Turks and Caicos Islands on Jan. 16, in this screen grab obtained from social media video. Credit: Marcus Haworth/Reuters

Looking ahead, several companies and space agencies are developing orbital refuelling systems. These range from dedicated “gas station” satellites to more versatile servicing vehicles that can perform repairs and upgrades alongside refuelling. As the technology advances, it could significantly change how we operate in space, making satellite operations more sustainable and cost-effective.

Source : China successfully sent Shijian-25 satellite

The post A Chinese Satellite Tests Orbital Refuelling appeared first on Universe Today.

Astronomers have known for some time that nearby supernovae have had a profound effect on Earth’s evolution. For starters, Earth’s deposits of gold, platinum, and other heavy metals are believed to have been distributed to Earth by ancient supernovae. The blasts of gamma rays released in the process can also significantly affect life, depleting nitrogen and oxygen in the upper atmosphere, depleting the ozone layer, and causing harmful levels of ultraviolet radiation to reach the surface. Given the number of near-Earth supernovae that have occurred since Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, these events likely affected the evolution of life.

In a new paper by a team of astronomers from the University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC), a nearby supernova may have influenced the evolution of life on Earth. According to their findings, Earth was pummeled by radiation from a nearby supernova about 2.5 million years ago. This burst of radiation was powerful enough to break apart the DNA of living creatures in Lake Tanganyika, the deepest body of water in Africa. This event, they argue, could be linked to an explosion in the number of viruses that occurred in the region.

The study was led by Caitlyn Nojiri, a recent graduate of the USCS Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics. She was joined by Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz, a USCS Professor of astronomy and astrophysics, and Noémie Globus, a postdoctoral fellow at USCS and a member of the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology at Stanford University and the Astrophysical Big Bang Laboratory. The paper that describes their findings appeared on January 15th in the journal Astrophysical Journal Letters.

The image of Lake Tanganyika was acquired in June 1985. Credit: NASA

For their study, the team examined samples of iron-60 retrieved from the seafloor of Lake Tanganyika, the 645 km-long (400 mi) lake in Africa’s Great Rift Valley that borders Burundi, Tanzania, Zambia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This radioactive isotope of iron is produced by supernovae and is extremely rare on Earth. They obtained age estimates based on how much the samples had already broken down into nonradioactive forms. This revealed two separate ages for the samples, some 2.5 million years old and the others 6.5 million years old.

The next step was to trace the origin of the iron isotopes, which they did by backtracking the Sun’s motions around the center of the Milky Way. Roughly 6.5 million years ago, our Solar System passed through the Local Bubble, a region of lower density in the interstellar medium (ISM) of the Orion Arm in the Milky Way. As the Solar System entered the Bubble’s stardust-rich exterior, Earth was seeded with the older traces of iron-60. Between 2 and 3 million years ago, a neighboring star went supernova, seeding Earth with the younger traces of iron-60.

To confirm this theory, Nojiri and her colleagues conducted a simulation of a near-Earth supernova, which indicated that it would have bombarded Earth with cosmic rays for 100,000 years after the blast. This model was consistent with a previously recorded spike in radiation that hit Earth around that time. Given the intensity of the radiation, this raised the possibility that it was enough to snap strands of DNA in half. In the meantime, the authors came upon a study of virus diversity in one of Africa’s Rift Valley lakes and saw a possible connection. Said Nojiri in a UCSC news release:

“It’s really cool to find ways in which these super distant things could impact our lives or the planet’s habitability. The iron-60 is a way to trace back when the supernovae were occurring. From two to three million years ago, we think that a supernova happened nearby. We saw from other papers that radiation can damage DNA. That could be an accelerant for evolutionary changes or mutations in cells. We can’t say that they are connected, but they have a similar timeframe. We thought it was interesting that there was an increased diversification in the viruses.”

Lead author Caitlyn Nojiri is now applying for graduate school and hopes to get a Ph.D. in astrophysics. Credit: UCSC

Shortly after their paper was published, Nojiri became the first UCSC undergraduate to be invited to give a seminar at the Center for Cosmology and AstroParticle Physics (CCAPP) at Ohio State. Nojiri did not initially set out to be an astronomer but eventually arrived at UCSC, where Prof. Ramirez-Ruiz encouraged her to apply for the University of California Leadership Excellence through Advanced Degrees (UC LEADS) program. This program is designed to identify undergraduate students from diverse backgrounds who have the potential to succeed in STEM.

