# data[].attributes.body
READ ALL ABOUT IT COLONIZATION ON MARS READ IT NOW

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The colonization of Mars (or settlement of Mars) has received interest from public space agencies and private corporations and has received extensive hypothetical treatment in science fiction writing, film, and art.

Organizations have proposed plans for a human mission to Mars, the first step towards any colonization effort, but no person has set foot on the planet nor have any return journeys been achieved. However, landers and rovers have successfully explored the planetary surface and delivered information about conditions on the ground.

Reasons for colonizing Mars include curiosity, the potential for humans to provide more in-depth observational research than uncrewed rovers, economic interest in its resources, and the possibility that the settlement of other planets could decrease the likelihood of human extinction. Difficulties and hazards include radiation exposure during a trip to Mars and on its surface, toxic soil, low gravity, the isolation that accompanies Mars' distance from Earth, a lack of water, and cold temperatures.

Commitments to researching permanent settlement have been made by public space agencies- NASA, ESA, Roscosmos, ISRO, the CNSA, among others-and private organizations- SpaceX, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing.

Since the 20th century, there have been several proposed human missions to Mars both by government agencies and private companies.

Most of the human mission concepts as currently conceived by national governmental space programs would not be direct precursors to colonization. Programs such as those being tentatively planned by NASA, Roscosmos, and ESA are intended solely as exploration missions, with the establishment of a permanent base possible but not yet the main goal.

Colonization requires the establishment of permanent habitats that have the potential for self-expansion and self-sustenance. Two early proposals for building habitats on Mars are the Mars Direct and the Semi-Direct concepts, advocated by Robert Zubrin, an advocate of the colonization of Mars.

At the February 2017 World Government Summit, the United Arab Emirates announced a plan to establish a settlement on Mars by 2117, led by the Mohammed bin Rashid Space Centre.

SpaceX has proposed the development of Mars transportation infrastructure in order to facilitate the eventual colonization of Mars. The mission architecture includes fully reusable launch vehicles, human-rated spacecraft, on-orbit propellant tankers, rapid-turnaround launch/landing mounts, and local production of rocket fuel on Mars via in situ resource utilization (ISRU). SpaceX's aspirational goal as of 2017 was to land their cargo Starships on Mars by 2024 and the first 2 crewed starships by 2026.

The surface gravity of Mars is just 38% that of Earth. Although microgravity is known to cause health problems such as muscle loss and bone demineralization, it is not known if Martian gravity would have a similar effect. The Mars Gravity Biosatellite was a proposed project designed to learn more about what effect Mars' lower surface gravity would have on humans, but it was cancelled due to a lack of funding.

Mars has a surface area that is 28.4% of Earth's, which is only slightly less than the amount of dry land on Earth (which is 29.2% of Earth's surface). Mars has half the radius of Earth and only one-tenth the mass. This means that it has a smaller volume (~15%) and lower average density than Earth.

Due to the lack of a magnetosphere, solar particle events and cosmic rays can easily reach the Martian surface.

Atmospheric pressure on Mars is far below the Armstrong limit at which people can survive without pressure suits. Since terraforming cannot be expected as a near-term solution, habitable structures on Mars would need to be constructed with pressure vessels similar to spacecraft, capable of containing a pressure between 30 and 100 kPa. The atmosphere is also toxic as most of it consists of carbon dioxide (95% carbon dioxide, 3% nitrogen, 1.6% argon, and traces totaling less than 0.4% of other gases, including oxygen).

This thin atmosphere does not filter out ultraviolet sunlight, which causes instability in the molecular bonds between atoms. For example, ammonia (NH ₃) is not stable in the Martian atmosphere and breaks down after a few hours. Also due to the thinness of the atmosphere, the temperature difference between day and night is much larger than on Earth, typically around 70 °C (125 °F). However, the day/night temperature variation is much lower during dust storms when very little light gets through to the surface even during the day, and instead warms the middle atmosphere.

The climate is much colder than Earth, with mean surface temperatures between 186 and 268 K (−87 and −5 °C; −125 and 23 °F) (depending on the season and latitude). The lowest temperature ever recorded on Earth was 184 K (−89.2 °C, −128.6 °F) in Antarctica.

Because Mars is about 52% farther from the Sun, the amount of solar energy entering its upper atmosphere per unit area (the solar constant) is only around 43.3% of what reaches the Earth's upper atmosphere. However, due to the much thinner atmosphere, a higher fraction of the solar energy reaches the surface as radiation. The maximum solar irradiance on Mars is about 590 W/m ² compared to about 1000 W/m ² at the Earth's surface; optimal conditions on the Martian equator can be compared to those on Devon Island in the Canadian Arctic in June. Mars' orbit is more eccentric than Earth's, increasing temperature and solar constant variations over the course of the Martian year. Mars has no rain and virtually no clouds, so although cold, it is permanently sunny (apart from during dust storms). This means solar panels can always operate at maximum efficiency on dust-free days.

Global dust storms are common throughout the year and can cover the entire planet for weeks, blocking sunlight from reaching the surface. This has been observed to cause temperature drops of 4 °C (7 °F) for several months after the storm. In contrast, the only comparable events on Earth are infrequent large volcanic eruptions such as the Krakatoa event which threw large amounts of ash into the atmosphere in 1883, causing a global temperature drop of around 1 °C (2 °F). These dust storms would affect electricity production from solar panels for long periods, and interfere with communications with Earth.

Mars has an axial tilt of 25.19°, similar to Earth's 23.44°. As a result, Mars has seasons much like Earth, though on average they last nearly twice as long because the Martian year is about 1.88 Earth years. Mars' temperature regime is more similar to Earth's than all other planets' in the solar system. While generally colder than Earth, Mars can have Earth-like temperatures in some areas and at certain times.

The Martian soil is toxic due to relatively high concentrations of chlorine and associated compounds, such as perchlorates, which are hazardous to all known forms of life.

Plants and animals cannot survive the ambient conditions on the surface of Mars. However, some extremophile organisms that survive in hostile conditions on Earth have endured periods of exposure to environments that approximate some of the conditions found on Mars.

The Martian day (or sol) is very close in duration to Earth's. A solar day on Mars is 24 hours, 39 minutes and 35.244 seconds.

Conditions on the surface of Mars are closer to the conditions on Earth in terms of temperature and sunlight than on any other planet or moon, except for the cloud tops of Venus. However, the surface is not hospitable to humans or most known life forms due to the radiation, greatly reduced air pressure, and an atmosphere with only 0.16% oxygen.

In 2012, it was reported that some lichen and cyanobacteria survived and showed remarkable adaptation capacity for photosynthesis after 34 days in simulated Martian conditions in the Mars Simulation Laboratory (MSL) maintained by the German Aerospace Center (DLR). Some scientists think that cyanobacteria could play a role in the development of self-sustainable crewed outposts on Mars. They propose that cyanobacteria could be used directly for various applications, including the production of food, fuel and oxygen, but also indirectly: products from their culture could support the growth of other organisms, opening the way to a wide range of life-support biological processes based on Martian resources.

Humans have explored parts of Earth that match some conditions on Mars. Based on NASA rover data, temperatures on Mars (at low latitudes) are similar to those in Antarctica. The atmospheric pressure at the highest altitudes reached by piloted balloon ascents (35 km (114,000 feet) in 1961, 38 km in 2012) is similar to that on the surface of Mars. However, the pilots were not exposed to the extremely low pressure, as it would have killed them, but seated in a pressurized capsule.

Human survival on Mars would require living in artificial Mars habitats with complex life-support systems. One key aspect of this would be water processing systems. Being made mainly of water, a human being would die in a matter of days without it. Even a 5-8% decrease in total body water causes fatigue and dizziness and a 10% decrease physical and mental impairment (See Dehydration). A person in the UK uses 70-140 litres of water per day on average. Through experience and training, astronauts on the ISS have shown it is possible to use far less, and that around 70% of what is used can be recycled using the ISS water recovery systems. (For instance, half of all water is used during showers.) Similar systems would be needed on Mars but would need to be much more efficient, since regular robotic deliveries of water to Mars would be prohibitively expensive (the ISS is supplied with water four times per year). Potential access to on-site water (frozen or otherwise) via drilling has been investigated by NASA.

Mars presents a hostile environment for human habitation. Different technologies have been developed to assist long-term space exploration and may be adapted for habitation on Mars. The existing record for the longest consecutive space flight is 438 days by cosmonaut Valeri Polyakov, and the most accrued time in space is 878 days by Gennady Padalka. The longest time spent outside the protection of the Earth's Van Allen radiation belt is about 12 days for the Apollo 17 moon landing. This is minor in comparison to the 1100-day journey to Mars and back envisioned by NASA for possibly as early as the year 2028. Scientists have also hypothesized that many different biological functions can be negatively affected by the environment of Mars colonies. Due to higher levels of radiation, there are a multitude of physical side-effects that must be mitigated. In addition, Martian soil contains high levels of toxins which are hazardous to human health.

The difference in gravity may negatively affect human health by weakening bones and muscles. There is also risk of osteoporosis and cardiovascular problems. Current rotations on the International Space Station put astronauts in zero gravity for six months, a comparable length of time to a one-way trip to Mars. This gives researchers the ability to better understand the physical state that astronauts going to Mars would arrive in. Once on Mars, surface gravity is only 38% of that on Earth. Microgravity affects the cardiovascular, musculoskeletal and neurovestibular (central nervous) systems. The cardiovascular effects are complex. On Earth, blood within the body stays 70% below the heart, but in microgravity this is the not case due to nothing pulling the blood down. This can have several negative effects. Once entering into microgravity, the blood pressure in the lower body and legs is significantly reduced. This causes legs to become weak through loss of muscle and bone mass. Astronauts show signs of a puffy face and chicken legs syndrome. After the first day of reentry back to earth, blood samples showed a 17% loss of blood plasma, which contributed to a decline of erythropoietin secretion. On the skeletal system which is important to support our body's posture, long space flight and exposure to microgravity cause demineralization and atrophy of muscles. During re-acclimation, astronauts were observed to have a myriad of symptoms including cold sweats, nausea, vomiting and motion sickness. Returning astronauts also felt disoriented. Journeys to and from Mars being six months is the average time spent at the ISS. Once on Mars with its lesser surface gravity (38% percent of Earth's), these health effects would be a serious concern. Upon return to Earth, recovery from bone loss and atrophy is a long process and the effects of microgravity may never fully reverse.

Because of so much radiation reaching Mars' surface, the planet has lost its inner dynamo despite its far distance from the Sun compared to Earth. Due to this, Mars has a weaker global magnetosphere than Earth does. Combined with a thin atmosphere, this permits a significant amount of ionizing radiation to reach the Martian surface. There are two main types of radiation risks to traveling outside the protection of Earth's atmosphere and magnetosphere: galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and solar energetic particles (SEP). Earth's magnetosphere protects from charged particles from the Sun, and the atmosphere protects against uncharged and highly energetic GCRs. There are ways to mitigate against solar radiation, but without much of an atmosphere, the only solution to the GCR flux is heavy shielding amounting to roughly 15 centimeters of steel, 1 meter of rock, or 3 meters of water, limiting human colonists to living underground most of the time.

The Mars Odyssey spacecraft carries an instrument, the Mars Radiation Environment Experiment (MARIE), to measure the radiation. MARIE found that radiation levels in orbit above Mars are 2.5 times higher than at the International Space Station. The average daily dose was about 220 μGy (22 mrad)-equivalent to 0.08 Gy per year. A three-year exposure to such levels would exceed the safety limits currently adopted by NASA, and the risk of developing cancer due to radiation exposure after a Mars mission could be two times greater than what scientists previously thought. Occasional solar proton events (SPEs) produce much higher doses, as observed in September 2017, when NASA reported radiation levels on the surface of Mars were temporarily doubled, and were associated with an aurora 25-times brighter than any observed earlier, due to a massive, and unexpected, solar storm. Building living quarters underground (possibly in Martian lava tubes) would significantly lower the colonists' exposure to radiation.

Much remains to be learned about space radiation. In 2003, NASA's Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center opened a facility, the NASA Space Radiation Laboratory, at Brookhaven National Laboratory, that employs particle accelerators to simulate space radiation. The facility studies its effects on living organisms, as well as experimenting with shielding techniques. Initially, there was some evidence that this kind of low level, chronic radiation is not quite as dangerous as once thought; and that radiation hormesis occurs. However, results from a 2006 study indicated that protons from cosmic radiation may cause twice as much serious damage to DNA as previously estimated, exposing astronauts to greater risk of cancer and other diseases. As a result of the higher radiation in the Martian environment, the summary report of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee released in 2009 reported that "Mars is not an easy place to visit with existing technology and without a substantial investment of resources." NASA is exploring a variety of alternative techniques and technologies such as deflector shields of plasma to protect astronauts and spacecraft from radiation.

Due to the communication delays, new protocols need to be developed in order to assess crew members' psychological health. Researchers have developed a Martian simulation called HI-SEAS (Hawaii Space Exploration Analog and Simulation) that places scientists in a simulated Martian laboratory to study the psychological effects of isolation, repetitive tasks, and living in close-quarters with other scientists for up to a year at a time. Computer programs are being developed to assist crews with personal and interpersonal issues in absence of direct communication with professionals on Earth. Current suggestions for Mars exploration and colonization are to select individuals who have passed psychological screenings. Psychosocial sessions for the return home are also suggested in order to reorient people to society.

Various works of fiction put forward the idea of terraforming Mars to allow a wide variety of life forms, including humans, to survive unaided on Mars' surface. Some ideas of possible technologies that may be able to contribute to the terraforming of Mars have been conjectured, but none would be able to bring the entire planet into the Earth-like habitat pictured in science fiction.

To be self-sustaining, a colony would have to be large enough to provide all the necessary living services. These include

Ecosystem management: producing appropriate gases, controlling air composition pressure and temperature, collecting and producing water, growing food and processing organic wastes.

Energy production: this includes extracting methane for vehicles and if photovoltaic cells are used to produce energy this would include the extraction and processing of silicates, to augment or replace any original equipment.

Industry: extracting and processing appropriate ores, manufacturing tools and other objects; producing clothes, medicine, glass, ceramics, plastics.

Building: even if the base is constructed before arrival, it will need frequent adaptation according to the evolution of the settlement as well as inevitable replacement.

Social activities: this includes raising children and educating them, health care, preparing meals, cleaning, washing, organizing the work and making decisions. Time for sport, culture and entertainment can be minimized but not eliminated.

As the number of individuals grows, both activities and objects can be shared between them. Growth also will offset the risks of collapse of the society, caused by sudden deaths, accidents, infertility or inbreeding. But this may not prevent mortal combat between different groups of individuals, or the loss of efficiency due to inappropriate social organization.

By mathematical modelling of the time spent by people on these issues and by keeping things simple, Salotti concludes that the minimum number for a colony on Mars is 110. This is close to other studies of the genetic problems involved in the longer journey to Proxima Centauri b (6,000+ years).

Mars requires less energy per unit mass ( delta V) to reach from Earth than any planet except Venus. Using a Hohmann transfer orbit, a trip to Mars requires approximately nine months in space. Modified transfer trajectories that cut the travel time down to four to seven months in space are possible with incrementally higher amounts of energy and fuel compared to a Hohmann transfer orbit, and are in standard use for robotic Mars missions. Shortening the travel time below about six months requires higher delta-v and an increasing amount of fuel, and is difficult with chemical rockets. It could be feasible with advanced spacecraft propulsion technologies, some of which have already been tested to varying levels, such as Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket, and nuclear rockets. In the former case, a trip time of forty days could be attainable, and in the latter, a trip time down to about two weeks. In 2016, a University of California, Santa Barbara scientist said they could further reduce travel time for a small robotic probe to Mars down to "as little as 72 hours" with the use of a laser propelled sail (directed photonic propulsion) system instead of the fuel-based rocket propulsion system.

During the journey the astronauts would be subject to radiation, which would require a means to protect them. Cosmic radiation and solar wind cause DNA damage, which increases the risk of cancer significantly. The effect of long-term travel in interplanetary space is unknown, but scientists estimate an added risk of between 1% and 19% (one estimate is 3.4%) for males to die of cancer because of the radiation during the journey to Mars and back to Earth. For females the probability is higher due to generally larger glandular tissues.

Mars has a surface gravity 0.38 times that of Earth, and the density of its atmosphere is about 0.6% of that on Earth. The relatively strong gravity and the presence of aerodynamic effects make it difficult to land heavy, crewed spacecraft with thrusters only, as was done with the Apollo Moon landings, yet the atmosphere is too thin for aerodynamic effects to be of much help in aerobraking and landing a large vehicle. Landing piloted missions on Mars would require braking and landing systems different from anything used to land crewed spacecraft on the Moon or robotic missions on Mars.

If one assumes carbon nanotube construction material will be available with a strength of 130 GPa (19,000,000 psi) then a space elevator could be built to land people and material on Mars. A space elevator on Phobos (a Martian moon) has also been proposed.

Colonization of Mars would require a wide variety of equipment-both equipment to directly provide services to humans and production equipment used to produce food, propellant, water, energy and breathable oxygen-in order to support human colonization efforts. Required equipment will include:

In order to function at all the colony would need the basic utilities to support human civilization. These would need to be designed to handle the harsh Martian environment and would either have to be serviceable while wearing an EVA suit or housed inside a human habitable environment. For example, if electricity generation systems rely on solar power, large energy storage facilities will also be needed to cover the periods when dust storms block out the sun, and automatic dust removal systems may be needed to avoid human exposure to conditions on the surface. If the colony is to scale beyond a few people, systems will also need to maximise use of local resources to reduce the need for resupply from Earth, for example by recycling water and oxygen and being adapted to be able to use any water found on Mars, whatever form it is in.

Communications with Earth are relatively straightforward during the half- sol when Earth is above the Martian horizon. NASA and ESA included communications relay equipment in several of the Mars orbiters, so Mars already has communications satellites. While these will eventually wear out, additional orbiters with communication relay capability are likely to be launched before any colonization expeditions are mounted.

The one-way communication delay due to the speed of light ranges from about 3 minutes at closest approach (approximated by perihelion of Mars minus aphelion of Earth) to 22 minutes at the largest possible superior conjunction (approximated by aphelion of Mars plus aphelion of Earth). Real-time communication, such as telephone conversations or Internet Relay Chat, between Earth and Mars would be highly impractical due to the long time lags involved. NASA has found that direct communication can be blocked for about two weeks every synodic period, around the time of superior conjunction when the Sun is directly between Mars and Earth, although the actual duration of the communications blackout varies from mission to mission depending on various factors-such as the amount of link margin designed into the communications system, and the minimum data rate that is acceptable from a mission standpoint. In reality most missions at Mars have had communications blackout periods of the order of a month.

A satellite at the or Earth-Sun Lagrangian point could serve as a relay during this period to solve the problem; even a constellation of communications satellites would be a minor expense in the context of a full colonization program. However, the size and power of the equipment needed for these distances make the L4 and L5 locations unrealistic for relay stations, and the inherent stability of these regions, although beneficial in terms of station-keeping, also attracts dust and asteroids, which could pose a risk. Despite that concern, the STEREO probes passed through the L4 and L5 regions without damage in late 2009.

Recent work by the University of Strathclyde's Advanced Space Concepts Laboratory, in collaboration with the European Space Agency, has suggested an alternative relay architecture based on highly non- Keplerian orbits. These are a special kind of orbit produced when continuous low-thrust propulsion, such as that produced from an ion engine or solar sail, modifies the natural trajectory of a spacecraft. Such an orbit would enable continuous communications during solar conjunction by allowing a relay spacecraft to "hover" above Mars, out of the orbital plane of the two planets. Such a relay avoids the problems of satellites stationed at either L4 or L5 by being significantly closer to the surface of Mars while still maintaining continuous communication between the two planets.

The path to a human colony could be prepared by robotic systems such as the Mars Exploration Rovers , Opportunity, and Perseverance. These systems could help locate resources, such as ground water or ice, that would help a colony grow and thrive. The lifetimes of these systems would be years and even decades, and as recent developments in commercial spaceflight have shown, it may be that these systems will involve private as well as government ownership. These robotic systems also have a reduced cost compared with early crewed operations, and have less political risk.

Wired systems might lay the groundwork for early crewed landings and bases, by producing various consumables including fuel, oxidizers, water, and construction materials. Establishing power, communications, shelter, heating, and manufacturing basics can begin with robotic systems, if only as a prelude to crewed operations.

Mars Surveyor 2001 Lander MIP (Mars ISPP Precursor) was to demonstrate manufacture of oxygen from the atmosphere of Mars, and test solar cell technologies and methods of mitigating the effect of Martian dust on the power systems.

Before any people are transported to Mars on the notional 2020s Mars transportation infrastructure envisioned by SpaceX, a number of robotic cargo missions would be undertaken first in order to transport the requisite equipment, habitats and supplies. Equipment that would be necessary would include "machines to produce fertilizer, methane and oxygen from Mars' atmospheric nitrogen and carbon dioxide and the planet's subsurface water ice" as well as construction materials to build transparent domes for initial agricultural areas.

As with early colonies in the New World, economics would be a crucial aspect to a colony's success. The reduced gravity well of Mars and its position in the Solar System may facilitate Mars-Earth trade and may provide an economic rationale for continued settlement of the planet. Given its size and resources, this might eventually be a place to grow food and produce equipment to mine the asteroid belt.

Some early Mars colonies might specialize in developing local resources for Martian consumption, such as water and/or ice. Local resources can also be used in infrastructure construction. One source of Martian ore currently known to be available is metallic iron in the form of nickel-iron meteorites. Iron in this form is more easily extracted than from the iron oxides that cover the planet.

Another main inter-Martian trade good during early colonization could be manure. Assuming that life doesn't exist on Mars, the soil is going to be very poor for growing plants, so manure and other fertilizers will be valued highly in any Martian civilization until the planet changes enough chemically to support growing vegetation on its own.

Solar power is a candidate for power for a Martian colony. Solar insolation (the amount of solar radiation that reaches Mars) is about 42% of that on Earth, since Mars is about 52% farther from the Sun and insolation falls off as the square of distance. But the thin atmosphere would allow almost all of that energy to reach the surface as compared to Earth, where the atmosphere absorbs roughly a quarter of the solar radiation. Sunlight on the surface of Mars would be much like a moderately cloudy day on Earth.

Space colonization on Mars can roughly be said to be possible when the necessary methods of space colonization become cheap enough (such as space access by cheaper launch systems) to meet the cumulative funds that have been gathered for the purpose.

Although there are no immediate prospects for the large amounts of money required for any space colonization to be available given traditional launch costs, there is some prospect of a radical reduction to launch costs in the 2020s, which would consequently lessen the cost of any efforts in that direction. With a published price of US$62 million per launch of up to 22,800 kg (50,300 lb) payload to low Earth orbit or 4,020 kg (8,860 lb) to Mars, SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets are already the "cheapest in the industry". SpaceX's reusable plans include Falcon Heavy and future methane-based launch vehicles including the Starship. If SpaceX is successful in developing the reusable technology, it would be expected to "have a major impact on the cost of access to space", and change the increasingly competitive market in space launch services.

Alternative funding approaches might include the creation of inducement prizes. For example, the 2004 President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy suggested that an inducement prize contest should be established, perhaps by government, for the achievement of space colonization. One example provided was offering a prize to the first organization to place humans on the Moon and sustain them for a fixed period before they return to Earth.

Mars Odyssey found what appear to be natural caves near the volcano Arsia Mons. It has been speculated that settlers could benefit from the shelter that these or similar structures could provide from radiation and micrometeoroids. Geothermal energy is also suspected in the equatorial regions.

Several possible Martian lava tube skylights have been located on the flanks of Arsia Mons. Earth based examples indicate that some should have lengthy passages offering complete protection from radiation and be relatively easy to seal using on-site materials, especially in small subsections.

Hellas Planitia is the lowest lying plain below the Martian geodetic datum. The air pressure is relatively higher in this place when compared to the rest of Mars.

Robotic spacecraft to Mars are required to be sterilized, to have at most 300,000 spores on the exterior of the craft-and more thoroughly sterilized if they contact "special regions" containing water, otherwise there is a risk of contaminating not only the life-detection experiments but possibly the planet itself.

It is impossible to sterilize human missions to this level, as humans are host to typically a hundred trillion microorganisms of thousands of species of the human microbiome, and these cannot be removed while preserving the life of the human. Containment seems the only option, but it is a major challenge in the event of a hard landing (i.e. crash). There have been several planetary workshops on this issue, but with no final guidelines for a way forward yet. Human explorers would also be vulnerable to back contamination to Earth if they become carriers of microorganisms should Mars have life.

Ethical, political and legal challenges

It is unforeseen how the first human landing on Mars will change the current policies regarding the exploration of space and occupancy of celestial bodies. In the 1967 United Nations Outer Space Treaty, it was determined that no country may take claim to space or its inhabitants. Since the planet Mars offers a challenging environment and dangerous obstacles for humans to overcome, the laws and culture on the planet will most likely be very different from those on Earth. With Elon Musk announcing his plans for travel to Mars, it is uncertain how the dynamic of a private company possibly being the first to put a human on Mars will play out on a national and global scale. NASA had to deal with several cuts in funding. During the presidency of Barack Obama, the objective for NASA to reach Mars was pushed to the background. In 2017, president Donald Trump promised to return humans to the Moon and eventually Mars, effectively taking action by increasing NASA budget with $1.1 billion, and mostly focus on the development of the new Space Launch System.

Space colonization in general has been discussed as continuation of imperialism and colonialism, especially regarding Mars colonial decision making and reasons for colonial labor and land exploitation have been questioned with postcolonial critique. Seeing the need for inclusive and democratic participation and implementation of any space and Mars exploration, infrastructure, or colonialization, many have called for dramatic sociological reforms and guarantees to prevent racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice and bigotry.

The narrative of space exploration as a " New Frontier" has been criticized as unreflected continuation of settler colonialism and manifest destiny, continuing the narrative of colonial exploration as fundamental to the assumed human nature.

The predominant perspective of territorial colonization in space has been called surfacism, especially comparing advocacy for colonization of Mars opposed to Venus.

One possible ethical challenge that space travelers might face is that of pregnancy during the trip. According to NASA's policies, it is forbidden for members of the crew to engage in sex in space. NASA wants its crew members to treat each other like coworkers would in a professional environment. A pregnant member on a spacecraft is dangerous to all those aboard. The pregnant woman and child would need additional nutrition from the rations aboard, as well as special treatment and care. The pregnancy would impinge on the pregnant crew member's duties and abilities. It is still not fully known how the environment in a spacecraft would affect the development of a child aboard. It is known however that a fetus would be more susceptible to solar radiation in space, which would likely have a negative effect on its cells and genetics. During a long trip to Mars, it is likely that members of craft may engage in sex due to their stressful and isolated environment.

