SDO peers into huge coronal hole

Our sun from May 17-19, 2016. The giant dark area on the sun’s upper half is known as a coronal hole. Image via NASA/SDO.

NASA released this animation of the sun on May 26, 2016, and it’s caused a bit of a stir around the internet, for example here and here. But there’s no need to worry (unless you’re worried about scare tactics online). The images – taken over May 17-19, 2016 by NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) – show what’s called a coronal hole. If the animation makes the sun look awesomely powerful, well, that’s because the sun is.

The sun is our local star, the ultimate provider of (nearly) all of Earth’s light and heat. Each second, about 700 million tons of hydrogen in our sun’s interior are converted to about 695 million tons of helium, plus 5 million tons (=3.86e33 ergs) of energy in the form of gamma rays (source: Nine Planets). It’d be strange if all of this energy pouring from our sun’s interior just went quietly into space. It frequently doesn’t go quietly, but instead pocks the sun’s surface with sunspots, causes mighty eruptions of flares, and sometimes sends charged particles hurtling into space as coronal mass ejections.

Coronal holes are part of the ordinary activity of the sun. Even if this is the largest one in decades, as some websites have said, remember that decades – to our sun – is the blink of an eye. Our sun has been shining for billions of years, and another billion or more years will likely pass before anything truly Earth-shaking occurs.

Coronal holes like this one really are holes, of sorts. They’re low-density regions in the sun’s hot outer atmosphere, which is called its corona. The sun’s corona is that fiery halo of light seen in the brief minutes of totality during a total solar eclipse, as in the image below:

Composite image of a 2006 solar eclipse by Fred Espenak. The white part around the black moon silhouette is the sun’s corona. Read Espenak’s article on the August 21, 2017 total solar eclipse, first one visible from contiguous North America since 1979.

NASA explained coronal holes this way:

Because they contain little solar material, they have lower temperatures and thus appear much darker than their surroundings. Coronal holes are visible in certain types of extreme ultraviolet light, which is typically invisible to our eyes, but is colorized here in purple for easy viewing.

These coronal holes are important to understanding the space environment around Earth through which our technology and astronauts travel. Coronal holes are the source of a high-speed wind of solar particles that streams off the sun some three times faster than the slower wind elsewhere.

While it’s unclear what causes coronal holes, they correlate to areas on the sun where magnetic fields soar up and away, without looping back down to the surface, as they do elsewhere.

So enjoy this animation, an awesome display of solar physics!

Via NASA

Bottom line: A NASA animation from May 17-19, 2016 – made from images from the Solar Dynamics Observatory or SDO – shows a coronal hole, a normal feature of our sun’s activity.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1UeSFW7

Our sun from May 17-19, 2016. The giant dark area on the sun’s upper half is known as a coronal hole. Image via NASA/SDO.

NASA released this animation of the sun on May 26, 2016, and it’s caused a bit of a stir around the internet, for example here and here. But there’s no need to worry (unless you’re worried about scare tactics online). The images – taken over May 17-19, 2016 by NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) – show what’s called a coronal hole. If the animation makes the sun look awesomely powerful, well, that’s because the sun is.

The sun is our local star, the ultimate provider of (nearly) all of Earth’s light and heat. Each second, about 700 million tons of hydrogen in our sun’s interior are converted to about 695 million tons of helium, plus 5 million tons (=3.86e33 ergs) of energy in the form of gamma rays (source: Nine Planets). It’d be strange if all of this energy pouring from our sun’s interior just went quietly into space. It frequently doesn’t go quietly, but instead pocks the sun’s surface with sunspots, causes mighty eruptions of flares, and sometimes sends charged particles hurtling into space as coronal mass ejections.

Coronal holes are part of the ordinary activity of the sun. Even if this is the largest one in decades, as some websites have said, remember that decades – to our sun – is the blink of an eye. Our sun has been shining for billions of years, and another billion or more years will likely pass before anything truly Earth-shaking occurs.

Coronal holes like this one really are holes, of sorts. They’re low-density regions in the sun’s hot outer atmosphere, which is called its corona. The sun’s corona is that fiery halo of light seen in the brief minutes of totality during a total solar eclipse, as in the image below:

Composite image of a 2006 solar eclipse by Fred Espenak. The white part around the black moon silhouette is the sun’s corona. Read Espenak’s article on the August 21, 2017 total solar eclipse, first one visible from contiguous North America since 1979.

NASA explained coronal holes this way:

Because they contain little solar material, they have lower temperatures and thus appear much darker than their surroundings. Coronal holes are visible in certain types of extreme ultraviolet light, which is typically invisible to our eyes, but is colorized here in purple for easy viewing.

These coronal holes are important to understanding the space environment around Earth through which our technology and astronauts travel. Coronal holes are the source of a high-speed wind of solar particles that streams off the sun some three times faster than the slower wind elsewhere.

While it’s unclear what causes coronal holes, they correlate to areas on the sun where magnetic fields soar up and away, without looping back down to the surface, as they do elsewhere.

So enjoy this animation, an awesome display of solar physics!

Via NASA

Bottom line: A NASA animation from May 17-19, 2016 – made from images from the Solar Dynamics Observatory or SDO – shows a coronal hole, a normal feature of our sun’s activity.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1UeSFW7

World No Tobacco Day 2016: how plain packs are helping Australia’s record-low smoking rates

This World No Tobacco Day, we’re reflecting on the importance of standard packs. Cigarette packs in the UK will never look the same again, and we think that’s great news.

In 2012, Australia became the first country in the world to introduce standard packs. And in this post, Kylie Lindorff, from the Cancer Council Victoria, tells us more about the Australian experience of binning this shocking form of marketing.

Kylie Lindorff, Cancer Council Victoria

Lots of Brits romanticise and dream about Australia and our golden beaches, unique ecosystem and relaxed culture. But it’s not all rosy down under – one thing we have in common is a devastating amount of harm caused by tobacco.

Each year, smoking kills around 15,000 Australians and costs the country $31.5 billion Australian dollars (AUD) (around £18 billion) in health, social and economic terms. And, as in the UK, it’s the biggest preventable cause of cancer.

In 2011, the Australian Government became the first in the world to pass a new law aimed at reducing the number of children who start smoking, and support people to quit for good.

The law meant that cigarette packaging could no longer be brightly coloured and slickly designed, and had to be plain and standardised.

 

 

Four years on since these new packs hit the shelves and the question on many people’s lips is: ‘Have they worked?’

And the good news is that the latest data are overwhelmingly positive.

Has it worked?

Plain packaging has played its part in our comprehensive approach to reducing death and disease caused by smoking. Since plain packaging was introduced, smoking rates in Australia have had the biggest fall recorded in the last 20 years and people’s attitudes towards smoking continue to change.

And, importantly, this impact has been strongly seen among our young people – smoking among 12 -17 year olds is at the lowest levels ever recorded and between 2010 and 2013, fewer 18-24 year olds were smoking.

While fewer people are starting the lethal habit, research shows that smokers using standard packs are more likely to think their cigarettes are lower quality and less appealing. Quitting has become a higher priority, and we saw a large increase in the number of people contacting a smoking quit line since standard packs were introduced.

At the same time, the volume of tobacco in the Australian market has fallen by 11%.

Based on these promising early signs, I’m thrilled that the UK and France are following suit and introducing similar laws on packaging. And I hope these will have similar positive effects on their country’s health too.

More than just packs

Aside from standard packaging, we brought in several other measures alongside standard packs that have also had an impact.

For example, we invested in anti-smoking marketing campaigns, which helped to reduce smoking rates in the 1980s and 90s. Staged tax increases and tougher penalties for smuggling tobacco have also played a part.

Together, these actions send a clear message that Australia is committed to reducing the devastating harm caused by tobacco smoking.

Plain packs, plainly legal

As well as being the first country to introduce plain packaging, we were also the first to face the wrath of the tobacco industry. This response wasn’t surprising.

And it seems the tobacco industry in the UK has used similar tactics as it did in Australia.

In Australia, the tobacco industry spawned lobbying and campaigning groups with the sole aim of giving the impression they were the voice of concerned tobacco retailers and citizens.

But in reality, the industry’s agenda was controlled by private interests. One, the Alliance of Australian Retailers, received more than $5 million AUD in funding from the tobacco industry.

We thought it was vital to make clear what was supported by the public, and what was being ‘puppet-mastered’ by the tobacco industry, so we created an awareness campaign:

Tobacco tactics

But where the tobacco industry really outdid itself was in legal challenges.

The four big tobacco companies launched a number of legal challenges against the Australian Government’s right to protect the health of their citizens. The industry has made various arguments including that its right to use trademarks and international treaties would prevent standard packs from going ahead. This is despite its own lawyers and authoritative bodies advising the rights they claim do not exist.

Tobacco companies pursued these challenges at an enormous cost. And not only has the industry lost two of the cases that have been finalised, but it was forced to pay the Government’s legal costs in its challenge to Australia’s constitution, which US comedian, John Oliver, brilliantly covered.

Through the World Trade Organisation, Australia is also responding to legal challenges from Cuba, Dominican Republic, Honduras and Indonesia – and it has been reported that the tobacco multinationals Philip Morris and British American Tobacco are providing support to Dominican Republic and Honduras respectively.

Next stop, the World

Standard packs have been a real success in Australia, and they will go on to have a massive impact on the health of our nation. The latest government review of standard packs states that they are meeting their objectives and the policy’s effects are likely to grow over time.

And despite the industry’s opposition, it’s really promising that more and more countries are not being deterred from making a similar move. At my last count, 10 countries across five continents were considering implementing standard packs.

Standard packs will give millions of people across the world, including children, one less reason to smoke. By successfully introducing them in the UK and Australia we stand as a united front against the lethal interests of the tobacco industry.

With many more countries set to follow, I’m confident that we’re a step closer to making every day World No Tobacco Day.

Kylie Lindorff, Cancer Council Victoria

from Cancer Research UK – Science blog http://ift.tt/20R53Ao

This World No Tobacco Day, we’re reflecting on the importance of standard packs. Cigarette packs in the UK will never look the same again, and we think that’s great news.

In 2012, Australia became the first country in the world to introduce standard packs. And in this post, Kylie Lindorff, from the Cancer Council Victoria, tells us more about the Australian experience of binning this shocking form of marketing.

Kylie Lindorff, Cancer Council Victoria

Lots of Brits romanticise and dream about Australia and our golden beaches, unique ecosystem and relaxed culture. But it’s not all rosy down under – one thing we have in common is a devastating amount of harm caused by tobacco.

