Insanity in Zanesville

1 baboon, 2 wolves, 2 grizzly bears, 3 mountain lions, 6 black bears, 8 lionesses, 9 lions, 18 Bengal tigers. Indeed a rich count for an impressive menagerie. Unfortunately, all shot dead in Ohio.

For the benefit of those readers who may be unaware: Vietnam war veteran Terry Thompson committed suicide, possibly spurred on by piling debts and a disintegrating marriage. But before this act, he did something unexpected- he released his 55 'exotic' animals from their cages in his Muskingum County Animal Farm in Zanesville and opened the fences. The result was utter chaos, resulting in the police hunting and killing the 49 animals listed above. The surviving six animals (3 leopards, 2 celebes macaques, and a grizzly bear) are being quarantined at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium.

Google image 'Ohio animals' and you will find quite a many photos of the surreal carnage (which gave me nightmares for a long time). What struck me was how the animals were shot down dead by the police. Majority of the population seemed to justify this action. After all, the deputies didn’t have tranquilisers, it was close to nightfall, and it wasn’t exactly in a middle of nowhere location. But even the use of tranquiliser darts didn’t seem to have much effect- some animals were killed since they charged at them (after all, tranquilisers does take a while to act); others were killed since they might lose sight of the tranquilised animal which might revert to normalcy when the tranquiliser wears off. Yet, I would maintain that the death count could have been significantly lowered by using strong tranquilisers and/or by strategically disabling them. Is the trigger-happy nature so ingrained that the only solution was this carnage?

More disturbing is the fact that a sizeable number of animals were donated to Thompson by owners who found them difficult to manage as adults. And what is much more disturbing is the high incidence of such ‘exotic’ animal owners in the US.
And many are the other questions: whatever spurred Thompson to make such a reckless action? Was it to spite his neighbours and the authority? Or was it just to give them some freedom as his final act? If he was deep in debt, surely selling a few acres of his farm should have been a better option than suicide? And what did these animals do to deserve such a bloody fate?

A matter of the heart

Some years ago, I accompanied a young relative, a very eager science graduate working on particulate matter, as she conducted her research survey on public perception of particulate matter and its effects in a certain borough of London. Particulate matter (PM) is used to describe solid matter suspended in a gas or liquid phase. In the environment, particulates may occur naturally (as consequence of forest fires, volcanoes, dust storm, sea sprays etc) or via anthropogenic activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels in automobile exhausts and other industrial processes. PM10 is used to describe particles of 10 micrometres or less. Unsurprisingly, densely populated metropolitan areas in developing countries are hot spots for PM. The exercise with my relative was an eye-opener, and also quite fun as we pounced on shoppers, city workers on lunch breaks, pedestrians in Central London etc., armed with our clip boards and ticking or crossing their responses. I enjoyed being the magician’s assistant….but that is another story.

All this came back to me as I read the recent article by Bhaskaran et al, of the London School of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, who studied the effects of air pollution on the risk of heart attack- specifically whether alterations in pollution levels on an hourly timescale affects the short-term risk in urban settings of England and Wales, So what is the novelity in this study? The links between particular matter and heart and lung diseases is documented and there are several publications in these topics.In an earlier post in this site, David discussed a study where PM10 caused increase in blood pressure in traffic controllers in the metropolitan area of Sao Paolo. However, there is a wee difference in what this paper covered: This work considered the overall risk of heart attack in urban settings of England and Wales over very short time frames and it involved a large population size. In essence, this study looked at effects of very short-term exposure (which was not, previously possible due to technology limitations). In this mega-study of over 79000 individuals with a diagnosis of heart attack over three years from 15 cities( including Greater London, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Bristol, Cardiff, Southampton) the team looked at PM10 and other pollutants such as ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulphur dioxide over five short periods of up to 72 hours. For the analysis of their results they used statistical modelling approach for single pollutant and multiple pollutants where they adjusted for factors that could influence and otherwise confuse data including ambient temperature, humidity, virus in the atmosphere ( both that for flu and for other infections- respiratory syncytial virus). The researchers found that increase in PM10 levels & NO2 levels was associated increase in risk for heart attacks 1-6 hours post-exposure;.The source of PM10 & NO2 in urban areas is largely from automobile exhausts. Interestingly the increase in immediate risks was followed by reduction in risks at longer lags and therefore they found no net risk increase over 72 hour periods. They found a protective effect for increase in CO & ozone however; there was no change in overall risk over 72 hours leading the team to speculate that ischaemic events that would have occurred soon were advanced by a few hours. Most studies so far had shown the effects after years of chronic exposure and herein lies the difference of this study. A previous small study in Greater Boston with less than 1000 subjects showed an increased risk 1-3 hours after exposure of PM10. The risk was 11% which is higher than that observed in the current study. What do the results mean cumulatively? Remember this was a statistical exercise, though a worthy one. It would still be interesting to explore the physiological, cellular, & molecular basis of organ responses to short-term exposure to PM10 which will further our understanding. It might also be interesting to pursue questions such as, are there individuals of a particular genetic signature who might be prone to the effects of short-term exposure and low doses of PM more than others? the effect of age etc. Are similar trends seen in respiratory disorders? Does PM exposure compound the effects in vulnerable populations? All these questions remain.