Mars colonization is advocated by several non-governmental groups for a range of reasons and with varied proposals. One of the oldest groups is the Mars Society who promote a NASA program to accomplish human exploration of Mars and have set up Mars analog research stations in Canada and the United States. Mars to Stay advocates recycling emergency return vehicles into permanent settlements as soon as initial explorers determine permanent habitation is possible.

Elon Musk founded SpaceX with the long-term goal of developing the technologies that will enable a self-sustaining human colony on Mars. Richard Branson, in his lifetime, is "determined to be a part of starting a population on Mars. I think it is absolutely realistic. It will happen... I think over the next 20 years," [from 2012] "we will take literally hundreds of thousands of people to space and that will give us the financial resources to do even bigger things".

Author Robert Zubrin has been a major advocate for Mars exploration and colonization for many years. He is a member of the Mars society and has authored several fiction and nonfiction books about the subject. In 1996 he wrote The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must. He continues to advocate for Mars and space exploration with his most recent book being The Case for Space: How the Revolution in Spaceflight Opens Up a Future of Limitless Possibility.

In June 2013, Buzz Aldrin, American engineer and former astronaut, and the second person to walk on the Moon, wrote an opinion, published in The New York Times, supporting a human mission to Mars and viewing the Moon "not as a destination but more a point of departure, one that places humankind on a trajectory to homestead Mars and become a two-planet species". In August 2015, Aldrin, in association with the Florida Institute of Technology, presented a "master plan", for NASA consideration, for astronauts, with a "tour of duty of ten years", to colonize Mars before the year 2040.

A few instances in fiction provide detailed descriptions of Mars colonization. They include:

''Away'' (2020), published by Netflix

Surviving Mars (2018), developed by Haemimont Games, published by Paradox Interactive

The Expanse (2016-2021) airing originally on Syfy, then Amazon Prime

TerraGenesis (2016) developed by Edgeworks Entertainment, published by Tilting Point

'' Colony One Mars: A SciFi Thriller '' (2016), by Gerald Kilby

The Martian (2011), by Andy Weir (and the 2015 film, directed by Ridley Scott)

Tom and Jerry: Blast Off to Mars (2005) animated science fiction comedy film by Warner Bros. Animation and Turner Entertainment

Red Faction (2001), developed by Volition, published by THQ

Martian Gothic: Unification (2000), developed by Creative Reality for Microsoft Windows and Coyote Developments for PlayStation, published by TalonSoft for Microsoft Windows and Take-Two Interactive for PlayStation

(1985), the Mars trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars, 1992-1996), and The Martians (1999), by Kim Stanley Robinson

The Destruction of Faena (1974), by Alexander Kazantsev

1. ^ Bartels, Meghan (May 25, 2018). "People are calling for a movement to decolonize space-here's why". Newsweek. Robert Zubrin, said that the one word he shies away from is colony, preferring settlement because the first "confuses the issue with imperialism."

2. ^ Haberle, R. M.; McKay, C. P.; Pollack, J. B.; Gwynne, O. E.; Atkinson, D. H.; Appelbaum, J.; Landis, G. A.; Zurek, R. W.; Flood, D. J. (1993). Atmospheric Effects on the Utility of Solar Power on Mars (PDF). Bibcode:1993rnes.book..845H. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 5, 2016.

3. ^ Viorel Badescu (2009). Mars: Prospective Energy and Material Resources. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 83. ISBN 978-3-642-03629-3. Archived from the original on December 21, 2019.

4. Fenton, Lori K.; Geissler, Paul E.; Haberle, Robert M. (2007). "Global warming and climate forcing by recent albedo changes on Mars" (PDF). . 446 (7136): 646-649. Bibcode:2007Natur.446..646F. doi:10.1038/nature05718. PMID 17410170. S2CID 4411643. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 8, 2007.

5. ^ "Can Life exist on Mars?". Mars Academy. ORACLE-ThinkQuest. Archived from the original on February 22, 2001.

6. ^ Badescu, Viorel (2009). Mars: Prospective Energy and Material Resources (illustrated ed.). Springer Science & Business Media. p. 600. ISBN 978-3-642-03629-3. Archived from the original on December 25, 2019. Extract of page 600 Archived April 16, 2017, at the Wayback Machine

7. ^ Landis, Geoffrey A.; Colozza, Anthony; LaMarre, Christopher M. (June 2002). "Atmospheric Flight on Venus" (PDF). Glenn Research Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 16, 2011.

8. ^ de Vera, J.-P.; Kohler, Ulrich (April 26, 2012). "The adaptation potential of extremophiles to Martian surface conditions and its implication for the habitability of Mars" (PDF). Egu General Assembly Conference Abstracts. European Geosciences Union. 14: 2113. Bibcode:2012EGUGA..14.2113D. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 4, 2012.

9. Verseux, Cyprien; Baqué, Mickael; Lehto, Kirsi; de Vera, Jean-Pierre P.; et al. (August 3, 2015). "Sustainable life support on Mars - the potential roles of cyanobacteria". International Journal of Astrobiology. 15 (1): 65-92. Bibcode:2016IJAsB..15...65V. doi:10.1017/S147355041500021X.

10. ^ Mui, K. W., Wong, L. T., & Law, L. Y. (2007). Domestic water consumption benchmark development for Hong Kong. Building Services Engineering Research & Technology, 28(4), 329.

11. ^ "NASA's Journey to Mars - Pioneering Next Steps in Space Exploration" (PDF). NASA. October 2015. Archived (PDF) from the original on August 10, 2019.

12. ^ Aubert AE, Beckers F, Verheyden B. Cardiovascular function and basics of physiology in microgravity. Acta Cardiologica 2005;60(2):129-151.

13. ^ Williams D, Kuipers A, Mukai C, Thirsk R. Acclimation during space flight: effects on human physiology. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 2009;180(13):1317-1323.

14. ^ Heer M, Paloski WH. Space motion sickness: Incidence, etiology, and countermeasures. Autonomic Neuroscience 2006;129(1):77-79.

15. ^ Real Martians: How to Protect Astronauts from Space Radiation on Mars. Archived September 25, 2019, at the Wayback Machine Moon To Mars. NASA. 30 September 2015. Quote: "[...] a trip to interplanetary space carries more radiation risk than working in low-Earth orbit, said Jonathan Pellish, a space radiation engineer at Goddard."

16. "Non-Targeted Effects Models Predict Significantly Higher Mars Mission Cancer Risk than Targeted Effects Models." Francis A. Cucinotta, and Eliedonna Cacao. ^ Nature, Scientific Reports, volume 7, Article number: 1832. 12 May 2017.doi:10.1016/j.lssr.2015.04.002

17. ^ Kerr, Richard (May 31, 2013). "Radiation Will Make Astronauts' Trip to Mars Even Riskier". . 340 (6136): 1031. Bibcode:2013Sci...340.1031K. doi:10.1126/science.340.6136.1031. PMID 23723213.

18. ^ Zeitlin, C.; Hassler, D. M.; Cucinotta, F. A.; Ehresmann, B.; Wimmer-Schweingruber, R. F.; Brinza, D. E.; Kang, S.; Weigle, G.; et al. (May 31, 2013). "Measurements of Energetic Particle Radiation in Transit to Mars on the Mars Science Laboratory". . 340 (6136): 1080-1084. Bibcode:2013Sci...340.1080Z. doi:10.1126/science.1235989. PMID 23723233. S2CID 604569.

19. ^ Smith, Cameron M. (2014). "Estimation of a genetically viable population for multigenerational interstellar voyaging: Review and data for project Hyperion". Acta Astronautica. 97: 16-29. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2013.12.013.

20. ^ Weinstein, Leonard M. (2003). Space Colonization Using Space-Elevators from Phobos (PDF). Space Technology and Applications International Forum - Staif 2003. Vol. 654. pp. 1227-1235. Bibcode:2003AIPC..654.1227W. doi:10.1063/1.1541423. hdl:2060/20030065879. Archived (PDF) from the original on September 27, 2013.

21. ^ Gangale, T. (2005). "MarsSat: Assured Communication with Mars". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1065: 296-310. Bibcode:2005NYASA1065..296G. doi:10.1196/annals.1370.007. PMID 16510416. S2CID 22087209.

22. ^ Kaplan, D.; et al. (1999). "The Mars In-Situ-Propellant-Production Precursor (MIP) Flight Demonstration" (PDF). Workshop on Mars 2001: Integrated Science in Preparation for Sample Return and Human Exploration (991): 54. Bibcode:1999misp.conf...54K. Archived (PDF) from the original on September 27, 2013. Paper presented at Mars 2001: Integrated Science in Preparation for Sample Return and Human Exploration, Lunar and Planetary Institute, Oct. 2-4 1999, Houston, TX.

23. Presented at ^ Concepts and Approaches for Mars Exploration, July 18-20, 2000 Houston, Texas.

24. ^ Gwynne Shotwell (March 21, 2014). Broadcast 2212: Special Edition, interview with Gwynne Shotwell (audio file). The Space Show. Event occurs at 29:45-30:40. 2212. Archived from the original (mp3) on March 22, 2014. would have to throw a bunch of stuff before you start putting people there. ... It is a transportation system between Earth and Mars.

25. ^ "A Journey to Inspire, Innovate, and Discover" (PDF). Report of the President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy. June 2004. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 10, 2012.

26. ^ Fogg, Martyn J. (1997). "The utility of geothermal energy on Mars" (PDF). Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. 49: 403-22. Bibcode:1997JBIS...50..187F. Archived (PDF) from the original on September 27, 2013.

27. ^ Drake, Nadia (November 9, 2018). "We need to change the way we talk about space exploration". National Geographic. Archived from the original on October 16, 2019.

28. ^ "Richard Branson on space travel: "I'm determined to start a population on Mars"". cbsnews.com. September 18, 2012. Archived from the original on June 16, 2019.

Buzz Aldrin and Leonard David (2013). Mission to Mars: My Vision for Space Exploration. National Geographic Books. ISBN 978-1-4262-1017-4. (at BuzzAldrin.com)

Robert Zubrin, The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must, Simon & Schuster/Touchstone, 1996, ISBN 0-684-83550-9

Frank Crossman and Robert Zubrin, editors, On to Mars: Colonizing a New World. Apogee Books Space Series, 2002, ISBN 1-896522-90-4.

Resource Utilization Concepts for MoonMars; By Iris Fleischer, Olivia Haider, Morten W. Hansen, Robert Peckyno, Daniel Rosenberg and Robert E. Guinness; 30 September 2003; IAC Bremen, 2003 (29 Sept-03 Oct 2003) and MoonMars Workshop (26-28 Sept 2003, Bremen). Accessed on 18 January 2010

MARTIAN OUTPOST: The Challenges of Establishing a Human Settlement on Mars Archived June 3, 2016, at the Wayback Machine; by Erik Seedhouse; Praxis Publishing; 2009; ISBN 978-0-387-98190-1. Also see [1], [2]

Ice, mineral-rich soil could support human outpost on Mars; by Sharon Gaudin; 27 June 2008; IDG News Service

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The colonization of Mars (or settlement of Mars) has received interest from public space agencies and private corporations and has received extensive hypothetical treatment in science fiction writing, film, and art. Organizations have proposed plans for a human mission to Mars, the first step towards any colonization effort, but no person has set foot on the planet nor have any return journeys been achieved.

# data[].attributes.body
by Brain Post

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Brains
Everest climbing season is here. Summits are about to be had. Lives are about to be changed forever... for better or for worse.
1. Everest grows 4mm higher every year due to geologic uplift. 2. 1 in 10 successful summits ends in death. 3. Over 4,000 people have attempted to climb Everest. 4. George Everest, Surveyor General of India from 1830 to 1843, discovered Everest in 1841. 5. Mount Everest is also home to a very minute black jumping spider. These spiders hide in crevices and feed on frozen insects. Their food depends largely upon what is blown by the wind into the specific area. They live as high as 22,000 feet. 6. Over 260 people have died on Everest (exact number unknown). 7. In 2014, a 7.8 magnitude earthquake triggered an avalanche that base camp killed 16 Sherpa and climbers and injured 61. This is the greatest tragedy ever seen on Everest.
In 2014, an avalanche killed 16 Sherpa above the Khumbu icefall. At the time this was the worst accident in Everest history.
During 1996, around 15 people lost their lives while trying to descend from the summit of Mount Everest (the 3rd most in one year). In 2012, 11 people perished on Everest (the 4th most). 8. Sir Edmund Hilary and Tenzing Norgay were the first to summit Everest, on May 19 1953. 9. Over 2000 people have reached the top of Everest. 10. There are around 120 dead bodies of climbers on the mountain. 11. Avalanches are the greatest cause of death for climbers scaling Everest (Avalanches at about a 2:1 ratio over falls). 12. The summit is just below the cruising height of a jet. 13. The youngest person to reach summit was 13 and the oldest was 80 (same guy who skied Everest in 1971). 14. In Nepal the mountain is called Sagarmatha, meaning 'forehead of the sky'. 15. In Tibet the mountain is known as Chomolangma for 'mother of the universe' 16. It is the highest mountain in the world at 29,035 feet, although its exact height is often disputed. 17. Everest was created about 60 million years ago.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brain Post: 17 Interesting Facts About Mount Everest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brains Everest climbing season is here. Summits are about to be had. Lives are about to be changed forever... for better or for worse. 1. Everest grows 4mm higher every year due to geologic uplift. 2. 1 in 10 successful summits ends in death. 3. Over 4,000 people have attempted to climb Everest.

# data[].attributes.body
They need to go down.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article originally appeared on VICE UK.

Last week, a flood in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi killed 19 people, with six still missing. Rain caused the Vere River to burst its banks, flooding the city and its zoo, killing animals and allowing others to escape. Initially, all of the zoo's seven tigers and eight lions were thought dead, but last Wednesday a man was killed by an escaped tiger, prompting Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili to criticize zoo officials for providing false information. Two of its three jaguars are thought to be dead, as are 12 of its 14 bears.

According to the Guardian, police have been accused of unnecessarily shooting many of the animals. They were also seen by zoo staff taking selfies beside lions, tigers, and other large animals they had shot. "I couldn't believe what I was seeing," one worker said. "It was like a trophy for them."

Though horrific, a certain element of human tragedy always feels unavoidable in disasters like floods. In densely populated cities, it's almost impossible for people not to get caught up in the wreckage when something goes horribly wrong. However, the presence of wild animals in these disasters feels more avoidable. Leaving aside their deaths and treatment here specifically, that we'd house lions, tigers, and other large animals within roaming distance of a Swatch shop at any time merits questioning, never mind that we do it all over the world, in almost every city, attracting 175 million visitors per year.

I'm no big animal-rights crusader, but I do have some basic common sense. And this basic common sense tells me one thing when it comes to the captivity of wild animals: It's probably not something we should be doing.

Zoos-or, in their original form, menageries-have been around for a staggeringly long time. The oldest that we know of was uncovered in 2009 during excavations in Egypt, where archeologists found evidence of a menagerie dating back to 3500 BC. Until the early 19th century, however, they were mainly representations of royal power, like Louis XIV's menagerie in Versailles. Not until modern zoos began appearing in London, Dublin, and Paris did they focus on educating and entertaining the public.

In line with our improved views on animal rights, zoos have improved in the past 30 years: Cages have mostly been replaced with moats and glass, and the majority now employ full-time vets to administer medication and restrict diets. Positive reinforcement is also the norm, and turning hoses on animals is no longer considered an ethical way to get them to do something. Dart guns, too, are on the wane, after years of causing animals a great deal of stress.

When it comes to certain things, however, there are still irreconcilable differences between zoos, parks, and animals' natural habitats. On the issue of space, the average lion or tiger has 18,000 times less in captivity than it does in the wild; polar bears a million times less. To say this adversely affects the animal is an understatement: In 2008, a government-funded study in the UK discovered there was a welfare concern over every elephant in the country; 75 percent of them were overweight, and only 16 percent could walk normally. African elephants also live three times longer in the wild than they do in captivity, and 40 percent of lion cubs die in zoos, compared with 30 percent in the wild. That may sound like a similar figure, but consider that a third of the reasons they die-predators being a big one-in the wild are absent in zoos.

Thinking that all zoos have improved, then, would be a mistake. In Britain, there have been numerous incidents of abuse, like at Woburn Safari Park, where, in 2010, lions were discovered being left in cramped, unsuitable enclosures for 18 hours a day, and where staff were found training elephants with 4,500-volt electrical goads. There's also Knowsley Safari Park, where, in 2011, photos showed animals being disposed of in trash dumpsters, having been shot by untrained staff members. And in Ireland, at the crisp-related Tayto theme park, bans were put in place in 2013 and 2014 to stop it from acquiring new animals due to "inappropriate breeding," "inadequate" enclosures," and "high levels of aggression and stress among animals."

Worldwide, there have also been dozens of reports of training with goads, inadequate premises, and beatings-but the world's leading zoo association, WAZA (the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums), has yet to expel or condemn any zoo involved.

Psychologically, the effects continue: In the UK, 54 percent of elephants experience behavioral problems, and lions spend 48 percent of their time pacing, a sign of behavioral problems, with animals in captivity frequently displaying this " stereotypy," a repetitive or ritualized behavior caused by the boredom of confinement. Other examples include excessive licking, self-mutilation, and trunk-swinging. Depression is also common among animals if they're harassed by visitors, their food variety is lacking or their need to mate is unmet or delayed.

READ ON MOTHERBOARD: Why Animals Die Prematurely in Zoos

An argument in favor of zoos is their conservation work. A closer look at this, however, reveals what's largely a myth: In reality, fewer than 1 percent of zoo species are part of any serious conservation effort, with many being inbred and having little "genetic integrity" and "no conservation value," according to a 2013 study by Dr. Paul O'Donoghue, a conservation geneticist with the Aspinall Foundation.

Far from reentering animals into the wild, they actually take from it, with 70 percent of Europe's elephants being extracted, along with 79 percent of Britain's aquarium population. In fact, it's been shown that captive populations can actually hinder conservation, with one study saying they give "a false impression that a species is safe, so that destruction of habitat and wild populations can proceed."

Last year, London Zoo spent £5.3 million [$8.3 million] on an enclosure for three gorillas. Conversely, only 3p [$0.05] per visitor can be traced to conservation efforts by aquarium giant Sea Life. The discrepancy between money spent on captive animals and those in the wild is huge, despite it being 50 times more expensive to house animals in zoos than it is to protect them in their natural habitats.

Most ironic, however, in the face of this myth is how many animals zoos kill. Last year, after the giraffe Marius was euthanized at Copenhagen Zoo, it was revealed by EAZA (the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria) that between 3,000 to 5,000 healthy animals are killed across Europe each year.

Another argument in favor of zoos is the education they provide. However, with 41 percent of Britain's aquariums lacking even the most basic information on signs, what can a person possibly learn that they can't from documentaries or YouTube?

Truthfully, zoos are part of a bigger problem: how we relate to our natural environment. We bring our children there and teach them to resent animals if they're not entertaining enough, then bring them home and feed them fish fingers and chicken nuggets-foods pulverized into indistinguishable mush-before wondering why the planet's in such a shitty state.

We're so focused on meeting our basest needs, some ideas we inherited centuries ago, that we can't see the damage we're causing. We need to wake up, finally, and, like Costa Rica has done already, begin the painful process of shutting down zoos.
A zoo in Germany. Photo by A Savin via Wikimedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
All the Reasons Why Zoos Should Be Banned

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I’m no big animal-rights campaigner, but I do trust facts delivered by experts, and the facts tell me that zoos are just a really terrible idea.

# data[].attributes.body
They NEED them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Why Zoos are good for Animals?
Zoos have been the house of entertainment and site of fascination for human beings. It would be good for the wild animals also to be kept in a zoo to protect them from environmental dangers. Zoos are helpful to the animals which do not have proper habitats to survive and those which do not find proper food for their survival. Some baby animals which are left alone without any parental care are also taken into zoos. The animals which are injured are also taken into zoo and treated well. They are made to continue in the zoo if they are no longer able to withstand the forces in the jungle.

Most of the famous zoos are arranged for the welfare of the endangered animals. For those animals which are on the verge of extinction are mostly considered to be protected by the major zoos. The zoos are good to store the animals which have undergone breeding with genetically rich animals. The animals that are going to become extinct are used to improve their race by breeding in the zoos. In Zoos animals are bred taken from various genetic pools and in turn sustain the species that are under extinction. Some places like San Diego zoo has a research team which do field studies as well as laboratory studies to look after the health of animals that are staying in the zoo since a long time.

Zoos are good for animals as they can be used to maintain the conserved species, to share the genetic resources in order to conserve the species. Zoos are helpful to save the wild animal from getting endangered which is a wise step towards restoration of ecosystem. Of course not all the zoos have the facilities to work on restoring the genetic pools. Most of the zoos aid in protecting the injured animals and endangered animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why Zoos are good for Animals? Zoos have been the house of entertainment and site of fascination for human beings. It would be good for the wild animals also to be kept in a zoo to protect them from environmental dangers.

# data[].attributes.body
Should zoos be a thing or not?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Courtesy of Everest Today

A traffic jam of climbers on Everest this season has sparked both outrage and interest in why so many people want to risk their lives to say they've climbed the world's highest mountain.

Reaching the summit of Mount Everest, the highest point in the world at 29,029 feet, has long been an object of fascination for explorers. But in a year that has already claimed amid concerns of overcrowding on the summit-making it the deadliest season since a 2015 avalanche killed at least 17 at Everest's base camp-many are left to wonder: Why do people keep climbing Mount Everest?

"Because it's there," the British mountaineer George Leigh Mallory famously when asked why he was attempting Everest's peak before his 1924 attempt ended in his death.

For others it can be for the status and prestige of saying they've accomplished such a feat or because they're predisposed to risky behavior. To further understand why people attempt the climb each year despite the dangers of going above 26,000 feet-otherwise known as the "death zone"-here are six must-read stories about those who have done it:

What It's Actually Like to Be an Expedition Guide on Mt. Everest

In October 2015, AFAR's deputy editor Jenn Flowers profiled Dawa Gyaljen Sherpa, an expedition guide who had reached the summit of Everest four times by the age of 29. In this Q+A, he details what it takes to become a guide, how he sees climbing as an addiction, as well as the challenges he's seen develop with overcrowding on the mountain over the years.

Tenzing of Everest

For its June 5, 1954, issue, t he sent a reporter to Darjeeling, India, to profile Tenzing Norgay, the Sherpa who with Sir Edmund Hillary became one of the first people to summit Everest in 1953. While Hillary drew most of the international acclaim for the feat, this long read focuses on Norgay (styled Norkay back then) and his life after returning from the top of the world.

The Man Who Knocked the Bastard Off

Shortly after George Leigh Mallory's body was finally found on Everest in 1999, Sir Edmund Hillary granted a rare interview to magazine at the age of 80. In it, he talks about how Everest was more of a beginning than an end to his life of adventure and how his main motivating factors were his stubbornness and his fear of boredom. "All of my life I've been afraid of having nothing to do, having no challenges to meet, being bored," Hillary said. "The whole of my life has been a battle against boredom."

Into Thin Air

In what has become one of the most famous books about climbing Everest, journalist Jon Krakauer details his account of surviving the 1996 disaster that claimed eight lives in one day on the mountain. It all began as an assignment about the commercialization of climbing Everest for magazine; the story of this ill-fated journey has since been developed into two movies: 1997's and 2015's .

The Real Story of Sandy Hill Pittman, Everest's Socialite Climber

Vanity Fair profiled Sandy Hill Pittman, the New York socialite who also survived the 1996 Everest disaster in August 1996. While some argue that she was unfairly painted as one of the villains in Krakauer's story, this feature digs into her reasons for climbing Everest-including a strong desire to be in the media spotlight.

Deliverance From 27,000 Feet

According to the Himalayan Database, around 300 people have died on Mount Everest since Tenzing Norgay and Edmund Hillary first reached its summit in 1953. Because of its famously harsh conditions, an estimated 200 of those bodies remain on the mountain. This New York Times feature details the harrowing efforts of Sherpas to recover the remains of a group of Indian climbers who died on Everest in 2016.
>> Next: You Don't Have to Be a Mountaineer to Hike These Thrilling Routes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Do People Climb Mount Everest? These Riveting Stories Explain the Fascination

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Courtesy of Everest Today A traffic jam of climbers on Everest this season has sparked both outrage and interest in why so many people want to risk their lives to say they've climbed the world's highest mountain. Reaching the summit of Mount Everest, the highest point in the world at 29,029 feet, has long been an object of fascination for explorers.

# data[].attributes.body
watch this to know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Too Much Exercise Does To Your Body And Brain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You have cookies turned off

To use this website, cookies must be enabled in your browser. To enable cookies, follow the instructions for your browser below.
Facebook App: Open links in External Browser
There is a specific issue with the Facebook in-app browser intermittently making requests to websites without cookies that had previously been set. This appears to be a defect in the browser which should be addressed soon. The simplest approach to avoid this problem is to continue to use the Facebook app but not use the in-app browser. This can be done through the following steps:

1. Open the settings menu by clicking the hamburger menu in the top right

2. Choose "App Settings" from the menu

3. Turn on the option "Links Open Externally" (This will use the device's default browser)

Windows
Enabling Cookies in Internet Explorer 9

1. Open the Internet Browser

2. Click Tools (or "gear" icon at top right hand corner) > Internet Options > Privacy > Advanced

3. Check Override automatic cookie handling

4. For First-party Cookies and Third-party Cookies click Accept

5. Click OK and OK

1. Open the Internet Browser

2. Click the Tools button, and then click Internet Options.

3. Click the Privacy tab, and then, under Settings, move the slider to the bottom to allow all cookies, and then click OK.