Each year, smoking kills around 15,000 Australians and costs the country $31.5 billion Australian dollars (AUD) (around £18 billion) in health, social and economic terms. And, as in the UK, it’s the biggest preventable cause of cancer.

In 2011, the Australian Government became the first in the world to pass a new law aimed at reducing the number of children who start smoking, and support people to quit for good.

The law meant that cigarette packaging could no longer be brightly coloured and slickly designed, and had to be plain and standardised.

 

 

Four years on since these new packs hit the shelves and the question on many people’s lips is: ‘Have they worked?’

And the good news is that the latest data are overwhelmingly positive.

Has it worked?

Plain packaging has played its part in our comprehensive approach to reducing death and disease caused by smoking. Since plain packaging was introduced, smoking rates in Australia have had the biggest fall recorded in the last 20 years and people’s attitudes towards smoking continue to change.

And, importantly, this impact has been strongly seen among our young people – smoking among 12 -17 year olds is at the lowest levels ever recorded and between 2010 and 2013, fewer 18-24 year olds were smoking.

While fewer people are starting the lethal habit, research shows that smokers using standard packs are more likely to think their cigarettes are lower quality and less appealing. Quitting has become a higher priority, and we saw a large increase in the number of people contacting a smoking quit line since standard packs were introduced.

At the same time, the volume of tobacco in the Australian market has fallen by 11%.

Based on these promising early signs, I’m thrilled that the UK and France are following suit and introducing similar laws on packaging. And I hope these will have similar positive effects on their country’s health too.

More than just packs

Aside from standard packaging, we brought in several other measures alongside standard packs that have also had an impact.

For example, we invested in anti-smoking marketing campaigns, which helped to reduce smoking rates in the 1980s and 90s. Staged tax increases and tougher penalties for smuggling tobacco have also played a part.

Together, these actions send a clear message that Australia is committed to reducing the devastating harm caused by tobacco smoking.

Plain packs, plainly legal

As well as being the first country to introduce plain packaging, we were also the first to face the wrath of the tobacco industry. This response wasn’t surprising.

And it seems the tobacco industry in the UK has used similar tactics as it did in Australia.

In Australia, the tobacco industry spawned lobbying and campaigning groups with the sole aim of giving the impression they were the voice of concerned tobacco retailers and citizens.

But in reality, the industry’s agenda was controlled by private interests. One, the Alliance of Australian Retailers, received more than $5 million AUD in funding from the tobacco industry.

We thought it was vital to make clear what was supported by the public, and what was being ‘puppet-mastered’ by the tobacco industry, so we created an awareness campaign:

Tobacco tactics

But where the tobacco industry really outdid itself was in legal challenges.

The four big tobacco companies launched a number of legal challenges against the Australian Government’s right to protect the health of their citizens. The industry has made various arguments including that its right to use trademarks and international treaties would prevent standard packs from going ahead. This is despite its own lawyers and authoritative bodies advising the rights they claim do not exist.

Tobacco companies pursued these challenges at an enormous cost. And not only has the industry lost two of the cases that have been finalised, but it was forced to pay the Government’s legal costs in its challenge to Australia’s constitution, which US comedian, John Oliver, brilliantly covered.

Through the World Trade Organisation, Australia is also responding to legal challenges from Cuba, Dominican Republic, Honduras and Indonesia – and it has been reported that the tobacco multinationals Philip Morris and British American Tobacco are providing support to Dominican Republic and Honduras respectively.

Next stop, the World

Standard packs have been a real success in Australia, and they will go on to have a massive impact on the health of our nation. The latest government review of standard packs states that they are meeting their objectives and the policy’s effects are likely to grow over time.

And despite the industry’s opposition, it’s really promising that more and more countries are not being deterred from making a similar move. At my last count, 10 countries across five continents were considering implementing standard packs.

Standard packs will give millions of people across the world, including children, one less reason to smoke. By successfully introducing them in the UK and Australia we stand as a united front against the lethal interests of the tobacco industry.

With many more countries set to follow, I’m confident that we’re a step closer to making every day World No Tobacco Day.

Kylie Lindorff, Cancer Council Victoria

from Cancer Research UK – Science blog http://ift.tt/20R53Ao

Which moon phase best for stargazing?

We got this question:

Which phase of the moon would be best for stargazing, and why?

And the answer is … it depends on what you want to do. Some people enjoy watching the moon itself, as it waxes and wanes in our sky. Some enjoy the fact that the moon appears near bright stars and planets at certain times of the month. For instance, you can use the waning crescent moon tomorrow morning (June 1, 2016) to help guide you to the planet Uranus and the planet Mercury, as displayed on the sky chart below. However, you’ll need binoculars or a telescope to see Uranus from anywhere worldwide, and the Southern Hemisphere is now enjoying a fine morning apparition of Mercury (whereas the Northern Hemisphere is not).

The slender waning crescent moon and Mercury, from the perspective of middle latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. The Southern Hemisphere enjoys a much better view of Mercury in the morning sky because Mercury rises before morning dawn in that part of the world.

The moon is now a waning crescent moon. Waning means the illuminated part is diminishing, whereas crescent means the moon is less than half-illuminated. The moon climbs over the eastern horizon in the wee hours before sunrise right now, meaning that most of the night is moon-free. New Moon will occur on June 5.

Moon-free nights enable astronomers to look at deep-sky objects, such as galaxies, star clusters and nebulae, so they like it when the moon is at or near new phase. It’s best to look at these faint fuzzies in a night sky with little or no light. The next new moon happens on June 16.

Four keys to understanding moon phases

People using telescopes try to avoid the moon, because its glare interferes with the telescopic views of deep-sky objects. Especially around full moon, the moon casts a lot of light, washing out many nighttime treasures. At new moon, the moon is up during the day, not the nighttime. Around then, you won’t see the moon at all – unless you’re on just the right spot on Earth to watch a solar eclipse. But the last solar eclipse happened with the March 9 new moon, and the next solar eclipse won’t take place until September 1.

Moon phases: 1) new moon 2) waxing crescent 3) first quarter 4) waxing gibbous 5) full moon 6) waning gibbous 7) last quarter 8) waning crescent. For more, read Four keys to understanding moon phases

Bottom line: The best phase of the moon for stargazing depends on what you want to do. Some enjoy watching the moon itself. On the other hand, people using telescopes avoid the moon because its glare interferes with deep-sky objects.

A planisphere is virtually indispensable for beginning stargazers. Order your EarthSky planisphere today.

Help support EarthSky! Visit the EarthSky store for to see the great selection of educational tools and team gear we have to offer.

.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1kIhego

We got this question:

Which phase of the moon would be best for stargazing, and why?

And the answer is … it depends on what you want to do. Some people enjoy watching the moon itself, as it waxes and wanes in our sky. Some enjoy the fact that the moon appears near bright stars and planets at certain times of the month. For instance, you can use the waning crescent moon tomorrow morning (June 1, 2016) to help guide you to the planet Uranus and the planet Mercury, as displayed on the sky chart below. However, you’ll need binoculars or a telescope to see Uranus from anywhere worldwide, and the Southern Hemisphere is now enjoying a fine morning apparition of Mercury (whereas the Northern Hemisphere is not).

The slender waning crescent moon and Mercury, from the perspective of middle latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. The Southern Hemisphere enjoys a much better view of Mercury in the morning sky because Mercury rises before morning dawn in that part of the world.

The moon is now a waning crescent moon. Waning means the illuminated part is diminishing, whereas crescent means the moon is less than half-illuminated. The moon climbs over the eastern horizon in the wee hours before sunrise right now, meaning that most of the night is moon-free. New Moon will occur on June 5.

Moon-free nights enable astronomers to look at deep-sky objects, such as galaxies, star clusters and nebulae, so they like it when the moon is at or near new phase. It’s best to look at these faint fuzzies in a night sky with little or no light. The next new moon happens on June 16.

Four keys to understanding moon phases

People using telescopes try to avoid the moon, because its glare interferes with the telescopic views of deep-sky objects. Especially around full moon, the moon casts a lot of light, washing out many nighttime treasures. At new moon, the moon is up during the day, not the nighttime. Around then, you won’t see the moon at all – unless you’re on just the right spot on Earth to watch a solar eclipse. But the last solar eclipse happened with the March 9 new moon, and the next solar eclipse won’t take place until September 1.

Moon phases: 1) new moon 2) waxing crescent 3) first quarter 4) waxing gibbous 5) full moon 6) waning gibbous 7) last quarter 8) waning crescent. For more, read Four keys to understanding moon phases

Bottom line: The best phase of the moon for stargazing depends on what you want to do. Some enjoy watching the moon itself. On the other hand, people using telescopes avoid the moon because its glare interferes with deep-sky objects.

A planisphere is virtually indispensable for beginning stargazers. Order your EarthSky planisphere today.

Help support EarthSky! Visit the EarthSky store for to see the great selection of educational tools and team gear we have to offer.

.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1kIhego

Andrew Wakefield claims “natural Herd Immunity” is better than anything vaccines can do, never mind all that suffering [Respectful Insolence]

Andrew Wakefield, his claims to the contrary, is antivaccine to the core. To be honest, I’m not sure if he was always antivaccine. After all, around 20 years ago when he was doing his “research” into whether the MMR vaccine causes autism, he was being generously funded by a barrister seeking to sue vaccine manufacturers and he was developing a competing measles vaccine (for which he filed for a patent) that would be unlikely to be profitable unless the MMR became discredited. In retrospect, knowing what I know now about these aspects of Wakefield’s “research,” I consider it highly likely that Wakefield was cynically making money where he could. However, somewhere along the line, whether it was due to the celebrity or the adulation he received from antivaccine mothers of autistic children who viewed him as a hero for giving them something to blame for their children’s condition or the lucrative nature of being an autism quack, Wakefield did become truly antivaccine. Now, he’s traveling the country promoting VAXXED: From Cover-up to Catastrophe, a documentary that is in reality an antivaccine propaganda movie spewing the same old antivaccine pseudoscience coupled with the newer “CDC whistleblower” myth, to communities that can ill afford the return of vaccine-preventable diseases.

