Season 17, Episode 48: 3 Ways Space Weather (Possibly) Impacts Your Everyday Life

Hey StarTalkians! Season 17, episode 48 was a sit-down discussion with Neil, Chuck and guest Dr. Lika Guhathakurta, a heliophysicist at NASA. The latter half addressed space weather, coronal mass ejections and the many ways in which the sun can – and does – impact our lives.

Super Solar Storms with Lika Guhathakurta - StarTalk Radio

One of Dr. Guhathakurta’s papers delves into what she calls “everyday” space weather, and overlaps with a lot of the podcast discussion.

Carrington-Like Events

Around 50 minutes into the show, they discuss the so-called “Carrington Event” of 1859, and Dr. Guhathakurta also covers this issue in the paper mentioned above. But as her paper points out, there have been others.

A 1989 space weather event knocked out transformers in New Jersey, the United Kingdom and Quebec, with Quebec also losing power for 9 hours. In 2003, geomagnetic storms caused blackouts in southern Sweden and possibly damaged transformers in South Africa.

3 Everyday Effects of Space Weather

Those events are more dramatic – thankfully, we don’t have that type of thing every day. However, that doesn’t mean space weather doesn’t have everyday impacts.

1: Power Problems

It doesn’t have to be a Carrington-like event for space weather to impact your electricity supply. A paper referenced by Dr. Guhathakurta looked at data on insurance claims for industrial electrical equipment, cross-referenced with space weather conditions. While they struggle to pin down a precise dollar amount for the cost – it’s probably in the billions – they calculate that 500 claims are submitted in the US annually because of space weather.

2: Cosmic Rays During Flights

When you travel by plane, you’re exposed to more cosmic rays – high-energy particles originating in distant events like supernovae. At solar maximum, the sun’s magnetic field actually protects us, but at times of lower solar activity, we’re exposed to more. A study looking at this calculated that flying at high latitudes for 12 and a half hours exposes you to as much radiation as a chest X-ray, or about half that for mid-latitudes.

3: The “Blurry Vision” of Your Satellite Navigation

Dr. Guhathakurta estimates [2] that about a third of the inaccuracy of satellite navigation devices come down to space weather. Irregularities in the ionosphere can refract and scatter their signals, leading to what she calls “blurry vision.” It isn’t a huge effect, but it is definitely something you’ll notice often!  

I should probably drink more coffee

Think coffee is a bad habit? Research actually suggests otherwise. This umbrella review of 218 meta-analyses concludes that 3-4 cups a day is associated with lower risk for heart disease and all-cause mortality. Check out the source to read more!

Hottest place in the galaxy... Oxfordshire?

Any Infinite Monkey Cage listeners here? Was listening to this episode on Fusion, and they talked about a nuclear fusion reactor in Oxfordshire.

As I understand it, to enable fusion, you need an extremely hot environment.

In the Oxfordshire reactor, scientists conducted an experiment with temperatures so high, that it momentarily became the hottest place in the solar system. Hotter than the sun.

How cool is that. And I found this paper, of a particularly well-known experiment using the reactor (scientists were able to generate a record amount of energy from fusion).

Season 17, Episode 49: How Scientists Are Trying to Eliminate Mosquitoes

Hey StarTalkians! Episode 49 of season 17 switched astronomy for entomology, as Neil and Negin sat down with entomologist Dr. Jessica Ware to discuss all things bugs. I was pretty surprised to hear any biologist support the eradication of any species, but Dr. Ware did so for two mosquito species:

It’s Bugs’ World and We’re Just Living In It with Jessica Ware - StarTalk Radio

(from 37 minutes)

She even mentions a couple of methods scientists have tried. But would they work? Why is there apparently little concern about the ecological consequences?

The Mosquitoes That Kill

It’s not all mosquitoes! The Anopheles gambiae complex – actually seven very similar species – and Aedes aegypti are the main vectors for dengue fever, malaria, yellow fever and chikungunya, and therefore a common target of these efforts.

Irradiated Mosquitoes

As Dr. Ware mentioned, one of the most common methods tried so far releases sterile males into the population to mate and reduce the number of offspring in the next generation.

One test of this in Brazil sterilized the males with radiation, and then released them into the wild population using drones. This was effective, and as a different, self-explanatory paper emphasized, “Yes, Irradiated Sterile Male Mosquitoes Can Be Sexually Competitive!”.

The Bacteria Method: Wolbachia to the Rescue?

Another approach Dr. Ware mentioned involves bacteria called Wolbachia pipientis and targets the A. aegypti mosquito. Specifically, if they are infected with some strains, it prevents viruses such as dengue from growing in their bodies.

A randomized trial released wolbachia-infected mosquitoes into 12 randomly-chosen urban subdivisions in Indonesia. The remaining areas continued practicing ordinary mosquito control measures. They checked people with fevers presenting to government-run health clinics to see if it reduced dengue infection.