4. Click OK

Enabling Cookies in Firefox

1. Open the Firefox browser

2. Click Tools > Options > Privacy < Use custom settings for history

3. Check Accept cookies from sites

4. Check Accept third party cookies

5. Select Keep until: they expire

6. Click OK

Enabling Cookies in Google Chrome

1. Open the Google Chrome browser

2. Click Tools icon Or type in Go to chrome://settings/ to the URL window, hit enter

3. Click 'Advanced settings' > Select Privacy > Content settings

4. Check 'Allow local data to be set (recommended)'

5. Click 'Done'

Mac
Enabling Cookies in Firefox

1. Open the Firefox browser

2. Firefox > Preferences

3. Click 'Privacy' tab

4. Under 'History' select Firefox will: 'Use custom settings for history'

5. Check 'Accept cookies from sites' and then check 'Accept third-party cookies'

6. Click OK

Enabling Cookies in Google Chrome

1. Open the Google Chrome browser

2. Chrome > Preferences

3. Click 'Show advanced settings...' at the bottom.

4. Under Privacy select 'Content settings...'

5. Under 'Cookies' select 'Allow local data to be set (recommended)'

6. Click 'OK'

Enabling Cookies in Safari

1. In Safari

2. Safari > Preferences

3. Click 'Privacy' tab

4. Under 'Block cookies' check 'Never'

Enabling Cookies in Mobile Safari (iPhone, iPad)

1. Go to the Home screen by pressing the Home button or by unlocking your phone/iPad

2. Select the Settings icon.

3. Select Safari from the settings menu.

4. Select 'accept cookies' from the safari menu.

5. Select 'from visited' from the accept cookies menu.

6. Press the home button to return the the iPhone home screen.

7. Select the Safari icon to return to Safari.

8. Before the cookie settings change will take effect, Safari must restart. To restart Safari press and hold the Home button (for around five seconds) until the iPhone/iPad display goes blank and the home screen appears.

9. Select the Safari icon to return to Safari.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To use this website, cookies must be enabled in your browser. To enable cookies, follow the instructions for your browser below. Facebook App: Open links in External Browser There is a specific issue with the Facebook in-app browser intermittently making requests to websites without cookies that had previously been set.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should we be keeping animals like killer whales in captivity?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should we be keeping animals like killer whales in captivity?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/the-big-question-should-we-be-keeping-animals-such-as-killer-whales-in-captivity-1911096.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Why are we asking this now?

Because a female trainer, Dawn Brancheau, was killed this week by a captive killer whale which dragged her into its tank at the SeaWorld centre in Orlando, Florida.

Isn't that just a killer whale living up to its name?

Download the new Independent Premium app

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

Well, yes and no. The name killer whale originally came from the fact that these striking, large and fierce animals had been seen to be "killers of whales" - and they do indeed sometimes hunt other whale species in the open ocean (The name biologists increasingly prefer to use is orca, the second half of its scientific name, Orcinus orca).

Yet even though they were feared for centuries - the first known reference is in the Elder Pliny's Natural History in the 1st century AD - there is no established record of orcas killing human beings in the wild, although there have been a few cases of what seem to have been accidental or mistaken attacks.

During Captain Scott's ill-fated expedition to the South Pole a century ago, a killer whale tried to tip over an ice floe on which a photographer was standing with a dog team, but it is thought that the dogs' barking might have sounded enough like seal calls to trigger the animal's hunting instinct.A surfer was bitten in California in the 1970s and a boy who was bathing was bumped by a killer whale in Alaska several years ago, but there have been very few attacks in the wild, and none fatal. In captivity, however, it's a different story.

How so?

There have been quite a few attacks by captive killer whales on their trainers. The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS) says: "It happens more than you think." One source suggested yesterday that since the 1970s, killer whales in captivity have attacked 24 people around the world, and some of these encounters have been fatal.

As recently as last December, a trainer at the Loro Parque animal park on the Spanish island of Tenerife, Alexis Martinez Hernandez, was crushed to death when a stunt he was rehearsing with a 14-year-old killer whale named Keto went wrong. And Tilikum, the animal involved in this week's fatal attack, who was captured from the wild in Iceland, was, with two other orcas, involved in the death of a trainer in Canada in 1991, and then of a man who had sneaked into Florida SeaWorld in 1999 and appears to have fallen into Tilikum's pool.

So why do they attack people in captivity when they don't in the wild?

The answer seems to be captivity-related stress. It's not hard to understand. Killer whales are wild animals. They are strong. They are unpredictable. They are very intelligent, with their own complex communications system. They are very social - in the wild, they live in closely co-operating social groups with maybe 10 to 20 members.

If you take one out of the sea and stick it in a concrete swimming pool for the rest of its life, do you think that will have a benign effect on the animal's personality? What, thanks for all the fish? When you consider the thousands of miles of open ocean though which wild killer whales freely roam - they are dolphins, after all, the biggest members of the dolphin family - ending up in SeaWorld is the orca equivalent of you or me being imprisoned by a lunatic in a cupboard under the stairs.

Many zoos have now recognised that close confinement of big mammals - sticking lions and tigers in cages, and elephants in concrete houses - is entirely wrong and counter-productive. In the 1970s, London Zoo, for example, held a polar bear in a concrete pit which used to pace up and down continually all day long in what was clearly mad despair. (The pit has long since been empty).

But the people who hold the 42 orcas currently in captivity around the world have too big a financial interest in keeping them in anything larger than a bare pool in which they can perform cheesy stunts for the benefit of paying tourists. And what happens is - to use the vernacular - that it does their heads in. If you think this is just opinionating, look at the mortality figures.

What do they show?

There is an increasing amount of data on orcas in the wild, especially from western Canada, where they have been studied for decades, and it is clear that in their natural state their lifespan is something similar to that of humans. They tend to live up to 50 years, but there are cases of some of the females surviving much longer, perhaps even to 80 and beyond.

In captivity the picture is very different. The figures are known precisely. According to the WDCS, there have been 136 killer whales captured in the wild and held in captivity since the first one in 1961, of which 123 have now died, and the average survival time is four years.

It is thought that the stress of captivity lowers their resistance to disease. And it clearly also alters their behaviour, leading among other things to unpredictable aggression. (The very first one to be captured, by the way, the 1961 animal, a small female taken in Californian waters, lasted one day. She died after repeatedly swimming around her pool at high speed, ramming into the sides of the tank).

So what should happen now?

Animal welfare campaigners and many biologists think that orcas should simply not be held in captivity. They should be freed, all of them. Unfortunately, it's not a simple business - you can't just chuck them back like a fish you might have caught. You would have to transfer them to pens in the sea, for them to be rehabituated to the wild, and then there is the question of whether or not they could rejoin the family pod from which there are taken.

The experience of Keiko, the orca who starred in the three Free Willy movies, shows how difficult it is - when he eventually was freed in 2002 he was never able to find a pod and only lasted 18 months, before dying off the coast of Norway.

But even if there can only be a halfway house - returning captive orcas to sea pens where they could be cared for - it is very likely preferable to a life of balancing a ball on your nose in front of 5,000 popcorn chewers.

Is freedom for captive killer whales likely?

Well, just so you know, no fewer than 21 of the world total of 42 orcas held in captivity are kept in the three US aquaria run by SeaWorld, which was part of the "entertainment business" of the giant brewing company Anheuser Busch until it was sold for $2.7bn last October to the New York private equity business Blackstone. Big bucks, big bucks. Freedom? What do you think?

Is it right to trap such wildlife in artificial environments?

Yes...

* They can perform a useful educational function for adults and especially for children, who may become supporters of conservation.

* Captive breeding, where it is possible, may be a lifeline for species which are threatened with extinction.

* Modern methods of keeping animals - in some cases -are much better than they were a few years ago

No...

* Many big animals, orcas perhaps above all, are far too large and have too large a range in the wild to be held in narrow confinement.

* They clearly suffer from captivity-related stress which makes them susceptible to disease and shortens their lives.

* They may become aggressive and become a danger to their keepers as recent fatalities have illustrated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Big Question: Should we be keeping animals such as killer whales

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why are we asking this now? Because a female trainer, Dawn Brancheau, was killed this week by a captive killer whale which dragged her into its tank at the SeaWorld centre in Orlando, Florida. Isn't that just a killer whale living up to its name?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sharks can no longer be culled on the Great Barrier Reef after a landmark court ruling overturned an Australian government culling scheme.

Campaigners had fought to end the practice of killing sharks, which is meant to reduce the risk of attacks in the region.

Nearly 200 defensive fishing lines are used in Queensland to kill them, and while many sharks drown after being caught on these lines, others are found alive and shot.

Download the new Independent Premium app

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

However, the tribunal found "overwhelming" evidence that killing the predatory fish does not reduce the risk of unprovoked shark interactions.

Its judgement stated: "It is plain from the evidence given in these proceedings that Queensland's lethal shark control programme is out of step with national and international developments."

Lawrence Chlebeck, marine campaigner at Humane Society International, said: "Since the 1960s, sharks have been shot dead in the Great Barrier Reef. Today this has ended. This is a massive victory for sharks and marine wildlife."

The ruling concluded that sharks can no longer be killed by gunshot except on "welfare grounds".

It also stated that hooks must be checked more frequently, and any tiger, bull or great white shark found on them must be tagged before being released alive offshore.

Finally, the tribunal ordered the rollout of non-lethal fishing lines and other methods that will allow the fish to be removed without harming them.

"The judgement makes it crystal clear that non-lethal technology is the way forward for shark control in the Great Barrier Reef," said Mr Chlebeck.

"As a result of this judgement, finding that killing sharks has no impact on bather safety, HSI calls on the Queensland government to update its shark management program along the whole Queensland coast."

Since 2016, more than 500 sharks have died as a result of prevention measures in the region. The court found tiger sharks had undergone a serious decline.

Authorities told local news sources they were reviewing the decision made by the court.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shark culling banned on Great Barrier Reef after campaigners win landmark court ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sharks can no longer be culled on the Great Barrier Reef after a landmark court ruling overturned an Australian government culling scheme. Campaigners had fought to end the practice of killing sharks, which is meant to reduce the risk of attacks in the region.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sharks can no longer be culled on the Great Barrier Reef after a landmark court ruling overturned an Australian government culling scheme.

Campaigners had fought to end the practice of killing sharks, which is meant to reduce the risk of attacks in the region.

Nearly 200 defensive fishing lines are used in Queensland to kill them, and while many sharks drown after being caught on these lines, others are found alive and shot.

Download the new Independent Premium app

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

However, the tribunal found "overwhelming" evidence that killing the predatory fish does not reduce the risk of unprovoked shark interactions.

Its judgement stated: "It is plain from the evidence given in these proceedings that Queensland's lethal shark control programme is out of step with national and international developments."

Lawrence Chlebeck, marine campaigner at Humane Society International, said: "Since the 1960s, sharks have been shot dead in the Great Barrier Reef. Today this has ended. This is a massive victory for sharks and marine wildlife."

The ruling concluded that sharks can no longer be killed by gunshot except on "welfare grounds".

It also stated that hooks must be checked more frequently, and any tiger, bull or great white shark found on them must be tagged before being released alive offshore.

Finally, the tribunal ordered the rollout of non-lethal fishing lines and other methods that will allow the fish to be removed without harming them.

"The judgement makes it crystal clear that non-lethal technology is the way forward for shark control in the Great Barrier Reef," said Mr Chlebeck.

"As a result of this judgement, finding that killing sharks has no impact on bather safety, HSI calls on the Queensland government to update its shark management program along the whole Queensland coast."

Since 2016, more than 500 sharks have died as a result of prevention measures in the region. The court found tiger sharks had undergone a serious decline.

Authorities told local news sources they were reviewing the decision made by the court.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shark culling banned on Great Barrier Reef after campaigners win landmark court ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sharks can no longer be culled on the Great Barrier Reef after a landmark court ruling overturned an Australian government culling scheme. Campaigners had fought to end the practice of killing sharks, which is meant to reduce the risk of attacks in the region.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sharks can no longer be culled on the Great Barrier Reef after a landmark court ruling overturned an Australian government culling scheme.

Campaigners had fought to end the practice of killing sharks, which is meant to reduce the risk of attacks in the region.

Nearly 200 defensive fishing lines are used in Queensland to kill them, and while many sharks drown after being caught on these lines, others are found alive and shot.

Download the new Independent Premium app

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

However, the tribunal found "overwhelming" evidence that killing the predatory fish does not reduce the risk of unprovoked shark interactions.

Its judgement stated: "It is plain from the evidence given in these proceedings that Queensland's lethal shark control programme is out of step with national and international developments."

Lawrence Chlebeck, marine campaigner at Humane Society International, said: "Since the 1960s, sharks have been shot dead in the Great Barrier Reef. Today this has ended. This is a massive victory for sharks and marine wildlife."

The ruling concluded that sharks can no longer be killed by gunshot except on "welfare grounds".

It also stated that hooks must be checked more frequently, and any tiger, bull or great white shark found on them must be tagged before being released alive offshore.

Finally, the tribunal ordered the rollout of non-lethal fishing lines and other methods that will allow the fish to be removed without harming them.

"The judgement makes it crystal clear that non-lethal technology is the way forward for shark control in the Great Barrier Reef," said Mr Chlebeck.

"As a result of this judgement, finding that killing sharks has no impact on bather safety, HSI calls on the Queensland government to update its shark management program along the whole Queensland coast."

Since 2016, more than 500 sharks have died as a result of prevention measures in the region. The court found tiger sharks had undergone a serious decline.

Authorities told local news sources they were reviewing the decision made by the court.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shark culling banned on Great Barrier Reef after campaigners win landmark court ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sharks can no longer be culled on the Great Barrier Reef after a landmark court ruling overturned an Australian government culling scheme. Campaigners had fought to end the practice of killing sharks, which is meant to reduce the risk of attacks in the region.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sharks can no longer be culled on the Great Barrier Reef after a landmark court ruling overturned an Australian government culling scheme.

Campaigners had fought to end the practice of killing sharks, which is meant to reduce the risk of attacks in the region.

Nearly 200 defensive fishing lines are used in Queensland to kill them, and while many sharks drown after being caught on these lines, others are found alive and shot.

Download the new Independent Premium app

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

However, the tribunal found "overwhelming" evidence that killing the predatory fish does not reduce the risk of unprovoked shark interactions.

Its judgement stated: "It is plain from the evidence given in these proceedings that Queensland's lethal shark control programme is out of step with national and international developments."

Lawrence Chlebeck, marine campaigner at Humane Society International, said: "Since the 1960s, sharks have been shot dead in the Great Barrier Reef. Today this has ended. This is a massive victory for sharks and marine wildlife."

The ruling concluded that sharks can no longer be killed by gunshot except on "welfare grounds".

It also stated that hooks must be checked more frequently, and any tiger, bull or great white shark found on them must be tagged before being released alive offshore.

Finally, the tribunal ordered the rollout of non-lethal fishing lines and other methods that will allow the fish to be removed without harming them.

"The judgement makes it crystal clear that non-lethal technology is the way forward for shark control in the Great Barrier Reef," said Mr Chlebeck.

"As a result of this judgement, finding that killing sharks has no impact on bather safety, HSI calls on the Queensland government to update its shark management program along the whole Queensland coast."

Since 2016, more than 500 sharks have died as a result of prevention measures in the region. The court found tiger sharks had undergone a serious decline.

Authorities told local news sources they were reviewing the decision made by the court.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shark culling banned on Great Barrier Reef after campaigners win landmark court ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sharks can no longer be culled on the Great Barrier Reef after a landmark court ruling overturned an Australian government culling scheme. Campaigners had fought to end the practice of killing sharks, which is meant to reduce the risk of attacks in the region.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sharks can no longer be culled on the Great Barrier Reef after a landmark court ruling overturned an Australian government culling scheme.

Campaigners had fought to end the practice of killing sharks, which is meant to reduce the risk of attacks in the region.

Nearly 200 defensive fishing lines are used in Queensland to kill them, and while many sharks drown after being caught on these lines, others are found alive and shot.

Download the new Independent Premium app

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

However, the tribunal found "overwhelming" evidence that killing the predatory fish does not reduce the risk of unprovoked shark interactions.

Its judgement stated: "It is plain from the evidence given in these proceedings that Queensland's lethal shark control programme is out of step with national and international developments."

Lawrence Chlebeck, marine campaigner at Humane Society International, said: "Since the 1960s, sharks have been shot dead in the Great Barrier Reef. Today this has ended. This is a massive victory for sharks and marine wildlife."

The ruling concluded that sharks can no longer be killed by gunshot except on "welfare grounds".

It also stated that hooks must be checked more frequently, and any tiger, bull or great white shark found on them must be tagged before being released alive offshore.

Finally, the tribunal ordered the rollout of non-lethal fishing lines and other methods that will allow the fish to be removed without harming them.

"The judgement makes it crystal clear that non-lethal technology is the way forward for shark control in the Great Barrier Reef," said Mr Chlebeck.

"As a result of this judgement, finding that killing sharks has no impact on bather safety, HSI calls on the Queensland government to update its shark management program along the whole Queensland coast."

Since 2016, more than 500 sharks have died as a result of prevention measures in the region. The court found tiger sharks had undergone a serious decline.

Authorities told local news sources they were reviewing the decision made by the court.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shark culling banned on Great Barrier Reef after campaigners win landmark court ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sharks can no longer be culled on the Great Barrier Reef after a landmark court ruling overturned an Australian government culling scheme. Campaigners had fought to end the practice of killing sharks, which is meant to reduce the risk of attacks in the region.

# data[].attributes.body
lets bike

# data[].attributes.headline
life noggin explains how american football effects the body

# data[].attributes.subject
life noggin explains how american football effects the body

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Life-Threatening Effects Of Football On The Body

# data[].attributes.body
Why people DO it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Imagine you are in your home and a deadly shadow lurks outside that could possibly kill you. Would you feel safe? Or imagine you want to skate in your favourite skate park, except a dangerous shadow hides in the bushes, waiting to kill you. You would want something done about the danger, so you can feel safe. Now imagine going for a surf at your favourite beach. If you had heard someone had been killed there, or in surfing spots just like it, would you feel safe enough to go surfing there? Fatal shark attacks have been increasing off the West Australian coastline in recent years. Shark culling is an attempt to remove the danger so we can feel safe in our favourite surfing or swimming spots.

Have you ever ridden a bicycle before? Has your Mum ever told you to watch out for cars when you ride, and to wear a helmet in case you fall off? Well, did you know that swimming south of Perth in spring is ten times more dangerous than riding a bike, because of sharks? Sharks are a proven threat to humans, especially the great white shark, which is responsible for more fatalities than any other shark. Great white sharks are also responsible for many fatalities off the coast of Western Australia, along with tiger sharks and bull sharks. With human life at risk, it's up to us to stop the sharks and end the danger.

Shark attacks have rapidly increased off WA's beaches in recent years. In the last three years alone, there have been seven innocent people killed. This makes sense, because sharks are mindless killing machines, and will take anyone's life if they get a chance. However, there are some people who think otherwise. They believe that we should protect the danger and put sharks before humans. How could they think that when shark attacks are becoming more and more common? On November 2013, Chris Boyd was taken by a great white shark, off the waters of Gracetown. His girlfriend, Krystle Westwood, had her life changed from that day forward. "He was my best mate and I had told him everything and now I come home and walk into the house and everything is there but there's no Chris, and I just can't handle that he's never going to be here," she said. "He's never going to walk in the door. I'm never going to surf with him again. I can't believe it. (I miss) everything about him." Would you want something like this to happen to you? Is it worth the risk to have these things happen to anyone?

Queensland has been culling sharks for decades, and not only has there been minimal shark attacks, but everyone has been fine with the culling! If Queensland has the right to cull sharks for the safety of their people, surely Western Australia deserves that right as well! Just like skating in your favourite skate park, we all need to feel safe when we do fun and enjoyable activities. Who would want to go bushwalking with a hungry lion stalking you? You can't enjoy life with fear breathing down your neck. You have to control it, and if necessary, destroy it before it destroys you. Queensland has been protecting their swimmers and surfers by controlling the threat, so WA should do it too.

I strongly believe that the West Australian shark culling should continue. I believe this because sharks are an increasing danger to human life, Queensland have been reducing attacks by culling sharks and innocent people like Chris Boyd don't have to pay their lives for sharks anymore.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imagine you are in your home and a deadly shadow lurks outside that could possibly kill you. Would you feel safe? Or imagine you want to skate in your favourite skate park, except a dangerous shadow hides in the bushes, waiting to kill you.

# data[].attributes.body
This is why people shark fin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Shark finning is the act of removing fins from sharks and discarding the rest of the shark. The sharks are often still alive when discarded, but without their fins. Unable to swim effectively, they sink to the bottom of the ocean and die of suffocation or are eaten by other predators.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.9news.com/article/tech/how-astronauts-spend-10-days-underwater-preparing-for-deep-space/451677048

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At first glance, it sort of looks like the International Space Station. That is, until you look out the window and see a fish.

The photos from the NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations project - or NEEMO for short - might look like something out of a Wes Anderson movie, with multiple astronauts in SCUBA suits waving outside of a mock ISS.

The purpose of the mission though, is actually pretty serious. They're helping scientists learn about some of the environmental issues astronauts face in space - something that could help them prepare for missions to Mars and other far off destinations.

Right now, a crew of six people are spending 10 days in the Aquarius, an undersea research station off the coast of Key Largo, Florida. It's deployed next to a deep coral reef 62 feet below the surface.

Kjell Lindgren is the commander of this mission. He has degrees from the Air Force Academy and Colorado State University, and has also spent 141 days in space as an astronaut.

"We're doing real science down here," Lindgren said from the Aquarius, "but during the day, we're also going outside, so we've been wearing helmets, wetsuits and going out and conducting simulated space walks."

"... from early in the morning to when we go to bed at night, the things we're doing are very similar to what we do in space - the lines, the maintenance, doing science."

The biggest difference? Lindgren says it's what he sees out the window - and you might be surprised about what whether he thinks space or the ocean is more jarring.

"You know, when you look out the window of the space station, you see the surface of the Earth - you see things that are very familiar to you from looking at maps and looking at the globe, from America, to the Bahamas, to Africa, to the Mediterranean," Lindgren said. "Beautiful clouds and amazing sunsets.

"Here, when I look around, I get to see things that I don't have a lot of familiarity with. I see a lot of sea life outside our windows. I can actually feel when the currents pick up and the whole habitat rocks just a little bit, and we can feel the pressure in our ears as the waves move up and crest the surface and the hydrostatic pressure above the atmosphere and we can feel that in our ears, and that is different."

Another big difference between the Aquarius and the ISS is gravity. Lindgren says he's used to floating around in space, but being able to stand up and do things normal in the underwater laboratory is a little bit different.

And then, there's the fact that he looked out his window Friday and spotted four eagle rays floating past the window. They call the views "Aquanaut television."

"Anytime we're sitting in this room and chatting and having dinner, we're looking out the window and looking to see what will swim by," Lindgren said.

When Lindgren spoke to 9NEWS via Skype, another member of the crew was standing right behind him.

He says the experience of being in a confined space with six people is a big part of training for a space mission. In fact, NASA actually trains you for "expeditionary behavior." Part of this is learning how not to annoy other people.

If people are able to get their tasks done and help each other out, he says "it works really well, and it's a great model for how things work on the International Space Station."

Lindgren has a wife and three kids, and while he says they were "a little bummed" that he'll be gone for three weeks during the start of summer vacation for NEEMO, he's been able to stay in touch through Skype.

"It's been fun to share the habitat and what we're seeing outside with them," Lindgren said.

Once Lindgren and his crew finish the mission, the have to spend 24 hours outside of their habitat before they get on a commercial flight - otherwise, the pressure change could spell big trouble.

Despite the challenges, Lindgren admits that he's in awe of what he gets to do. He's dreamed of being an astronaut for almost his entire life.

"It never occurred to me that it would come true, and the ability to make this come true and to work with NASA and all the organizations that are part of this ... I'm grateful," he said.

You can read more about the NEEMO mission here: https://go.nasa.gov/2s4StlI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How astronauts spend 10 days underwater preparing for deep space

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At first glance, it sort of looks like the International Space Station. That is, until you look out the window and see a fish. The photos from the NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations project - or NEEMO for short - might look like something out of a Wes Anderson movie, with multiple astronauts in SCUBA suits waving outside of a mock ISS.

# data[].attributes.headline
the incredible Cost of climbing the mountain

# data[].attributes.subject
the incredible Cost of climbing the mountain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Towering approximately 29,032 feet over the Himalayas (and growing every year), Mount Everest is well-known as the world's tallest mountain. Okay, so technically, it's only the tallest mountain fully above sea level, but that's good enough, right? No need to split hairs. Since the first successful ascent by Edmond Hillary and Tenzing Norgay in 1953, Everest has become a litmus test for true athletic endeavor. Jagged peaks, breathtaking (literally) high altitude, and technical climbing have seen off many would-be summiteers who have set their sights on the top of the world.

To date, a little over six-thousand mountaineers have reached this pinnacle of mountaineering with more than 11,000 total summits between them because, evidently, once isn't enough for some people. Plenty of climbers set their sights on Everest. It's a true bucket-list adventure, after all. It takes years of physical conditioning and technical know-how to reach the top, even with the assistance of a team of sherpas to help you. And then there's the financial outlay. Permits, air transportation, gear, oxygen, ground transport, food, time off from work - it all racks up pretty quickly. Whether you're thinking of heading there yourself or you're just curious as to how much these daredevil athletes shell out for their trip, here's our guide to the actual all-in cost of summiting Mount Everest.

What's the total cost of climbing Mount Everest?

In 2019, The Manual interviewed mountaineer Alan Arnette and mountaineer/guide Garrett Madison of Madison Mountaineering to find out just how expensive it is to climb the world's highest peak.

According to Alan, "The average price paid in 2017 [was] around $45,000. The price range for a standard supported climb ranges from $28,000 to $85,000. A fully custom climb will run over $115,000 and those extreme risk-takers can skimp by for well under $20,000." Keep in mind the final cost varies widely because every climber's needs are different. "Typically, this includes transportation from Kathmandu or Lhasa, food, base camp tents, Sherpa support, and supplemental oxygen. But with such a wide range, there are many caveats, such as a personal Sherpa, Western guides, tips, food, and tents on the upper mountain."

While the cost of climbing Everest ranged between $28,000 to $120,000 in 2017, the prices have continued to skyrocket. Taking a trek up Everest in 2023 will cost you anywhere from $30,000 to $160,000, with the average falling somewhere around $50,000.

You might be wondering: Why such a big range in price? Well, there are plenty of ways to customize your hike up Mount Everest, and the price you pay will largely depend on how much you're willing to dish out for related costs, such as support, transportation, food, and gear.

Cost of support

One of the biggest costs associated with climbing Mount Everest is support. Everest isn't your everyday hike. It takes grueling training and preparation to even attempt to summit the mountain, let alone attempt it without support. For this reason, the overwhelming majority of climbers invest in support services.

How much does support for climbing Everest cost? Well, that depends on how comprehensive you want that support to be. If you are looking to go the "full service" route, you can expect to pay at least $45,000 and up to $160,000.