When last we left Andrew Wakefield, he was with his old friend and ally Polly Tommey and his new buddy and producer of VAXXED Del Bigtree spreading antivaccine misinformation to a largely African-American group in Compton, CA, complete with the mayor and an African-American woman featured in the film named Sheila Ealey, who believes that vaccines caused her son’s autism and buys completely into the “CDC whistleblower” conspiracy theory. Worse, he peddled the intellectually dishonest “vaccines didn’t save us from infectious disease” gambit. His words are worth repeating here because they lead into what I’m going to discuss:

The mortality and the morbidity—that is, the illness associated with infectious disease—of virtually every infectious disease—measles, mumps, rubella, typhoid, chickenpox—was coming down dramatically before vaccines were ever introduced. The morbidity and mortality from measles had come down by 99.6% before vaccines were introduced. If we had not introduced vaccines, would they have come down to zero? We’ll never know, because we intervened with vaccines, and they claim it was vaccines that caused the improvement. It was nothing to do with vaccination. OK, that may have produced an incremental improvement. Are they necessary for life? Absolutely not!

This is, of course, utter bollocks (to borrow a word from Wakefield’s native land). The sleight-of-hand is to point to declining mortality from infectious diseases, which was due to improvements in medical treatments that allowed more children to survive these diseases, with incidence of infectious diseases, which did decline markedly for each disease for which an effective vaccine was introduced at exactly the time one would expect, shortly after the widespread use of the vaccine took hold. Unfortunately, I learned recently that Wakefield just expounded on this little snippet on the VAXXED website in a little ditty called Notes on Herd Immunity from Andrew Wakefield. Basically, it’s a compilation of the “greatest hits” of antivaccine lies about herd immunity presented as a bullet list. Basically, Wakefield tries to claim that “natural” herd immunity is better than herd immunity due to vaccination and fails risibly and despicably.

So let’s look at Andy’s rationale, such as it is. Before I do, however, I can’t help but note that at no point does he provide links to his sources for his claims. For instance, Wakefield claim that in the developed world “As a consequence of natural Herd Immunity, in the developed world measles mortality had fallen by 99.6% before measles vaccines were introduced.” This is probably a not entirely unreasonable estimate of how much mortality had decreased. Then, Wakefield goes off the rails, saying, “A fall in morbidity will have paralleled the fall in mortality (mortality is the extreme of morbidity).” Um, no. You can’t make that claim. An equally plausible outcome is that, as more children survive measles, the survivors live with more morbidity. Think of it this way with another disease, polio. As more children survived polio, thanks to iron lungs, more survived to face the possibility of permanent weakness and paralysis. Mortality might well have declined, but morbidity in the survivors stayed the same or increased because more children survived to face that morbidity. Also, there is long-lasting morbidity due to measles virus infection in the form of immunosuppression that lasts two to three years after infection and predisposes to death from infectious disease. In other words, the benefits of measles vaccination go beyond just measles.

Wakefield’s claim is without evidence and rests on an assumption that is completely backwards. That’s even leaving aside the fact that getting sick is morbidity! Seriously, if you get sick with measles, even if you recover (as the vast majority do), you have suffered significant morbidity, and if there’s a vaccine suffering that morbidity is potentially preventable! Basically, Wakefield redefines morbidity as only permanent sequelae to make this deeply dishonest argument. I could much more reasonably define morbidity as being ill with vaccine-preventable disease (because that is morbidity, albeit temporary) and point out that, since the measles vaccine was introduced in the US, morbidity has declined by 99.9% and mortality by very close to 100%, while morbidity and mortality from polio have declined 100%. Meanwhile, worldwide, thanks to the measles vaccine, mortality has fallen dramatically since 2000, from an estimated 733,000 deaths in 2000 to 164,000 in 2008 to an estimated 96,000 in 2013, thanks to a worldwide vaccination program.

Let’s look at Wakefield’s “reasoning.” Wakefield makes the claim that “high dose exposure” due to natural infection (you know, complete with the replicating virus that makes you sick) results in better herd immunity:

• High dose exposure occurs because, in the absence of viral immunity, viral replication is unimpeded in the multiple susceptible human reservoirs in which it thrives. High doses of measles virus are transmitted from one person to the next. Added to this, socioeconomic circumstances contribute to high dose exposure. This includes high population density (easy transmission) and poor antiviral defenses (e.g. low vitamins A, D, and C). An example is the ravage of measles in Confederate soldiers amassed in barracks and hospitals in the American Civil War.
• Over time, as measles becomes endemic (constantly circulating) in a population with typical 2-yearly epidemics, Herd Immunity increases rapidly. Natural exposure leads to long term immunity. Immunity limits viral transmission and opportunities for viral replication. Concomitantly, developed countries have experienced an improvement in nutritional status and consequently antiviral immunity. Dose of exposure falls and a dramatic reduction in morbidity and mortality is observed.

I haven’t used this in a while, but truly it is appropriate now. The stupid, it burns.

Herd immunity (or the newer, more preferred term, community immunity, a term that doesn’t liken us to cattle) is not defined by morbidity and mortality of a vaccine-preventable disease. It’s defined by the incidence! Guess how many cases of measles there were in the US before the introduction of the vaccine? Between 1952 and 1963, there were an estimated 530,217 cases per year (with 440 deaths). Apparently that “natural” herd immunity didn’t work so well back then. What about now? A few hundred cases, thanks to the Disneyland measles outbreak, fewer before. That’s thanks to the measles vaccine and thanks to community immunity.

But wait, it gets stupider:

Let us look at an example of how natural Herd Immunity operated to provide age-appropriate immunity.

• Infants less than one year of age have a limited ability to generate adequate immunity and are susceptible to serious measles infection.
• In the pre-vaccine era mothers conferred good passive immunity on their infants by transplacental and breast milk transfer.
• This passive immunity protected infants through a period of vulnerability until they were better able to cope with measles through the generation of their own active immunity.

Yep, that passive immunity worked so well that measles still ran rampant through the population. Just let the kids get sick after whatever passive immunity they had from breast milk wears off! And the price of that passive immunity is only a half a million sick kids a year and a few hundred deaths. What a bargain. Of course, one can’t help but point out the dichotomy here. Antivaccine activists like Wakefield will wax indignant over a single vaccine injury or death and scoff at any argument that vaccines are safe enough because only 1 in a million suffers a serious adverse event, but then will turn around with brain dead arguments that “natural immunity” is worth hundreds of deaths a year.

Now look at Wakefield’s characterization of the “vaccine era,” in which, as Wakefield tells it, “natural herd immunity” has been destroyed. Never mind that “natural herd immunity” is an oxymoron when describing one of the most easily transmissible infectious diseases out there:

• The increasing Herd Immunity associated with natural measles and the accompanying decrease in morbidity and mortality, has been interrupted by vaccination. This makes it difficult to predict how vaccinated populations might respond to, say, a new strain of measles virus that has escaped the ‘protection’ conferred by measles vaccine (escape mutant). Because that population is not immune to the escape mutant we risk high morbidity and mortality from measles once again.
• Vaccinated mothers do not confer adequate passive immunity upon their infants (< 1 year of age). Infants are unable to generate an adequate immune response to measles vaccine and in the absence of passive maternal immunity, are unprotected during the first year, putting them at risk of serious measles infection.
• Unlike natural measles, measles vaccine does not provide lasting immunity and a substantial proportion of measles cases are reported in those who have been vaccinated against measles.
• Boosting of immunity using repeated doses of measles vaccine is not sustained and falls off rapidly. The only answer to this diminishing return that is offered by the regulators and manufacturers is to give more and more vaccines. The vaccine is highly profitable in terms of volume of sales, precisely because it is inadequately effective.

There’s a whole lot of hand waving going on here which is silly in the extreme. In particular the first bullet point almost made me bleed from my ears, as the ignorance in it assaulted my neurons. If a new strain of measles virus were to evolve it would be difficult to predict how any population might respond to it because it’s a new strain. It could be more virulent, cause more harm, or be potentially more deadly, or it could be less so. There would be no way to predict a priori in a vaccinated or unvaccinated population. Also, the unvaccinated population wouldn’t be immune to the “escape mutant” either. Seriously, Wakefield isn’t even trying here, but his followers will lap this idiocy up. As for the implication that measles immunity rapidly declines, that’s not true. It lasts over 20 years after two doses of MMR, and the CDC only recommends one adult dose if there is no evidence of ongoing immunity, which implies that a significant part of the population is immune much longer than 20 years.

After dumping this load of antivaccine nonsense on us, Wakefield can’t resist moving on to the mumps vaccine. Railing against the mumps vaccine as being ineffective and referring to mumps as being a “trivial disease in children” but not trivial in post-pubertal males because of its ability to affect the testicles and cause sterility, he claims that “natural Herd Immunity” (which he inexplicably keeps capitalizing) has been destroyed by mumps vaccination. I can’t help but note that the incidence of mumps has fallen 96% since the pre-vaccination era; so Wakefield’s claim that the mumps vaccine is ineffective is, as the rest of his claims, deceptive. Truly, though, Wakefield can do an excellent Gish gallop, as he continues to do with chickenpox and shingles:

The chickenpox virus (varicella zoster) causes a mild self-limiting disease in healthy children. The virus frequently establishes latent infection in the cell bodies of sensory nerve roots where it has the potential to episodically reactivate and cause shingles, a very painful and debilitating condition. Shingles can cause blindness. Historically, shingles was an uncommon disease occurring in, for example, people with immune deficiency due to cancer or immunosuppressive drug therapy.

Reactivation of zoster is inhibited by an adequate level of immunity to this virus which, in turn, is maintained by boosting of immunity in parents and grandparents by re-exposure via children with chickenpox. Natural epidemics of chickenpox maintained Herd Immunity by ‘wild-type boosting’ (referring to the natural virus) of adults which prevented shingles in otherwise healthy individuals. This is no longer the case.

Widespread chickenpox vaccination has removed natural Herd Immunity by preventing epidemics, eliminating ‘wild-type’ boosting, and allowing immunity to fall in individuals to the point where shingles is now much more common, occurring in young, apparently healthy people. Vaccination has created a new epidemic to which Merck’s response is, ‘we’ve created a market; now let’s make a vaccine to prevent shingles.’

First of all, chickenpox is not nearly as benign a disease in children as Wakefield represents it. It can produce real complications, including:

• bacterial infections of the skin and soft tissues in children including Group A streptococcal infections
• pneumonia
• infection or inflammation of the brain (encephalitis, cerebellar ataxia)
• bleeding problems
• blood stream infections (sepsis)
• dehydration

These complications can be serious enough to require hospitalization and can even cause death in otherwise healthy children. Such complications might not be common, but when large numbers of children get chickenpox, there will be these complications. Aside from that, having the chickenpox is just plain miserable. I got it when I was around seven, and its one of the few things I remember most vividly about that age because it made me so itchy, feverish, and downright sick. I still have a couple of scars from pox that I scratched open. But what’s the suffering of millions of children compared to an antivaccine ideology valuing “natural” immunity?