She also participated in the Lamat program (“star” in Mayan), which was founded by Ramirez-Ruiz to teach students with great aptitude and nontraditional backgrounds how to conduct research in astronomy. Because of her experience with these programs, Nojiri has decided to apply for graduate school and become an astrophysicist.

“People from different walks of life bring different perspectives to science and can solve problems in very different ways,” said Ramirez-Ruiz. “This is an example of the beauty of having different perspectives in physics and the importance of having those voices.”

Further Reading: UC Santa Cruz, The Astrophysical Journal

The post New Study Proposes that Cosmic Radiation Altered Virus Evolution in Africa appeared first on Universe Today.

Beyoncê (real name Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter) is wildly popular, but it’s a popularity I find baffling. I have listened to a fair amount of her music, trying to understand the key to her musical fame—perhaps the use of catchy tunes or inventive lyrics—but I have come up dry. It is, as modern rock and pop tends to be, formulaic and trite. But most such music vanishes without a trace, yet forgettable songs like hers get Grammys. 35 of them!

Take, for example, song below, “Texas Hold Em”, the flagship song of her recent Grammy-winning album, “Cowboy Carter.”  As Wikipedia notes:

Music critics praised “Texas Hold ‘Em” for its playful tone, authentic sound, Beyoncé’s vocal performance, and its celebration of the Black roots of country music. Country artists and country radio managers also praised the song for elevating the accessibility of country music for a wider audience. It ignited discussions on Black musicians’ place within country music, boosted the listenership of Black country artists and country radio in general, and increased the popularity of Western wear and culture. It was nominated for Record of the Year, Song of the Year, and Best Country Song at the 67th Annual Grammy Awards.

I am stymied. The “playful tone” involves rhyming words like “Texas” and “Lexus”, and it is not in any sense authentic country music: it just uses country tropes and a country rhythm to convey essentially meaningless sentiments. I suspect the vocal performance is autotuned. The only part I like is the banjo introduction.

The song is a failed attempt to meld two genres, but the critics love. love, love it.  As for igniting interest in black country music, well, this is not black country music (see Charlie Pride for that); it is standard pop music striving to be countrified. It’s like putting a drop of Cointreau in a cocktail and calling it French.

But listen for yourself. Is this a song for the ages? I don’t think so.

Here are the lyrics, and—please forgive me—they seem so incompetent and ham-handed that I laughed when I read them. The first verse, with its risible rhyming of “Texas” and “Lexus”, is especially rich. Likewise rhyming “panic” and “dramatic.” I’ve put the dumbest lines in bold: Lyrics This ain’t Texas (woo), ain’t no hold ’em (hey)
So lay your cards down, down, down, down
So park your Lexus (woo) and throw your keys up (hey)
Stick around, ’round, ’round, ’round, ’round (stick around)
And I’ll be damned if I can’t slow dance with you
Come pour some sugar on me, honey too
It’s a real life boogie and a real life hoedown
Don’t be a bitch, come take it to the floor now, woo, huh (woo) There’s a tornado (there’s a tornado) in my city (in my city)
Hit the basement (hit the basement), that shit ain’t pretty (shit ain’t pretty)
Rugged whiskey (rugged whiskey) ’cause we survivin’ (’cause we survivin’)
Off red cup kisses, sweet redemption, passin’ time, yeah Ooh, one step to the right
We headin’ to the dive bar we always thought was nice
Ooh, run me to the left
Then spin me in the middle, boy, I can’t read your mind This ain’t Texas (woo), ain’t no hold ’em (hey)
So lay your cards down, down, down, down
So park your Lexus (woo) and throw your keys up (hey)
Stick around, ’round, ’round, ’round, ’round (stick around)
And I’ll be damned if I can’t slow dance with you
Come pour some sugar on me, honey too
It’s a real life boogie and a real life hoedown
Don’t be a bitch, come take it to the floor now (woo) And I’ll be damned if I cannot dance with you
Come pour some liquor on me, honey too
It’s a real life boogie and a real life hoedown
Don’t be a bitch, come take it to the floor now (woo) Woo-hoo
Woo-hoo
Woo-hoo There’s a heatwave (there’s a heatwave) coming at us (coming at us)
Too hot to think straight (too hot to think straight)
Too cold to panic (cold to panic)
All of the problems just feel dramatic (just feel dramatic)
And now we’re runnin’ to the first spot that we find, yeah Ooh, one step to the right
We headed to the dive bar we always thought was nice
Ooh, you run to the left
Just work me in the middle, boy, I can’t read your mind This ain’t Texas (woo), ain’t no hold ’em (hey)
So lay your cards down, down, down, down, oh
So park your Lexus (hey), throw your keys up (hey)
Stick around, ’round, ’round, ’round, ’round (stick around)
And I’ll be damned if I cannot dance with you
Come pour some sugar on me, honey, too
It’s a real life boogie and a real life hoedown
Don’t be a bitch, come take it to the floor now (woo) And I’ll be damned if I cannot dance with you
Come pour some liquor on me honey, too
It’s a real life boogie and a real life hoedown
Don’t be a-, come take it to the floor now, ooh Take it to the floor now, ooh
Hoops, spurs, boots
To the floor now, ooh
Tuck, back, oops (ooh, ooh, ooh)
Shoot
Come take it to the floor now, ooh
And I’ll be damned if I cannot dance with you
Baby, pour that sugar and liquor on me too
Furs, spurs, boots
Solargenic, photogenic, shoot Unlike some of the hard-to-understand songs of, say, Steely Dan, these are just a bunch of fragmentary thoughts strung together, and one sense there’s no message beneath them. Now some of her songs, like “Lemonade”, do tell a story (in that case, the unfaithfulness of her partner), but I find the music lame.  And while words can be lame in a song that’s nevertheless good, it is good because of the music.