When it comes to climbing assistance, Sherpas are a key part of almost every Everest expedition. Sherpas are extremely hard-working Tibetan people that live on the slopes of the Himalayas and assist Everest climbers with various tasks, including cooking, carrying gear, and making crucial decisions. While hiring a Sherpa is not required for climbing Mount Everest, it can help increase the odds of reaching the summit - and it's a service that many decide is well worth the investment.

How much does a Sherpa for climbing Mount Everest cost? A personal climbing Sherpa will cost anywhere upwards of $5,000, while a Sherpa for loading and unloading starts at $3,000, and a Sherpa providing cooking services starts at $2,000. Keep in mind climbers are expected to cover bonuses and tip Sherpas generously, too. Obviously, this is one area you don't want to cheap out.

Cost of food and transportation

The cost of travel is another part of a Mount Everest trek that varies greatly, depending on the climber. There are many variable costs when it comes to transportation. The cost of your flight, for example, will vary depending on where in the world you're flying from, which airline you choose, and other flight-specific costs.

The transportation costs don't end once you arrived, however. The week-long trek to base camp alone will cost you at least $4,000.

When it comes to food on Mount Everest, you can expect to spend $20-$30 per day.

Cost of permits

Permits are one of the biggest expenses of climbing Mount Everest, and they're a cost you simply can't avoid. There are, however, two different ways to approach Everest, with two different prices: the Northside in Tibet and the Southside in Nepal. The permit in Nepal costs $11,000 (plus $2,500 to hire a local company to organize the permit), plus a $4,000 (refundable) trash permit, $2,500 for a local Nepalese team to organize your permit, and a final $3,000 per team for a Group Liason Officier. So just getting the proper paperwork in order costs close to twenty grand, and that's before all of your other preparations.

From the Tibetan side, China recently eliminated the relatively more affordable solo climber option. Everest hopefuls must now travel in groups of four or more. Permitting costs now run between $15,800 and $18,000 per person in a group. That fee does include some things, however, like ground transport, yak support, trash fees, hotels, and liaison officer fees.

While the permit prices for Everest are not cheap and might make you think twice about a climb, they're in place for good reason. Every year, the number of Everest hopefuls continues to rise, often at the expense of the experience, quality of life for locals, and the environment. Pricey permits help to mitigate these downfalls by putting much-needed monetary resources toward protecting the environment, cultural heritage, and livelihood of locals.

Cost of gear and equipment

Planning a trip to Everest? You'll need to invest in essential gear. If you want to reach the summit of the world's tallest mountain, you can expect to spend between $6,000 - $8,000 on gear, depending on what you need to purchase and the quality of the items.

What specific gear do you need to climb Mount Everest? You'll need climbing gear, of course, like crampons, an ice ax, and a belay; technical clothing, including a down coat, a good mix of base layers, and hiking/trekking pants; and camp equipment, including a sleeping bag, an extreme-weather tent, and a thermos.

While the gear list is both extensive and expensive, the good news is, you can start with what you already have before investing in new items. If you're already an amateur outdoorsman, chances are you already have the basics, like base layers, good hiking socks, moisture-wicking t-shirts, and a windbreaker. Starting with these items is a big help considering the entire list is pretty extensive. You can find a thorough Everest packing list here, provided by Madison Mountaineering.

Cost of bottled oxygen

The need for oxygen is just another reminder that Everest is not your everyday hike . An essential item on any Everest packing list, supplemental oxygen is also one of the most expensive. While summiting Everest without oxygen is possible, it includes severe risks like extreme hyperventilation and respiratory alkalosis. It's not for the faint-hearted.

The average Everest climber will use five to six oxygen bottles, each costing nearly $600. Climbers also need an oxygen mask and regulator, which cost another $600. Keep in mind, climbers are also required to supply oxygen for their Sherpa, if they're hiring one.

Preparing for Everest

The financial cost of climbing Mount Everest is just the tip of the iceberg. If you're seriously considering checking out the view from 29,032 feet, you should also prepare for the immense physical and mental costs. Your regimen leading up to your Everest trek will include rigorous workouts, breathing exercises, visualization practices, and lessons on overcoming negative self-talk.

Sky-high costs aside, climbing Mount Everest will undoubtedly challenge you and leave you feeling on top of the world ( literally). Many climbers who have achieved this incredible feat assert the feeling as indescribable, but one word seems to sum up the experience best: Priceless.

Editors' Recommendations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What's the actual all-in price to stand on top of the world?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Towering approximately 29,032 feet over the Himalayas (and growing every year), Mount Everest is well-known as the world's tallest mountain. Okay, so technically, it's only the tallest mountain fully above sea level, but that's good enough, right? No need to split hairs.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cnet.com/news/how-nasa-trains-astronauts-40-feet-under-water/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
HOUSTON -- When astronauts prepare for future missions to the International Space Station, the advance training for the specific tasks they'll carry out on the ISS is obviously crucial. But here on Earth, how do you mimic space's unique zero-gravity environment?

NASA answered that question in an ingenious way with a large-scale mockup of the ISS that the space agency built and placed in a huge swimming pool.

Welcome to the Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL), a NASA facility that's about 20 minutes away from the Johnson Space Center here. Since the mid-1960s, NASA has trained its astronauts in Houston to conduct extravehicular activities (EVAs), otherwise known as spacewalks, in underwater conditions. The agency has long considered working below the surface in neutrally buoyant conditions an ideal way to train for the zero-G environment of space.

In 1995, NASA broke ground on its existing facility, setting out to build a newer, larger lab. In late 1996, with construction complete and the pool filled, the space agency assumed ownership of the NBL.

As part of CNET Road Trip 2014, I've come to this southeast Texas city of 2.16 million people to visit Johnson Space Center, NASA's main astronaut training operation. Having visited JSC as part of Road Trip 2008, I was familiar with it, but I hadn't been able to see how NASA uses the NBL to train astronauts who will soon be doing real work on board, and outside of, the ISS. This is Part 1 of my JSC coverage. Tomorrow, see how NASA prepares food for astronauts' long missions into the harsh conditions of space, far away from the homes and restaurants in which they usually eat.

The ISS, underwater

When you first walk into the main pool area there, it's hard to be prepared for what you'll encounter. Forty feet below the pool's surface is the huge ISS mockup. Because the water is crystal clear and totally calm, you can see everything -- and it's bizarre. Your mind tells you something is not right about what you're looking at.

But right it is. And it makes a lot of sense. If you've ever scuba dived, you know that when you're neutrally-buoyant -- weighted properly so that you're neither rising toward the surface nor sinking to the bottom -- you have great control in all three dimensions over where you are and how you move. It's a lot like flying, and it's a lot like what astronauts encounter in open space.

During the Space Shuttle program, NASA astronauts had assigned missions they were responsible for when in space, and they would practice those missions underwater, taking advantage of the neutral buoyancy to prepare themselves for what it would be like high above the Earth. But with the Space Shuttle days over and astronauts getting ready for long missions aboard the ISS, they're doing much more general training. That's because, my NASA host Gayle Frere told me, astronauts going to the ISS are generalists. They have to be prepared to do any number of tasks. "They have to know how to do a little bit of everything," Frere said, "in case something goes wrong."

That's where their regular NBL training comes into play. Almost every day, two astronauts come to the facility for six-hour underwater sessions -- the normal time for an EVA session. Over the course of their training, they'll spend between six and eight hours in the pool for every hour of actual EVA activity they expect to do in space.

For scuba divers, getting ready to descend is fairly straightforward, and all you need is to be sure you've got the right equipment -- fins, snorkel, mask, buoyancy control device, tank, and regulator -- and a buddy. But for astronauts, things are a little more complex. For one thing, they submerge in full space suits that weigh in at more than 350 pounds, counting the astronauts' own weight. For another, each astronaut is supported during their time in the pool by rotating teams of four scuba divers -- one with a camera, one to help with tools, and two safety divers.

The NBL pool is larger than your average public pool. It's 202 feet long, 102 feet wide, and 40 feet deep, and it holds 6.2 million gallons of water. Yet even at that size, the complete ISS, at 350-feet by 240-feet, won't fit inside the NBL, necessitating separate modules located in different areas of the pool.

Going under

Getting an astronaut ready for work is no small task. Just getting them fitted for their space suit is a big deal. According to NASA suit and tools engineer Robert Knight, astronauts get 36 measurements of their bodies and 46 measurements of their hands to ensure a perfect fit of the suit and gloves. "That's extremely important," Knight said. "They're not doing a space walk. They're doing a space translation. Everything's done by hand."

Inside their suits is plenty of padding, and the key is to wedge them comfortably inside in such a way that they don't "fall inside the suit," Knight added.

Once that's all worked out, and an astronaut has successfully -- with the help of several NBL technicians (see photo gallery, above) -- put on their suit, it's time to go to work.

Before the astronauts even get in the water, a utility diver has set everything up -- preparing the tasks so that there's no wasted time underwater. And when it's time to submerge, the camera diver sticks with the astronaut, capturing everything that happens. So too do the two safety divers, who are there to deal with anything that might go wrong -- a loss of power to the suit, say, or even a loss of consciousness. In 115,000 dive hours of NBL exercises, there has never been an accident involving an astronaut, Knight said.

The astronauts are connected to the NBL's various support systems (for air, power, and communications, for example) by two 85-foot-long tethers that snake off the suit. Underwater, they're breathing a special "nitrox" air that's 46 percent oxygen, compared with 21 percent in the normal air we all breathe every day. This reduces the risk of decompression sickness.

The astronauts also have 6-foot "local tethers," Knight explained, that they use to lock themselves onto handrails at each place where they're practicing a task. "Everything they do today," Knight added, "is a simulation of what they do" on the ISS.

Anticipation

It's 8:28 a.m. on a recent Tuesday, and there's tension in the air. The support teams are in place, and the safety divers are in their wet suits, though not yet zipped up. Almost everyone by the pool has on a headset. Everyone's waiting for the start of the show -- the arrival of astronauts Scott Kelly and Terry Virts.

When they arrive, it's all business. But Kelly, the twin brother of astronaut Mark Kelly, took a moment to explain his EVA task today: practicing "routing a bunch of cables along the lab to the front of the ISS."

Added Kelly, this is for "a docking assembly which will [eventually] allow commercial crew vehicles to dock. It's not technically complicated, but it's lots of cables."

Scott and Mark Kelly are taking part in a special NASA experiment: studying the effects of space on identical twins. According to NASA, the work is about conducting "cleverly designed, but limited, short-term investigations for observational comparison between [the Kelly brothers]. These pilot demonstration projects, the first of their kind, will be unique investigations into the genetic aspects of spaceflight. They will provide insight into future genetic investigations that can build on this study, but with a larger study population of unrelated astronauts."

But it's too early to tell how that study is going to go. For now, Scott Kelly and Virts are focused on the tasks at hand. And so, too, are the many NBL technicians supporting them today. They take their work extremely seriously, Knight said, and despite many people who would like to dive in the NBL pool -- after all, who wouldn't want to check out a mockup of the ISS underwater -- few will ever get such a chance.

Even a small number of oil-industry companies that pay to use the pool are segregated to a far corner, with no access to the space station mockup. "I don't care if you've dived all over the world, or you're the best scuba diver in the world," Knight said. "You're not diving here. To dive here, you either have to pay us a whole lot of money, or be directly related to EVA activities."

Up in the control room, meanwhile, a large group of NBL technicians are monitoring Kelly's and Virts' every move via screens showing the views from dozens of cameras located both underwater and above the pool. This is a six-hour dive, so the monitoring is relaxed. Someone asks the astronauts if the audio being piped into their suits is too loud, and one answers, "No, that's good for me."

But as "Spirit in the Sky" plays over the audio system, one of the astronauts adds sternly, "You're going to need a better song, though."

Keep an eye out for more behind-the-scenes stories and photo galleries as I travel throughout Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Kansas during this year's Road Trip. I'll seek out most interesting technology, military, aviation, architecture, and other destinations our country has to offer. From U.S. Air Force basic training to NASA's Johnson Space Center and FedEx's massive package-sorting hub, and much more, Road Trip 2014 will take you along with me.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How NASA trains astronauts 40 feet underwater

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
HOUSTON -- When astronauts prepare for future missions to the International Space Station, the advance training for the specific tasks they'll carry out on the ISS is obviously crucial. But here on Earth, how do you mimic space's unique zero-gravity environment?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-we-have-an-international-station-underwater-just-like-we-have-one-in-space

# data[].attributes.body
more stuff

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the years since human beings first reached the summit of Mount Everest in 1953, climbing the world's highest mountain has changed dramatically. Today, hundreds of mountaineers manage the feat each year thanks to improvements in knowledge, technology, and the significant infrastructure provided by commercially guided expeditions that provide a veritable highway up the mountain for those willing to accept both the risks and a hefty price tag.

Where is Everest?

Mount Everest-known in Nepali as Sagarmatha and Tibetan as Chomolungma -straddles the border between Nepal and Tibet at the crest of the Himalayan mountain chain. Although reaching the top of the world is an arduous and potentially deadly undertaking due to the extreme altitude, avalanches, icefalls, and other hazards, the mountain lies quite close to the equator, at a latitude of approximately 28 degrees, the same as Tampa, Florida.

Everest hasn't stopped growing

Earth scientists estimate that Everest is 50 to 60 million years old, a youngster by geological standards. The mountain was formed by the upward force generated when the Indian and Eurasian tectonic plates collided, pushing up the rocks that formed the highest mountain on Earth. That force is still at work today, pushing Everest's summit about a quarter of an inch higher each year.

A hostile environment

At 29,035 feet, Everest's summit has approximately one-third the air pressure that exists at sea level, which significantly reduces a climber's ability to breathe in enough oxygen. Because of this, scientists have determined that the human body is not capable of remaining indefinitely above 19,000 feet. As climbers move higher up the mountain and their oxygen intake is reduced, their bodies are increasingly at risk for a number of ailments, including pulmonary edema, cerebral edema, and blood embolisms. The chances of frostbite are also dramatically increased at such altitude as the heart works harder to pump blood around the body delivering oxygen. The life-giving organs are first priority; digits are last.

The vast majority of climbers ascending Everest use tanks of oxygen to reduce the effects of the extreme altitude. However, bottled oxygen has its own drawbacks and risks. For starters, it's expensive, heavy to carry, and empty cylinders are frequently abandoned as litter. Furthermore, breathing "gas" only increases the relative oxygen to about the same level as the air at basecamp, and if it runs out on summit day, the body might not be able adapt to the sudden lack of oxygen. Lastly, oxygen units are notoriously unreliable, as Everest guide Adrian Ballinger discovered in 2018 on summit day when his team experienced a systematic failure of their breathing systems.

How many routes to the top?

Although 17 different routes have been pioneered to the summit of Everest, almost everyone climbs it via one of two routes. From Nepal there's the Southeast Ridge, the line created by Tenzing Norgay and Edmund Hilary in 1953. From Tibet, there's the North Ridge, where George Mallory disappeared in 1924 long before a Chinese team finally completed the climb in 1960.

Although experienced mountaineers say the overall difficulty of the two routes is comparable, the challenges are different. On the Southeast Ridge, mountaineers must race through the hazardous Khumbu Icefall, but it's a slightly shorter summit day and easier to descend quickly in the event of an emergency. On the North Ridge, it's possible to drive jeeps all the way to base camp, but mountaineers must traverse several kilometers of terrain above 27,000 feet to reach the summit. [Read about China's highway to Everest]

How crowded is Everest?

Mount Everest's popularity soared in the 1990s when international guides began to pioneer commercial trips up the mountain. Despite the risks, Everest draws hundreds of mountaineers from around the world to its slopes each year. In 2018 the Nepal Ministry of Tourism issued 347 individual climbing permits to foreign climbers, and reports that 261 of them summited, along with 302 high-altitude workers. On the North side of the mountain, meanwhile, respected Everest chronicler Alan Arnette estimates that an additional 239 people reached the summited.

A big business built around a tough job

For local logistics companies and the Government of Nepal, Everest is big business. A typical spot on a commercial team costs anywhere from $40,000 to $100,000 depending on the level of service and the expertise of the outfitter. The Ministry of Tourism reported collecting $5.2 million in 2018 permit fees.

The industry is built on the backs of a small cadre of professional Nepalese guides who work together each spring to prepare the route with fixed ropes and ladders, stock each camp with essentials like tents, stoves, bottled oxygen, and food, and then patiently coach their foreign guests up to the summit. Although historically it was the Sherpas-the Tibetan tribe of people who live closest to the mountain-who were hired by expeditions to carry loads of supplies up the mountain, today there are multiple ethnic groups who find employment on the mountain, leading to the less-catchy moniker of "high-altitude mountain worker." For a typical three-to-four-month Everest expedition, most earn between $2,500 and $5,000. In recent years, thanks to educational opportunities like the Khumbu Climbing Center, Nepalese guides have begun to receive training and certifications to international standards.

How long is an expedition?

The best weather for reaching the top of Everest typically arrives in the second half of May, but preparations for a successful ascent begin months beforehand. Most teams assemble in Kathmandu in late March to begin acclimatization. As they trek toward basecamp, their basecamp support staff and high-altitude workers are already on the mountain, carrying loads and preparing the route to the summit. In April, climbers make several overnight forays ("rotations" in Everest parlance) to successively higher camps up the mountain to acclimatize, while the first teams of Nepalese guides reach the summit. By the second week in May, teams hope to have an established trail of several miles of fixed ropes leading from basecamp to the summit, with several well-stocked camps along the way.

After a final rest-some teams will even decamp the mountain entirely to spend a few nights at lower elevation for maximum recovery-the summit push normally takes place over an arduous four to five days' round trip from basecamp. If all goes well, most Everest climbers are done with the mountain and on their way home by the beginning of June.

How dangerous is it?

As of the end of the 2018 season, the Himalayan Database reports that 295 people are known to have died climbing Everest, while there have been 9,159 successful summit climbs by 5,294 people. The overall death rate-the number of fatalities divided by the overall number of people on the mountain, not just those who summit-is approximately 1.2 percent, meaning that if you try to climb Everest, you have about a one in a hundred chance of dying along the way.

"Statistically, Everest is becoming safer primarily due to better gear, weather forecasting, and more people climbing with commercial operations," says Alan Arnette. "From 1923 to 1999: 170 people died on Everest with 1,169 summits or 14.5 percent. But the deaths drastically declined from 2000 to 2018 with 7,990 summits and 123 deaths, or 1.5 percent." [Read about new safety measure on Everest]

What's the summit like?

The actual summit of the mountain is a small dome of snow about the size of a dining room table. There's room for a half dozen or so climbers to stand and enjoy the view, although on busy days mountaineers must take turns to truly stand on top of the world.

Is there anything left to explore on Everest?

The last new route to be climbed on the mountain was accomplished by a team of hearty Russians in 2004. While each of Everest's three major faces and ridges have been ascended, there are several intriguing challenges for future mountaineers to attempt, including the unclimbed Fantasy Ridge and the so-called Horseshoe Traverse, an audacious enchainment of Everest and its two neighboring peaks, Lhotse and Nuptse.

"Everest is in many ways still a blank canvas," says alpinist and National Geographic photographer Cory Richards. "It's still as high, cold, and formidable as it ever was. How one chooses to climb it is as much a reflection of creativity as skill. There is always a new way to approach something, and Everest is no different." Richards will be returning to the mountain in the spring of 2019, where he hopes to find his own first ascent to the world's highest summit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climbing Mount Everest, facts and information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the years since human beings first reached the summit of Mount Everest in 1953, climbing the world's highest mountain has changed dramatically. Today, hundreds of mountaineers manage the feat each year thanks to improvements in knowledge, technology, and the significant infrastructure provided by commercially guided expeditions that provide a veritable highway up the mountain for those willing to accept both the risks and a hefty price tag.

# data[].attributes.body
This link shows about facts of Mt. Everest and what happened to the climbers on their trip.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As glaciers melt at a greater pace, there are concerns among expedition operators that bodies are becoming exposed on Mount Everest.

The mountain is one of the crown jewels for climbers - but with the achievement of reaching the world's highest peak come risks.

So how deadly is Everest and how does it compare with others in the region?

Everest deaths

Records suggest there have been just over 280 deaths on the mountain.

While the number of deaths has been increasing, however, the death rate - the proportion of those who climb above base camp that die - has fallen to below 1%.

Since 2010, there have been 72 deaths on Everest and 7,954 climbs above base camp.

Most of these deaths are from avalanches or falls, which partially explains the difficulty in retrieving bodies from the mountain.

Acute mountain sickness, with symptoms of dizziness, vomiting and headaches, has also caused deaths.

While the risks are clear, Alan Arnette, a professional mountaineer who counts Everest and K2 among his climbs, points out that it is significantly safer climbing Everest than elsewhere in the Himalayas.

On Everest, he says, "it's basically just following a well-used route".

"There is a lot more infrastructure, more tea houses, more helicopter airlifts possible," he says.

"In some of the mountains in Pakistan you have to rely on an army helicopter."

'Killer Mountain'

The recent deaths of two climbers in Pakistan have highlighted that danger.

The British climber Tom Ballard and his Italian climbing partner Daniele Nardi died attempting to scale the Himalayan peak Nanga Parbat, known colloquially as "Killer Mountain".

Tom's mother, Alison Hargreaves, had previously died climbing K2, the world's second-highest peak, also in Pakistan.

Both Nanga Parbat and K2 are considered two of the toughest of the "eight-thousanders" - the 14 mountains higher than 8,000m (26,000ft).

Statistics on successful attempts and deaths are not as readily available in Pakistan.

But calculations done by Mr Arnette and other climbers show Nanga Parbat has had 339 successful ascents to the summit and 69 deaths.

% of deaths to successful summits

That works out at roughly one death for every five successful ascents to the summit.

K2, which is part of the neighbouring Karakoram mountain range, is even more dangerous - there have been 355 successful ascents to the summit and 82 deaths.

Across the Himalayas

Most Himalayan ascents are not attempted from Pakistan but from mountains with their peaks in Nepal.

And statistics are more detailed in this part of the Himalayas, thanks primarily to the work of journalist Elizabeth Hawley.

Her Himalayan Database is seen as the most authoritative records of climbs, successful or unsuccessful, of more than 450 peaks in the region, including Everest.

Elizabeth Hawley, unrivalled Himalayan record keeper

Himalayan storm: Climbers' bodies removed from Nepal mountain

Unlike records from Pakistan, the Himalayan Database collects information not just on successful ascents to the summit but also on all those who venture beyond base camps, giving a more accurate view of the danger of the mountains.

And for all climbs above base camp in the region, the death rate has dropped from 3% in the 1950s to 0.9% over the past decade.

For Sherpas, the Nepalese professional climbers hired to support mountaineering teams, it has declined from 1.3% to 0.8%.

Since 2010, there have been 183 recorded deaths above base camp in the region, according to the Himalayan Database, and over 21,000 climbs above base camp.

The statistics also shine a light on which mountain peak poses the greatest threat to climbers.

Since 2010, out of the four mountaineers to have climbed Yalung Kang, three have died.

The overall number climbing these peaks is small, which does skew the figures, but ultimately reiterates the point that the mountains less well trod are potentially the most lethal.
Read more from Reality Check Send us your questions Follow us on Twitter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As glaciers melt at a greater pace, there are concerns among expedition operators that bodies are becoming exposed on Mount Everest. The mountain is one of the crown jewels for climbers - but with the achievement of reaching the world's highest peak come risks.

# data[].attributes.headline
NASA astronauts train in underwater space

# data[].attributes.subject
NASA astronauts train in underwater space

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-49439999

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Astronauts have been training at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, to prepare for flying on Boeing's Starliner spacecraft, which could one day take tourists into space.

Reuters news agency was given access to the space centre to see the astronauts put through training for the planned flight.

The experience included wearing a space suit and exploring an underwater mock-up of the space station.

It is a neutral-buoyancy lab, designed to simulate the feeling of weightlessness in space.

Boeing is competing with Elon Musk's SpaceX to become the first private company to provide human space flights from the US, following the end of the space shuttle programme in 2011.

Nasa is paying the two companies nearly $7bn (£5.7bn) combined to build rocket-and-capsule launch systems which will have Nasa astronauts on board.

The space flights are only for professionals at the moment, but future missions may be open to tourists.

"So far, we've only had about 500 people go to space. That's so few compared to the seven or eight billion people on planet Earth," said astronaut Mike Fincke.

"Hopefully, in the next 10 years it'll go from 500 to 5,000. And [in] the next 20 years, maybe even 50,000 or more. It'll be great to have more people see what I've seen."

Fellow astronaut Suni Williams said: "I wish everybody on the planet would have the ability to take a lap around the planet once, just to see it from that perspective ... [to] see our planet and recognize that we actually do just have one home, probably we should take care of it and probably we should be a little bit nicer to each other."

Photos by Mike Blake.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In pictures: Astronauts train in underwater space station

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Astronauts have been training at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, to prepare for flying on Boeing's Starliner spacecraft, which could one day take tourists into space. Reuters news agency was given access to the space centre to see the astronauts put through training for the planned flight.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Real sanctuaries are safe, comfortable places for animals to live after they've been rescued from not-so-nice places like circuses or laboratories. People can sometimes visit these sanctuaries, which is an awesome way to learn about and see animals without supporting businesses that hurt them, like roadside zoos or wildlife parks. Roadside zoos and wildlife parks use animals to make money. It's confusing because they sometimes call themselves "sanctuaries" or "rescues" to bring in more customers, because they know that people don't want to visit roadside zoos, but they're being dishonest when they do that.

It's important not to get these horrible places confused with actual sanctuaries. But how can you tell the difference? It's easy! There are a few simple questions you can ask about a place to figure out whether it's helping or hurting animals the animals who live there.

You can find answers to these questions by browsing a facility's website and social media pages (your parents can help):

1. How are animals housed?

Real sanctuaries make sure that an animal's living space is as close to their natural habitat as possible. Animals should live with others of their own kind so they can have friends. It's mean to keep them all alone in small, dirty pens with concrete floors and nothing to do-and you should stay away from places like that.

2. What kinds of activities do the animals get to do?

The animals' living area should have lots of ways for them to play and enjoy themselves! For example, there should be a large structure for chimpanzees to climb on, water for bears to soak and splash in, and large fields for roaming and exploring. Animals need these things if they're going to be healthy, happy, and comfortable.

Animals should also live with others of the same species so they can communicate with each another easily and form relationships and groups. In many sanctuaries, the animals who already live there help teach the newcomers how to get back in touch with their natural instincts and enjoy life again.

