As the news has the habit of constantly updating itself, a few of the stories from my previous posts have undergone developments that are worth talking about. So here are summary updates to old posts. I would encourage you to re-read the previous entries, which I will provide links to.
Future Epidemiology
A little under a year ago, I wrote a post The Future of Epidemiology about how climate change and other human influences will affect the spread of disease in the coming decades. Specifically, I talked about how as humans and human infrastructure expand into wildlife habitat, it puts people into closer contact with animals who can transmit new diseases to humans, making these diseases more common. With the emergence of a new strain of monkeypox, we have another potential example of this phenomenon in action. As I’ve discussed more recently, monkeypox infects both humans and several species of small mammal.* As the habitat of these carrier species in parts of West and Central Africa are developed by humans, rates of interaction between humans and these species also increase. Additionally, climate change and human development causes habitat loss, so these animals move into human territory in search of food and living space. The WHO has stated concerns that as the interface between humans and animals becomes more porous, it creates more opportunities for viruses like monkeypox to interact with and adapt to the human immune system to become better at spreading between humans.
Urban Monkeys: BBC NHU/Fredi Devas
None of this is to say that this recent outbreak of monkeypox wouldn’t have happened if it weren’t for climate change or other human factors, that’s impossible to determine. What it does mean is that this outbreak is a good representation of the types of outbreaks we could see more frequently as the climate changes. As contact between humans and animal reservoirs increase, outbreaks of these types of endemic diseases could become more common, which could lead to global outbreaks like this one becoming more common. This outbreak of monkeypox could provide epidemiologists with some insights into what future global outbreaks of these types of diseases could look like. At the very least, it would be wise to invest further research and resources into diseases with significant human/animal interface, a field which is often overlooked due to being relegated to the developing world, in order to mitigate future outbreaks.
On an unrelated note, that particular post also discusses the lab leak conspiracy theory for Covid-19 and why it doesn’t hold water. A recent study effectively put the nail in this coffin by providing irrefutable evidence that Covid-19 originated in the wild. From the beginning, it was known that Covid-19 consisted of two different viral lineages; the same virus, but two ‘families.’ Recent computer modeling confirmed that given the timeline of the pandemic, the virus had to have split into two lineages before it began infecting humans. This would mean that there were two separate instances where Covid-19 was introduced to humans, a scenario which would be unlikely in the case of an accidental lab leak. There would have to be two separate instances where the virus escaped the lab by infecting a scientist or lab technician before managing to spread from one infected person to an entire community. All evidence supports that Covid-19 originated in the wild, split into multiple lineages as it spreads among animals farmed for meat, and was introduced to humans twice through infected meat. While I don’t like debunking conspiracy theories, I feel this is definitive.
International Space Station
A few months ago, I wrote about the International Space Station and how the War in Ukraine and Russia’s subsequent political isolation has led to threats to withdraw from the ISS. Recently the new chief of Roscosmos, Yuri Borislov has stated his intention to pull out of the ISS after 2024. Now, Borislov has gone on to clarify that after 2024 does not mean in 2024. As I said before, the Russian components of the space station are only certified to operate until 2024 and will require inspection and planning to continue using after that. Once these inspections are done, according to Roscosmos, they can decide when they plan to withdraw from the ISS. So ultimately, this recent announcement was a blusterous-but-non-committal way of saying that Russia plans to eventually leave the ISS, just like every other member nation. While NASA has yet to officially comment on any plans for a post-Russia ISS, all of the ISS member nations are planning for the station’s eventual retirement no later than 2031. As I said before, it would seem that Russia’s changing international policy is being folded into these plans, adding new data to the financial and political calculations being made by every member state. How this will affect the station in the long-term won’t be seen for a few years. Hopefully, these transition plans will still be favorable for the continuation of future space travel and research.