But is there a greater meaning here?  A site purporting to give this “meaning” resorts almost completely to simply reiterating what Texas tropes appear in the lyrics. For example (lyrics in bold; dodo’s interpretation in plain text):

“There’s a tornado (There’s a tornado) in my city (In my city)
In the basement (In the basement), that shit ain’t pretty (Shit ain’t pretty)
Rugged whiskey (Rugged whiskey) ’cause we survivin’ (‘Cause we survivin’)
Off red cup kisses, sweet redemption, passin’ time, yeah”

Texas has more tornadoes passing through it than any other US state, and here, Beyoncé regales the listener with a tale of how a twister has forced her and her partner underground.

She subsequently paints a visceral picture of a crude, sparse setting, as they resolve to get through the violent weather with the help of country music’s No. 1 – or perhaps more accurately, No. 7 – painkiller: some good old Jack Daniels whiskey.

Beyoncé throws in another country trope by referencing the red solo cups that regularly pop up in Friday night anthems by the likes of Luke Combs, Morgan Wallen and more.

“Ooh, one step to the right
We headin’ to the dive bar we always thought was nice
Ooh, run me to the left
Then spin me in the middle, boy, I can’t read your mind”

Here, Beyoncé details some of the moves as she guides her hesitant partner through the dance in their local dive, putting him at ease. She again underlines her hopes that he’ll open up to her more, as she frustratedly highlights how she can’t read his mind.

Well, isn’t that special?  I wanted to listen to this song again, for the fourth or fifth time, before I posted this, but I find I can’t bear to hear it again. If any reader wants to tell me why this is such a great song, I’ll be glad to hear it—but I doubt I’ll agree.

I’m not alone in my criticism here; just read the Washington Post‘s article, “Beyoncé’s ‘Cowboy Carter’ isn’t a country album. It’s worse.”

This is an album that posits its lack of ideas as big ideas. Only in its final seconds, when Beyoncé sings about how “old ideas are buried here,” does “Cowboy Carter” start to feel less like an extravagant awards telecast, and more like a clear-eyed comment on the state of the nation — a grand, sprawling, overcrowded place with nowhere else to go.

Freddie deBoer  gives us what I think is the main reason why Beyoncé is so lauded (his piece is largely about Kendrick Lamar, but the lessons apply). The bolding is mine:

We’re left in this bizarre space where no one is willing to flourish, to succeed, without simultaneously calling themselves an underdog, their talents unrecognized and their tastes disrespected. This is planet “Nobody believed in me!,” and facts never get in the way.