3. How big is the facility?

Animals should be given enough space to explore, roam, climb, and forage. And a real sanctuary NEVER takes the animals out of the facility to show them off.

4. Are visitors allowed to touch or hold the animals?

True wild-animal sanctuaries (with big cats, bears, primates, or wolves) NEVER allow visitors to touch or hold the animals, even babies, and that includes taking photos with them. This would be scary for the animals and dangerous to the visitors, too!

5. Where did the animals come from?

The animals who live there probably came from a place where they were mistreated, so they have a sad and painful past. The staff will want to share each animal's story so that visitors can learn about the various places that hurt animals (like laboratories, circuses, and roadside zoos). Real sanctuaries provide animals with a permanent home for the rest of their life. They NEVER trade, borrow, or loan animals.

6. Does the facility breed animals?

Sanctuaries NEVER breed animals, meaning that they don't make any of the animals have babies. Places that do breed animals are using them to make money-that's not right, and that's not a sanctuary.

7. What is it like to visit a sanctuary?

Most sanctuaries only allow very limited visits. Usually a guide takes people on a small tour of the place and doesn't let them walk around by themselves.

8. Is it accredited?

True sanctuaries are accredited by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS), a group that makes sure sanctuaries follow strict rules to protect the animals who live there, like the ones listed above.
*****
All living, feeling beings deserve a comfortable place to live where people aren't always staring at them. A true sanctuary puts the needs and wants of the animals first. So if you care about animals, NEVER visit a roadside zoo or a wildlife park, and explain to your friends and family why places like that are bad for animals!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
8 Ways to Tell a REAL Sanctuary From a Roadside Zoo | PETA Kids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Roadside zoo or animal sanctuary? This list will explain the difference-so you can figure out if a place is hurting or helping animals.

# data[].attributes.body
some will shock you people

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1 The officially recognised height of Mount Everest is 29,029ft (8,848m), based on a 1954 ground-based measurement. A disputed satellite-based measurement in 1999 suggested it was six feet taller.

2 There are two main routes to the summit: the south-east ridge from Nepal and the north ridge from Tibet.

3 At Everest's highest point, you are breathing in a third of the amount of oxygen you would normally breathe due to the atmospheric pressure.

Download the new Independent Premium app

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

4 At least one person has died on Everest every year since 1969, except in 1977.

5 Sir Edmund Hillary's son, Peter, has climbed Everest five times.

His first summit was in 1990.

6 Tenzing Norgay unsuccessfully tried to get to the top of Everest six times before reaching it with Hillary.

7 Winds on the mountain have been recorded at more than 200mph.

8 Comparatively, the safest year on Everest was 1993, when 129 reached the summit and eight died (a ratio of 16:1).

9 The deadliest year for climbers of Everest was 1996, when 15 died.

10 One in 10 successful climbs to the summit ends in death.

11 The fastest descent was made in 11 minutes: Frenchman Jean-Marc Boivin paraglided down in 1988.

12 There are estimated to be 120 dead bodies on the mountain.

13 The youngest person to reach the top is Jordan Romero, who made it, aged 13, in 2010.

14 The Nepalese call it Sagarmatha, meaning "Forehead (or Goddess) of the Sky". In Tibet it is known as Chomolungma, "Mother Goddess of the Universe".

15 In 1865 the mountain was renamed in honour of the Surveyor General of India George Everest, from its original name of Peak 15.

16 The first woman to climb Everest was Junko Tabei, from Japan, in 1975.

17 A Nepalese government permit to climb Everest can cost up to £17,000.

18 There are 18 named climbing routes on Everest.

19 The most dangerous area on the mountain is Khumbu ice fall, which is thought to have claimed 19 lives.

20 Climbers burn 20,000 calories on the day of the summit climb, and an average of 10,000 a day on the rest of the climb.

21 The record for the most summits is 21, held by 53-year-old Apa Sherpa, known as "Super Sherpa". His most recent was in 2011.

22 Babu Chiri Sherpa has remained at the summit for the longest single period: 21.5 hours in 1999.

23 Since the first recorded deaths on Everest in 1922, approximately 235 people are believed to have died on the mountain.

24 Avalanches are the foremost cause of death, followed by falls.

25 The first blind person to reach the summit was the American Erik Weihenmayer in 2001.

26 A 1976 US study concluded that Sherpas had undergone genetic adaptations after living in one of the world's highest regions for thousands of years.

27 Climbers start using bottled oxygen at 26,000ft. It makes a 3,000ft difference in how they feel.

28 The mountain is more than 28 times the height of the Shard.

29 In 1924, the Britons George Mallory, 37, and Andrew Irvine, 22, disappeared on Everest. Whether they reached the summit remains a mystery. In 1999, Mallory's body was found at 27,000ft.

30 On 30 May 2005, Pem Dorjee Sherpa and Moni Mulepati became the first couple to be married at the summit.

31 The summit is just below the cruising height of a jet (around 31,000ft).

32 An estimated 900lb (400kg) of human waste was removed from the mountain during clear-ups between 2008 and 2011.

33 More than 33,000 feet of fixed rope is used every year to set the South Col route.

34 In 1934, the soldier and eccentric Maurice Wilson attempted to climb Everest solo despite little or no mountaineering experience. His body was found in 1935 near the 23,000ft mark.

35 The Italian climber Reinhold Messner made the first successful solo climb in 1980.

36 Messner's other record is to be the first to reach the summit without oxygen, achieved with the Austrian Peter Habeler in 1978.

37 Temperatures on the mountain can get as low as minus 60C.

38 Temperatures can surpass 38C in the Western Cwm, which climbers go through to reach the summit.

39 The Australian climber Christian Stangl holds the record for the fastest ascent, made on 25 May 2006. He reached the summit from Camp III - without oxygen - in 16 hours and 42 minutes. The descent took six hours, 48 minutes.

40 On 10 May 1993, 40 climbers reaching the top, the most in any one day.

41 The largest group to climb Everest was a 410-member Chinese team, in 1975.

42 Although Mount Everest is the highest mountain above sea level, Hawaii's Mauna Kea is the tallest mountain base to peak, measuring a total of 33,500ft, only 13,796ft of which is above sea level.

43 In May 2006, the New Zealander Mark Inglis became the first double amputee to reach the summit. During the ascent he broke one of his prosthetic legs. Adhesive tape temporarily repaired it while a spare was brought up from base camp.

44 Everest grows about 4mm higher every year due to geologic uplift.

45 Climbers have left an estimated 120 tons of litter on the mountain, including oxygen tanks, tents and other kit.

46 The country that has lost the most people to the mountain is Nepal, with 46 deaths.

47 Climbers can suffer acute altitude sickness as well as frost bite and hypothermia.

48 The highest 848 metres of the mountain are known as "the death zone".

49 Sherpa is the name of a nomadic people in eastern Nepal, who also use it as their last name. Usually, their first name is the day of the week on which they were born.

50 In October 1950, expeditions from the north were prohibited after Tibet was invaded by China. The same year, Nepal opened up access to Everest's south side.

51 Davo Karnicar from Slovenia was the first person to ski down Everest, in July 2000.

52 Sherpas suffer altitude sickness like everyone else.

53 In 1953, Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay reported seeing large footprints while ascending. Hillary later discounted Yeti reports as unreliable.

54 Last week, the Japanese geriatric Yuichiro Miura, aged 80, became the oldest person to climb Everest. He previously climbed it aged 70 and 75 despite undergoing heart surgery.

55 The oldest woman is also Japanese: Tamae Watanabe, 73, who reached the top in 2012.

56 No one knew that Everest was the tallest mountain in the world until 1856, when the Great Trigonometric Survey of India established its height.

57 The only climber to scale all four sides of Everest is Kushang Sherpa, an instructor with the Himalayan Mountaineering Institute.

58 In October 1978, Wanda Rutkiewicz became the first Polish person to summit - the same day as fellow Pole John Paul II was named as Pope.

59 It is estimated that expeditions to climb the mountain take two months from start to end.

60 Geologically speaking, Mt Everest is about 60 million years old.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Conquering Everest: 60 facts about the world's tallest mountain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1 The officially recognised height of Mount Everest is 29,029ft (8,848m), based on a 1954 ground-based measurement. A disputed satellite-based measurement in 1999 suggested it was six feet taller. 2 There are two main routes to the summit: the south-east ridge from Nepal and the north ridge from Tibet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Think you know everything there is to know about the world's tallest peak? Think again! We have seven little known facts about Mt. Everest that are sure to give you a new perspective on this iconic mountain, which remains an alluring destination for adventure travelers, trekkers, and climbers even in the 21st century.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here are 7 things you probably didn't know about Mt. Everest.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Think you know everything there is to know about the world's tallest peak? Think again! We have seven little known facts about Mt. Everest that are sure to give you a new perspective on this iconic mountain, which remains an alluring destination for adventure travelers, trekkers, and climbers even in the 21st century.

# data[].attributes.body
don' t tip over either

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
JBR might well be the perfect place to live, even for extreme sports fans.

There are shops, clubs, pubs, cafes and gyms all a short stroll away. And there are plenty of ways to get your adrenaline going without even hopping in a cab or on the metro.

Which is why we've put together this list of must-do activities in JBR before the summer heat comes.

Aquafun Water park JBR

Top of the list has to be Aquafun Water Park. An inter-connected series of slides, rafts and more than 70 blow-up obstacles, it's insanely fun. Just take a look at our Dubailad intern Khalid in action below. It literally looks like the best thing in the world. In fact, we're typing this from the top of one of the slides right now, wheeeeeeee!

Located halfway along JBR, Aquafun bills itself as the 'World's Biggest Inflatable sport water park.' And it's spelt out in the letters I Love Dubai, which is...

a) incredible marketing and
b) all too true

The park is open year-round, with unlimited day passes starting from AED110. And the best thing about the park is it can be as extreme or as relaxed as you want it.

Hydro Water Sports Dubai

Hydro Water Sports near the Ritz Carlton Hotel ups the extreme sports action in JBR with a turbo-boost. Using new waterjet technology, you can literally fly over the water like Superman (or Aquaman, we suppose).

There is a range of different sessions available including Flyboarding, Jetpacks, Jetovator, Flyride and Hoverboard, and they're all as fun and cool as each other. Prices start from AED250 for a 15-minute session, but be prepared to go bankrupt - this is seriously fun stuff!

Flying Cup

While some might not strictly consider this an extreme sport, we'd like you to say that to someone terrified of heights.

Perched 40m in the sky, The Flying Cup is a unique way to see the city beneath you while your feet gently dangle in the sky. You can also have some food and drink while you're up there, including popcorn, nachos and even a coffee. Although we'd argue that a stimulant like coffee might be the last thing you need...

Jet Skiing

Last, but by no means least, is Jet Skiing. It might be one of the oldest forms of water sport, but the thrill of doing around 30mph on water is still hard to beat.

Sky and Sea Adventures in JBR do a range of jet ski options, including single and doubles and even a jet ski safari.

And if you're feeling amped and pumped after reading all that, check out this video of Emirati athlete Mohammed Baker skydive swoop under a bridge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The top 4 extreme sports without leaving JBR in Dubai!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
JBR might well be the perfect place to live, even for extreme sports fans. There are shops, clubs, pubs, cafes and gyms all a short stroll away. And there are plenty of ways to get your adrenaline going without even hopping in a cab or on the metro.

# data[].attributes.body
Learn and read all about it now before it is too late!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This content resource is part of the Hillary Conquers Everest series. On this site students learn about the tallest mountain in the world and the history of attempts to scale it. The site includes links to other Mt. Everest sites as well as to a teacher's guide.

# data[].attributes.body
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEEMO

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NEEMO, an acronym for NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations, is a NASA analog mission that sends groups of astronauts, engineers and scientists to live in Aquarius underwater laboratory, the world's only undersea research station, for up to three weeks at a time in preparation for future space exploration.

Aquarius is an underwater habitat located 3.5 miles (5.6 kilometers) off Key Largo, Florida, in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. It is deployed on the ocean floor next to deep coral reefs 62 feet (19 metres) below the surface.

NASA has used it since 2001 for a series of space exploration simulation missions, usually lasting 7 to 14 days, with space research mainly conducted by international astronauts. The mission had cost about 500 million U.S. dollars. The crew members are called aquanauts (as they live underwater at depth pressure for a period equal to or greater than 24 continuous hours without returning to the surface), and they perform EVAs in the underwater environment. A technique known as saturation diving allows the aquanauts to live and work underwater for days or weeks at a time. After twenty four hours underwater at any depth, the human body becomes saturated with dissolved gas. With saturation diving, divers can accurately predict exactly how much time they need to decompress before returning to the surface. This information limits the risk of decompression sickness. By living in the Aquarius habitat and working at the same depth on the ocean floor, NEEMO crews are able to remain underwater for the duration of their mission.

For NASA, the Aquarius habitat and its surroundings provide a convincing analog for space exploration. Much like space, the undersea world is a hostile, alien place for humans to live. NEEMO crew members experience some of the same challenges there that they would on a distant asteroid, planet (i.e. Mars) or Moon. During NEEMO missions, the aquanauts are able to simulate living on a spacecraft and test spacewalk techniques for future space missions. Working in space and underwater environments requires extensive planning and sophisticated equipment. The underwater condition has the additional benefit of allowing NASA to "weight" the aquanauts to simulate different gravity environments.

Until 2012, Aquarius was owned by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and operated by the National Undersea Research Center (NURC) at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington as a marine biology study base.

Since 2013, Aquarius is owned by Florida International University (FIU). As part of the FIU Marine Education and Research Initiative, the Medina Aquarius Program is dedicated to the study and preservation of marine ecosystems worldwide and is enhancing the scope and impact of FIU on research, educational outreach, technology development, and professional training. At the heart of the program is the Aquarius Reef Base.

NASA Aquanaut Crew:

NURC Support Crew:

NASA Aquanaut Crew:

NURC Support Crew:

NASA Aquanaut Crew:

NURC Support Crew:

NASA Aquanaut Crew:

NURC Support Crew:

NASA Aquanaut Crew:

NURC Support Crew:

NASA Aquanaut Crew:

NURC Support Crew:

NASA Aquanaut Crew:

NURC Support Crew:

NASA Aquanaut Crew:

NURC Support Crew:

NASA Aquanaut Crew:

NURC Support Crew:

NASA Aquanaut Crew:

NURC Support Crew:

NASA Aquanaut Crew:

NURC Support Crew:

NASA Aquanaut Crew:

NURC Support Crew:

NASA Aquanaut Crew:

NURC Support Crew:

NASA Aquanaut Crew:

Aquarius Reef Base support crew:

NASA Aquanaut Crew:

Aquarius Reef Base support crew:

DeepWorker 2000 submersible crew:

NASA Aquanaut Crew:

Aquarius Reef Base support crew:

DeepWorker 2000 submersible crew:

Space Environment Analog for Testing EVA Systems and Training ( NEEMO 17 ) Designation skipped

NASA Aquanaut Crew:

Aquarius Reef Base support crew:

NASA Aquanaut Crew:

Professional habitat technicians, Aquarius Reef Base support crew:

NASA Aquanaut Crew:

Aquarius Reef Base support crew:

Professional habitat technicians, Aquarius Reef Base support crew:

NEEMO 20 mission objective was to simulate the time delays associated with sending and receiving commands between controllers on Earth and astronauts on Mars. Additional EVAs will simulate working on the surface of an asteroid, and the use of the DeepWorker submersible as an underwater stand-in for the Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle.

The NEEMO 21 mission was scheduled to begin July 18, 2016 and conclude August 3, 2016; however, the mission start was shifted to July 21, 2016 as a result of unfavorable weather conditions.

Professional habitat technicians, Aquarius Reef Base support crew:

NASA Aquanaut Crew:

Professional habitat technicians, Aquarius Reef Base support crew:

NASA all female Aquanaut Crew:

Samantha Cristoforetti, ESA, Commander

Jessica Watkins, NASA astronaut candidate

Csilla Ari D'Agostino, a neurobiologist at the University of Southern Florida

Shirley Pomponi, Marine biologist at Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute of Florida Atlantic University

Professional habitat technicians, Aquarius Reef Base support crew:

Underwater habitat - Human habitable underwater enclosure filled with breathable gas

Aquanaut - Diver who remains at depth underwater for longer than 24 hours

SEALAB - Experimental underwater habitats developed by the United States Navy

Continental Shelf Station Two - Undersea research habitat in the Red Sea

Media related to NEEMO at Wikimedia Commons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NEEMO, an acronym for NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations, is a NASA analog mission that sends groups of astronauts, engineers and scientists to live in Aquarius underwater laboratory, the world's only undersea research station, for up to three weeks at a time in preparation for future space exploration.

# data[].attributes.body
Please do something about it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
More than 310 people have died climbing Everest since exploration first started in the early 1900s.

It's dangerous to retrieve the bodies, so many litter the mountain to this day.

Many have blamed overcrowding for deaths in recent years, and 2023 saw a record number of climbers.

Dead bodies are a common sight on top of Mount Everest.

On average, six people die climbing the world's tallest peak each year. The year 2015 was the mountain's deadliest in recent history, when an avalanche killed 19.

Climbing season in 2023 came close to that record with at least 12 deaths and five more climbers missing and presumed dead. It was also the most crowded year on the mountain yet. Nepal issued a record 463 permits.

Including sherpas that accompany climbers, that means about 900 people tried to summit the mountain from the South side during the main 2023 climbing season, which only lasts about eight weeks, each April and May

In April, three Nepalese sherpas died while trying to set the summit rope up for other climbers. In May, an American man died on his way to the summit.

When people die on Everest, it can be difficult to remove their bodies. Final repatriation costs tens of thousands of dollars (in some cases, around $70,000) and can also come at a fatal price itself: Two Nepalese climbers died trying to recover a body from Everest in 1984.

Lhakpa Sherpa, who is the women's record-holder for most Everest summits, said she saw seven dead bodies on her way to the top of the mountain in 2018.

"Only near the top," she told Insider in 2018, remembering one man's body in particular that "looked alive, because the wind was blowing his hair."

Her memory is a grim reminder that removing dead bodies from Mount Everest is a pricey and potentially deadly chore.

Everest is crowded with tourists

These days, tourists spend anywhere from $50,000 to well over $130,000 to complete a once-in-a-lifetime Everest summit. It's difficult to know for sure exactly how many people have died trying to get up and down, and where all those bodies have ended up.

Recent fatality estimates are as high as 322 after an especially deadly 2023 season. A BBC investigation in 2015 concluded "there are certainly more than 200" corpses lying on Everest's slopes.

Some hikers are blaming the surges in deaths in recent decades, in part, on preventable overcrowding.

As May temperatures warm and winds stall, favorable springtime Everest climbing conditions sometimes only last a few days. These brief climbing windows can create conveyor-belt style lines that snake toward the top of the mountain.

Climbers can be so eager to reach the peak and stake their claim on an Everest summit that they develop what's called "Summit Fever," risking their lives just to make it happen.

Other Everest climbers complain about risky human traffic jams in the mountain's "death zone," the area of the hike that reaches above 8,000 meters (about 26,250 feet), where air is dangerously thin and most people use oxygen masks.

Even with masks, this zone is not a great place to hang out for too long, and it's a spot where some deliriously loopy trekkers may start removing desperately-needed clothes, and talking to imaginary companions, despite the freezing conditions.

Removing bodies is dangerous and costs thousands of dollars

Getting bodies out of the death zone is a hazardous chore.

"Even picking up a candy wrapper high up on the mountain is a lot of effort, because it's totally frozen and you have to dig around it," Ang Tshering Sherpa former president of the Nepal Mountaineering Association, told the BBC in 2015. "A dead body that normally weighs 80kg might weigh 150kg when frozen and dug out with the surrounding ice attached."

Mountaineer Alan Arnette previously told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that he signed some grim "body disposal" forms before he climbed Everest, ordering that his corpse should rest in place on the mountain in case he died during the trek.

"Typically you have your spouse sign this, so think about that conversation," he added. "You say 'leave me on the mountain,' or 'get me back to Kathmandu and cremate,' or 'try to get me back to my home country.'"

For years, Everest climbers often referenced one particular dead body they called "Green Boots" who some spotted lying in a cave roughly 1,130 feet from the peak. It was the body of Tsewang Paljor, a 28 year-old Indian climber who died on the mountain in 1996, during the same storm that inspired Jon Krakauer's bestseller, "Into Thin Air."

But in recent years, Everest's most infamous corpse has been tougher for hikers to spot, leading to widespread speculation that the body was either moved, or covered by rocks, as climber Noel Hanna told the BBC.

Nepalese Sherpas generally consider it inappropriate and disrespectful to their mountain gods to leave dead bodies littering their holy mountain. In 2019, at least four bodies were taken down from the mountain by Nepalese trash collectors.

"There's sort of this idea that there's only one mountain that really matters in the kind of Western, popular imagination," filmmaker and director Jennifer Peedom told Insider when her documentary, "Mountain" was released in 2017.

Peedom had climbed Everest herself four times as of 2018, but said the thrill of summiting Everest is largely relegated to the history books, and for "true mountaineers," it's just an exercise in crowd control these days.

"There seems to be a disaster mystique around Everest that seems to only serve to heighten the allure of the place," she said. "It is extremely overcrowded now and just getting more and more every year."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dead bodies litter Mount Everest because it's so dangerous and expensive to get them down - and 2023 could be the most deadly season yet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most of the corpses that fall on Everest still litter the mountain today, because it's a dangerous and life-threatening task to get those bodies down.

# data[].attributes.headline
How can we stop the space trash problem?

# data[].attributes.subject
How can we stop the space trash problem?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NASA's Space Debris Problem. (And how to solve it)

# data[].attributes.body
because platic nned rto hekp

# data[].attributes.body
uhhhhhh these are benefits

# data[].attributes.body
It belongs on a shark

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Over 73 Million Sharks Killed Every Year for Fins

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article was created in partnership with the National Geographic Society.

In the open-air Wakulima Market thin plastic shopping bags have disappeared, banished by Kenya's national bag ban. Produce sellers in this busy agricultural hub 95 miles northwest of Nairobi now pack perishables in thicker bags made of synthetic fabric.

As James Wakibia, citizen activist, leads the way along narrow walkways that snake around vegetable stalls, he shrugs at the irony. Plastic bags replaced by plastic bags. He is the 36-year-old face of the social media campaign that prompted the ban in 2017 and says an imperfect ban is better than none.

"Okay, they are polypropylene, but they're reusable and they're not the thin bags that can be carried by the wind," he says. "The UN says that Kenyans were using 100 million bags a year by supermarkets alone, so we have saved 100 million bags. I would rate success at 80 percent."

Often described as the world's number one consumer product, as well as the most ubiquitous, shopping bags are now among the world's most-banned. As of last July, the United Nations counted 127 nations that have banned or taxed bags‒and bag regulations have proliferated so quickly, especially at the local level, that even an Al Qaeda-backed terrorist group joined in‒banning plastic shopping bags last summer as "a serious threat to the well-being of humans and animals alike."

This spring, the European Union took steps to ban plastic bags as part of a sweeping effort on plastic items found most commonly on Europe's beaches. In the United States, New York this month became the second state, after California, to ban plastic bags‒and at least 95 bills relating to bags were introduced in state legislative sessions this winter, more than any other year. (Hawaii has a defacto statewide bag ban because every county banned them.)

Yet as bag bans spread around the globe, their effectiveness-despite Wakibia's sunny appraisal of Kenya's effort-remains an unanswered question. Bag bans have spawned bans of other plastic products, including plates, cups, cutlery, straws and bottles, as part of an expanding effort to reduce single-use plastics, which make up about 40 percent of the plastics manufactured worldwide. But whether bans can significantly reduce plastic waste, which leaks into the oceans at an average rate of 8 million tons a year, remains to be seen‒especially when considering that plastic production is forecast to double by 2040, and may account for 20 percent of the world's oil production by 2050.

Even the most ardent proponents of bans are aware of the limitations.

"As important as banning single-use plastic bags is in terms of reducing it as a source, it's not going to change the world," says Mark Murray, executive director of Californians Against Waste. "The main point, frankly, is to communicate to policy makers, the public, and to the industry that we've got to do something serious to reduce plastic packaging and if you all can't figure out how to do it, we're going to start banning your products one at a time."

It took less than four decades for plastic bags to make the transition from marvel to menace. Plastic bags were born in the post-World War II explosion of manufactured plastic household goods and became popular in the 1970s. By the end of the 1980s, grocery stores in the United States had switched from paper to plastic; plastic bags proliferated after that by the millions.

Firm statistics about the number of plastic shopping bags manufactured today are elusive‒even the American Progressive Bag Alliance, an industry trade group, says it does not know the figure. The UN estimates that between one and five trillion bags are produced worldwide. Even using the lowest figure, that translates into bag use of two million bags per minute, according to the Earth Policy Institute.

The proliferation of bags was enough to overwhelm even western nations' waste collection systems. And, it hasn't helped that flimsy film bags are among the least recycled plastic products, even though polyethylene can be easily recycled. In the United States, few sorting facilities accept them, as they tend to jam up machinery not suited to processing film.

Plastic bags are in the top five items found in beach and river cleanups and the harm to wildlife has been well documented. Once in the sea, they can quickly degrade. In a dramatic experiment at Plymouth University in Britain, Richard Thompson, a marine scientist who coined the term microplastics, and two of his students fed pieces of a plastic bag to amphipods, tiny shrimp-like crustaceans, and found critters could quickly shred a single bag into 1.75 million microscopic fragments.

Bags are also consumed whole by sea turtles, dolphins and whales. In the last month alone, two more dead whales, stomachs crammed with bags and other plastics, washed up on beaches, adding to a growing tally. In Kenya, it's cattle and elephants.

Momentum for ban builds

Bangladesh passed the first bag ban in 2002, putting the lie to the argument against bans and taxes because they disproportionately harm poor nations and poor people, who rely on free, inexpensive and sturdy sacks to carry goods and store belongings. The African continent now leads the world in bag regulations, with 34 countries adopting taxes or bans‒31 of them in sub-Saharan Africa, the world's poorest region. Kenya's penalties are the world's most punitive, with manufacturers, importers, distributors, and users facing up to $38,000 in fines or four years in prison.

In Denmark, which passed the world's first bag tax in 1993, residents use, on average, four plastic bags per year. By contrast, in the United States, which is the largest generator, per capita, of plastic packaging waste, Americans use almost one bag per person daily.

