More than 200 scientists tell WHO coronavirus is airborne: Report

JUL 06, 2020 NEW YORK: More than 200 scientists from 32 nations have written to the WHO, saying there is evidence that the coronavirus is airborne and even smaller particles can infect people, a significant departure from the UN health agency's claims so far that COVID-19 is spread primarily through coughs and sneezes. A report in The New York Times says that clusters of infections are rising globally as people go back to bars, restaurants, offices, markets and casinos, a trend that increasingly confirms that the virus lingers in the air indoors, infecting those nearby. "...in an open letter to the WHO, 239 scientists in 32 countries have outlined the evidence showing that smaller particles can infect people, and are calling for the agency to revise its recommendations," the report said, adding that the researchers plan to publish their letter in a scientific journal next week. The World Health Organization (WHO) has long held that the coronavirus is spread primarily by large respiratory droplets when an infected person coughs or sneezes. In its latest update dated June 29 on the coronavirus, the WHO said airborne transmission of the virus was possible only after medical procedures that produce aerosols, or droplets smaller than 5 microns. The guidance that the health agency has given to deal with the virus, such as wearing masks, maintaining social distance and frequent handwashing, since the pandemic first broke is based on its claim that the virus spreads through large droplets when an infected person coughs and sneezes. "If airborne transmission is a significant factor in the pandemic, especially in crowded spaces with poor ventilation, the consequences for containment will be significant. Masks may be needed indoors, even in socially-distant settings. Health care workers may need N95 masks that filter out even the smallest respiratory droplets as they care for coronavirus patients," the NYT report said. It said that ventilation systems in schools, nursing homes, residences and businesses may need to minimise recirculating air and add powerful new filters. "Ultraviolet lights may be needed to kill viral particles floating in tiny droplets indoors," it said. WHO's technical lead on infection control Dr Benedetta Allegranzi, however, said in the report that the evidence for the virus spreading by air was unconvincing. "Especially in the last couple of months, we have been stating several times that we consider airborne transmission as possible but certainly not supported by solid or even clear evidence. There is a strong debate on this," she said. Interviews with nearly 20 scientists, including a dozen WHO consultants and several members of the committee that crafted the guidance, and internal emails "paint a picture of an organization that, despite good intentions, is out of step with science," the report said. "Whether carried aloft by large droplets that zoom through the air after a sneeze, or by much smaller exhaled droplets that may glide the length of a room, these experts said, the coronavirus is borne through air and can infect people when inhaled," it said. Experts pointed out that WHO's infection prevention and control committee is "bound by a rigid and overly medicalized view of scientific evidence, is slow and risk-averse in updating its guidance and allows a few conservative voices to shout down dissent". "They'll die defending their view," one longstanding WHO consultant was quoted as saying in the report. The WHO was relying on a dated definition of airborne transmission. The agency believes an airborne pathogen, like the measles virus, has to be highly infectious and to travel long distances, said Linsey Marr, an expert in airborne transmission of viruses at Virginia Tech. WHO's chief scientist Dr Soumya Swaminathan said in the report that agency staff members were trying to evaluate new scientific evidence as fast as possible, but without sacrificing the quality of their review. She said the UN health agency will try to broaden the committees' expertise and communications to make sure everyone is heard. "We take it seriously when journalists or scientists or anyone challenges us and say we can do better than this. We definitely want to do better," she said. As the pandemic spread across the world, a lag by the global health agency in issuing critical guidelines was seen as hampering efforts to control the outbreak. It lagged behind most of its member nations in endorsing face coverings for the public. While many organisations, including The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have long since acknowledged the importance of transmission by people without symptoms, the WHO still maintains that asymptomatic transmission is rare. The NYT report says that many experts said the WHO should embrace what some called a "precautionary principle" and others called "needs and values" - the idea that even without definitive evidence, the agency should assume the worst of the virus, apply common sense and recommend the best protection possible. "There is no incontrovertible proof that SARS-CoV-2 travels or is transmitted significantly by aerosols, but there is absolutely no evidence that it's not," said Dr Trish Greenhalgh, a primary care doctor at the University of Oxford in Britain. "So at the moment we have to make a decision in the face of uncertainty, and my goodness, it's going to be a disastrous decision if we get it wrong. So why not just mask up for a few weeks, just in case?" she said. Copyright © Jammu Links News, Source:  Jammu Links News
Read More........

