Straw-headed bulbul – credit Michael MK Khor CC 2.0. Flickr
From the sprawling urban city-state of Singapore comes the unlikely story of a critically endangered songbird and a dedicated group of environmentalists helping it thrive as the population collapses overseas.
The straw-headed bulbul is a victim of its beautiful song, which has seen it extirpated from the wilds of Thailand, Myanmar, and Java as poachers capture it for the illegal songbird trade.
But as early as 1990, conservationists, birdwatchers, and government workers in Singapore have taken action on this species’ behalf.
“Whenever I hear its resonant, bubbly song, the forest seems to erupt with life,” conservationist Ho Hua Chew told Smithsonian Magazine.
Because of men like Ho, the peripheral wetlands of Singapore, the offshore island of Pulau Ubin, and the large green spaces in the city state’s interior together play host to 600 straw-headed bulbuls.
Nature Society Singapore, of which Ho was a member, was the first to push for nature protections on Pulau Ubin, the site of an old granite quarry, where nevertheless a concentrated population of these birds could be found.
This resulted in a Nature Area designation for the island in 1993, achieved through advocacy and outreach among millions of Singaporeans.
Smithsonian lists this as an early victory in the history of environmentalism on the cramped peninsular city-state.
After populations had fallen 50% over three generations, the bird was listed as “Endangered” on Singapore’s own Red Data Book, which tracks populations of every plant and animal in the country, the straw-headed bulbul was added to the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act of 2006, a move which reversed the trend, even while populations were collapsing around Southeast Asia.
Today, there is a Straw-Headed Bulbul Working Group, co-led by the National Parks Board and the Nature Society Singapore, which ensures this beautiful warbling bird remains in tip-top condition.
If it were not for the incredible momentum that the work to conserve this bird has had over the years, its future would be alarmingly uncertain. Today, Ho believes that as the Working Group ensures the genetic diversity among the birds is in good shape, and the populations are increasing, the Singaporean straw-headed bulbuls may one day be the only population to draw from to restore populations elsewhere. How Singapore Became an Unexpected Stronghold for a Critically Endangered Bird:
On January 4 this year, a three-metre saltwater crocodile heaved itself out of the water and up the beach. Nothing unusual about that – except this croc was on Legian Beach, one of Bali’s most popular spots. The emaciated reptile later died.
Only four months later, a large crocodile killed a man who was spearfishing with friends in Lombok’s Awang Bay, about 100 kilometres east of Bali. Authorities caught it and transferred it to captivity.
You might not associate crocodiles with Bali. But the saltwater crocodile once roamed most of Indonesia’s waters, and attacks are still common in some regions. I have been collecting records of crocodilian attacks since 2010, as the creator of the worldwide database CrocAttack. What’s new is that they’re beginning to return to areas where they were wiped out.
Does this mean tourists and residents should be wary? It’s unlikely these islands can host anywhere near the same population densities as the wide, fish-filled rivers of Australia’s tropical north. And in Bali, it’s unlikely we’ll see any crocodile recovery because of the importance of beaches to tourism and a high human population.
This 4.6-metre saltwater crocodile was captured in Lombok after the fatal attack in May. Bali Reptile Rescue, CC BY-ND
What happened to Indonesia’s crocodiles?
Saltwater crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus) are also known as estuarine crocodiles, as they prefer to live in mangrove-lined rivers. They’re the largest living reptile, reaching up to seven metres in length – far larger than Indonesia’s famous Komodo dragon, which tops out at three metres.
Crocodiles in Bali and Lombok were killed off by the mid-20th century, and later across Java. But they survived in more remote parts of the island nation.
Salties are now being regularly sighted in Indonesia’s densely populated island of Java, including in seas off Jakarta. At least 70 people are killed by crocs every year across the archipelago, with the highest numbers of attacks being reported from the Bangka-Belitung islands off Sumatra and the provinces of East Kalimantan, East Nusa Tenggara, and Riau.
Are crocodiles returning in numbers?
These incidents means numbers are increasing. But recovery may not be as significant as it seems.
On many Indonesian islands, there’s very limited mangrove habitat suitable for crocodiles, and many creeks and rivers may be naturally too small for more than a small number of them. Even a small population recovery could quickly fill up the croc capacity of estuaries and creeks. These crocodiles are the most territorial of all crocodilians. Dominant males push out smaller male crocodiles, who set out in search of new habitat.
To date, Indonesia’s crocodile surveys reveal mostly small and low-density populations. But even the arrival of a single crocodile into human territory can spark conflict – and threaten the conservation of the species.
Worldwide, saltwater crocodiles are listed as a species of least concern on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, thanks to their full population recovery in parts of northern Australia after hunting was banned in the early 1970s. But in Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam the species is extinct.
You might look at a map and think crocodiles moving back into Bali are coming from Australia. But there is currently no evidence of significant crocodile movement between Australia and Indonesia. It would be a brave crocodile to swim more than 1,000 kilometres from Australia to Bali.