They found that people in areas with infected mosquitoes were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with dengue (2.3% vs. 9.4%), and were also less likely to be hospitalized.

Would it Effect the Ecosystem?

As a paper looking at this concluded, for the A. gambiae mosquitoes, most predators that eat these mosquitoes would likely easily substitute other food sources if they were removed. While the Wolbachia method would probably be ecologically benign – since the population is maintained – even population reduction in targeted species seem like it would have minimal impact.

Does flying increase cancer risk?

Going on a tangent from another Board. We were talking about "space weather" and landed on the question of "flying and radiation".

Found this literature review found that:

aircrew have higher rates of certain cancers, such as melanoma, non-melanoma skin cancer, and breast cancer in female flight attendants, compared to the general population. However, the evidence does not clearly prove that cosmic ionizing radiation alone causes these cancers, because other factors—like disrupted sleep patterns, lifestyle, and exposure to chemicals—also affect risk.

(Quoting the Credo summary)

To me, it sounds plausible. Flight attendants, pilots, and frequent flyers beware!

Social Media and Child Safety

It was recently reported that Meta was ordered to pay $567M in additional fines for an abatement program in New Mexico due to its failure to warn the public about its platforms' risks to children. The fines were in addition to $375M ordered against Meta for a similar earlier claim in New Mexico. This marks the largest child safety ruling against Meta and will have reverberations for social media companies in the future.

The court case ruled Meta acted as a public nuisance infringing on the health and safety of the public "knowingly" and "without lawful authority". The state built its case around these 10 components:

1. New Mexico is experiencing a youth mental health crisis.

2. Problematic social media use is a cause of the youth mental health crisis.

3. Meta’s platforms are widely used in New Mexico.

4. Meta implemented platform features that were designed to maximize engagement and time spent on its platforms, for all users and for teenage users in particular.

5. Meta’s engagement features encourage and facilitate problematic interactions between adults and children.

6. Harm caused by Meta’s products affects a significant number of people in New Mexico.

7. Although many social media platforms compete for the attention of New Mexico’s youth, Meta’s platforms rely on methods for optimizing engagement that disproportionately impact education and interpersonal relationships

8. Meta and its platforms provide a valuable service in New Mexico despite these harms, and it is not the only social media company impacting youth.

9. Meta knowingly designed its platforms to maximize engagement, including in ways that are harmful to teenagers, and does not adequately disclose the risks of harm to its users.

10. Meta’s conduct is a cause of and significantly contributes to the youth mental health crisis in New Mexico.

Deep dive into evidence of harm towards youth

The court case itself didn't provide any specific papers as far as I can tell, only references to HHS advisories, reports, and internal Meta research. The evidence was built on expert testimony, which the court found strong enough to state:

Even without the evidence and testimony that certain percentages of youth ... would not have those conditions but for social media use, the highly probable result of Meta's engagement optimization practices ... is that such practices would increase anxiety, depression, and sleep deprivation among teenagers.

The experts on both sides provided counter testimony on their view of the connection between social media and harm to youth. Dr. Jean Twenge testified that

most longitudinal studies confirm that adolescents’ social media use leads to depression ... and that experimental studies show that people who eliminate or reduce social media are less lonely and depressed, which further confirms the causal path between social media and teen mental health harms.

While the evidence wasn't listed, a 2022 study Social Media and Mental Health backs this testimony showing that the arrival of Facebook on college campuses lead to worse student mental health. The HHS advisory on Social Media and Youth Mental Health also listed this 2019 JAMA Psychiatry study.

Meta on the other hand pointed to a 2024 consensus report on Social Media and Adolescent Health which pointed to other factors causing overall mental health decline and a complex role social media plays in society.

My take

There does seem to a slew of evidence pointing to correlation between social media and declining mental health with teens and adolescents. Additionally, the ability for online predators to connect to underage minors is also blatant. Arturo Bejar, who worked as Meta’s Senior Director of Engineering in charge of the Protect and Care team stated:

the product is very good at connecting people with interests, and if your interest is little girls, it will be really good at connecting you with little girls.

But I agree with the primary conclusion from the Social Media and Adolescent Health report. There are benefits that are associated with social media including connection to friends and combating isolation, civic engagement, learning, and self expression.
The issue arises when we try to simplify the debate to net benefit or harm. Instead, its better to consider the piecemeal impacts and combat clear harms while retaining clear benefits. I don't think its helpful to see social media as a pure harm, just the same I wouldn't categorize screens and screentime as a pure harm.

Claim: There is No Study Showing that Children Were Protected by the COVID Vaccine

Verdict: False and misleading

“Do you think that the COVID vaccine protected children? [...] Can you show me one study ... that shows that children were protected by the COVID vaccine? [...] that it did more good than harm to children. Can you show me one study that shows that?”