As for the rest of Wakefield’s argument, Skeptical Raptor does a good job of dismantling the rest of Wakefield’s argument, which is basically antivaccine boilerplate about chickenpox and shingles. First, I agree with the scaly one that it is morally repugnant to use children as a vehicle to immunize adults by maintaining a pool of infected children through not vaccinating, particularly when the cost is that some children will become very sick and some children will even die. Again, antivaccinationists, who wax so morally righteous at the thought that one in a million children receiving vaccines might have a serious adverse reaction seem unconcerned about more children (particularly the immunosuppressed) suffering and even dying to protect adults. More importantly, as our scaly friend put it:

Previously, scientists thought that the potential immune effect against shingles by recurrent chickenpox infections in children would last around 20 years. Based on real immunological and virological data from individuals, a new model of chickenpox vaccine and shingles, developed by the scientists in Belgium, shows that the effect only lasts for about two years.

So, if one could argue that putting children at risk for chickenpox just to protect adults was morally acceptable, the effect is so short-term that adults would essentially need to encounter a constant pool of chickenpox infected children. I swear this sounds like some surreal post-apocalyptic movie running on Netflix.

Of course, nuance is not what Wakefield is about. Fear mongering is. Yes, vaccinating against varicella (the virus that causes chickenpox) could temporarily increase the incidence of shingles in younger adults. However, vaccinated children who don’t get chickenpox, thanks to the vaccine, will never have to worry about getting shingles. These are the sorts of trade-offs that real public health officials, real physicians, and real infectious disease efforts consider while evaluating evidence that ideologues like Wakefield completely ignore.

Andrew Wakefield, Polly Tommey, Del Bigtree, and the rest of Wakefield’s crew might tell themselves they are “vaccine safety advocates,” but in reality they are clearly antivaccine, given that they keep repeating long-discredited misinformation about vaccine efficacy and safety. Unfortunately, they’ve made a vehicle, VAXXED, to peddle those same old lies as old wine in a new skin. Worse, they’re peddling them to populations that can least afford the return of the scourges of the diseases that vaccines have been effectively holding at bay.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1sI9uT2

Andrew Wakefield, his claims to the contrary, is antivaccine to the core. To be honest, I’m not sure if he was always antivaccine. After all, around 20 years ago when he was doing his “research” into whether the MMR vaccine causes autism, he was being generously funded by a barrister seeking to sue vaccine manufacturers and he was developing a competing measles vaccine (for which he filed for a patent) that would be unlikely to be profitable unless the MMR became discredited. In retrospect, knowing what I know now about these aspects of Wakefield’s “research,” I consider it highly likely that Wakefield was cynically making money where he could. However, somewhere along the line, whether it was due to the celebrity or the adulation he received from antivaccine mothers of autistic children who viewed him as a hero for giving them something to blame for their children’s condition or the lucrative nature of being an autism quack, Wakefield did become truly antivaccine. Now, he’s traveling the country promoting VAXXED: From Cover-up to Catastrophe, a documentary that is in reality an antivaccine propaganda movie spewing the same old antivaccine pseudoscience coupled with the newer “CDC whistleblower” myth, to communities that can ill afford the return of vaccine-preventable diseases.

When last we left Andrew Wakefield, he was with his old friend and ally Polly Tommey and his new buddy and producer of VAXXED Del Bigtree spreading antivaccine misinformation to a largely African-American group in Compton, CA, complete with the mayor and an African-American woman featured in the film named Sheila Ealey, who believes that vaccines caused her son’s autism and buys completely into the “CDC whistleblower” conspiracy theory. Worse, he peddled the intellectually dishonest “vaccines didn’t save us from infectious disease” gambit. His words are worth repeating here because they lead into what I’m going to discuss:

The mortality and the morbidity—that is, the illness associated with infectious disease—of virtually every infectious disease—measles, mumps, rubella, typhoid, chickenpox—was coming down dramatically before vaccines were ever introduced. The morbidity and mortality from measles had come down by 99.6% before vaccines were introduced. If we had not introduced vaccines, would they have come down to zero? We’ll never know, because we intervened with vaccines, and they claim it was vaccines that caused the improvement. It was nothing to do with vaccination. OK, that may have produced an incremental improvement. Are they necessary for life? Absolutely not!

This is, of course, utter bollocks (to borrow a word from Wakefield’s native land). The sleight-of-hand is to point to declining mortality from infectious diseases, which was due to improvements in medical treatments that allowed more children to survive these diseases, with incidence of infectious diseases, which did decline markedly for each disease for which an effective vaccine was introduced at exactly the time one would expect, shortly after the widespread use of the vaccine took hold. Unfortunately, I learned recently that Wakefield just expounded on this little snippet on the VAXXED website in a little ditty called Notes on Herd Immunity from Andrew Wakefield. Basically, it’s a compilation of the “greatest hits” of antivaccine lies about herd immunity presented as a bullet list. Basically, Wakefield tries to claim that “natural” herd immunity is better than herd immunity due to vaccination and fails risibly and despicably.

So let’s look at Andy’s rationale, such as it is. Before I do, however, I can’t help but note that at no point does he provide links to his sources for his claims. For instance, Wakefield claim that in the developed world “As a consequence of natural Herd Immunity, in the developed world measles mortality had fallen by 99.6% before measles vaccines were introduced.” This is probably a not entirely unreasonable estimate of how much mortality had decreased. Then, Wakefield goes off the rails, saying, “A fall in morbidity will have paralleled the fall in mortality (mortality is the extreme of morbidity).” Um, no. You can’t make that claim. An equally plausible outcome is that, as more children survive measles, the survivors live with more morbidity. Think of it this way with another disease, polio. As more children survived polio, thanks to iron lungs, more survived to face the possibility of permanent weakness and paralysis. Mortality might well have declined, but morbidity in the survivors stayed the same or increased because more children survived to face that morbidity. Also, there is long-lasting morbidity due to measles virus infection in the form of immunosuppression that lasts two to three years after infection and predisposes to death from infectious disease. In other words, the benefits of measles vaccination go beyond just measles.

Wakefield’s claim is without evidence and rests on an assumption that is completely backwards. That’s even leaving aside the fact that getting sick is morbidity! Seriously, if you get sick with measles, even if you recover (as the vast majority do), you have suffered significant morbidity, and if there’s a vaccine suffering that morbidity is potentially preventable! Basically, Wakefield redefines morbidity as only permanent sequelae to make this deeply dishonest argument. I could much more reasonably define morbidity as being ill with vaccine-preventable disease (because that is morbidity, albeit temporary) and point out that, since the measles vaccine was introduced in the US, morbidity has declined by 99.9% and mortality by very close to 100%, while morbidity and mortality from polio have declined 100%. Meanwhile, worldwide, thanks to the measles vaccine, mortality has fallen dramatically since 2000, from an estimated 733,000 deaths in 2000 to 164,000 in 2008 to an estimated 96,000 in 2013, thanks to a worldwide vaccination program.

Let’s look at Wakefield’s “reasoning.” Wakefield makes the claim that “high dose exposure” due to natural infection (you know, complete with the replicating virus that makes you sick) results in better herd immunity:

• High dose exposure occurs because, in the absence of viral immunity, viral replication is unimpeded in the multiple susceptible human reservoirs in which it thrives. High doses of measles virus are transmitted from one person to the next. Added to this, socioeconomic circumstances contribute to high dose exposure. This includes high population density (easy transmission) and poor antiviral defenses (e.g. low vitamins A, D, and C). An example is the ravage of measles in Confederate soldiers amassed in barracks and hospitals in the American Civil War.
• Over time, as measles becomes endemic (constantly circulating) in a population with typical 2-yearly epidemics, Herd Immunity increases rapidly. Natural exposure leads to long term immunity. Immunity limits viral transmission and opportunities for viral replication. Concomitantly, developed countries have experienced an improvement in nutritional status and consequently antiviral immunity. Dose of exposure falls and a dramatic reduction in morbidity and mortality is observed.

I haven’t used this in a while, but truly it is appropriate now. The stupid, it burns.

Herd immunity (or the newer, more preferred term, community immunity, a term that doesn’t liken us to cattle) is not defined by morbidity and mortality of a vaccine-preventable disease. It’s defined by the incidence! Guess how many cases of measles there were in the US before the introduction of the vaccine? Between 1952 and 1963, there were an estimated 530,217 cases per year (with 440 deaths). Apparently that “natural” herd immunity didn’t work so well back then. What about now? A few hundred cases, thanks to the Disneyland measles outbreak, fewer before. That’s thanks to the measles vaccine and thanks to community immunity.

But wait, it gets stupider:

Let us look at an example of how natural Herd Immunity operated to provide age-appropriate immunity.

• Infants less than one year of age have a limited ability to generate adequate immunity and are susceptible to serious measles infection.
• In the pre-vaccine era mothers conferred good passive immunity on their infants by transplacental and breast milk transfer.
• This passive immunity protected infants through a period of vulnerability until they were better able to cope with measles through the generation of their own active immunity.

Yep, that passive immunity worked so well that measles still ran rampant through the population. Just let the kids get sick after whatever passive immunity they had from breast milk wears off! And the price of that passive immunity is only a half a million sick kids a year and a few hundred deaths. What a bargain. Of course, one can’t help but point out the dichotomy here. Antivaccine activists like Wakefield will wax indignant over a single vaccine injury or death and scoff at any argument that vaccines are safe enough because only 1 in a million suffers a serious adverse event, but then will turn around with brain dead arguments that “natural immunity” is worth hundreds of deaths a year.

Now look at Wakefield’s characterization of the “vaccine era,” in which, as Wakefield tells it, “natural herd immunity” has been destroyed. Never mind that “natural herd immunity” is an oxymoron when describing one of the most easily transmissible infectious diseases out there:

• The increasing Herd Immunity associated with natural measles and the accompanying decrease in morbidity and mortality, has been interrupted by vaccination. This makes it difficult to predict how vaccinated populations might respond to, say, a new strain of measles virus that has escaped the ‘protection’ conferred by measles vaccine (escape mutant). Because that population is not immune to the escape mutant we risk high morbidity and mortality from measles once again.
• Vaccinated mothers do not confer adequate passive immunity upon their infants (< 1 year of age). Infants are unable to generate an adequate immune response to measles vaccine and in the absence of passive maternal immunity, are unprotected during the first year, putting them at risk of serious measles infection.
• Unlike natural measles, measles vaccine does not provide lasting immunity and a substantial proportion of measles cases are reported in those who have been vaccinated against measles.
• Boosting of immunity using repeated doses of measles vaccine is not sustained and falls off rapidly. The only answer to this diminishing return that is offered by the regulators and manufacturers is to give more and more vaccines. The vaccine is highly profitable in terms of volume of sales, precisely because it is inadequately effective.