All that said, Russia is certainly making their own political calculations toward when they can afford to leave the ISS. It’s safe to assume that Russia would leave the ISS far sooner if it weren’t the crux of their entire space program. With this in mind, Roscosmos recently revealed their plans for their own national space station. When this station would be built and launched hasn’t been announced, but it would likely be closer to the end of the decade. How much of this drive for an independent station is due to the war or due to the ISS’s retirement is debatable (it’s certainly degrees of both), but there’s no debating that a national space station would allow Russia a greater degree of control over its space-based foreign policy. And they’re not the only nation to do this; the People’s Republic of China has operated its own Tiangong space station program since 2011, shortly after the United States refused them entry into the ISS over copyright law concerns. Much of the reason for the ISS’s creation was to split the cost of having a permanently-crewed station in low-earth orbit among multiple nations. As space travel becomes less expensive, space stations launched by one nation or an alliance of a few nations could become the new normal. While this increased presence in space will undoubtedly be a good thing in the long-term for scientific research and humanity as a whole, concerns have been raised that the peaceful cooperation that the ISS represented could be nearing its end and we could be at the dawn of a new space race. The effects this will have on scientific research and international policy, both of which thrive on cooperation, will have to be seen.
Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant
A few months ago, I began a series of three posts on nuclear science in general and nuclear power in particular. My original impetus for this series was news of Russia’s seizure of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant at the beginning of their invasion of Ukraine Now, another Ukrainian nuclear power plant, the Zaporizhzhia plant,is in the news. With a capacity of 5,700 megawatts, the Zaporizhzhia plant is the largest nuclear power plant in Europe. As of March, the plant has been occupied by Russian forces while continuing to be operated by Ukrainian staff under Russian military oversight. There are plans to disconnect the plant from the Ukrainian power grid to reroute power to occupied Crimea and there are reports of the facility being used as a launch site for Russian missiles. In response, Ukrainian forces have targeted the facility with drones, reportedly making an effort to not damage the reactor buildings. Fighting continues in the areas surrounding the plant and in recent weeks, the facility has been damaged by shelling, which both sides blame the other for. Concerns have been raised by the international community about the risk of a nuclear disaster from damaging the reactors.
Fortunately, any such disaster would not be as severe as Chernobyl. I’ve previously discussed the design flaws of the Chernobyl plant and how they were the reason for the severity of the nuclear disaster. The Zaporizhzhia plant doesn’t use RBMK reactors, but instead uses pressurized water reactors that become harder to heat the hotter they get. A runaway reaction that culminates in an explosion of an actively fissioning reactor is all but impossible. Additionally, the Zaporizhzhia plant’s six reactors are housed inside proper containment buildings, so the radiation from a meltdown would be largely contained to the reactor building. Experts agree that if a disaster occurred at Zaporizhzhia, it would be more similar to Fukushima than Chernobyl; a partially contained disaster caused by damage to the plant that causes a localized release of severe radiation but wouldn’t pose a threat to Europe as a whole.
This would of course still be absolutely terrible even if it didn’t threaten the broader region. A meltdown at Zaporizhzhia would irradiate a large portion of southern Ukraine. While no deaths have been linked to the Fukushima meltdown, this was largely due to a well-organized evacuation effort, one which would be much harder to perform in a warzone. How likely such a meltdown might be is still being debated; it should be noted that only two of the six reactors are currently running and according to studies performed after the 9/11 attacks, a containment building can withstand being impacted by a Boeing 767 without causing radiation leaks. But there is a difference between one plane crash and sustained shelling, and there are concerns by experts about plant operators. Reportedly, the Ukrainian operators of the Zaporizhzhia plant have spent the past few months working long hours in a warzone, practically at gunpoint by Russian occupiers. Stabilizing a nuclear reactor on the verge of meltdown is a very technical procedure, so if a meltdown were to begin at Zaporizhzhia, the beleaguered operators of the plant might not be in a good position to prevent catastrophe. Ultimately, while a meltdown at Zaporizhzhia wouldn’t be a massive catastrophe, it would be the worst of many crimes perpetrated against Ukraine and its people.
I may do more of these update posts in the future. Hopefully, there will be more good news to talk about next time.
* Fun fact; despite the name, the most common carrier species for monkeypox in endemic regions of Western and Central Africa are species of African squirrel, not monkeys. Many species of mammal have been confirmed to be susceptible to monkeypox infection, including squirrels, prairie dogs, marmots, hedgehogs, and dogs. While there have been no confirmed cases of this yet, a fear among epidemiologists is that monkeypox could jump from humans to wild animals, creating new reservoirs and thus making monkeypox endemic outside of Western and Central Africa. If you come down with monkeypox and have pets, quarantine from them as well and call a vet if they show symptoms.
Comments