Fighting back against bans

Political opposition to bans in the United States has gained a boost from a handful of studies that highlight the limitations of bans. In California, for example, Rebecca Taylor, an economist at the University of Sydney, found that shoppers in cities that banned bags before the 2016 statewide ban took effect used fewer shopping bags, leading to a reduction of about 40 million pounds of plastic waste. But she found in her study that sales of trash bags rose, offsetting the reduction in plastic bags to 28 million pounds.

In the United States, the bag industry has sought legislation that would improve recycling. Meanwhile, it has invested in bins placed at store entrances in hopes that shoppers will drop off used bags that will be remade into new bags, completing the circle. But trying to persuade consumers in a nation with a nine percent recycling rate to take the extra steps and cart used bags back to stores may prove to be a Sisyphean task.

"We spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars in the recycling of plastic retail bags, including stretch film, dry cleaner bags, bread bags, ice bags‒you name it," says Matt Seaholm, the executive director of the American Progressive Bag Alliance, which bills itself as the frontline against bans and taxes. "That includes buying stuff from places that are collecting it. We would love more stores to be involved. We would love more stores to promote it more. We would love stores to have cashiers who tell folks they can bring their bags back."

In Kenya, the bag ban has faced a sequence of rocky challenges. The Kenya Association of Manufacturers unsuccessfully opposed the ban in court, warning that as many as 100,000 jobs in the plastics manufacturing industry could be lost.

Once it took effect, the ban prompted the creation of "bag cartels" that smuggled illegal plastic bags from neighboring Uganda and Tanzania.

Geoffrey Wahungu, director general of Kenya's National Environment Management Authority, conceded in an interview that the government failed, at first, to consider what alternative products could be used to replace plastics that were banned. Eventually, plastics used to wrap various fresh foods, such as meat, were exempted from the ban, along with other products.

Although the arrest of a roadside fruit seller caught with his apples in a plastic bag was featured in media accounts, most of the enforcement has focused on distributors, not lone sellers or consumers. Even so, enforcement has been spotty and incomplete, as has a clear accounting of the numbers of arrests and fines levied so far.

"The ban had to be drastic and harsh, otherwise Kenyans would have ignored it," says Walibia, the activist.

On that, he may have a point. Litter still collects in abundant amounts on the Kenyan landscape. Still, the country appears in some ways visibly cleaner. Bags that once hung like windblown shrouds from tree branches are fewer in number, as are clumps of bags that clogged drainage systems and created breeding pools for malaria-bearing mosquitoes.

"Everyone is watching Kenya now because of the bold step we took," Wahungu says. "We are not looking back. We are not relenting."

But the government moved to widen the ban, it is confronting new challenges. The government now wants to ban non-woven shopping bags, those very "eco-friendly" bags that replaced the flimsy bags in 2017. The ban was to begin this month, but has been blocked by the court while manufacturers seek to stop it.

National Geographic is committed to reducing plastics pollution. Learn more about our non-profit activities at natgeo.org/plastics. Learn what you can do toreduce your own single-use plastics, andtake your pledge.

The National Geographic Society and Sky Ocean Ventures have launched the Ocean Plastic Innovation Challenge, which asks problem solvers around the globe to develop novel solutions to tackle the world's plastic waste crisis. Have an idea? Submit your solution by June 11 atoceanplastic-challenge.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic bag bans are spreading. But are they truly effective?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article was created in partnership with the National Geographic Society. In the open-air Wakulima Market thin plastic shopping bags have disappeared, banished by Kenya's national bag ban. Produce sellers in this busy agricultural hub 95 miles northwest of Nairobi now pack perishables in thicker bags made of synthetic fabric.

# data[].attributes.body
this is some fact about plastic that kill sea animals

# data[].attributes.headline
The most disturbing things found at seaworld

# data[].attributes.subject
The most disturbing things found at seaworld

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.peta2.com/news/seaworld-insiders/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SeaWorld is a terrible place-but don't take our word for it. Check out some of the most disturbing things insiders have seen at SeaWorld parks:

Flesh at the Bottom of the Tanks

A former water-quality diver for SeaWorld pointed out that fights occurred regularly between orcas as a result of the frustration and stress of captivity. During these fights, the orcas tore off each other's skin, which sank to the bottom of the tanks. Employees took the dead flesh, which looked like strips of rubber, home to their families as souvenirs. WTF?!

Deadly Fights Between Orcas

Two former trainers witnessed severe aggression between orcas, including a fight that resulted in the death of an orca named Kandu, who was likely trying to protect her baby, Orkid. Thousands of spectators saw Kandu, who had sustained a fractured jaw, exhaling blood through her blowhole and bleeding into the tank. She bled for 45 minutes before she sank to the bottom of the tank and died. Orkid never left her side.

Unnatural Breeding

While SeaWorld recently announced the end of its sleazy orca-breeding program, the park continues to impregnate other animals. Employees have witnessed unnatural breeding of animals like Ruby, a beluga whale who violently and repeatedly rejected her calves but was still used for breeding. Ruby was captured from her ocean home when she was just 2 years old and suffered in captivity for 17 years before she died.

An anonymous former SeaWorld trainer explained to The Orca Project that trainers sexually stimulated male orcas, like Tilikum, in order to collect their sperm. "It was rustic, latex gloves and KY Jelly, as I recall," the trainer said. Although SeaWorld employees no longer do this to orcas, they may sexually stimulate other animals at the parks.

Orcas Floating Lifelessly

Visitors witnessed an orca floating lifelessly while cruelly confined to a tiny concrete tank. In the wild, this orca would swim up to 100 miles a day and be in motion almost constantly.

Animals Crashing Into Tank Walls

A former employee saw a baby dolphin die after he crashed into a wall while trying to escape aggressive tankmates. 💔

Solitary Confinement

A veterinarian observed an orca being housed in isolation at the underwater viewing area at Shamu Stadium in Orlando, Florida. Orcas are social animals who, if given the chance, would spend each day traveling the vast ocean with the company of their pod. It's hard to imagine the torture of being trapped in a small prison cell, all alone with no one to talk to.

Dental Trauma and Tooth Fragments in Tanks

Many orcas at SeaWorld have worn-down or broken teeth-mostly from chewing on the metal bars and concrete sides of the pools out of stress and frustration. According to two former SeaWorld trainers, tooth fragments were often seen at the bottom of the pools. To keep the animals' worn and broken teeth from becoming infected, employees drill out the inside of the teeth-often without any anesthetics or pain killers-and then must flush them out daily.

Animals Vomiting

A former employee witnessed walruses throwing up compulsively-a common behavior seen in captive wild animals, which may be caused by severe stress and loneliness and could lead to serious health problems.

A SeaWorld visitor filmed an orca throwing up, a behavior rarely seen in the wild.

Trash Around Animals

A former employee described seeing garbage in the enclosure housing penguins. It could lead to health problems if eaten.

Self-Harm
[peta-gif gif_id="10318" width="360"] Repetitive harmful behavior is common, such as this orca banging his head on a landing platform at SeaWorld.
A visitor filmed an orca compulsively banging his head against concrete, and recently, Morgan, an orca owned by SeaWorld, deliberately beached herself and lay motionless for more than 10 minutes after a show at Loro Parque in Tenerife, Spain. This wasn't the first time visitors have seen her exhibit this abnormal behavior.

Collapsed Dorsal Fins

Veterinarian Dr. Heather Rally-and anyone who has ever visited a SeaWorld park-has seen orcas with collapsed dorsal fins. When Dr. Rally asked an "educational" guide why an orca's fin was collapsed, the guide responded that "the bent fin is a genetic trait similar to people with curly vs. straight hair." This statement is entirely false. A collapsed dorsal fin is a condition that rarely occurs in the wild and is believed to be caused by a combination of confinement and extended time spent at the water's surface. In nature, collapsed fins may be a sign of an unhealthy, stressed orca.

Rake Marks on Animals' Bodies

Rake marks occur when an orca's skin is scraped by the teeth of another orca during an aggressive attack. With no place for orcas to escape to, these attacks can result in painful and serious injuries.

Trainers reported that Tilikum's rake marks have been so severe at times that, as he swam, blood trailed behind him. As a result, he had to be taken out of shows for days to heal.

Animals Injured While Performing

Visitors at SeaWorld San Antonio witnessed this dolphin collide with another while performing a useless trick. She was thrown from the tank and lay bleeding and helpless on the concrete as guests looked on.

Calves Separated From Their Mothers

SeaWorld - Shamu Show | Josh Hallett | CC BY 2.0

John Hargrove, a trainer with 14 years of experience at SeaWorld, witnessed baby orcas being tragically separated from their moms. Wild orcas live in close-knit pods-bonded groups of up to 30 individuals who often stay together for their entire lives. At SeaWorld, orcas have been torn away from their mothers for breeding purposes and sent to marine parks around the world. Some captive orcas have been filmed crying out in anguish when their babies are taken.

Takara is a 24-year-old orca who is currently pregnant and being held captive at SeaWorld San Antonio. SeaWorld already shipped her daughter, Kohana, all the way to Loro Parque in Spain. Will her new baby be stolen from her, too?

Dangerous Interactions With Humans

Kasatka, an orca who was captured off the coast of Iceland, was caught on video yanking trainer Ken Peters under water.

And SeaWorld employees and visitors had to witness the tragedy of the park's star orca, Tilikum, kill trainer Dawn Brancheau in 2010. Tilikum scalped and dismembered Brancheau, breaking bones throughout her body, before drowning her.

What You Can Do

These are just some of the disturbing incidents that insiders have witnessed at SeaWorld parks. Never go to any marine park, and urge your family and friends to stay away, too. Remember: Every dollar spent at SeaWorld goes directly toward animal suffering.

SPREAD THE WORD!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Most Disturbing Things Insiders Have Seen at SeaWorld | peta2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SeaWorld is a terrible place-but don't take our word for it. Check out some of the most disturbing things insiders have seen at SeaWorld parks: Flesh at the Bottom of the Tanks A former water-quality diver for SeaWorld pointed out that fights occurred regularly between orcas as a result of the frustration and stress of captivity.

# data[].attributes.body
ok red al abut it, yo peeps asked for thIs

# data[].attributes.body
https://onekindplanet.org/why-killer-whales-shouldnt-be-in-captivity/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Despite their name, killer whales are actually the largest member of the dolphin family. Their black and white colouring makes them easily recognisable and some of the best-known marine mammals. They are intelligent and travel long distances in the wild, yet there are many killer whales in captivity.

Killer whales have been kept in captivity since 1961. Currently, around 60 killer whales are held captive in at least 14 marine parks across eight countries. It raises many ethical issues and has always been a subject of debate. But, the 2013 documentary, Blackfish, really brought the issue into the limelight.

The problem with keeping killer whales in captivity

For one thing, killer whales are large animals that are used to having a whole ocean to swim in. Captivity just doesn't provide the space they need. But, that isn't the only issue. The life expectancy of killer whales in captivity is far shorter than in the wild and killer whales only live up to their name in captive environments. There have been no recorded attacks on humans in the wild, yet multiple attacks in captivity, three of which were fatal.

It breaks up families

Killer whales live in family groups, or matriarchal pods, led by a dominant female. Each family has their own unique calls and they form strong lifelong bonds. Taking killer whales from the wild and placing them in captivity breaks these bonds, causing emotional stress. Killer whales are also moved around marine parks and constantly placed with different individuals so new bonds are formed and broken regularly.

It causes aggression

Killer whale societies are complex. They live in different groups and one group won't necessarily meet or socialise with another. Each group has its own unique calls and food choice. In the same way that forcing two human strangers to live together in a confined space could cause tension and aggression, putting killer whales from different groups together does. Individuals don't always get on, hierarchies form and interactions can be aggressive, violent and result in injury.

The diet is unnatural

Feeding habits of wild killer whales are complex. Some killer whales feed on fish whilst others feed on bigger prey, like marine mammals. Food choice is passed down through generations of killer whales and remains the same throughout their lifetime. In captivity, killer whales are fed a diet of dead fish. This is unnatural and very different to what some killer whales would eat in the wild. A diet of dead fish is also unstimulating. In the wild killer whales have complex hunting techniques that keep their brain occupied.

It's bad for their teeth

Killer whales in captivity are known to bite the metal bars of their tanks as a sign of aggression or boredom, which is really bad for their teeth. Teeth end up broken which leaves killer whales open to infection and stuck in captivity for the rest of their lives - without their teeth killer whales will struggle to survive in the wild.

It causes their dorsal fin to collapse

Killer whales are known for their impressive dorsal fin, which in males can reach 1-1.8 m tall. But, in captivity, they collapse. Dorsal fins are formed of collagen, a fibrous connective tissue, not bone. Water pressure and travelling long distances in the wild keeps tissues in the dorsal fin healthy and so the fin upright. Lack of space and spending so much time on the surface of the water causes fin collapse in captive whales. Dehydration and unnatural diet could also contribute.

Dispelling the myths about captivity

Keeping killer whales in captivity is good for research

One of the arguments for keeping killer whales in captivity is research - we can learn from the animals. There are a few issues with this. Firstly, captive studies are limited in what they can tell us about wild killer whales as the captive environment is artificial. Captive killer whales behave and react differently to wild killer whales and they also suffer from different health issues.

Secondly, most research published by marine parks focuses on captive issues such as wild capture and captive breeding techniques, looking after captive whales and how to treat their illnesses. Again, results contribute little to what we know about wild killer whales.

Keeping killer whales in captivity is good for conservation

This myth stems from the idea that keeping killer whales in captivity is good for education and thus conservation - why would you want to conserve an animal you know nothing about? But, marine parks focus heavily on entertainment and forcing marine mammals to perform for the paying public; there is little education. Research has also shown that whilst people may be inspired during their visit, they do little to help whales once they leave the park.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why we shouldn't keep killer whales in captivity - OneKindPlanet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite their name, killer whales are actually the largest member of the dolphin family. Their black and white colouring makes them easily recognisable and some of the best-known marine mammals. They are intelligent and travel long distances in the wild, yet there are many killer whales in captivity.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.fastcompany.com/90365343/should-zoos-exist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The high-profile death of the gorilla Harambe, who was shot dead in 2016 at the Cincinnati Zoo after a young boy fell into his enclosure, sparked a massive outcry-and conversation-about what is still one of the most hotly contested debates involving animal welfare. Just this past weekend, activists turned up at the Bronx Zoo to demand the release of Happy the elephant, chanting in unison that "Happy is not happy." Indeed, the idea that keeping animals in captivity is morally acceptable has long been questioned by those who argue that zoos infringe upon animals' freedom. In recent years, an increase in research on the ethics of captivity has helped to dispel the misconception that critics of zoos are simply anthropomorphizing the animals they say they're trying to help.

But not everyone agrees. Robin Ganzert, CEO of American Humane, recently penned an essay in USA Today arguing that zoos "protect animals and restore endangered species, even as some activists seek to dismantle these arks of hope." Is she right? Should animal advocates and conservationists be rallying around zoos?

Not if we're thinking about the animals themselves. Animals in zoos spend all day swarmed by crowds of people, many of whom are constantly flashing cameras in their faces, banging on glass and fences, and making loud or startling noises. This is anxiety inducing and frightening for most animals, but can be especially unsettling for animals that are nocturnal. In an interview with Slate, science historian and TED fellow Laurel Braitman argues there's no denying that zoos are for people, first and foremost-not animals.

Then there's the issue of zoos striving to maintain genetic diversity while having limited capacity. In pursuit of this goal, one of two controversial tactics are employed. The first-commonly practiced in U.S. zoos-is contraception (birth control in the form of pills, IUDs, and vasectomies). But the use of contraception brings medical risks. Large cats with hormonal implants can be more susceptible to tumors, and elephants sometimes experience difficulty restarting their reproductive cycle when they are taken off contraceptives. Many people-such as Bengt Holst, director of conservation for the Copenhagen Zoo- also have argued that it's inhumane, saying: "We'd rather they have as natural behavior as possible. We have already taken away their predatory and antipredatory behaviors. If we take away their parenting behavior, they have not much left."

So, in Europe, rather than sterilize these animals, they are often allowed to breed and raise their young. Some of the offspring are then taken away from their parents and given to other zoos to avoid inbreeding. But this still leaves some babies unaccounted for. This "surplus" is dealt with through the second option: euthanasia. In 2014, the executive director of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria estimated that between 3,000 and 5,000 animals are "management-euthanised" in European zoos in any given year. Indeed, in 2014, the Copenhagen Zoo received worldwide condemnation for killing a young giraffe and feeding his body to other zoo animals, simply because he was "surplus" from the zoo's breeding program. The zoo later killed four lions -two adults and two young females-to make way for a new four-year-old male.

Keeping animals in captivity also perpetuates the idea that it is acceptable to rob them of their natural freedoms for the sake of our own interests. In most cases, the way we keep wild animals in captivity is meaningfully different from how we interact with typical companion animals like dogs and cats, where there exists a much more reciprocal relationship borne from thousands of years of co-evolution between humans and the animals we've domesticated. (While in exceptional cases a small number of species-including some birds, fish, and rodents-may live comfortably as companion animals, there's no doubt that zoo captivity, where the line between wild and domesticated is often blurred, is generally harmful for these species.)

Many countries around the world embrace the concept of the five freedoms-internationally accepted standards of care stipulating that animals in captivity must be free from fear and distress, hunger and thirst, thermal and physical discomfort, pain, and injury and disease, and that they must be free to express their natural patterns of behavior. While most zoos try to facilitate this, there is widespread disagreement over whether any zoo setting can realistically satisfy these principles.

If you've ever visited a zoo, you may have noticed the way some animals-especially wild cats-tend to pace back and forth inside their cages. According to zoologists, it's thought that this repetitive behavior (known as "stereotypies") represents an attempt to cope with unstimulating or small enclosures. They are often seen engaging in this behavior before feeding time, as if they're preparing to hunt for food that often just gets dropped right in front of them.

And it's not just boredom that animals in captivity are prone to experience. It's been proven that animals can develop mental health conditions much like humans-and a growing body of research is uncovering how captivity increases the risks of these illnesses. Concrete and confined spaces are known to cause depression and phobias in many animals, and one study found that chimpanzees in captivity were significantly more likely to show "signs of compromised mental health" -such as hair plucking, self-biting, and self-hitting-when compared with their wild counterparts, "despite enrichment efforts."

Loneliness also takes a serious toll on captive animals. Researchers have found that African gray parrots who lived alone suffered more genetic damage than those housed with a companion. This damage often takes the form of shortened telomeres-caps on the ends of chromosomes that deteriorate with age or stress. In fact, many solo gray parrots had telomeres as short as birds 23 years older.

Research has even found that elephants suffer serious health problems and die much younger in captivity. Scientists have attributed this to a lack of exercise (their enclosures are often hundreds of times smaller than their habitats in the wild) and high stress levels from being transferred between zoos and separated from their mothers.

For these and other reasons, according to a recent YouGov survey, a noteworthy 25% of all U.S. adults report that they are more opposed to zoos today than they were 10 years ago. Still, nearly half of the country says their views on zoos have not changed.

Supporters of zoos have several arguments for keeping animals in captivity.

Animals in captivity don't know any better, some zoo proponents argue, so they couldn't possibly be unhappy. This is a tough argument to buy, however. Wild animals have evolved over thousands of years to adapt to living in nature; it's hard to imagine that living in unnatural environments that lack sufficient stimulation wouldn't cause distress.

The case is similar with animals that are captured from the wild to be put in zoos-it's difficult to argue that those animals don't suffer from a severely limited habitat. The London Zoo, for example, states on its website that it justifies the presence of every one of their animals, "under the categories of conservation, research, and/or education." However, it goes on to note that "in some very special circumstances we do get animals from the wild."

As our attention increasingly turns to climate change and the threat of extinction facing many species-including species of turtles, gorillas, orangutans, rhinos, leopards, tigers, and elephants-it's not surprising that people like America Humane's Robin Ganzert are hoping zoos will save at-risk animals. Indeed, education around conservation has long been another one of the main justifications for zoos.

But one study from 2014 found that only 34% of children surveyed before and after an unguided visit to the zoo reported having a positive learning experience, while around 15% had "learned" incorrect information. "Ask a dozen zoo directors why these places should exist today and you'll get a different answer every time," wrote Justin Worland in an examination of the future of zoos in Time. "Education, conservation, and science all come up. But the most common answer-fostering empathy for animals-is becoming harder to do while providing humane care to these animals." Worland argues that children come away from zoos actually underestimating the problem of endangered animals. After examining a study by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) that argued that zoos were educational, researchers from Emory University found that the paper exaggerated its findings, and concluded that there was no evidence to support the argument that zoos promote attitude change, education, or interest in conservation.

To be fair, zoos do play a role in conservation efforts. Using breeding programs, zoos can help to propagate a number of species, preserve genetic biodiversity, and reintroduce endangered species into the wild. When the Arabian oryx was hunted to extinction in the 1970s, the Phoenix Zoo helped introduce more than 200 calves from just nine antelopes into the wild. The population has since grown to around 1,000 individuals. Similar successes have been seen with the reintroduction of the black-footed ferret and the California condor. Animals in zoos are also often the preferred source for researchers hoping to learn more about how we can best save endangered species and restore and repair ecosystems. This is because zoo animals are more accessible to study, and there are fewer variables that could affect results.

But even these benefits may not justify zoos in general. For example, only one-fifth of the animals at the Smithsonian's National Zoological Park in Washington, D.C., are endangered or threatened. On top of that, when species are released back into the wild, they're often at a disadvantage due to behaviors they've learned in captivity, which can make them much more susceptible to dangers in the wild. The AZA has reported that of all the animals across its 228 accredited zoos, there are only 30 species at the center of specific programs designed to save them from extinction, most of which can't be reintroduced into the wild. (Lori Marino, a psychobiologist and executive director of the Kimmela Center for Animal Advocacy, told Outside, "In American zoos there has never been an elephant that has gone from a zoo back into the wild . . . It is a one-way ticket.") To make things worse, habitats in the wild are vanishing at an unprecedented rate. Without proper conservation work, animals that are part of breeding programs cannot be effectively reintroduced into the wild.

Zoo advocates also point out that many zoos contribute large sums of money to conservation projects in the wild. But relative to the amount of their total revenue, this simply isn't true. One study found that the conservation investment from North American zoos was less than 5% of their income, and according to another source, at many zoos, only 1% of the budget goes toward conservation efforts. Still, this amount is not negligible, and as anthropologist Barbara J. King pointed out to NPR, "funding is a key and difficult issue in rethinking zoos." However, critically examining the flaws with the current system is a necessary first step to uncovering "plausible [alternative] funding solutions." King emphasizes that with a little vision, good conservation projects could be uncoupled from traditional zoos.

Just because a few good zoos exist doesn't mean the concept of zoos is acceptable in a general sense. And these "good zoos" certainly don't justify the existence of ones where animals are suffering from stress and mental health issues or where their enclosures are so far removed from the environment they have evolved to live in that the benefits of conservation and education are nullified. The fact of the matter is that all zoos perpetuate the damaging idea that humans should have unquestioned dominion over these animals. Alternatives already exist that can help achieve conservation efforts without the welfare issues of zoos.

One of these alternatives is animal sanctuaries. The main distinction between a zoo and a sanctuary is that the latter doesn't breed animals; rather, they rescue them from places where they can't be properly cared for. There's also a difference in how much the animals are exposed to members of the public. For example, Adam Roberts, president of the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS), has said that their sanctuaries don't allow public contact with big cats. As a general rule, sanctuaries are often opened and operated by people dedicated to animal welfare. They exist for the animals, first and foremost, with their primary intent being to create an environment where animals that need rescue can have their care and their best interests prioritized.

It's important to note that, like zoos, sanctuaries certainly have some variation in the level of care provided to the animals. But while there are some so-called "sanctuaries" that in fact exploit wild animals, this is not a reason to reject them as a solution. We should close these bad-acting operations and better allocate resources to ensure the ones that remain open are of the highest quality.

The education vacuum left by zoos could be filled by the sanctuaries that are populated exclusively with rescued animals that enjoy human contact, which may include horses, donkeys, rabbits, goats, pigs, and cows. These sanctuaries could provide children with supervised exposure to animals through guided tours led by animal welfare experts. In fact, there are already examples of animal sanctuaries that work for both humans and animals. The Farm Sanctuary in Watkins Glen, New York, for example, cares for animals that have escaped abuse on farms and in slaughterhouses and auctions, and they have a hospital facility to treat sick and injured animals.

While a bit more speculative, virtual zoos are another possible direction. Prince Khaled bin Alwaleed, an entrepreneur, vegan, and member of the Saudi royal family, helped launch National Geographic's Encounter: Ocean Odyssey in New York last year, which is complete with instillations of manatees, humpback whales, and stingrays. (Similarly to zoos, aquariums suggest that it is acceptable to confine animals-not only mammals and birds but also aquatic animals such as fish, which experience conscious pain -for humans' gawking pleasure.) At the "Ocean Odyssey," visitors can even "play" with sea lions. It's been so popular that there are plans to open a second version in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, this year. The project's popularity and success in New York is encouraging. It proves there are creative solutions for zoos that the public seems to enjoy. Why not use technology to educate the public about animals without the animals having to pay the price?

Many zoos-and the staff they employ-try their utmost to ensure that the animals are looked after properly. But even the best zoos cannot expect animals to thrive in captivity. Educating the public and helping to save animals from extinction are complex problems, and they require conscientious solutions that prioritize the well-being of all the individuals involved. At the end of the day, it's simply the case that the animals deserve better.
Brian Kateman is cofounder and president of the Reducetarian Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to reducing consumption of meat, eggs, and dairy to create a healthy, sustainable, and compassionate world. Brian is the editor of The Reducetarian Cookbook (Hachette Book Group: September 18, 2018) and The Reducetarian Solution (Penguin Random House: April 18, 2017). He holds a master's in conservation biology from Columbia University.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The high-profile death of the gorilla Harambe, who was shot dead in 2016 at the Cincinnati Zoo after a young boy fell into his enclosure, sparked a massive outcry-and conversation-about what is still one of the most hotly contested debates involving animal welfare.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.seaworldofhurt.com/orca-capture/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 1970, more than 90 orcas were stalked and herded into a three-acre net by deafening explosives, speedboats and airplanes at Puget Sound, a deep inlet of the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Washington. Alongside the hired captors was Terry Newby, a young marine mammal researcher (in the red and blue sweater). Images taken by Dr. Newby himself tell the story of the horrific captures that led to a lifetime of confinement and exploitation of orcas in marine parks and aquariums around the world. (scroll to continue)

Confined and desperate, the orcas futilely searched for a way out. Their frantic cries reverberated over the cove and were heard for miles. The squeals, clicks and shrills were so disturbing and deafening that Dr. Newby says that

he can still hear their screams today.