There’s a whole lot of hand waving going on here which is silly in the extreme. In particular the first bullet point almost made me bleed from my ears, as the ignorance in it assaulted my neurons. If a new strain of measles virus were to evolve it would be difficult to predict how any population might respond to it because it’s a new strain. It could be more virulent, cause more harm, or be potentially more deadly, or it could be less so. There would be no way to predict a priori in a vaccinated or unvaccinated population. Also, the unvaccinated population wouldn’t be immune to the “escape mutant” either. Seriously, Wakefield isn’t even trying here, but his followers will lap this idiocy up. As for the implication that measles immunity rapidly declines, that’s not true. It lasts over 20 years after two doses of MMR, and the CDC only recommends one adult dose if there is no evidence of ongoing immunity, which implies that a significant part of the population is immune much longer than 20 years.

After dumping this load of antivaccine nonsense on us, Wakefield can’t resist moving on to the mumps vaccine. Railing against the mumps vaccine as being ineffective and referring to mumps as being a “trivial disease in children” but not trivial in post-pubertal males because of its ability to affect the testicles and cause sterility, he claims that “natural Herd Immunity” (which he inexplicably keeps capitalizing) has been destroyed by mumps vaccination. I can’t help but note that the incidence of mumps has fallen 96% since the pre-vaccination era; so Wakefield’s claim that the mumps vaccine is ineffective is, as the rest of his claims, deceptive. Truly, though, Wakefield can do an excellent Gish gallop, as he continues to do with chickenpox and shingles:

The chickenpox virus (varicella zoster) causes a mild self-limiting disease in healthy children. The virus frequently establishes latent infection in the cell bodies of sensory nerve roots where it has the potential to episodically reactivate and cause shingles, a very painful and debilitating condition. Shingles can cause blindness. Historically, shingles was an uncommon disease occurring in, for example, people with immune deficiency due to cancer or immunosuppressive drug therapy.

Reactivation of zoster is inhibited by an adequate level of immunity to this virus which, in turn, is maintained by boosting of immunity in parents and grandparents by re-exposure via children with chickenpox. Natural epidemics of chickenpox maintained Herd Immunity by ‘wild-type boosting’ (referring to the natural virus) of adults which prevented shingles in otherwise healthy individuals. This is no longer the case.

Widespread chickenpox vaccination has removed natural Herd Immunity by preventing epidemics, eliminating ‘wild-type’ boosting, and allowing immunity to fall in individuals to the point where shingles is now much more common, occurring in young, apparently healthy people. Vaccination has created a new epidemic to which Merck’s response is, ‘we’ve created a market; now let’s make a vaccine to prevent shingles.’

First of all, chickenpox is not nearly as benign a disease in children as Wakefield represents it. It can produce real complications, including:

• bacterial infections of the skin and soft tissues in children including Group A streptococcal infections
• pneumonia
• infection or inflammation of the brain (encephalitis, cerebellar ataxia)
• bleeding problems
• blood stream infections (sepsis)
• dehydration

These complications can be serious enough to require hospitalization and can even cause death in otherwise healthy children. Such complications might not be common, but when large numbers of children get chickenpox, there will be these complications. Aside from that, having the chickenpox is just plain miserable. I got it when I was around seven, and its one of the few things I remember most vividly about that age because it made me so itchy, feverish, and downright sick. I still have a couple of scars from pox that I scratched open. But what’s the suffering of millions of children compared to an antivaccine ideology valuing “natural” immunity?

As for the rest of Wakefield’s argument, Skeptical Raptor does a good job of dismantling the rest of Wakefield’s argument, which is basically antivaccine boilerplate about chickenpox and shingles. First, I agree with the scaly one that it is morally repugnant to use children as a vehicle to immunize adults by maintaining a pool of infected children through not vaccinating, particularly when the cost is that some children will become very sick and some children will even die. Again, antivaccinationists, who wax so morally righteous at the thought that one in a million children receiving vaccines might have a serious adverse reaction seem unconcerned about more children (particularly the immunosuppressed) suffering and even dying to protect adults. More importantly, as our scaly friend put it:

Previously, scientists thought that the potential immune effect against shingles by recurrent chickenpox infections in children would last around 20 years. Based on real immunological and virological data from individuals, a new model of chickenpox vaccine and shingles, developed by the scientists in Belgium, shows that the effect only lasts for about two years.

So, if one could argue that putting children at risk for chickenpox just to protect adults was morally acceptable, the effect is so short-term that adults would essentially need to encounter a constant pool of chickenpox infected children. I swear this sounds like some surreal post-apocalyptic movie running on Netflix.

Of course, nuance is not what Wakefield is about. Fear mongering is. Yes, vaccinating against varicella (the virus that causes chickenpox) could temporarily increase the incidence of shingles in younger adults. However, vaccinated children who don’t get chickenpox, thanks to the vaccine, will never have to worry about getting shingles. These are the sorts of trade-offs that real public health officials, real physicians, and real infectious disease efforts consider while evaluating evidence that ideologues like Wakefield completely ignore.

Andrew Wakefield, Polly Tommey, Del Bigtree, and the rest of Wakefield’s crew might tell themselves they are “vaccine safety advocates,” but in reality they are clearly antivaccine, given that they keep repeating long-discredited misinformation about vaccine efficacy and safety. Unfortunately, they’ve made a vehicle, VAXXED, to peddle those same old lies as old wine in a new skin. Worse, they’re peddling them to populations that can least afford the return of the scourges of the diseases that vaccines have been effectively holding at bay.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1sI9uT2

The Cherry Blossom Classic, Part One [EvolutionBlog]

No Sunday Chess Problem this week, but I do have a good excuse. It’s because I just spent the past few days participating in the Cherry Blossom Classic chess tournament. Enough with made-up chess positions! Sometimes it’s good to experience the real thing.

For about ten years now I’ve been mostly retired from serious chess competition. I’ve never given it up–I read chess magazines and follow the big events–but I haven’t been studying or trying to improve my rating or anything like that. Sure, I would play in the big amateur team event every year, but that’s really a social event where you occasionally interrupt your socializing to play some chess.

However, I’ve managed to notch up some upsets at the team events in recent years, bringing my rating up to the exalted height of 1969. At 2000 you earn the title of “expert.” Since I’ve been competitive against experts for a number of years now, I recently decided it was time to start studying again and see what I could do. I needed 31 rating points to reach my goal. Did I make it? Let’s find out!

First let me mention that this is a real humdinger of a chess tournament. It was held at a Marriott hotel right next to Dulles Airport. The playing conditions were outstanding. The playing rooms were well-lit, and there was plenty of space between the horizontal rows of tables. No crashing into the guy behind you when you take a bathroom break at this tournament. Even better, sets and clocks were provided. No small feat with around three hundred players. And on the top boards they gave us lovely wooden sets and wooden boards to play on. Blundering with such a set hurts double, since such beautiful pieces deserve good moves.

I was nervous going into the event. The rating classes were U2200, and U1900, which made be think I would be one of the lower-rated players in my section. But there are always people who like to play up. So, my first round pairing was actually against someone rated around 1730. I was black. Here’s how the game went:

The first interesting moment came four moves in. White played the exchange variation against my Orthodox Queen’s Gambit. Here’s the position four moves in:

Yawn. The exchange variation is a good choice when you’re facing a higher-rated opponent. You’re not going to lose quickly, that’s for sure. It also takes a lot of the fun out of it for black. In the Orthodox, black accepts a cramped, but solid, position. There is a lot of potential energy in his position, though, and a wrong step by white can lead to a fierce counterattack. The exchange leaves black less cramped, but it is even more difficult than usual to generate active play.

Speaking of which, I might have tried too hard to get something going. Here’s the position with black about to make his eighteenth move:

My little pawn pushes on the king-side were probably ill-advised, since white now has pawn levers to open my position. He has just played 18. g4. I had anticipated this, of course, and I happily replied 18. … Bd6. My knight on f6 is not really hanging, since white’s bishop is pinned. I thought that was clever, until my opponent played 19. f4. I had intended to play 19. … fxg4 at this point, after which I would remind him there were two kings on the board and one of them was his. But I simply forgot that after his bishop was unpinned my knight on f6 really was hanging. No time to take the g-pawn!

Or is there? Frustrated by my analytical lapse, I tried to justify it by looking at the sac with 19. … fxg4 20. Bxf6 Rxe3. Black gets two pawns and lots of play. I looked and looked and looked. But in the end I just couldn’t bring myself to do it.

The computer says it is by far black’s best move. It rates the position as equals-over-plus, which is to say it gives a small edge to black. Drat!

Instead I bit the bullet with 19. … Ne4 20. gxf5 gxf5 21. Rg1+ Bg6 22. Rg2:

This wasn’t going so well, but let’s not panic! The computer says white is just a little better. I now came up with the plan of evacuating my king to the queen-side. The computer approves! Here’s the position after black’s twenty-ninth move:

Compared to the last diagram, black’s pieces have remained stationary while his king has had a little adventure. Three more moves for each side brought about this:

White needs a move here, since Rh5 is a real threat for black. So he went for glory with 33. Rxc6 bxc6 34. Rxc6. I had considered this possibility, but with my famous attention to analytical nuance and detail, I thought 34. … Qb7 just refuted the sac.

But this was a dumb thing to think. After 35. Qd4+ Ka8 36. Rb6, followed by grabbing the d-pawn on the next move, white’s attack is going strong. Black’s rooks are too awkwardly placed to do anything.

The computer has little trouble analyzing this position, and quickly determines that a draw is the correct result. But humans find it more difficult to analyze such things. We shuffled the pieces around for a while. The computer periodically goes berserk as I allowed a win and white then missed it. Consider this, for example:

White could have won instantly with 39. Rd6, followed by Rd7. But he missed it and played 39. Qc5+ instead, after which it is a draw again.

The final interesting moment came with white about to play his forty-ninth move.

He played 49. Rc6 and offered a draw. He needn’t have bothered, since this move actually constituted a three-fold repetition.