Extract energy from used nuclear fuel, says environmental group : Waste & Recycling - World Nuclear News

Report author Mark Lynas and RePlanet's Campaigns Coordinator Joel Scott-Halkes hug a canister of nuclear used fuel at the UK's Sizewell nuclear power plant (Image: RePlanet)

If existing inventories of used nuclear fuel were recycled and repurposed as fuel for advanced fast reactors, it could generate zero-carbon electricity for Europe for up to 1000 years, according to international environmental campaign group RePlanet.

In its new report - What a waste: How fast-fission power can provide clean energy from nuclear waste - RePlanet says Europe's nuclear power reactors "have a long history of safe use, and have provided prodigious quantities of clean electricity for decades". However, it notes that they use less than 1% of the actual energy potential in the natural uranium used to make their fuel and irradiated fuel assemblies removed from reactors are considered 'nuclear waste'.

"While this nuclear 'waste' is not a serious environmental or health threat - it occupies trivial volumes compared to waste produced by other industries, and does not harm anyone if properly shielded and safeguarded - it does provide a political challenge, and is among the most oft-cited reasons for continued opposition to carbon-free nuclear power," the report says.

RePlanet says using this used fuel in a new generation of fast-neutron reactors would "eliminate it as a 'waste' concern via a carbon-free waste-to-energy process". It notes that most of the remaining leftover fission products would return to a level of radioactivity comparable to the original uranium ore within 200-300 years. "This means that current deep geological disposal strategies can be simplified and scaled back," it suggests.

The report found that using a calculation based mainly on current inventories of uranium, "there is sufficient energy in nuclear 'waste' to run Europe at current electrical power consumption" for between 600 and 1000 years.

It adds: "If unconventional uranium and thorium resources are considered in the global picture, nuclear fuel is essentially limitless: sufficient to supply a growing human civilisation with carbon-free energy for tens of thousands of years, and likely far longer".

The report notes that while the economics of fast reactors are currently unproven, if resources currently intended for deep geological disposal of used fuel were diverted instead into a fast reactor programme that would enable the re-use of that fuel, "this would turn a burden into a useful part of a legitimate circular economic activity".

Launching the report, RePlanet campaigners call on green parties of Europe to end their "dangerous and unscientific" opposition to nuclear energy. This, it says, is particularly important given the recent release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Synthesis Report, which shows the world is rapidly running out of time to cut carbon emissions sufficiently to meet the Paris goal of 1.5°C. "RePlanet campaigners state that opposition to nuclear is tantamount to climate delayerism from fossil fuel corporations because it will increase carbon emissions".

"Current political narratives treat spent nuclear fuel like it is a waste product that needs to be buried underground, leaving a toxic legacy for future generations," said Mark Lynas, climate author and RePlanet co-founder. "Anti-nuclear campaigners never tire of repeating this mantra in their campaign to shut down nuclear plants irrespective of our climate emergency. However, we show in this RePlanet report that nuclear waste simply needs to be recycled efficiently in order to generate centuries of clean power for Europe and the UK. This material is not waste, it is fuel for the future."

"The IPCC has again made it extremely clear that we just have to get off fossil fuels, and that opposing clean energy technologies like nuclear puts the world on the path to irreversible climate breakdown," said RePlanet Secretary General Karolina Lisslö Gylfe.

RePlanet describes itself as "a network of grassroots charitable organisations driven by science-based solutions to climate change, biodiversity collapse and the need to eliminate poverty".

Read More........