What we are likely witnessing is a crocodile exodus from nearby areas, though we would need to do genetic analysis to prove it. That’s because the surviving croc population centres are much closer than Australia. For Bali and Lombok, crocodiles are likely migrating from the islands to the east, such as Flores, Lembata, Sumba and Timor.
The most likely source of Java’s crocodile arrivals is southern Sumatra, which is less than 30km from Java at its nearest. This area has long been prone to crocodile attacks.
The spike in sightings and attacks suggests we’re going to have to find ways of living alongside these reptiles. The coastal waters and estuaries of Lombok and western Java are now likely home to a small resident population.
What can be done to prevent attacks? First, people have to know that crocs are back. Increasing crocodile awareness and caution is vital to save lives.
Some researchers believe attacks on us and our livestock get more likely if mangroves have been destroyed or fishing grounds fished out. Protecting crocodile habitat and prey species can both secure the future of the species and cut the risk of attacks.
Does it mean you should cancel your next Bali trip? No. While restoration efforts have brought back tracts of mangroves along some coastlines in Bali, the sheer popularity of the island means it’s unlikely any crocodile population will ever be reestablished there.
But we could well see crocodiles slowly return to less populated parts of Java and Lombok. While that may fill us with anxiety, they’re a vital part of the ecosystem. Crocodiles are meant to be there.
The process for releasing the ALPS-treated water (Image: Tepco)
Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) announced it has begun releasing treated water currently stored at the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the ocean. The operation - expected to take up to 30 years to complete - is being closely monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
At the Fukushima Daiichi site, contaminated water - in part used to cool melted nuclear fuel - is treated by the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS), which removes most of the radioactive contamination, with the exception of tritium. This treated water is currently stored in more than 1000 tanks on site. The total tank storage capacity amounts to about 1.37 million cubic metres and all the tanks are expected to reach full capacity in late 2023 or early 2024.
Japan announced in April 2021 it planned to discharge treated water stored at the site into the sea over a period of about 30 years.
On 22 August, the government announced that it had decided to request Tepco begin preparations for the release of ALPS-treated water into the sea.
On the same day, the company transferred a very small amount of ALPS-treated water - about 1 cubic metre - to the dilution facility using the transfer facilities. This water was then diluted with about 1200 cubic metres of seawater and allowed to flow into the discharge vertical shaft (upstream water tank). The water stored in the discharge vertical shaft was then sampled.
"The results showed that the analysis value is approximately equal to the calculated concentration and below 1500 becquerels per litre," Tepco said today. "The sample of the water was also analysed by the Japan Atomic Energy Agency, who confirmed that the analysis value is below 1500 Bq/litre." In comparison, the World Health Organization guideline for drinking water is 10,000 Bq/litre.
Tepco therefore announced it has now moved to the second stage of the water release, the continuous discharge into the sea. At the same time, the company began transmitting data from various points in the process to the IAEA.
"Today at 1.00pm, the seawater transfer pumps will be started up and we will commence the discharge," Tepco said ahead of the process beginning. "During the discharge, one tank group-worth of ALPS-treated water from the measurement/confirmation facility, and the water already stored in the discharge vertical shaft (upper-stream storage) during Stage 1, will be continuously transferred/diluted and discharged into the sea.
"Furthermore, today, the intake/vertical shaft monitors will be put into operation in preparation for the discharge into the sea. We also started uploading real-time data pertaining to the discharge of ALPS-treated water into the sea to our website."
IAEA monitoring
When Japan announced the discharge plan in 2021, it asked the IAEA to review its plans against IAEA safety standards and monitor the release. Neighbouring countries have raised concerns and opposed the planned discharge. An IAEA Task Force was established to implement the assistance to Japan, which included advice from a group of internationally recognised experts from Member States, including members from the region, under the authority of the IAEA Secretariat. The IAEA opened an office at the Fukushima Daiichi plant last month.
"IAEA experts are there on the ground to serve as the eyes of the international community and ensure that the discharge is being carried out as planned consistent with IAEA safety standards," said IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi. "Through our presence, we contribute to generating the necessary confidence that the process is carried out in a safe and transparent way."
The agency, which confirmed that the discharge had begun, noted: "The IAEA's independent on-site analysis confirmed that the tritium concentration in the diluted water that is being discharged is far below the operational limit of 1500 becquerels per litre."
The IAEA said it will have a presence on site for as long as the treated water is released. It also announced the launch of a webpage to provide live data from Japan on the water discharge, including water flow rates, radiation monitoring data and the concentration of tritium after dilution.
The IAEA experts will observe onsite activities related to the ALPS-treated water discharge, including samples and measurements, and will interface with Tepco and officials from Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority. The IAEA will also organise review missions periodically to observe activities on site and to request updates and additional data from Japanese authorities. The IAEA said its independent corroboration activities will also continue during the entirety of the discharge and will involve IAEA laboratories and third-party laboratories.