I accepted the draw, of course. I also pointed out to him what I noticed almost as soon as I had played my last move. Specifically, that 49. Rxa6 was just a clear win. (The computer points out that Qb3+ is also a win.) White is threatening 50. Ra8 mate, and something like 49. … Qb7 50. Qd6+ Kc8 51. Rc6+ is scarcely an improvement.

My opponent replied that he looked at it, but was afraid of Qc2+ by black. I then showed him that after Kg3, black has no next move. Game over.

He took it in stride, though, and was still happy to get a draw against a much higher-rated player.

So, a pretty poor start to my little quest. Experts have to calculate better than that.

That was actually the Friday night game. By the following morning I had shrugged it off and showed up ready to throw down. My opponent was a little kid who was eye-level with the pieces. He was also sporting an 1870 rating. Since kids at that age tend to improve rapidly, it was a real possibility that he was seriously underrated.

I was white. Here’s what happened.

Four moves in, and we have an amusing line from the Bishop’s opening.

Bent Larsen introduced that funny 4. Qg4 move. It violates some basic principles of chess development, but in this specific context it is a strong move. I have fond memories of this line, since at the amateur team a number of years ago, I beat a grandmaster with it. Really! And no, to answer the question my mother asked when I told her I beat a GM, he was not drunk during the game.

The main point is that black gets into big trouble after 4. … Qf6 5. Nd5 Qxf2+ 6. Kd1, and he has to be very careful just to get out of the opening alive. My opponent was plainly thrown by my move, and went in for a big think. After more than twenty minutes, he played 4. … g6, which is relatively best. (The GM played 4. … Kf8, if you’re curious.) Those dark-squared weaknesses on his king-side are a concession, though.

Let’s cut to the chase. Here’s the position, with white about to play his twenty-second move.

I had just taken a black knight on f4 with a bishop on e3, and he had replied with exf4. For the past ten moves, black had been pretty cavalier about ignoring his development and king safety to push a lot of pawns. Time to punish him! I busted out 22. e5! This is not really a pawn sacrifice, since if black takes twice on e5 white will quickly regain his pawn, with tons of open lines to boot.

The computer says my move is winning, but is not as winning as either d5 or axb5.

Play continued 22. … fxe5 23. dxe5 d5, in a desperate attempt to keep the position closed. But nothing doing! White now lands another hammer blow with 24. axb5. The pin on the a-file guarantees that black must recapture with the c-pawn, leading to this:

I was feeling pretty good about myself. Seriously, look at white’s position! Just look at all the candidate moves! Qb6, Qc5, Qd4, Rad1, e6. Don’t they all look delicious?

I mulled it over for a while, and opted for 25. Rad1. The computer says this is winning, but that Qd4 and e6, in either order, was even more winning.

But I quickly managed to fritter things away! After 25. … Bb7 26. Rd3 0-0-0 27. Rfd1:

black would have been right back in the game with 27. … g4. Happily, he played 27. … Qc6 instead. After this he is losing again.

Let’s skip ahead a bit. Black defended very passively. We reached this position, with white about to play his thirty-seventh move.

That e-pawn is a beast, but how best to bring it home? I played 37. Bg6, which certainly gets the job done readily enough. But the computer quickly pints out the much flashier 37. Qxc6+! The point is that after black takes with his queen, the pin with 38. Be4 just ends the game.

Play continued 37. … Qc8 38. e7 a4 39. Qd8. In the run-up to this position, I spent several minutes making sure that after 39. … Kb7 40. Qxc8+ Kxc8 41. e8Q+ Bxe8 42. Bxe8, I really was winning. It wouldn’t do to have an accident with black’s a-pawn racing down the board. After convincing myself (correctly, according to the computer!) that I could stop the pawn, I went for this line.

But my opponent made life easy for me. He played 39. … Kb8, and after 40. Bf5 he had to resign on the spot:

Boom! Always nice to notch up the first win. My play still left a lot to be desired, though.

What happened next? Stay tuned!

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1O0HZ0Y

No Sunday Chess Problem this week, but I do have a good excuse. It’s because I just spent the past few days participating in the Cherry Blossom Classic chess tournament. Enough with made-up chess positions! Sometimes it’s good to experience the real thing.

For about ten years now I’ve been mostly retired from serious chess competition. I’ve never given it up–I read chess magazines and follow the big events–but I haven’t been studying or trying to improve my rating or anything like that. Sure, I would play in the big amateur team event every year, but that’s really a social event where you occasionally interrupt your socializing to play some chess.

However, I’ve managed to notch up some upsets at the team events in recent years, bringing my rating up to the exalted height of 1969. At 2000 you earn the title of “expert.” Since I’ve been competitive against experts for a number of years now, I recently decided it was time to start studying again and see what I could do. I needed 31 rating points to reach my goal. Did I make it? Let’s find out!

First let me mention that this is a real humdinger of a chess tournament. It was held at a Marriott hotel right next to Dulles Airport. The playing conditions were outstanding. The playing rooms were well-lit, and there was plenty of space between the horizontal rows of tables. No crashing into the guy behind you when you take a bathroom break at this tournament. Even better, sets and clocks were provided. No small feat with around three hundred players. And on the top boards they gave us lovely wooden sets and wooden boards to play on. Blundering with such a set hurts double, since such beautiful pieces deserve good moves.

I was nervous going into the event. The rating classes were U2200, and U1900, which made be think I would be one of the lower-rated players in my section. But there are always people who like to play up. So, my first round pairing was actually against someone rated around 1730. I was black. Here’s how the game went:

The first interesting moment came four moves in. White played the exchange variation against my Orthodox Queen’s Gambit. Here’s the position four moves in:

Yawn. The exchange variation is a good choice when you’re facing a higher-rated opponent. You’re not going to lose quickly, that’s for sure. It also takes a lot of the fun out of it for black. In the Orthodox, black accepts a cramped, but solid, position. There is a lot of potential energy in his position, though, and a wrong step by white can lead to a fierce counterattack. The exchange leaves black less cramped, but it is even more difficult than usual to generate active play.

Speaking of which, I might have tried too hard to get something going. Here’s the position with black about to make his eighteenth move:

My little pawn pushes on the king-side were probably ill-advised, since white now has pawn levers to open my position. He has just played 18. g4. I had anticipated this, of course, and I happily replied 18. … Bd6. My knight on f6 is not really hanging, since white’s bishop is pinned. I thought that was clever, until my opponent played 19. f4. I had intended to play 19. … fxg4 at this point, after which I would remind him there were two kings on the board and one of them was his. But I simply forgot that after his bishop was unpinned my knight on f6 really was hanging. No time to take the g-pawn!

Or is there? Frustrated by my analytical lapse, I tried to justify it by looking at the sac with 19. … fxg4 20. Bxf6 Rxe3. Black gets two pawns and lots of play. I looked and looked and looked. But in the end I just couldn’t bring myself to do it.

The computer says it is by far black’s best move. It rates the position as equals-over-plus, which is to say it gives a small edge to black. Drat!

Instead I bit the bullet with 19. … Ne4 20. gxf5 gxf5 21. Rg1+ Bg6 22. Rg2:

This wasn’t going so well, but let’s not panic! The computer says white is just a little better. I now came up with the plan of evacuating my king to the queen-side. The computer approves! Here’s the position after black’s twenty-ninth move:

Compared to the last diagram, black’s pieces have remained stationary while his king has had a little adventure. Three more moves for each side brought about this:

White needs a move here, since Rh5 is a real threat for black. So he went for glory with 33. Rxc6 bxc6 34. Rxc6. I had considered this possibility, but with my famous attention to analytical nuance and detail, I thought 34. … Qb7 just refuted the sac.

But this was a dumb thing to think. After 35. Qd4+ Ka8 36. Rb6, followed by grabbing the d-pawn on the next move, white’s attack is going strong. Black’s rooks are too awkwardly placed to do anything.

The computer has little trouble analyzing this position, and quickly determines that a draw is the correct result. But humans find it more difficult to analyze such things. We shuffled the pieces around for a while. The computer periodically goes berserk as I allowed a win and white then missed it. Consider this, for example:

White could have won instantly with 39. Rd6, followed by Rd7. But he missed it and played 39. Qc5+ instead, after which it is a draw again.

The final interesting moment came with white about to play his forty-ninth move.

He played 49. Rc6 and offered a draw. He needn’t have bothered, since this move actually constituted a three-fold repetition.

I accepted the draw, of course. I also pointed out to him what I noticed almost as soon as I had played my last move. Specifically, that 49. Rxa6 was just a clear win. (The computer points out that Qb3+ is also a win.) White is threatening 50. Ra8 mate, and something like 49. … Qb7 50. Qd6+ Kc8 51. Rc6+ is scarcely an improvement.

My opponent replied that he looked at it, but was afraid of Qc2+ by black. I then showed him that after Kg3, black has no next move. Game over.

He took it in stride, though, and was still happy to get a draw against a much higher-rated player.

So, a pretty poor start to my little quest. Experts have to calculate better than that.

That was actually the Friday night game. By the following morning I had shrugged it off and showed up ready to throw down. My opponent was a little kid who was eye-level with the pieces. He was also sporting an 1870 rating. Since kids at that age tend to improve rapidly, it was a real possibility that he was seriously underrated.

I was white. Here’s what happened.

Four moves in, and we have an amusing line from the Bishop’s opening.

Bent Larsen introduced that funny 4. Qg4 move. It violates some basic principles of chess development, but in this specific context it is a strong move. I have fond memories of this line, since at the amateur team a number of years ago, I beat a grandmaster with it. Really! And no, to answer the question my mother asked when I told her I beat a GM, he was not drunk during the game.

The main point is that black gets into big trouble after 4. … Qf6 5. Nd5 Qxf2+ 6. Kd1, and he has to be very careful just to get out of the opening alive. My opponent was plainly thrown by my move, and went in for a big think. After more than twenty minutes, he played 4. … g6, which is relatively best. (The GM played 4. … Kf8, if you’re curious.) Those dark-squared weaknesses on his king-side are a concession, though.

Let’s cut to the chase. Here’s the position, with white about to play his twenty-second move.

I had just taken a black knight on f4 with a bishop on e3, and he had replied with exf4. For the past ten moves, black had been pretty cavalier about ignoring his development and king safety to push a lot of pawns. Time to punish him! I busted out 22. e5! This is not really a pawn sacrifice, since if black takes twice on e5 white will quickly regain his pawn, with tons of open lines to boot.

The computer says my move is winning, but is not as winning as either d5 or axb5.