Panicked and stressed, the orcas lifted themselves high, hoping to be rescued by their family members outside the nets.

When an older male was present, the captured orcas cried out to him for help, but being in the same predicament, he was unable to do anything.

There was no way out.

Young calves were torn from their mothers inside the pens using speedboats and nets. The helpless mothers could do nothing but watch their children be taken away. They would never see them again.

What happens next is shocking.

Seven frightened young orcas, fighting with everything they had, were pulled closer and

forced into slings.

They never stood a chance in their last attempt to escape and were lifted out of their ocean homes,

never to return.

Lolita, one of seven captured orcas, takes a final glimpse at her home and family before she is ripped from the ocean. She is the only living orca from the captures and has spent more than 45 years confined at the Miami Seaquarium.

Goodbye to the life she knew

The boats delivered the orcas to a dock opposite of Captain Whibey Inn on the north side of Penn Cove. From there they were loaded onto flat bed trucks to be transported to the Seattle Aquarium. Little did they know their suffering had just begun. They were on their way to marine parks around the world, including SeaWorld, to perform and die in tiny cement pools.

Captures

In Puget Sound between 1970 and 1971 ten orcas were captured from their ocean homes. Half of those were sent to SeaWorld. Some only survived a few months; all died prematurely with the exception of Lolita who still lives at the Miami Seaquarium. During the 15 years of capture in Washington and British Columbia:

275 to 307 whales were caught

55 were transferred to aquariums

At least a dozen died during capture operations

The People Have Spoken

In 1976, Washington State sued SeaWorld for violating its permits during the violent captures, and the court ruled in favor of outraged citizens and Dr. Newby, who testified against the capturing of orcas in Puget Sound. SeaWorld was included by name in the court's decision prohibiting orcas from being forcibly removed from their rightful ocean home.

Orcas belonging to the Southern Resident orca population in the Pacific Northwest have been classified as endangered and Dr. Newby believes that the mercenary and merciless captures of orcas in Puget Sound contributed to the problem. The National Marine Fisheries Service, in an official report, concurred:

"The capture of killer whales for public display during the 1970s likely depressed their population size and altered the population characteristics sufficiently to severely affect their reproduction and persistence."

SeaWorld's history of confining and exploiting orcas is appalling, including premature orca deaths, avoidable orca injuries, and the death of a trainer. Honor all the orcas torn from their home in the 1970 and 1971 captures and forced to perform at SeaWorld and the other 28 orcas confined today at SeaWorld in Orlando, San Diego, and San Antonio and at Loro Parque in Tenerife Spain. Never go to SeaWorld. Ask SeaWorld to immediately set in place a firm and rapid plan to release the animals to protected sea pens that would allow them greater freedom of movement; the ability to see, sense, and communicate with their wild cousins and other ocean animals, feel the tides and waves; and engage in the behaviors that they've long been denied. And ask the Miami Seaquarium to give Lolita the dignity she deserves, by relocating her to a seaside sanctuary.

HELP ANIMALS IMPRISONED BY SEAWORLD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Heartbreaking Real-Life Capture of Orcas | SeaWorldofHurt.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 1970, more than 90 orcas were stalked and herded into a three-acre net by deafening explosives, speedboats and airplanes at Puget Sound, a deep inlet of the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Washington. Alongside the hired captors was Terry Newby, a young marine mammal researcher (in the red and blue sweater).

# data[].attributes.headline
new doc long gone wild details how orcas suffer i captivity

# data[].attributes.subject
new doc long gone wild details how orcas suffer i captivity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The new documentary 'Long Gone Wild' offers hope to captive orcas with seaside sanctuaries. Will ... [+]
Photo by Wolfgang Kaehler

Wild animal trade yields big money but at devastating costs. Oftentimes, animals are killed for their parts, such as elephants for their tusks and sharks for their fins. Other times wild animals are kept in captivity where they are put on display for entertainment.

The new documentary Long Gone Wild by writer-producer-director William Neal details the horrific life orcas (aka killer whales) face in captivity, a practice that began in the mid-60s. Now, scientists and marine life experts with the Whale Sanctuary Project are working on a way to retire these majestic, highly-intelligent animals into seaside sanctuaries.

The film also uncovers the widespread greed and corruption in Russia and China and exposes a high-stakes Russian operation of wild-capturing orcas for sale into the quickly growing Chinese marine theme park industry. And, Ric O'Barry ( The Cove) joins the filmmakers as they go on a covert mission in search of nine whales held at a secret Chinese location.

Despite the vigorous efforts in the West to help orcas and other marine mammals, their troubles are getting worse in the East. At the time of filming there were 58 marine themed parks in China, with 15 orcas already in three of them.

Appearing in the film is marine mammal scientist at the Animal Welfare Institute, Dr. Naomi Rose. In a phone interview she said as of 2015, there were 39 marine themed parks in China. There are now 82. "The number has doubled in the last four years and there are roughly 25 more parks being built in China now."

Dr. Rose estimates there are more than 1,000 captive cetaceans (whales, dolphins, porpoises) in China, including the 15 orcas mentioned above, over 200 belugas and over 800 individuals of other species. She has personally visited five facilities in China. "A main goal is to count the animals. We are also evaluating the welfare of the animals."

Does she believe things will change? "The Blackfish effect was very real and it can be measured," she says of the highly-controversial 2013 documentary. "But the marine theme park industry is very strange. It's separate from the zoo industry. It has a mindset 50 years in the making, so any change will be slow."

Since 1961, more than 160 orcas have died in oceanariums worldwide. Today, 60 orcas are held captive in 15 parks across eight countries. In North America, 22 killer whales remain confined to barren concrete tanks and 20 are at SeaWorld facing decades of captivity. There are sanctuaries for all sorts of species, so why not for killer whales and bottlenose dolphins?

Orcas have longer lifespans in the wild. They can live into their 80s. In captivity, their average ... [+]
Photo by William Neal

The History Of Orcas In Captivity:
Long Gone Wild explains how this form of "entertainment" began in 1965 when Ted Griffin, then-owner of the Seattle Marine Aquarium, purchased a male killer whale named Namu that was 22 feet long and weighed four tons. The price at the time was $8,000.

Griffin decided to get a female mate for Namu, but things didn't go as planned when the two whales didn't get along. The female was sold to a new marine park in San Diego (SeaWorld) and named Shamu, a combination of She and Namu. The name Shamu became the stage name for SeaWorld orcas.

Founded in 1964 in San Diego, SeaWorld would eventually become a huge corporate giant opening parks in Ohio, Florida and Texas. Between 1966 and 1970, Griffin and his business partner Don Goldsberry captured an approximate 200 orcas in Puget Sound and sold many of them to SeaWorld for up to $50,000 each.

In 1972, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) passed, but SeaWorld was exempted under an education-display exclusion, despite its founders originally saying the parks were created for entertainment, not education.

Then, in 1976, Washington state closed its waters to killer whale captures and SeaWorld's capture operation moved to Iceland, where nine more orcas were netted with price tags up to $300,000. That same year Harcourt Brace Jovanovich purchased SeaWorld for $50 million.

SeaWorld would change hands over the years. In 1989, Anheuser-Busch purchased six theme parks, including all four SeaWorld parks for $1.1 billion. In 2009, Blackstone Group purchased Busch Entertainment for $2.5 billion.

In 2010, veteran SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau was killed by Tilikum, a 12,500-pound orca she had a very close bond with. She was the third death associated with this particular orca over the course of 20 years. A media firestorm followed and OSHA cited SeaWorld for three safety violations. SeaWorld sued OSHA to overturn the citation. A judge ruled in OSHA's favor, SeaWorld was fined and trainers were prohibited from being in the water with orcas during performances. Blackfish came out a few years later and the movement to retire orcas and dolphins to seaside sanctuaries was soon to follow.

An orca in the wild swims at least 100 miles a day at top speeds. In captivity, they're forced to ... [+]
Photo by William Neal

Orcas Show Their Unhappiness In Captivity:
Orcas display several behaviors that show their stress and unhappiness in captivity, including floating or "logging," which is something they do for only a few minutes at a time in the wild, but for hours at a time in captivity. They also suffer from collapsed dorsal fins and have shorter lifespans.

In captivity, most orcas don't live beyond 25-35 years. In nature, their lifespans vary depending on the eco-type but they're known to be considerably longer. Scientists know that in the Pacific Northwest, for example, orcas have lived into their 60s, 70s and even 80s.

These social animals also suffer from extreme boredom, social isolation, loneliness and depression in captivity, issues that lead to health problems. They often grind and break their teeth chewing on concrete walls andbiting down on the steel bars that separate the tanks. They've also been seen ramming their heads into these same barriers.

In the wild, orcas travel 100 or more miles per day in a straight line. In captivity, they're forced to swim in circles to keep moving and get exercise, but they can't go fast.

They live in shallow waters with no protection from the sun and get sunburns. Former SeaWorld trainer Jeff Ventre discusses in the film applying black zinc oxide to paint the animals black, protect them from the sun and cover sunburns.

The social structure in the wild is vastly different than the one manipulated in captivity. Over the years, SeaWorld has routinely separated mothers from their offspring in order to stock other parks in what are referred to as "separations."

In 2016, SeaWorld and the Humane Society collaborated to end the orca program through attrition. The orcas in SeaWorld's care will be the last generation and there will be no more breeding.

Russia is capturing orcas and selling them to China with price tags of up to $7 million each.
Photo Courtesy of 'Long Gone Wild'

Unlocking Cages With The Whale Sanctuary Project:
There are currently no sanctuaries for killer whales, bottlenose dolphins and porpoises that have come from captivity, but a team of experts have been working tirelessly to change this. These animals cannot simply be dumped back into the ocean as they don't know how to hunt, kill or survive in the wild.

In 2016, Neuroscientist and President of the Whale Sanctuary Project, Dr. Lori Marino, alongside Executive Director Charles Vinick and a team of experts came up with the idea for permanent seaside sanctuaries.

Sites are currently being considered in the Pacific Northwest, Atlantic Coast and Europe that are up to 100 acres of water space that can be netted off. Whales will be provided lifetime veterinary care and have no requirement to perform. These sanctuaries will be at minimum 300 times as large as the largest tanks that orcas have been performing in.

These sanctuaries will provide opportunities for rescue and rehab, as well as for scientific study into how these whales acclimate to their new environment. The estimated cost to create each site is roughly $15-20 million, with operating costs of $2 million per year depending on how many animals are in each area. Vinick says this would house roughly five-to-eight orcas per sanctuary. Final site selection is expected to be completed this year.

And, laws are being changed. For instance, President of the Nonhuman Rights Project, Steven Wise, is aiming to win a case that would recognize "Personhood." The law still sees animals as property but Wise is trying to change that.

He and his team have been litigating rights cases for over three years and have so far helped chimpanzees and elephants. Whales are a tougher client as there's no place to put them. With the Whale Sanctuary Project, this is about to change.
Europe And China Are Going Backwards:
As North America gains a foothold on this issue, in Europe and Asia the problem is getting exponentially worse. The ocean theme park industry there is booming. Russia is currently capturing orcas and shipping them to China with a price tag of up to $7 million per animal.

China's middle-class is expected to reach 800 million people by 2025. To satiate their appetites for entertainment, a building boom of marine theme parks has swept across the region.

It's been 25 years since the orca capture operation ended in Iceland. In 2018, the Russian government sanctioned the capture of up to 13 orcas in the Sea of Okhotsk under a permit "for educational and cultural purposes." Since this is a very remote and heavily guarded area, it's difficult to ascertain how many whales have been killed in these captures, but scientists estimate it's around 30. In November 2018, Russian reporters discovered 101 whales, including 11 orcas and 90 belugas, jammed into offshore pens near Nakhodka, bound for China.

"Ideally, we would love to see marine entertainment parks embrace the idea of their whales being in sanctuaries," said Vinick in a phone interview. "Should the opportunity arise, we would welcome working with them."

SeaWorld was contacted but has not yet commented for this article.
'Long Gone Wild' is available On Demand July 16. This film was produced by Michele Wolpe, William Rowan Jr. and Rachel Weil.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New Doc 'Long Gone Wild' Details How Orcas Suffer In Captivity, Offers Hope With Seaside Sanctuary Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wild animal trade yields big money but at devastating costs. Oftentimes, animals are killed for their parts, such as elephants for their tusks and sharks for their fins. Other times wild animals are kept in captivity where they are put on display for entertainment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Captured from the Wild

Many captive orcas were born and bred in captivity, but this was not always the case. Beginning the in the 1960s, orcas have been caught for entertainment display. One of the most infamous was the mass capture in Penn Cove, Washington. On August 8, 1970, a total of seven whales were taken from L pod (one of the resident orca pods), while 5 died in the process. Among the captures, Lolita (Tokitae) is the last remaining survivor.

The Icelandic coast has also been the site of orca captures in the 1970s and 1980s, with Tilikum and Keiko (of Free Willy fame) being some of the more notable captives. Even today, orcas are still being wild-caught in Russian waters for sale to marine parks in Russia and China as their captive markets continue to grow in popularity.

Aggressive Behavior

While there are virtually no documented attacks of humans by orcas in the wild, in captivity there have been four deaths and numerous other "incidents". Tilikum, of Blackfish fame, was deemed responsible for three of those deaths. While it is impossible to say why these acts take place, the stress of captivity is thought to play a significant role.

Captive orcas also display aggression towards each other, as well as self-destructive behavior. Rake marks and injuries inflicted are often observed on captive orcas, while it is also well-documented that captive marine mammals engage in harmful stereotypic behaviors such as gnawing on tank walls or gates.

Health Concerns

At least 160 orcas have died in captivity, even more if stillbirths are counted. However even among the survivors, health issues are abound. Most notably are the dorsal fin collapse in male orcas, as well as tooth damage in captive orcas. It is thought that male dorsal fin collapse is the result of the orcas' inability to swim in straight lines and develop musculature that would be common when swimming in the open ocean.

Severe dental issues present themselves in almost all captive orcas, who often chew on bars or walls out of frustration. To prevent infection, their teeth are drilled and left unfilled, requiring daily flushing and sometimes antibiotic treatment. When those orcas become ill, they may be resistant to antibiotics due to those regular treatments. Resistant strains of pneumonia and other infections have been the cause of death for numerous captive orcas.

Breeding for Profit

Orcas do not thrive in captive conditions, yet there are at least 60 orcas in captivity around the world today. The majority are the product of captive breeding, which marine parks actively pursue in order to increase their supply of entertainers. Female orcas in captivity have been impregnated at ages as young as 8, while in the wild the average age for reproduction is 15. Females are impregnated repeatedly, not allowing for a normal period after giving birth to raise their calf. Calves and mothers are separated, with calves being transported to other facilities, even though in the wild they may have remained together for life. As inbreeding among remaining captive orcas becomes more common (Tilikum fathered at least 21 orcas in captivity), orcas suffer from stillbirth or miscarriage. One orca was mated with her own son, which would not take place in the wild. Captive mothers have been documented rejecting or even attacking their own calf.

Tilikum, the killer whale

Tilikum, or Tilly, was a male captive orca who gained infamy as a killer whale responsible for the deaths of three humans, Keltie Byrne, Daniel Dukes, and Dawn Brancheau. Captured in waters off Iceland, Tilikum was sent to Sealand of the Pacific, a now defunct marine park near Victoria, Canada, where he was routinely bullied by his tankmates. After killing trainer Keltie Byrne, Tilikum would be transferred to SeaWorld Orlando, where he would ultimately kill two more people. After the death of Brancheau in 2010, Tilikum spent much of his time in isolation away from trainers and other whales. The largest male orca in captivity, Tilikum was easily identified by his collapsed dorsal fin. After a prolonged illness due to treatment-resistant bacterial infection, Tilikum died in January of 2017.

Morgan's controversy

Morgan is a female orca rescued off the coast of the Netherlands, now residing at Loro Parque, Spain. Contrary to initial understanding, Morgan was not released and has been used for captive display and performance. Evidence released in 2016 demonstrated that Morgan's teeth had suffered significant damage and had undergone drilling, while additional video footage showed her banging her head against a gate. Other videos of Morgan appearing to beach herself on a slideout platform raised concerns about her well-being. She has been photographed with scars inflicted by other captives, and in December of 2017, it was announced that Morgan had been impregnated at the age of eleven. Morgan is officially listed as an asset of SeaWorld.

Lolita, the Loneliest Orca

Lolita, also known as Tokitae, is the final surviving orca of the Penn Cove capture of 1970. A Southern Resident orca from L-pod, Lolita has been living in a substandard tank (one that violates Animal Welfare Act standards) at Miami Seaquarium for almost 50 years. She has not seen a fellow orca since 1980, when her tankmate Hugo died from self-inflicted wounds. Her current dolphin tankmates routinely show aggression.

During Hurricane Irma in 2017, Dolphin Project obtained video footage showing that Lolita had been left in her tank unprotected, to ride out the storm.

As a Southern Resident orca, Lolita and her family members are protected under the Endangered Species Act, yet she has been afforded no protections under the law. When played the calls of her pod, Lolita still recognized and responded to the sounds.

Kiska in Solitary Confinement

Kiska is the last remaining orca at Marineland, Niagara Falls, Canada. She was wild-caught from Icelandic waters in October 1979 at an estimated age of three years old and has been held in captivity ever since.

Kiska has produced five calves, all of which are missing, or presumed dead. In 2011, Kiska's last tank mate, an orca named Ikaika, was returned to SeaWorld. He was sent to Marineland in 2004 on a breeding loan, but after a lengthy custody battle the courts ruled against Marineland and the dolphin was shipped back to the United States.

In 2015, Ontario became the first province in Canada to make it illegal to buy, sell or breed orcas. In 2019, Canada made history with the passing of Bill S-203: Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act. Bill S-203 will prohibit breeding, imports, exports and live captures of whales, dolphins and porpoises across Canada. Kiska, as she is the property of Marineland, will be grandfathered into this legislation, thus, remains exempt from these laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Captured from the Wild Many captive orcas were born and bred in captivity, but this was not always the case. Beginning the in the 1960s, orcas have been caught for entertainment display. One of the most infamous was the mass capture in Penn Cove, Washington.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The fate of captive orcas

Killer whales, more properly known as orcas, have been kept in captivity since 1961, helpless victims of a blatantly commercial experiment which has seen dozens of wild orcas plucked from their families and forced to live in artificial social groupings which bear scant resemblance to their life in the wild.

Find out about the lives of three orcas: Kiska, Tilikum and Morgan.
Sadly, on March 9th 2023, Kiska died while still in captivity.

At least 166 orcas have been taken into captivity from the wild since 1961 (including Pascuala and Morgan).

133 of these orcas are now dead.

In the wild, male orcas live to an average of 30 years (maximum 50-60 years) and 46 years for females (maximum 80-90 years).

At least 177 orcas have died in captivity, not including 30 miscarried or still-born calves.

SeaWorld holds 18 orcas in its three parks in the United States. At least 44 orcas have died at SeaWorld.

One of the most infamous capture incidents saw over 80 whales from the Southern Resident population of orcas in Washington State rounded-up at Penn Cove in 1970. Seven were taken into captivity while as many as five whales died. Today this population is recognized as endangered.

At least 19 orcas have been taken from the wild into captivity since 2002, most recently in Russia. 10 individuals illegally caught in 2018 and held in a holding facility in Srednyaya Bay near Nakhodka were released back into the wild in June, July and August 2019.

The growing uneasiness with the concept of keeping orcas in captivity has only been increased by the renowned documentary Blackfish, documenting the reality of the captives' existence. Despite the best attempts of the display industry to blow a smokescreen over such negative publicity, the wider world is now increasingly aware that all is not well in fantasy-land. In recent years, first a trickle, then a steady torrent, of incidents have been reported.

A growing catalog of 'accidents', illnesses, failed pregnancies and premature deaths that have helped to show up this industry for the cruel circus that it really is.

Orca captures in Russia

Since 2012, at least 29 orcas have been captured alive in Russian waters. While only three remain in Russia, at least 15 have been exported to China for display in aquariums there. Narnia, Nord and Naja (also known as Malishka or Juliet) are three wild caught orcas from the Sea of Ochotsk displayed at Moskvarium in Moscow.

In 2018, the infamous "whale jail" made headlines around the world. At least 11 orcas had been captured illegally and together with 90 belugas they ended up in a holding facility in Sreadnyaya Bay near Vladivostok. One orca and three belugas later disappeared and it is not clear whether they escaped or died. A group of scientists representing a range of international organisations, including WDC, sent a letter to the Russian authorities. They offered expertise and demanded the safe release of the orcas and belugas. A team consisting of Russian and international experts was given access to the holding facility in March 2019. There were great concerns about the health of the individuals due to the cold weather and the poor quality holding conditions.

The experts came to the conclusion, that with the right kind of rehabilitation and a robust plan, the orcas and belugas could be returned safely to their home waters. An agreement was signed by Governor of Russia's Primorsky Region to begin the process of evaluating them to determine when and how to release them. After further negotiations the first two orcas were released into the Sea of Okhotsk at the end of June 2019.Three orcas were released in July followed by three more in early August. The remaining two individuals were brought back to their home waters at the end of August 2019. Between June and October, 37 belugas from the whale jail were also returned to the Sea of Okhotsk. By mid November, all belugas were released.

The Far East Russia Orca Project (FEROP), co-founded by WDC research fellow Erich Hoyt, has conducted research on the orca populations in Russia for many years. FEROP, together with other experts and organizations, has recommended to stop issuing official capture quotas due to the lack of information regarding population structures and sizes.

The Penn Cove orca captures

More than 80 orcas were captured in Penn Cove (near Puget Sound in Washington State, USA) in August 1970. Seven were sold to marine parks. At least 5 orcas died, the others were either released or escaped. Partly as a result of these captures, the Southern resident orca population is now critically endangered.

The last remaining orca from these captures died in August 2023. Lolita (Tokitae) had been held at Miami Seaquarium in Florida, USA, since 1970. Lolita's family is the L25 matriline of the "L" pod of the Southern Resident orca community. Lolita's mother is believed to be L25, Ocean Sun (estimated birth year 1930), who still resides with Lolita's family swimming freely in the open waters where Lolita was captured. In 2005, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) designated the Southern Resident orcas as an endangered species under the US Endangered Species Act. In 2015, Lolita was officially included in the endangered listing of the Southern Resident orca population by NMFS.

The footage is disturbing and depicts the brutal, extremely stressful, and haphazard methods utilized in capturing orcas from the wild. It also features the first-ever TV interview with diver John Crowe, who worked on the Penn Cove capture and was in charge of secretly disposing of the carcasses of the dead (or suffocated) orcas, to avoid them being counted in the total numbers taken during the capture.

This video shows original and shocking footage of the captures. Thank you to Baby Wild Films for providing us with permission to share this video.

Captures in Iceland and Japan

Between 1976 and 1989, at least 54 orcas were captured from Icelandic waters and sold to marine parks around the world. 17 of those whales ended up at SeaWorld parks in the USA. The captures in Iceland started after they were prohibited in the US Pacific Northwest in the mid 1970s. The most famous orcas captured in Iceland were Keiko and Tilikum. Keiko, star of the movies "Free Willy" was released into his home waters in 2002. Tilikum's story was the focus of the movie "Blackfish". He died on January 6, 2017 after 34 years in captivity.

In 1997, ten orcas were captured in Taiji, Japan. Five were taken into captivity, the other five were driven back out to sea. By June 1997, two of the captured orcas had already died. The other three passed away in 2004, 2007 and 2008. Although captured under a permit for "scientific research", all orcas were on public display at the three Japanese aquaria they were purchased from.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fate of orcas in captivity - Whale & Dolphin Conservation USA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are 56 orcas (killer whales) held in captivity at marine parks around the world in 8 different countries. Please help us stop orca captivity!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastic pollution has caught up with humans. Our dispensible plastic items are predicted to outnumber the amount of fish in the ocean within the next couple of decades. It's a sad reflection of our society. However, people are taking notice including myself. Damage has been done but all we can do is our best in the current moment. So I enlisted the help of my good friend from the Philippines, Jammy (@darlingoftheorient). This determined champion is the founder of Plastic Free Bohol and an authority on the plastic pollution and possible solutions. I had lots of questions for Jammy and lots of others did on Instagram too. I sent them all to Jammy and these are her answers to our questions about the ways to reduce plastic pollution for travelers.

WAYS TO REDUCE PLASTIC POLLUTION FOR TRAVELERS Q&A

These answers have helped point me in the right direction to get moving on this problem and I hope they help guide you to reducing your plastic consumption and ways to reduce plastic pollution. Thanks to Jammy, Ben McCormack and Plastic Free Bohol for providing many of the photos in this article.

In this article, Jammy mentions a number of products she uses and suggests that are a good alternative to plastic consumption. I have added some of these items to the bottom of the blog post in case you are interested in switching some of your plastic products to environmentally friendly, plastic alternatives.
@maxfz22: In a country where the tap water is deemed unsafe and tourists are advised to drink bottled water, what is the best solution?
Jammy: For me, the best solution is to bring a water filter. There are portable water filters you can purchase online.

Jackson: For travelers looking at the practicality of a water-purifier bottle here is how it would go down. The water filtration of a bottle of water takes about 15 seconds. So if you need just one bottle of water for your day in the morning just fill up your bottle with tap water and the filtration system will have you ready to go in 15 seconds. The filtration system lasts about 150L and then you need to buy a new filter but can keep the same bottle.

If like me you go on big adventures and need 3L of water. you could filter the water and add it to other bottles in the morning or to your water bladder. As long as you have the water-purifier bottle with you, it is possible to produce drinkable water.

After looking online at all of the options there seem to be one stand-out option when considering performance and price.

The LifeDefender water purifier bottle has a coconut activated carbon filter and is capable of removing 99.999 percent of common bacterias, chlorine, and other organic contaminants. It is very durable and is also a BPA-free water bottle, which means it will last. It is available for only $35 if you Click Here and shop on Amazon. The great part is that for every bottle sold, $1 will be donated to Water.Org
@grace.peace.love.aloha Is burning trash better for the environment than throwing it away? If so why? (Assuming limited or no infrastructure for recycling and waste disposal lets say such as the slums of India and can answer also for let us say Siargao Island with the trash pile in the middle)
Jammy: No, burning plastic trash is not advisable.