But what does the study mean to the society as a whole and what can we do? The results in addition to the existing body of evidence should send warning bells to the world but emerging economies that are mushrooming urban sprawls. The recent UN summit highlighted the importance of non-communicable diseases including cardiovascular disease on the global health. With NCDS (CVDS and cancer) accounting to 36 million of global deaths in 2008 WHO stats, the UN draft resolutionon (dated 16 September 2011) submitted by the President of the General Assembly - political declaration of the high level meeting of the general assembly on the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases -concedes the gravity of the situation and ‘recognizes that prevention must be the cornerstone of the global response to NCDS’ and identified several modifiable factors including diet and tobacco smoke that results in the rise of NCDS and called for ‘reducing their exposures’. These are valid and commendable. However, a glaring omission is the lack of mention of air pollutants contributing to NCDs. In the UN document, the closest air pollution is touched upon is with the reference to pollution from cooking stoves used for indoor cooking and heating. In essence, the enumerated risk factors do not include particulate matter from vehicles!!.

The results in this paper and the other background research cannot be ignored and should prompt usto push for measures for cutting down particulate matter emissions. Prevention is certainly a better option than treatment and cure as the UN draft declaration as well as common sense dictate. Importantly, prevention is something that is easy to achieve, but requires efforts starting from the individual to local to the global.

http://ecoratorio.blogspot.com/2011/08/stuck-in-traffic.html

http://www.ghd-net.org/negotiations/un-summit-non-communicable-diseases/official-documents

http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/code-black/blog/regulating-killer-particulate-matter.html

Bhaskaran K, Hajat S, Armstrong B, Haines A, Herrett E, Wilkinson P, & Smeeth L (2011). The effects of hourly differences in air pollution on the risk of myocardial infarction: case crossover analysis of the MINAP database. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 343 PMID: 21933824

Seven wonders of the natural world

The beauty of the natural world is simply indescribable. And this makes it all the more difficult to participate in the global campaign (voting via the website of New 7 Wonders of Nature until 11.11.11) on selecting the seven wonders of the natural world from 28 shortlisted contenders.

I was rather spoilt for choices (did expect to find Son Doong Cave of Vietnam and the Aurora Borealis, though) and eventually nominated the Amazon, Iguazu Falls, Angel Falls, Mud volcanoes of Azerbaijan, Dead Sea, Great Barrier Reef, and the underground river in Philippines. But I wouldn’t be surprised if this follows the trend of Eurovision contests, with the voting population choosing. But perhaps pros outweigh the cons: there will be increased awareness of the natural world and, hopefully, increased efforts in preserving these.

Lemurs in London

Green spaces in urban areas are sinks for pollutants from vehicles and source of oxygen. They are also havens where city dwellers can forget their cares and relax amidst the towering trees. Most cities are overpopulated and congested and like pressure cookers; green spaces help the city dwellers to vent steam or just stand and stare and are essential for physical and mental health.

London has its fair share of greens paces. There are the big parks such as the Hyde Park, Regent’s Park, Green Park in Central London not to mention Kew gardens which is removed from the heart of the city. But several squares in the city also have enclosed gardens some of which are for public use and others which are for the use for the residents. Unofficial estimates claim that there are more than 3,000 parks and open spaces in the city. Many of the famous parks in London owe their existence to the Victorians who invented and shaped the concept of public parks.

I have never more appreciated the concept of these artificial green spaces than recently. After moving from tranquil and pristine Scotland, I ended up in the heart of the big city. Whilst this was exciting, my journey to work on the tube and the pollution around the area where I lived aggravated respiratory conditions which forced me to search for a greener area. I was fortunate to move to a nice green area in North West London near the Hampstead Heath. The part of the Heath closer to my house is called the Golders Hill Park. It is green , tranquil has manicured lawns , mature trees, and even has a small zoo. During the sweaty summer, it was an oasis. Several times after work I went straight to the park for a stroll to breathe the clean air and unwind. The admittance to the zoo in the Golders Hill Park is free which means everyone can enjoy what the park has to offer. Golders Hill Park zoo owes its existence to the Victorians . It has a herd of deer, collection of butterflies, rare and exotic birds such as laughing kookaburras, ring-tailed lemurs, cavy’s and ring-tailed coatis. The public are also given the chance to adopt the animals.

Whilst I have enjoyed the beauty of the park, and the company of lemurs, I have also noticed that since my move to my new home I have been free of respiratory complaints.


I hope that Londoners carry on with the Victorian traditions of green spaces in the city by creating new ones. I am glad that the entry to the Golders Hill Park is free. Can you put a price to these green spaces I wonder as it is indeed priceless?