RFK talks vaccines, measles in interview with CNN's Dana Bash – RFK Jr. (from 7:25)

In his recent interview with CNN, RFK Jr. implicitly claimed – via a series of pointed, “gotcha” questions – that there were no studies showing that the COVID-19 vaccine protected children. Explicitly asking about proof “it did more good than harm,” he argued that there is no overall benefit to vaccinating children.

Is he right?

There is Plenty of Evidence that the COVID Vaccine Protects Children

RFK Jr. is absolutely incorrect to imply that no such evidence exists. While most people cannot pull a citation out of their heads on command, that isn’t the same as showing no evidence exists.

A systematic review of such studies was published in JAMA Pediatrics in 2023. It includes data from 15 observational studies and 2 randomized controlled trials focusing on children aged 5 to 11. The total number of participants was almost 11 million vaccinated and over 2.6 million unvaccinated children.

Among other things, this study found a lower risk of any COVID infection (53% reduction), symptomatic COVID infection (47% reduction), hospitalisations due to COVID-related illnesses (68% reduction) and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (95% reduction). It also found a 92% increase in the risk of adverse events, but only a non-significant increase in the risk of adverse events that prevent normal daily activities. 

What He Might Have Meant: The Risk of Myocarditis

This study did find the well-known risk of myocarditis following vaccination in younger people. However, this amounted to 1.3 cases per million after a first dose and 1.8 per million after a second dose.

Of course, this is not something to discount because of low incidence: it’s a legitimate concern.

However, this risk has to be compared to the risks following COVID infection, which is less likely in vaccinated children. A study from the UK found that there was an increased risk of myocarditis or pericarditis in the first 6 months after vaccination (in young people aged between 5 and 18), but noted that the risk is even higher after COVID infection.

Even without considering other risks (see images), it’s clear that the COVID vaccine is safer than COVID itself, even for myocarditis in young people.

Plant-based diet - is it fine?

I'm an occasional vegetarian - for health, and environmental and ethical reasons. I think most would already agree that one can have a complete diet, without meat. Nonetheles, I found this paper useful.

It's a narrative review of evidence. A few helpful takeaways (gleaned from the Credo summary):

• A plant-based diet has health benefits, and is better environmentally.

• A plant-based diet can be complete, but there are some potential drawbacks. E.g. it's harder for the body to absorb certain nutrients from plant sources.

• And so, if you're a vegetarian or vegan, you do have to put in some thought, to ensure your diet is complete. (Though the same could be said of any diet!)

Do plants "fart"?

I had known that plants generally "breathe" and release carbon dioxide at night. But I didn't know that plants also "fart".

Learnt about this listening to this Brains On episode with my kid!

And here's the paper that published the discovery! The findings (from credo paper summary):

The study reveals that many types of terrestrial plants can produce methane under normal oxygen-rich conditions, which was not previously recognized. The authors demonstrate that this methane is formed inside the plant tissues, not by microbes in the soil.

So plants produce methane "farts" in a sense!

(The Brains On hosts were quick to say that despite this, trees/forests are generally carbon sinks i.e. they do not cause global warming 😀)

New Study Suggests Blood Pressure Variability is What Matters for Cognitive Decline

A new study has found a new insight on the relationship between blood pressure and cognitive decline. Since hypertension is a well-established – and controllable – risk factor for cognitive decline, scientists assumed that reducing it is the best strategy. But this seems to be missing a crucial piece of the puzzle.

The Problem: Mixed Results on Lowering Blood Pressure

The new paper points out that different studies disagree about the cognitive benefits of interventions to reduce blood pressure.  

The SPRINT-MIND study recruited people with hypertension but not diabetes. It found a reduced risk of mild cognitive impairment for people on a more intensive blood pressure reduction regimen, but no difference in probable dementia.

Conversely, the ACCORD-MIND trial focused on people with type 2 diabetes and included a similar comparison of a more intensive vs. less intensive blood pressure reduction regimen. In this case, though, there was no difference in cognitive function.

What the New Study Did

The new research [1] pooled data from both of these trials, and analyzed the data again at participant-level. The paper notes that blood pressure variability (BPV) is linked to both cardiovascular events and cognitive decline, and tends to be higher in people with diabetes.

To test whether this is the important factor, researchers looked at BPV between each visit in the original studies. The original researchers used varying cognitive tests, but the authors identified two essentially equivalent measures of psychomotor processing speed among them. They used these to compare results across both studies.

What They Found: Higher Variability, Greater Decline

People with more variability in their blood pressure saw greater cognitive decline over the study period. In particular, those in the highest third of BPV had a faster rate of decline than those in lower thirds. The relationship seemed to be linear: each 10% increment of BPV led to consistently higher levels of decline.

What the Study is Missing

The study only focused on one measure of cognitive decline, rather than a global score. All participants also had a high cardiovascular risk, so the results might not carry over to other populations.

 What Doctors Can Do

One thing the study suggests is optimizing drug selection and timing to reduce BPV where possible. Doctors can also try novel interventions specifically designed to bring down BPV.