"All of these activities will work together to provide a comprehensive picture of the activities taking place at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant related to the ALPS-treated water discharge and whether these activities are consistent with relevant international safety standards," said Gustavo Caruso, Director and Coordinator for the ALPS Safety Review at the IAEA and Chair of the Task Force. "The data provided by Tepco, and displayed both by Tepco and IAEA, is just a single piece of the overall monitoring approach and the IAEA's ongoing safety review."Researched and written by World Nuclear News Source: World Nuclear News
A pair of huge earthquakes have struck in Turkey, leaving more than 3,000 people dead and unknown numbers injured or displaced.
The first quake, near Gaziantep close to the Syrian border, measured 7.8 in magnitude and was felt as far away as the UK. The second occurred nine hours later, on what appears to be an intersecting fault, registering a magnitude of 7.5.
Why did this happen? Was it simply the enormous magnitude and violence of the quake, or is the problem with the buildings?
Thousands of years of earthquakes
Earthquakes are common in Turkey, which sits in a very seismically active region where three tectonic plates constantly grind against one another beneath Earth’s surface. Historical records of earthquakes in the region go back at least 2,000 years, to a quake in 17 CE that levelled a dozen towns.
The East Anatolian Fault zone that hosted these earthquakes is at the boundary between the Arabian and Anatolian tectonic plates, which move past each other at approximately 6 to 10 mm per year. The elastic strain that accumulates in this plate boundary zone is released by intermittent earthquakes, which have occurred for millions of years. The recent earthquakes are thus not a surprise.
Despite this well-known seismic hazard, the region contains a lot of vulnerable infrastructure.
Over the past 2,000 years we have learnt a lot about how to construct buildings that can withstand the shaking from even severe earthquakes. However, in reality, there are many factors that influence building construction practices in this region and others worldwide.
Poor construction is a known problem
Many of the collapsed buildings appear to have been built from concrete without adequate seismic reinforcement. Seismic building codes in this region suggest these buildings should be able to sustain strong earthquakes (where the ground accelerates by 30% to 40% of the normal gravity) without incurring this type of complete failure.
The 7.8 and 7.5 earthquakes appear to have caused shaking in the range of 20 to 50% of gravity. A proportion of these buildings thus failed at shaking intensities lower than the “design code”.
A known problem: a collapsed apartment building after the 1999 earthquake in Izmit, Turkey. Hurriyet / AP
In 1999, a huge quake near Izmit saw some 17,000 people dead and as many as 20,000 buildings collapse.
After a quake in 2011 in which hundreds of people died, Turkey’s then prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, blamed shoddy construction for the high death toll, saying: “Municipalities, constructors and supervisors should now see that their negligence amounts to murder.”
Reconstruction
Even though Turkish authorities know many buildings are unsafe in earthquakes, it is still a difficult problem to solve. Many of the buildings are already built, and seismic retrofitting may be expensive or not considered a priority compared to other socio-economic challenges.
However, reconstruction after the quake may present an opportunity to rebuild more safely. In 2019, Turkey adopted new regulations to ensure buildings are better equipped to handle shaking.
While the new rules are welcome, it remains to be seen whether they will lead to genuine improvements in building quality.
In addition to substantive loss of life and infrastructure damage, both earthquakes are likely to have caused a myriad of environmental effects, such as ruptured ground surfaces, liquified soil, and landslides. These effects may render many areas unsafe to rebuild on – so reconstruction efforts should also include planning decisions about what can be built where, to lower future risks.
For now, aftershocks continue to shake the region, and search and rescue efforts continue. Once the dust settles, reconstruction will begin – but will we see stronger buildings, able to withstand the next quake, or more of the same?
Kyushu University professor Kosuke Morita, head of a team of scientists who discovered element 113, points to the superheavy synthetic element on a periodic table at a news conference at the RIKEN institute''s research centre in Wako, Saitama Prefecture, Japan, in this photo taken by Kyodo on June 9, 2016. Reuters
TOKYO: Japanese scientists behind the discovery of element 113, the first atomic element found in Asia — indeed, the first found outside Europe or the United States — have dubbed it "nihonium" after the Japanese-language name for their country.
"I believe the fact that we, in Japan, found one of only 118 known atomic elements gives this discovery great meaning," said Kosuke Morita, a university professor who led the discovery team from the RIKEN Nishina Center for Accelerator-Based Science.
"Another important meaning is that until now, all the elements in the periodic table have been discovered in Europe and the United States," he told a news conference on Thursday.
"There has not been a single atomic element found in Asia, Oceania or Africa."
Element 113 was first found in 2004, and the number refers to its atomic number, or the number of protons in the nucleus of the atom. It does not exist naturally and has had to be synthesised.
Though the element was publicly recognised by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) in December 2015, the name was not announced by IUPAC until Wednesday. It will become permanent after a five-month public review.
If approved, it will join other newly announced elements: moscovium for element 116, tennessine for element 117 and oganesson for element 118.
It will also not be the only element to be named after a country, having been preceded by polonium and francium after the places they were discovered. — Reuters Source: http://www.tribuneindia.com/
Straw-headed bulbul – credit Michael MK Khor CC 2.0. Flickr
.jpg?ext=.jpg)