Thus, to pick a paradigmatic example, we still get a thousand thinkpieces a year arguing that Beyonce is terribly mistreated and overlooked – Beyonce, a billionaire with the most Grammys in history, every other kind of award that humanity has to bestow, influence in every sphere of human achievement, multiple films and books about her genius, every material, social, artistic, and cultural laurel we as a society can give. Look how fucking long this list of awards is! The only human being on earth who enjoys a combination of celebration and wealth and access and privilege and power that equals that of Beyonce is Taylor Swift, and both are constantly referred to as disrespected and marginalized underdogs in our most prestigious publications. Beyonce has thirty-five Grammys. What would be enough? Seventy? Seven hundred? Honey, the whole point is that nothing could ever be good enough for her. Indeed, the evidence that Beyonce is an immensely lauded human being is so vast that this kind of talk inspires an admonition I get a lot in my career – you’re right, but we don’t talk about that.

. . . . The idea that your moral value is determined by what you do has given way to the assumption that your moral value is determined by what you like. If you’re an aging dad who likes Sabrina Carpenter, you must be an open-minded and discerning feminist. And if you’re a white person who likes Kendrick Lamar, well, you must have all the right attitudes about race.

And so it is with Beyoncé. Calling her mediocre, as I just did, is just asking for vilification.

 

h/t: Greg Mayer for the deBoer reference

If you think you’re beleaguered by political correctness in America, just thank your lucky stars that you’re not living in New Zealand.  There you are increasingly surrounded by demands that you abide by the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, but, worse, you can be demonized or fired simply because you think it’s outdated and there needs to be court-mandated interpretation of what it means, or, worse, adopt a New Zealand Constitution.

For in that country, which I love, virtually area of endeavor is subject to Equity Demands and Diktats that you respect indigenous “ways of knowing.” Today the subject of discussion is pharmacy, which is being rapidly colonized by this ideology. But note the bit about real estate at the bottom.

An anonymous New Zealander sent me this article from The Breaking News site in that lovely but increasingly benighted land.

You can verify Kennedy’s claims by going to the official pharmacy standards site (click on link to get pdf).

As you can see from the top headline, it’s a bit of a rant, but everything that Mr. Kennedy says about the pharmacy standards is true.

First, the aim of the Pharmacy Council is a general one: to help all New Zealanders. From pp. 3-4 of the second document:

Through skilled and safe practice, pharmacists contribute to better health outcomes for New Zealanders. We aspire to have pharmacists operate at the top of their scope of practice and to not only be competent and professional in their roles but to continually work towards being the best pharmacist they can be.

. . . . The purpose of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act (HPCAA) 2003 is to protect the health and safety of the public by providing mechanisms to ensure that health practitioners are competent and fit to practise their profession.

So consideration #1 should be merit: the quality of service provided by pharmacists.  However, if you look at the first three “domains” of competence (there are seven), you see this:

Yep, the very first thing in which you must be competent as a pharmacist is understanding the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi (“Te Tiriti o Waitangi”), which of course says nothing about pharmacy. The treaty simply guaranteed the indigenous Māori their lands, gives them all the rights of British citizens, and places governance of the indigenous people to England.  There are several versions of the treaty, not all Māori tribes signed onto it, and it’s used to justify all kinds of stuff which are not in any of the texts but fall under a recent interpretation “Māori are to get at least half of everything.” That includes having their ways of knowing taught in science classes.  And remember, just 17.8% of New Zealanders are Māori, while 17.3% are Asians (67.8% are of European descent.  Somehow the Asians got left out of the pharmacy standards.

So once again the most important aspect of “competence” you need as a New Zealand pharmacist is respect and understanding of the Treaty, along with deference to the indigenous people.  Extreme deference.  The first four paragraphs below are Kennedy’s take (and his bolding), while the rest are word-for-word from the second source above.

Unfortunately the Pharmacy Council NZ has gone all woke and racist and apparently now thinks that practicing safe, competent dispensing of medicine and advice depends on a deep knowledge of 27 different aspects of Maori customs, beliefs, traditions, practices, superstitions, intergenerational historical trauma, familiarity with mana whenua and kaumatua, the Treaty of Waitangi, structural racism and colonisation and many other alleged Maori-related issues – such is the depth of knowledge required by pharmacists of Maori culture, beliefs and Te Reo etc. etc., that it would seem that every pharmacist who achieves all these competencies that are totally, completely, categorically, undeniably and irrefutably unrelated to safe dispensing of medicines will have earned a Bachelor’s degree in Maori Studies!