Play continued 22. … fxe5 23. dxe5 d5, in a desperate attempt to keep the position closed. But nothing doing! White now lands another hammer blow with 24. axb5. The pin on the a-file guarantees that black must recapture with the c-pawn, leading to this:

I was feeling pretty good about myself. Seriously, look at white’s position! Just look at all the candidate moves! Qb6, Qc5, Qd4, Rad1, e6. Don’t they all look delicious?

I mulled it over for a while, and opted for 25. Rad1. The computer says this is winning, but that Qd4 and e6, in either order, was even more winning.

But I quickly managed to fritter things away! After 25. … Bb7 26. Rd3 0-0-0 27. Rfd1:

black would have been right back in the game with 27. … g4. Happily, he played 27. … Qc6 instead. After this he is losing again.

Let’s skip ahead a bit. Black defended very passively. We reached this position, with white about to play his thirty-seventh move.

That e-pawn is a beast, but how best to bring it home? I played 37. Bg6, which certainly gets the job done readily enough. But the computer quickly pints out the much flashier 37. Qxc6+! The point is that after black takes with his queen, the pin with 38. Be4 just ends the game.

Play continued 37. … Qc8 38. e7 a4 39. Qd8. In the run-up to this position, I spent several minutes making sure that after 39. … Kb7 40. Qxc8+ Kxc8 41. e8Q+ Bxe8 42. Bxe8, I really was winning. It wouldn’t do to have an accident with black’s a-pawn racing down the board. After convincing myself (correctly, according to the computer!) that I could stop the pawn, I went for this line.

But my opponent made life easy for me. He played 39. … Kb8, and after 40. Bf5 he had to resign on the spot:

Boom! Always nice to notch up the first win. My play still left a lot to be desired, though.

What happened next? Stay tuned!

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1O0HZ0Y

Canadian Library Association National Forum: Readings for Digital Strategy and the Government of Canada [Confessions of a Science Librarian]

I’ll be attending upcoming Canadian Library Association National Forum, a kind of sunset conference as CLA reimagines and recreates itself. The idea is to take the pulse of Canadian librarians on the important issues in the library-related landscape. I’ll be curating the session on Canada’s National Digital Strategy, including presentations by me and two others, Emily Landriault and Bobby Glushko.

The details are below.

 

Digital Strategy and the Government of Canada

Presentation speakers

• Emily Landriault: Open Government and Open Data
• Bobby Glushko: Cyberbullying and Doxing
• John Dupuis: Introduction to Canada’s Digital Strategy

Date: Wednesday June 1st
Time: 3:30PM to 5:00 PM
Room: Joliet

Description:

An Introduction to Canada’s National Digital Strategy

Government digital strategy encompasses a wide range of topics, from fostering digital innovation, to open government data, to privacy and security legislation, to telecommunications policy, to cyberbullying prevention, and Canadian content regulations. Over the last few years of their mandate, the previous Conservative government put policies in place in many of those areas, with their high level strategy outlined in the Digital Canada 150 document.

• Where will the new Liberal government take us?
• Are there any hints as to what their digital strategy might be?
• What previous initiatives will be discontinued and what new initiatives will be created?

Come to this interactive session where expert panelists will touch on a few of the most important areas of Canada’s digital strategy as well as engaging participants in a conversation about how the library community could both move forward on some initiatives of our own as well as influence the government’s direction.

The format of the session with be three 15 minute presentations by the speakers, a short Q&A (10 minutes), followed by individual group discussions at the tables (20 minutes) and finally, the groups reporting back to the room (15 minutes).

Some questions to spark the group discussions:

• What are the most important digital strategy issues and priorities affecting libraries?
• Where are our priorities diverging from the government’s?
• How should libraries, librarians and library associations advocate for change?
• What opportunities can we seize or create?
• What should we advocate for?
• What outcomes are we looking for?

I’ll also note what is out of scope in my session: topics that will be covered by other sessions at the National Forum: Copyright, Digitization and other issues related to Library and Archives Canada.

I’ve written a bit about the Digital Canada 150 policy document here and here. Also relevant and useful are the Ministerial Mandate Letters for the ministers of Heritage, Innovation and Science, all of which are available here.

Digital Canada 150 from 2014 is the closest we have to an active National Digital Strategy, so I’m using the structure of that document to frame my own thoughts and research. Below I have some of the readings I’ve done to prepare for the session.

I hope to see you there! The hashtag is #CLAOtt16. I’ll post my slides once the conference is over.

 

The Five Pillars of Digital Canada 150

 

1. Connecting Canadians (CRTC/Cable TV/Broadband/Wireless Policy)

• Leadership Sorely Needed on Canada’s Broadband Strategy
• Budget 2016: Is It The End of a Canadian Digital Strategy?
• Rejecting Bell’s broadband fight sends a clear signal: The full policy remains a mystery, but developments over the past two weeks suggest that a major change in approach is unlikely.
• CRTC flooded with complaints about new $25 skinny basic TV package
• Bell appeals CRTC ruling forcing company to sell fibre internet access to small ISPs
• Why Mayors John Tory and Jim Watson Are Against Competition for Access to Affordable Fast Broadband
• Broadband internet speeds in Canada as fast as advertised, CRTC finds
• CRTC unveils map of broadband services in Canada
• CRTC chair makes strong call for national broadband strategy
• FCM urges increase in rural broadband access at CRTC hearings
• Unexpected speech from CRTC Chair may signal a change in mood during #TalkBroadband hearing
• Tories’ broadband sell-off hiking wireless prices, says report
• Ottawa’s wireless industry meddling failed consumers, reports finds
• Telecom transparency reporting guidelines need clarity: Geist
• Broadband Spectrum Sell-Off Might Have Made Canadian Wireless Bills More Pricey: Report
• Telecommunications: Ottawa should not intervene in the broadband Internet sector as it has in the wireless sector
• $25 ‘skinny’ TV packages called a ‘ripoff’ as industry ‘stares down’ CRTC
• Kate Taylor: Forcing pick-and-pay TV was a bad move by the CRTC
• Wireless rates rise with hikes in internet, home phone ahead
• Tell the CRTC: All Canadians Deserve Faster, Cheaper Internet Service
• CRTC Announces First Recipients of Prizes for Academic Research

 

2. Protecting Canadians (Cyberbullying/Security/Privacy/Anti-Spam) (Mostly Bobby speaking to this)

• The federal government is selective with its protection of privacy
• Don’t breach encryption warns privacy watcher
• Encryption is crucial to our privacy and freedom
• Why nobody should bet on Trudeau ‘fixing’ C-51
• Liberals planning swift overhaul of controversial Anti-terrorism Act, or Bill C-51
• Interview: Trudeau defends his Anti-Terrorism Act stance
• U.S. takeover of network carrying sensitive federal data raises security concerns
• Five big challenges for our digital rights in 2016
• Are Trudeau’s promised reforms to Bill C-51 ever coming?
• Parliamentary Privacy Committee needs to strengthen Canada’s weak privacy protection legislation

 

3. Economic Opportunities (Innovation/Productivity/Big Data/Intellectual Property Laws, Canada Research Excellence Fund/NRC Transformation/CFI/CANARIE Digital Accelerator/MITACS)

• An innovation strategy, please
• TPP would be disastrous for Canada’s innovators, Jim Balsillie warns
• The Trouble With the TPP, Day 50: The Case Against Ratifying the Trans Pacific Partnership
• Canadian civil servants grooming new minister to repeat Harper’s Internet mistakes
• Canada’s Big Election Issue: The Netflix Tax
• Netflix Taxes and Canadian Digital Issues in the Election Spotlight
• A Made-In-Canada Innovation Strategy: Vital To Harnessing The 4th Industrial Revolution
• Fairness Confirmed: Copyright Board Deals Another Blow to Access Copyright
• NRC ‘solutions’ rebranding quietly dropped without explanation
• Veitch: Why we still need the National Research Council
• Toope: Here’s how we can improve decision-making in the federal government
• Confusion, secrecy reign inside the National Research Council
• ‘Same-old’ innovation policies won’t do: Editorial: If Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains’s ‘innovation agenda’ turns out to be just an updated version of long-established policies, he will have fallen short.
• Canada’s ‘innovation agenda’ isn’t just tech — it’s social
• Navdeep Bains – The Innovation Agenda – Empire Club

 

4. Digital Government (Open Government/Open Data/Open Access/Access to Information) (Emily speaking to this and provide some of the readings)

• Canada’s Action Plan on Open Government
• Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) Progress Report 2014-2015: Canada / Open Government Partnership
• Directive on Open Government
• Government proposals to revitalize access to information
• My presentation on Open Science/Open Data in the government of Canada
• Federal government lagging on online services, documents warn
• Liberals issue openness directive, scrap most Access to Information fees
• ‘Open data’: Why it’s making waves across Canada
• Federal government lagging on online services, documents warn
• The federal government is selective with its protection of privacy
• Federal ‘unmuzzling’ has gone beyond government scientists with scrapping of Harper-era system
• What you need to know about the return of the long-form census

 

5. Canadian Content (Digitization/LAC & Historica & Canadiana.org/NFB Digitization/CRTC/Canadian Content Rules)

• Cancon and regulation: now more than ever: Salutin
• CLA Statement of Transpacific Partnership
• The Trouble With the TPP, Day 29: Cultural Policy Innovation Uncertainty
• Forget a Netflix tax. Here’s how to shake up Canada’s culture: Geist
• Digital Cancon fight could end up as new whine in old bottles: Geist
• Canada’s cultural policies will be adapted for the digital age, says heritage minister
• John Doyle: Welcome to a new nightmare in Cancon policy
• Free advice for Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly
• Have Your Say in Shaping the Future of Canadian Arts Policy
• Canada Council’s strategic plan includes a new fund for creation; more cash for indigenous arts and an emphasis on digital technologies
• Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly urges change at CBC, CRTC to boost Canadian content in digital age
• Heritage minister Mélanie Joly under pressure to protect Quebec television
• Canadian Heritage gives bureaucrats more power over arts funding
• Blowing up the system to save it: Canada’s digitally savvy Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly wants to yank the country’s media business into the twenty-first century. But as Simon Houpt writes, digital disruption has a way of outpacing government policy

 

As usual, if I’ve missed anything important, please let me know in the comments.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1WVaKib

I’ll be attending upcoming Canadian Library Association National Forum, a kind of sunset conference as CLA reimagines and recreates itself. The idea is to take the pulse of Canadian librarians on the important issues in the library-related landscape. I’ll be curating the session on Canada’s National Digital Strategy, including presentations by me and two others, Emily Landriault and Bobby Glushko.