Marine mammals and their future

Marine mammals have borne the brunt of mankind’s unsustainable overexploitation, resulting in population decline and species extinction. Hunting for fur, blubber, and meat in the 19th and 20th centuries resulted in the extinction of three species – the Caribbean monk seal (Monachus tropicalis), Atlantic gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), and the Steller’s sea cow (Hydrodamalis gigas). The most recent extinction, due to its use in traditional medicine, was that of the Baiji (Lipotes vexillifer) in 2008, a dolphin endemic to the Yangtze River.

In this backdrop, the August 16th edition of PNAS featured an excellent research (it truly is wonderful to come across such), entitled ‘Global distribution and conservation of marine mammals’, by Sandra Pompa and Gerardo Ceballos (National Autonomous University of Mexico) and Paul Ehrlich (Stanford). The mammalian species considered in the study were 129 in total (123 marine and 6 freshwater species), grouped into the orders of Cetacea, Sirenia, and Carnivora (common examples being whales, dolphins, porpoises, otters, seals, and polar bears) .

Method
The researchers created geographic range maps for the 129 species and the map of the water bodies were split into grids of roughly 10,000 km2. They determined the number of species in each grid cell and calculated the total number of cells occupied by each species. Breeding, calving, and feeding grounds, and migratory routes were also factored in. The result was a composite global distribution map of water bodies, revealing locations of ‘global species richness, irreplaceable sites, endemism, and threatened species.'

Results
1. All species can be represented in 20 global key conservation sites that cover at least 10% of the species' geographic range. These sites were determined on the basis: number of species present (species richness), severity of the risk of extinction for each species, and whether the species was endemic to the area.

2. Preserving 9 of such sites (mostly in temperate latitudes located off the coasts of Baja California in Mexico, the Atlantic coast of North America, Peru, Argentina, north-western Africa, South Africa, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand) would protect the habitat of 83.72% (108/129) of marine mammal species (including 5 endemic species) since these have high species richness.

3. The remaining 11 sites (6 freshwater, 5 marine: areas around Hawaiian and Galapagos Islands, Kerguelen Islands in the southern Indian Ocean, San Felix and Juan Fernandez Islands off the coast of Chile, Mediterranean Sea, Lake Baikal in Siberia, Caspian Sea, and major rivers such as the Amazon, Ganges, Indus, and Yang-tze) were tagged ‘irreplaceable key conservation sites’ of great conservation value due to the presence of endemic species, which, consequently, face a greater risk of extinction.
Eg. Galapagos fur seal (A. galapagoensis) and the Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus).

4. Strong correlation of marine mammal species richness with human impacts (Spearman rank correlation (rs = 0.693, n = 46,164, P < 0.01 for climate disruption; rs = 0.666, n = 46,164, P < 0.01 for pollution; and rs =0.678, n = 46,164, P < 0.01 for shipping). The existing deterioration of the marine ecosystems due to anthropogenic activities (and the potential for more deterioration not just at these sites but also elsewhere) was evidenced by around 70% percent of most impacted areas being within or near key conservation areas. Factoring in other impacts such as commercial fishing would result in stronger correlation (and perhaps also global climate change, habitat degradation, ocean acidification, exploitation of natural resources such as oil and gas, hunting, tourism, and plastics?)

5. 10% of all marine mammals were considered to be vulnerable, 11% endangered, and 3% critically endangered. The following vulnerable species were identified:

i. Vaquita (a porpoise species), endemic to the Gulf of Baja California, has the most restricted range. Its population has been declining rapidly and there are only 150-300 individuals in the wild (1/5 of the population are killed in gillnets each year).

ii. Sea lions such as the endemic Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea) and the Galapagos sea lion (Zalophus wollebaeki), and the restricted range New Zealand sea lion (Phocarctos hookeri).

iii. Seals such as the freshwater and endemic Baikal seal (Pusa sibirica), and the endemic Galapagos fur seal (Arctocephalus galapagoensis) and Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi).

iv. Whales at the brink of extinction, such as North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) and Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis), due to overharvesting, pollution, bycatch, and exhaustion of prey-species populations.

v. Dolphins such as the endemic New Zealand dolphin (Cephalorhynchus hectori) and the restricted range Australian Snubfin dolphin (Orcaella heinsohni).

Implications
This research could be a useful tool for environmental organisations and governments in identifying conservation areas and anthropogenic threats so as to protect endangered marine mammals and keep the oceans’ ecosystem functional. Mammals hold a lofty position in the food chain- consequently, their population dynamics would affect all other components of an ecosystem (and in human communities, by extension).


Pompa S, Ehrlich PR, & Ceballos G (2011). Global distribution and conservation of marine mammals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108 (33), 13600-5 PMID: 21808012



And the must read: http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2011/07/27/1101525108.DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf


Image source: Apollo 17