This is racism on steroids, the woke, totally unnecessary, unwarranted imposition of irrelevant culture and beliefs on a professional group whose sole focus should be on the safe practice of pharmaceutical medicine!

The Minister of Health needs to stamp down immediately on this repugnant, racist, woke over-reach by the Pharmacy Council and weed out any of the incompetent and/or radical members of the Pharmacy Council!

Following is the list (from page 31) of the essential competency standards for all pharmacists, according to the Pharmacy Council: [JAC: as I say below, I’ve put in italics everything that seems to me completely irrelevant to competence as a pharmacist]

● being familiar with mana whenua (local hapū/iwi), mātāwaka (kinship group not mana whenua), hapū and iwi in your rohe (district) and their history,

● understanding the importance of kaumātua,

● being familiar with te Tiriti o Waitangi and He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nū Tīreni,

● advocating for giving effect to te Tiriti at all levels,

● understanding the intergenerational impact of historical trauma,

● understanding of the role of structural racism and colonisation and ongoing impacts on Māori, socioeconomic deprivation, restricted access to the determinants of health,

● being familiar with Māori health – leaders, history, and contemporary literature,

● being familiar with Māori aspirations in relation to health,

● developing authentic relationships with Māori organisations and health providers,

● having a positive collegial relationship with Māori colleagues in your profession/workplace,

● being proficient in building and maintaining mutually beneficial power-sharing relationships,

● tautoko (support) Māori leadership,

● prioritising Māori voices,

● trusting Māori intelligence,

● be clinically and culturally confident to work with Māori whānau, [JAC: family groups]

● understand one’s own whakapapa (genealogy and connections),

● have a basic/intermediate understanding of te reo Māori, [the language; and most Māori themselves don’t understand it]

● have a basic/intermediate understanding of the tikanga and the application of tapu (sacred) and noa (made ordinary),

● be familiar with Māori health models and concepts such as Te Pae Mahutonga9 and Te Ara Tika10,

● have a basic/intermediate understanding of marae (community meeting house) protocol,

● be confident to perform waiata tautoko (support song),

● be proficient in whakawhānaungatanga (active relationship building),

● integrate tika (correct), pono (truth), aroha and manaakitanga into practice,

● be open-hearted,

● be proficient in strengths-based practice,

● be proficient with equity analysis,

● practice cultural humility,

● critically monitor the effectiveness of own practice with Māori.

Only 1 out of 4 standards (7/28) seem to me at all relevant to competence in pharmacy, and I’m being generous.

Now I can understand that there should be a section in pharmacy school about “indigenous medicine” so that pharmacists can understand where a local is coming from if they want an herb rather than an antibiotic. But most of this statement It is simply irrelevant fealty to the indigenous people; a form of virtue signaling or “the sacralization of the oppressed.”

I needn’t go on, as you can see that most of the requirements for competence in this section are irrelevant to the aims of the Pharmacy Council.  Poor New Zealand!

But wait! There’s more!

Lagniappe: New Zealander loses realtor’s license for refusing to take Māori-centered DEI training. Click on the link to go to the New Zealand Herald article:

An excerpt:

Janet Dickson, the real estate agent facing a five-year ban for refusing to do a Māori tikanga course, has lost a court bid to block the threatened cancellation of her licence.

Today, the High Court turned down her request for a judicial review of decisions about agents’ professional development requirements, which required her to take a 90-minute course called Te Kākano (The Seed).

The module focused on Māori culture, language and the Treaty of Waitangi and was made compulsory for all real estate agents, branch managers and salespeople in 2023.

Agents who do not complete professional development requirements risk having their licences cancelled. People whose licences are cancelled cannot reapply for one for five years.

. . .She has called real estate work a vocation and a calling, citing her Presbyterian values. In her court case, she said the course’s references to Māori gods sat uncomfortably with her own monotheistic Christian belief.

She labelled the course “woke madness” in a Facebook post and vowed to fight “to make sure this doesn’t happen to anyone else”.

She told the court she considered the course would not add any value to the performance of her real estate agency work.

Poor New Zealand!