The details are below.

 

Digital Strategy and the Government of Canada

Presentation speakers

• Emily Landriault: Open Government and Open Data
• Bobby Glushko: Cyberbullying and Doxing
• John Dupuis: Introduction to Canada’s Digital Strategy

Date: Wednesday June 1st
Time: 3:30PM to 5:00 PM
Room: Joliet

Description:

An Introduction to Canada’s National Digital Strategy

Government digital strategy encompasses a wide range of topics, from fostering digital innovation, to open government data, to privacy and security legislation, to telecommunications policy, to cyberbullying prevention, and Canadian content regulations. Over the last few years of their mandate, the previous Conservative government put policies in place in many of those areas, with their high level strategy outlined in the Digital Canada 150 document.

• Where will the new Liberal government take us?
• Are there any hints as to what their digital strategy might be?
• What previous initiatives will be discontinued and what new initiatives will be created?

Come to this interactive session where expert panelists will touch on a few of the most important areas of Canada’s digital strategy as well as engaging participants in a conversation about how the library community could both move forward on some initiatives of our own as well as influence the government’s direction.

The format of the session with be three 15 minute presentations by the speakers, a short Q&A (10 minutes), followed by individual group discussions at the tables (20 minutes) and finally, the groups reporting back to the room (15 minutes).

Some questions to spark the group discussions:

• What are the most important digital strategy issues and priorities affecting libraries?
• Where are our priorities diverging from the government’s?
• How should libraries, librarians and library associations advocate for change?
• What opportunities can we seize or create?
• What should we advocate for?
• What outcomes are we looking for?

I’ll also note what is out of scope in my session: topics that will be covered by other sessions at the National Forum: Copyright, Digitization and other issues related to Library and Archives Canada.

I’ve written a bit about the Digital Canada 150 policy document here and here. Also relevant and useful are the Ministerial Mandate Letters for the ministers of Heritage, Innovation and Science, all of which are available here.

Digital Canada 150 from 2014 is the closest we have to an active National Digital Strategy, so I’m using the structure of that document to frame my own thoughts and research. Below I have some of the readings I’ve done to prepare for the session.

I hope to see you there! The hashtag is #CLAOtt16. I’ll post my slides once the conference is over.

 

The Five Pillars of Digital Canada 150

 

1. Connecting Canadians (CRTC/Cable TV/Broadband/Wireless Policy)

• Leadership Sorely Needed on Canada’s Broadband Strategy
• Budget 2016: Is It The End of a Canadian Digital Strategy?
• Rejecting Bell’s broadband fight sends a clear signal: The full policy remains a mystery, but developments over the past two weeks suggest that a major change in approach is unlikely.
• CRTC flooded with complaints about new $25 skinny basic TV package
• Bell appeals CRTC ruling forcing company to sell fibre internet access to small ISPs
• Why Mayors John Tory and Jim Watson Are Against Competition for Access to Affordable Fast Broadband
• Broadband internet speeds in Canada as fast as advertised, CRTC finds
• CRTC unveils map of broadband services in Canada
• CRTC chair makes strong call for national broadband strategy
• FCM urges increase in rural broadband access at CRTC hearings
• Unexpected speech from CRTC Chair may signal a change in mood during #TalkBroadband hearing
• Tories’ broadband sell-off hiking wireless prices, says report
• Ottawa’s wireless industry meddling failed consumers, reports finds
• Telecom transparency reporting guidelines need clarity: Geist
• Broadband Spectrum Sell-Off Might Have Made Canadian Wireless Bills More Pricey: Report
• Telecommunications: Ottawa should not intervene in the broadband Internet sector as it has in the wireless sector
• $25 ‘skinny’ TV packages called a ‘ripoff’ as industry ‘stares down’ CRTC
• Kate Taylor: Forcing pick-and-pay TV was a bad move by the CRTC
• Wireless rates rise with hikes in internet, home phone ahead
• Tell the CRTC: All Canadians Deserve Faster, Cheaper Internet Service
• CRTC Announces First Recipients of Prizes for Academic Research

 

2. Protecting Canadians (Cyberbullying/Security/Privacy/Anti-Spam) (Mostly Bobby speaking to this)

• The federal government is selective with its protection of privacy
• Don’t breach encryption warns privacy watcher
• Encryption is crucial to our privacy and freedom
• Why nobody should bet on Trudeau ‘fixing’ C-51
• Liberals planning swift overhaul of controversial Anti-terrorism Act, or Bill C-51
• Interview: Trudeau defends his Anti-Terrorism Act stance
• U.S. takeover of network carrying sensitive federal data raises security concerns
• Five big challenges for our digital rights in 2016
• Are Trudeau’s promised reforms to Bill C-51 ever coming?
• Parliamentary Privacy Committee needs to strengthen Canada’s weak privacy protection legislation

 

3. Economic Opportunities (Innovation/Productivity/Big Data/Intellectual Property Laws, Canada Research Excellence Fund/NRC Transformation/CFI/CANARIE Digital Accelerator/MITACS)

• An innovation strategy, please
• TPP would be disastrous for Canada’s innovators, Jim Balsillie warns
• The Trouble With the TPP, Day 50: The Case Against Ratifying the Trans Pacific Partnership
• Canadian civil servants grooming new minister to repeat Harper’s Internet mistakes
• Canada’s Big Election Issue: The Netflix Tax
• Netflix Taxes and Canadian Digital Issues in the Election Spotlight
• A Made-In-Canada Innovation Strategy: Vital To Harnessing The 4th Industrial Revolution
• Fairness Confirmed: Copyright Board Deals Another Blow to Access Copyright
• NRC ‘solutions’ rebranding quietly dropped without explanation
• Veitch: Why we still need the National Research Council
• Toope: Here’s how we can improve decision-making in the federal government
• Confusion, secrecy reign inside the National Research Council
• ‘Same-old’ innovation policies won’t do: Editorial: If Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains’s ‘innovation agenda’ turns out to be just an updated version of long-established policies, he will have fallen short.
• Canada’s ‘innovation agenda’ isn’t just tech — it’s social
• Navdeep Bains – The Innovation Agenda – Empire Club

 

4. Digital Government (Open Government/Open Data/Open Access/Access to Information) (Emily speaking to this and provide some of the readings)

• Canada’s Action Plan on Open Government
• Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) Progress Report 2014-2015: Canada / Open Government Partnership
• Directive on Open Government
• Government proposals to revitalize access to information
• My presentation on Open Science/Open Data in the government of Canada
• Federal government lagging on online services, documents warn
• Liberals issue openness directive, scrap most Access to Information fees
• ‘Open data’: Why it’s making waves across Canada
• Federal government lagging on online services, documents warn
• The federal government is selective with its protection of privacy
• Federal ‘unmuzzling’ has gone beyond government scientists with scrapping of Harper-era system
• What you need to know about the return of the long-form census

 

5. Canadian Content (Digitization/LAC & Historica & Canadiana.org/NFB Digitization/CRTC/Canadian Content Rules)

• Cancon and regulation: now more than ever: Salutin
• CLA Statement of Transpacific Partnership
• The Trouble With the TPP, Day 29: Cultural Policy Innovation Uncertainty
• Forget a Netflix tax. Here’s how to shake up Canada’s culture: Geist
• Digital Cancon fight could end up as new whine in old bottles: Geist
• Canada’s cultural policies will be adapted for the digital age, says heritage minister
• John Doyle: Welcome to a new nightmare in Cancon policy
• Free advice for Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly
• Have Your Say in Shaping the Future of Canadian Arts Policy
• Canada Council’s strategic plan includes a new fund for creation; more cash for indigenous arts and an emphasis on digital technologies
• Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly urges change at CBC, CRTC to boost Canadian content in digital age
• Heritage minister Mélanie Joly under pressure to protect Quebec television
• Canadian Heritage gives bureaucrats more power over arts funding
• Blowing up the system to save it: Canada’s digitally savvy Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly wants to yank the country’s media business into the twenty-first century. But as Simon Houpt writes, digital disruption has a way of outpacing government policy

 

As usual, if I’ve missed anything important, please let me know in the comments.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1WVaKib

Fossil Fuel, Wildfire, and Fort McMurray [Page 3.14]

Four weeks after a wildfire began in the Canadian province of Alberta, thousands of structures in Fort McMurray have been destroyed, over 100,000 people have been evacuated, and 2200 square miles have gone up in smoke. The fire has also shut down commercial extraction of tar sands, a source of fossil fuel and the reason for Fort McMurray’s prosperity. Greg Laden points out the perverse cause and effect of it all: tar sands contribute to global warming, global warming contributes to weather variation and drought, drought makes regions extra-vulnerable to wildfire, and wildfire shuts down tar sands extraction. While it’s tempting to think residents of Fort McMurray are ‘getting what they deserve’ for their involvement with fossil fuels, Greg Laden writes “the people of Fort McMurray did not decide to cause climate change.” As John DuPuis says on Confessions of a Science Librarian, “The issues around fossil fuel development that have gotten us into the trouble we’re in are systemic and historic, not in any way directly the fault of the actual people who are caught in this situation.” Thus, the short-term need for disaster relief is independent of the long-term need to stop using fossil fuels.

See also: Ft McMurray Fire and Climate Change: Michael Mann Comments

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/22ufXNR

Four weeks after a wildfire began in the Canadian province of Alberta, thousands of structures in Fort McMurray have been destroyed, over 100,000 people have been evacuated, and 2200 square miles have gone up in smoke. The fire has also shut down commercial extraction of tar sands, a source of fossil fuel and the reason for Fort McMurray’s prosperity. Greg Laden points out the perverse cause and effect of it all: tar sands contribute to global warming, global warming contributes to weather variation and drought, drought makes regions extra-vulnerable to wildfire, and wildfire shuts down tar sands extraction. While it’s tempting to think residents of Fort McMurray are ‘getting what they deserve’ for their involvement with fossil fuels, Greg Laden writes “the people of Fort McMurray did not decide to cause climate change.” As John DuPuis says on Confessions of a Science Librarian, “The issues around fossil fuel development that have gotten us into the trouble we’re in are systemic and historic, not in any way directly the fault of the actual people who are caught in this situation.” Thus, the short-term need for disaster relief is independent of the long-term need to stop using fossil fuels.

See also: Ft McMurray Fire and Climate Change: Michael Mann Comments

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/22ufXNR