Plastic is made of toxic chemicals, some of the most damaging toxins in the planet, that are harmful to human health (can even cause cancer). When burned, plastic release these chemicals into the air and could cause respiratory illness like asthma and emphysema. It can also increase the risk of heart disease and damages the nervous system, kidney and liver. In the Philippines, burning of plastic is illegal.
@k8t__ How can I recycle plastic in a location that doesn't have a recycling compartment in the trash or a recycling center/system in place?
Jammy: There are low-to-no-cost recycling projects like the "eco-bricks", but I don't promote this because there is no long-term study of the effect of these "eco-bricks" yet. The goal is to reduce the plastic production and consumption and making eco-bricks will only give an excuse to consumers to use more plastics because they can "recycle" them anyway. Please know that only 9% of all the plastic produced is recycled, the rest is pollution, therefore, recycling is not the answer. Better to refuse, reduce, and reuse.
@j_f_u_s_s What is the best type/brand of plastic bottle to choose when picking one that can be re-used over and over?
Jammy: I don't encourage people to use reusable plastic bottles. Remember, plastic is made of chemicals like Bisphenol A or BPA that are found in plastic bottles and other plastic containers. There is some research showing that BPA can seep into food or beverages from containers that are made with BPA. This chemical is an endocrine disruptor and is also linked to heart disease.

There are reusable insulated bottles. I'm using a Klean Kanteen water bottle for almost 4 years now and I love it.

You can Click Here to check out the prices and availability of the Klean Kanteen water bottle.
@trace_travels Is there a way to fill up our water bottles with clean water while traveling?
Jammy: Look for water dispensers or ask some water from restaurants/cafes (I do this). If in areas where there is no access to clean and safe drinking water, I suggest you invest in a portable water filter.

Jackson: The LifeDefender filter water bottle has a coconut activated carbon filter and is capable of removing 99.999 percent of common bacterias, chlorine, and other organic contaminants. It is very durable and is also a BPA-free water bottle, which means it will last. It is available for only $35 if you Click Here and shop on Amazon. The great part is that for every bottle sold, $1 will be donated to Water.Org
@diandra271 How can you reduce your plastic consumption while traveling?
Jammy: Invest in reusables. Here are some of the things I bring when I travel.

Reusable bag(s)

Reusable water bottle and cups (I bring extra for a friend)

Reusable straws and cutlery (I bring extra straws for friends. But you don't actually need a straw. Drink straight from the glass. And if you order a drink, say "No straw, please!"

Beeswax food wraps (food containers take so much space in my backpack so I use the food wraps instead)

Homemade deodorant and toothpaste

Bamboo toothbrush

Shampoo bar that is also my body soap (I don't wash my hair every day)

Safety reusable razor

Menstrual cup (and period panties for light days)

Stainless steel ear pick

@laia_arque If we start making changes now do you think we can improve the environment. (Is the damage to far gone/companies are doing too much damage for individuals to repair)
Jammy: Yes, I believe it's not too late yet but we must start acting now. The good news is, more people have jumped into the "plastic free" or "zero waste lifestyle" bandwagon, and thousands of organizations/groups have been actively campaigning against plastic and are cleaning around the world. Government leaders and businesses have also started taking actions. There is hope for our planet.
@iamkentwander13 How did you start Plastic Free Bohol?
Jammy: After quitting my corporate job 5 years ago, I started traveling and noticed that in every place I went to, there were lots of plastic trash, even in the most remote communities I've been to. And then I saw this video of a turtle with a plastic straw removed from its nostril and it was heartbreaking to see. I did some research and decided to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem. I quit single-use plastics and continued traveling. When I got back to Bohol to start my business, I saw how bad our problem with plastic/solid waste management. Out of frustration, I created social media pages where I can raise awareness about plastic pollution in Bohol. It was a personal campaign, but now Plastic Free Bohol is already a growing movement/community.
@emcampbellat How can I make sure that when I recycle something it's not just shipped overseas to China?
Jammy: China doesn't accept trash from other countries now.
@teamkmart12 What is the best way to educate people about the problem?
Jammy: Since most of the people have smartphones and have access to the internet now, social media is a good way to educate people about this problem. This is how I began. I wanted to reach out to more people though especially those who do not have access to information/internet, so I started organizing coastal cleanups to get our community involved. Sometimes, you just really have to go out there and talk to people personally.
@destinationchaser When plastic wrappers say they are recyclable, is it really less harmful to the environment?
Jammy: Only 9% of all the plastics produced worldwide are recycled. The rest end up either in the landfill or polluting our environment. "Recyclable" plastics are not better. There is no guarantee that they will be recycled especially if you live in an area where there is no recycling facility.

But if in case you refer to "biodegradable" or "compostable" plastics, the good news is they are made from plants and not petroleum. The bad news is, a large facility with the right temperature is needed in order for them to fully biodegrade.
@dogtor_diaries How can I reduce the number of plastics I use with things like shampoo, shower gel, and toiletries.
Jammy: There are shampoo and conditioner bars. And instead of shower gel, use a soap bar instead. For toiletries, you can make your own. You can find recipes online.
@annyshirokova How can I use less plastic when almost everything at the grocery store is wrapped in plastic?
- It's true, plastic is unavoidable especially in the grocery stores.

Jammy: check out your area first if there is a bulk, refill or zero waste store. If none, buy in bulk instead of buying in small amounts, or choose products that are packed in reusable containers. For fresh produce, I advise you buy at the farmer's market instead of buying them in supermarkets where they are wrapped in plastic and styrofoam.
@ga__portillo What are your thoughts about plastic rain boots. Is that okay because it is not single-use?
Jammy: It's better to choose rain boots made of natural rubber instead of those made of PVC. PVC was considered a toxic substance and it is not recyclable.
@alvindichoso I love you Jam. Thank you for saving Mother Earth!
Jammy: Thank you!

I had some questions of my own for Jammy, which she has answered below.
Jackson: What are your thoughts on the LifeStraw. It can be used for 50-60 times, which, in a place like Philippines or India, means 60 less plastic bottles used by a tourist. That seems to be a good thing but is there a downside to using a life straw. What happens to the LifeStraw after it's 50-use lifespan?
Jammy: If you are referring to the Lifestraw water filter, I've read that their filter can achieve a 1000 gallon lifespan. So I think you can use it more than 60 times?! Not sure. Sorry, I am not too familiar with this product.
Jackson: Do you have any tips for people who are going on overnight or multiple night camping trips. Obviously plastic preserves food well and that is why it is chosen. What can we do to pack our food considering a traveler probably d doesn't carry tupperware or reusable containers?
Jammy: Consider using beeswax food wraps. It's an alternative to cling wraps and ziplock bags. It's washable and reusable. You can also use Stasher Bags, which are made from silicon not plastic.
Jackson: On an overnight camping trip like Mt. Rinjani in Indonesia, there is toilet paper and poop everywhere. Firstly, the rule of thumb is to pack out your toilet paper, which is a little gross to carry around for multiple days. However, inside a plastic bag, it doesn't smell. What is your suggestion for dealing with toilet paper and toilet etiquette while camping when considering plastic consumption and pollution?
Carrying your feces around is gross. But what I learned back in the days when I was still a girl scout that I still do when I go camping is to dig, do your business, then cover.
Jackson: Obviously saying no to so many foods that come in plastic is a good start but sometimes it can feel impossible. Things like cereal, butter, bread and even vegetables and fruit sometimes come in plastic. It seems impossible to boycott all plastic while on the road and especially in developing countries. What do you suggest to travelers to decrease their consumption in these types of places?
Jammy: Bring your own reusable bag, buy in bulk instead of buying products in sachets, and choose products that are not wrapped in plastic and styrofoam. For bread, don't buy those that are already packed in plastic. And one trick I can share when buying bread if you have no produce bag and a paper bag is not available, you can use a clean hanky or bandana if you're not buying too much. You're welcome!
Jackson: Obviously the straw has been the subject of much fanfare in the plastic pollution world and is slowly being eliminated as is the plastic shopping bag like you have seen in Bohol after successful campaigning. What do you think are the top 5 plastic items we can all cut out of our lives. We've cut out the straw, the plastic shopping bag.. what are the next 5 we can all cut out right now?
Jammy: you can start eliminating the single-use or disposable plastics like plastic bags, straws, bottles, cups, cutlery (and styrofoam). Single-use plastics are used for a maximum of 12 minutes then tossed and become trash for hundreds of years.
Jackson: What three popular companies are doing a visibly terrible job at reducing plastic pollution that we should maybe avoid?
Jammy: I'm not sure with other countries but these are the corporations that contribute to plastic pollution in the Philippines based on the brand audit done by Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) and Mother Earth Foundation (MEF).
Jackson: I do a lot of running and sports. I love Gatorade. It only comes in a plastic, single-use bottle. This isn't my fault it is how the company serves it to us. Is my only option to stop drinking Gatorade?
Jammy: Stop drinking Gatorade, Jackson! Haha. It has sugar and calorie content. Drink more water, and coconut water (the best) instead.
Jackson: A lot of people think reducing their plastic consumption is a good idea but they are too busy to get started on being an eco-warrior. What advice do you have for these people?
Jammy: We need to start somewhere. Practice conscious consumerism.

I thank Jammy for her time and expertise on this topic and encourage you to reach out to her at (@darlingoftheorient) on Instagram or on Facebook at Plastic Free Bohol if you have any more questions about plastic pollution or her story.

These are some of the products that will help you reduce your plastic consumption and subsequently ways to reduce plastic pollution. There are many different brands available. These are generally among the most popular and received the best reviews.

Life Defender Water Purifier Bottle: The LifeDefender filter water bottle has a coconut activated carbon filter and is capable of removing 99.999 percent of common bacterias, chlorine, and other organic contaminants. It is very durable and is also a BPA-free water bottle, which means it will last. That means fewer water bottles in the world and using a reusable water bottle is one of the best ways to reduce plastic pollution.

It is available for only $35 if you Click Here to purchase on Amazon. The great part is that for every bottle sold, $1 will be donated to Water.Org

WowE Bamboo Toothbrush: The WowE Bamboo Toothbrush means you are reducing your plastic consumption. A pack of four toothbrushes will last one person a full year and is virtually the same price as plastic so it isn't much of a decision. Buy a pack of 4 toothbrushes for each person in your household for only $10.

Click Here to check prices and availability for a pack of four bamboo toothbrushes

Bamboo Straw: Instead of using a plastic straw for two seconds and throwing it away, why don't you use a bamboo straw and wash it and use it again like we do with plates, knives, and forks!

Click Here to buy a pack of bamboo straws.

Bees Wrap Assorted 3 pack, Eco-Friendly Reusable Food wraps: A handy alternative to zip-lock bags and plastic bags for storing food on trips. You can wrap up fruits, cheeses, and almost any food. Then you just wash the wraps and use again. It's one of the best ways to reduce plastic pollution and consumption in the kitchen.

Click Here to check prices and availability of Bees Wraps.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
HELPFUL WAYS TO REDUCE PLASTIC POLLUTION FOR TRAVELERS Q&A - Journey Era

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic pollution has caught up with humans. Our dispensible plastic items are predicted to outnumber the amount of fish in the ocean within the next couple of decades. It's a sad reflection of our society. However, people are taking notice including myself. Damage has been done but all we can do is our best in the current moment.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.thoughtco.com/arguments-for-and-against-zoos-127639

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A zoo is a place where captive animals are put on display for humans to see. While early zoos (shortened from zoological parks) concentrated on displaying as many unusual creatures as possible-often in small, cramped conditions-the focus of most modern zoos is conservation and education. While zoo advocates and conservationists argue that zoos save endangered species and educate the public, many animal rights activists believe the cost of confining animals outweighs the benefits, and that the violation of the rights of individual animals-even in efforts to fend off extinction-cannot be justified.

A Brief History of Zoos

Humans have kept wild animals for thousands of years. The first efforts to keep wild animals for non-utilitarian uses began about 2500 BCE, when rulers in Mesopotamia, Egypt kept collections in enclosed pens. Modern zoos began to evolve during the 18th century and the Age of Enlightenment, when scientific interest in zoology, as well as the study of animal behavior and anatomy, came to the fore.

Early zoos were a dismal affair. Animals were kept in small enclosures with little if any, greenery. With a scant understanding of what the various animals needed, many perished relatively quickly. In accredited U.S. zoos (and elsewhere) things are better now, fortunately. Primates, for example, have gone from barren cages with little furniture to naturalistic and sometimes semi-free-ranging designs. But is it enough?

Arguments for Zoos

By bringing people and animals together, zoos educate the public and foster an appreciation of other species.

Zoos save endangered species by bringing them into a safe environment, where they are protected from poachers, habitat loss, starvation, and predators.

Many zoos have breeding programs for endangered species. In the wild, these individuals might have trouble finding mates and breeding, and species could become extinct.

Some zoos have conservation programs around the world that use the zoo's expertise and funding to help protect wildlife against poaching and other threats.

Reputable zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums are held to high standards for the treatment of their resident animals. According to AZA, its accreditation guarantees that the organization has undergone strict evaluation by recognized experts to ensure the highest standards of "animal management and care, including living environments, social groupings, health, and nutrition."

A good zoo provides an enriched habitat in which the animals are never bored, are well cared for, and have plenty of space.

Seeing an animal in person is a much more personal and more memorable experience than seeing that animal in a nature documentary and is more likely to foster an empathetic attitude toward animals.

Some zoos help rehabilitate wildlife and take in exotic pets that people no longer want or are no longer able to care for.

Both accredited and unaccredited animal exhibitors are regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act, which establishes standards for animal care.

Arguments Against Zoos

From an animal rights standpoint, humans do not have a right to breed, capture, and confine other animals-even if those species are endangered. Being a member of an endangered species doesn't mean the individual animals should be afforded fewer rights.

Animals in captivity suffer from boredom, stress, and confinement. No pen-no matter how humane-or drive-through safari can compare to the freedom of the wild.

Intergenerational bonds are broken when individuals are sold or traded to other zoos.

Baby animals bring in visitors and money, but this incentive to breed new baby animals leads to overpopulation. Surplus animals are sold not only to other zoos, but also to circuses and hunting facilities. Some zoos simply kill their surplus animals outright.

Some captive breeding programs do not release animals back into the wild. The offspring may be forever part of the chain of zoos, circuses, and petting zoos.

Removing individual specimens from the wild further endangers the wild population because the remaining individuals will be less genetically diverse and may have greater difficulty finding mates. Maintaining species diversity within captive breeding facilities is also a challenge.

If people want to see wild animals in real life, they can observe wildlife in the wild or visit a sanctuary. (A true sanctuary does not buy, sell, or breed animals, but instead takes in unwanted exotic pets, surplus animals from zoos, or injured wildlife that can no longer survive in the wild.)

The federal Animal Welfare Act establishes only the most minimal standards for cage size, shelter, health care, ventilation, fencing, food, and water. For example, enclosures must provide "sufficient space to allow each animal to make normal postural and social adjustments with adequate freedom of movement. Inadequate space may be indicated by evidence of malnutrition, poor condition, debility, stress, or abnormal behavior patterns." Violations often result in a slap on the wrist and the exhibitor is given a deadline to correct the violation. Even a long history of inadequate care and AWA violations, such as the history of Tony the Truck Stop Tiger, does not necessarily ensure abused animals will be freed.

Animals sometimes escape their enclosures, endangering themselves as well as people. Likewise, people ignore warnings or accidentally get too close to animals, leading to horrific outcomes. For example, Harambe, a 17-year-old western lowland gorilla, was shot in 2016 when a toddler accidentally fell into his enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo. While the child survived and was not badly injured, the gorilla was killed outright.

Petting zoos have been linked with numerous incidents of diseases including E. coli infection, cryptosporidiosis, salmonellosis, and dermatomycosis (ringworm).

The Last Word on Zoos

In making a case for or against zoos, both sides argue that they're saving animals. Whether or not zoos benefit the animal community, they certainly do make money. As long as there is demand for them, zoos will continue to exist.

Since zoos are likely an inevitability, the best way to move forward is to ensure that zoo conditions are the best possible for the animals that live in captivity and that individuals who violate animal care health and safety sanctions are not only duly punished but denied any future access to animals.

One day we may look back at zoos and marvel at their barbarity. Or, one day we may look back at zoos and be grateful for the species they saved from extinction. Of these two scenarios, only time will tell.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are Zoos Ethical? Arguments for and Against Keeping Animals in Zoos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Zoos, if done right, could be a good thing for the animals and the public-yet many so-called zoos get it terribly wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.debate.org/opinions/should-zoos-be-banned

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Debate.org is a dynamic social community where you can voice your opinion on today's hottest issues.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.freedomforanimals.org.uk/blog/10-facts-about-zoos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here are ten facts about zoos that you need to know...

# data[].attributes.headline
Bunny Care Guide: What Foods Do Rabbits Eat?

# data[].attributes.subject
Bunny Care Guide: What Foods Do Rabbits Eat?

# data[].attributes.body
https://pethelpful.com/rabbits/Bunny-Care-Guide-What-To-Feed-Your-Bunny-Rabbit--What-Do-Rabbits-Eat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I have kept a variety of pet rabbits and enjoy sharing what I've learned about bunny care with others.

Rabbit Food: What's Safe and What's Not

Feeding your bunny is a more difficult task than it may seem at first. Popular lore has it that rabbits live off of carrots and lettuce. However, the reality is that feeding them nothing but lettuce and carrots would kill it pretty quickly-and in a rather unpleasant fashion. There is a wide range of foods that you should not feed your rabbit, which also includes cabbage and parsnips.

The point of this article, however, is to discuss what is good for your bunnies to eat. It's actually pretty simple: They should be fed a diet mostly comprised of grass hay (the simple stuff, otherwise often known as Timothy hay). They can also be fed straight grass, but the grass should always be dry.

Three Foods Bunnies Should Eat

1. Hay or dried grass

2. Pellets (in small amounts)

3. Fresh vegetables (in small amounts)

1. Grass and/or Hay

Grass or hay should make up the bulk of your rabbit's diet. One of these foods should always be available for it to munch. If you do feed it grass, make sure it has not come from anywhere that may have been treated with pesticides.

They need to eat almost constantly while they are awake, and the roughage and long fibers in grass and hay are excellent for keeping their digestive systems moving. It is vital that a rabbit's digestive system is always moving, so please never let them go without food, even overnight. Rabbits are crepuscular creatures, which means they tend to be more active around dawn and dusk, but they can also be active at varying times through the day and the night. Therefore they always need to have food on hand, and it should be hay or grass.

2. Pellets

Pelletscan also make up part of a rabbit's diet, but be sparing in how much you feed. Pellets, especially brands that contain little treats and seeds, are the equivalent of loading your pets up on cheeseburgers and fries. So while your little one will always be happy to eat these foods, they should be occasional treats, never the main meal. Straight pellets are slightly better, but they are still often quite concentrated food sources.

3. Fresh Vegetables

Some fresh vegetables and fruit make great additions to their diet, but you should take a few precautions. Produce should only be fed to rabbits older than six months. After they are six months old, vegetables and fruits can be introduced in small amounts, one at a time. Sudden dietary changes can upset their digestive system, resulting in sickness and diarrhea-pleasant for neither owner nor pet.

In small amounts, carrots are good for your bunny, as they contain vitamin A.

Portions of apple will also go down well with most bunnies.

However, you do have to be quite careful and avoid those which can cause gas or bloating. Cabbage, cauliflower, or broccoli is not a great idea. The reason you have to be so careful is the fact that a rabbit cannot pass gas or burp. This means that feeding foods which produce gas can result in bloating, pain, and even death.

Vegetables That Are Okay for Bunnies (in Small Amounts)

Carrot

Beet tops (not the root of the beet, which is the part humans normally consume)

Watercress

Sprouts

Parsley

Wheatgrass

There is some argument over leafy vegetables such as lettuce, cabbage, spinach, and the like. Some say that they should never be fed to bunnies; others say that the darker leaf vegetables are okay in small amounts. Personally, I find that it isn't worth the risk of accidentally harming the bunny simply in order to give it a wide variety of fresh vegetables. Stick with the safe foods, and you can be sure that your bunny will be okay. They will not suffer if they don't become vegetable connoisseurs-after all, the principle food of rabbits in the wild is simply various kinds of grass. There aren't too many vegetable gardens in the wild.

This article is accurate and true to the best of the author's knowledge. It is not meant to substitute for diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, prescription, or formal and individualized advice from a veterinary medical professional. Animals exhibiting signs and symptoms of distress should be seen by a veterinarian immediately.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bunny Care Guide: What Foods Do Rabbits Eat?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I have kept a variety of pet rabbits and enjoy sharing what I've learned about bunny care with others. Feeding your bunny is a more difficult task than it may seem at first. Popular lore has it that rabbits live off of carrots and lettuce.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Plastic" simply means pliable and easily shaped. It only recently became the name for a category of materials called polymers (" of many parts"), which refer to long chains of molecules arranged in repeating units. There are lots of naturally occurring polymers -- many of which have long been exploited by humans -- including silk, wool, rubber and cellulose, the material that makes up the cell walls of plants. Even DNA is considered a polymer. The length and shape of the molecular chains makes them particularly strong, flexible and lightweight.

It wasn't until the early 1900s that chemists began figuring out how to mimic the structures of natural polymers and create entirely synthetic ones in laboratories. Today, plastic broadly refers to any number of commonly used synthetic polymers, most of which are derived from oil or natural gas.

Click here for a good rundown of the seven major types of consumer plastic, and which ones are easily recyclable.

Plastic has undoubtedly revolutionized society, introducing a huge amount of convenience and affordability, and allowing for the development of things like computers, cell phones and most modern medical advancements.

But our obsession with it also comes at a steep cost. Although originally hailed as a miraculous innovation that could reduce a rapidly industrializing society's reliance on scarce natural resources, plastic has also created a monumental environmental mess. Worldwide, more than 400 million tons of the stuff are churned out annually, generating a huge amount of waste of which less than 10 percent is recycled. The rest either ends up in landfills, where it will take an average of 500 years to decompose, or in waterways and oceans.

And as this latest Above the Noise episode on microfibers makes clear, that has become a mounting environmental crisis.

Scroll through this timeline for a brief history of how synthetic plastics emerged and came to dominate our lives.
Sources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Plastic Took Over The World (and Created A Big Mess): A Brief, Disposable History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Plastic" simply means pliable and easily shaped. It only recently became the name for a category of materials called polymers (" of many parts"), which refer to long chains of molecules arranged in repeating units.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What Are Plastics and Where Do They Come From?
Plastic is a word that originally meant "pliable and easily shaped." It only recently became a name for a category of materials called polymers. The word polymer means "of many parts," and polymers are made of long chains of molecules. Polymers abound in nature. Cellulose, the material that makes up the cell walls of plants, is a very common natural polymer.

Over the last century and a half humans have learned how to make synthetic polymers, sometimes using natural substances like cellulose, but more often using the plentiful carbon atoms provided by petroleum and other fossil fuels. Synthetic polymers are made up of long chains of atoms, arranged in repeating units, often much longer than those found in nature. It is the length of these chains, and the patterns in which they are arrayed, that make polymers strong, lightweight, and flexible. In other words, it's what makes them so plastic.

These properties make synthetic polymers exceptionally useful, and since we learned how to create and manipulate them, polymers have become an essential part of our lives. Especially over the last 50 years plastics have saturated our world and changed the way that we live.
The First Synthetic Plastic
The first synthetic polymer was invented in 1869 by John Wesley Hyatt, who was inspired by a New York firm's offer of $10,000 for anyone who could provide a substitute for ivory. The growing popularity of billiards had put a strain on the supply of natural ivory, obtained through the slaughter of wild elephants. By treating cellulose, derived from cotton fiber, with camphor, Hyatt discovered a plastic that could be crafted into a variety of shapes and made to imitate natural substances like tortoiseshell, horn, linen, and ivory.

This discovery was revolutionary. For the first time human manufacturing was not constrained by the limits of nature. Nature only supplied so much wood, metal, stone, bone, tusk, and horn. But now humans could create new materials. This development helped not only people but also the environment. Advertisements praised celluloid as the savior of the elephant and the tortoise. Plastics could protect the natural world from the destructive forces of human need.

The creation of new materials also helped free people from the social and economic constraints imposed by the scarcity of natural resources. Inexpensive celluloid made material wealth more widespread and obtainable. And the plastics revolution was only getting started.
The Development of New Plastics
In 1907 Leo Baekeland invented Bakelite, the first fully synthetic plastic, meaning it contained no molecules found in nature. Baekeland had been searching for a synthetic substitute for shellac, a natural electrical insulator, to meet the needs of the rapidly electrifying United States. Bakelite was not only a good insulator; it was also durable, heat resistant, and, unlike celluloid, ideally suited for mechanical mass production. Marketed as "the material of a thousand uses," Bakelite could be shaped or molded into almost anything, providing endless possibilities.

Hyatt's and Baekeland's successes led major chemical companies to invest in the research and development of new polymers, and new plastics soon joined celluloid and Bakelite. While Hyatt and Baekeland had been searching for materials with specific properties, the new research programs sought new plastics for their own sake and worried about finding uses for them later.
Plastics Come of Age
World War II necessitated a great expansion of the plastics industry in the United States, as industrial might proved as important to victory as military success. The need to preserve scarce natural resources made the production of synthetic alternatives a priority. Plastics provided those substitutes. Nylon, invented by Wallace Carothers in 1935 as a synthetic silk, was used during the war for parachutes, ropes, body armor, helmet liners, and more. Plexiglas provided an alternative to glass for aircraft windows. A Time magazine article noted that because of the war, "plastics have been turned to new uses and the adaptability of plastics demonstrated all over again."[1] During World War II plastic production in the United States increased by 300%.

The surge in plastic production continued after the war ended. After experiencing the Great Depression and then World War II, Americans were ready to spend again, and much of what they bought was made of plastic. According to author Susan Freinkel, "In product after product, market after market, plastics challenged traditional materials and won, taking the place of steel in cars, paper and glass in packaging, and wood in furniture."[2] The possibilities of plastics gave some observers an almost utopian vision of a future with abundant material wealth thanks to an inexpensive, safe, sanitary substance that could be shaped by humans to their every whim.
Growing Concerns about Plastics
The unblemished optimism about plastics didn't last. In the postwar years there was a shift in American perceptions as plastics were no longer seen as unambiguously positive. Plastic debris in the oceans was first observed in the 1960s, a decade in which Americans became increasingly aware of environmental problems. Rachel Carson's 1962 book, Silent Spring, exposed the dangers of chemical pesticides. In 1969 a major oil spill occurred off the California coast and the polluted Cuyahoga River in Ohio caught fire, raising concerns about pollution. As awareness about environmental issues spread, the persistence of plastic waste began to trouble observers.

Plastic also gradually became a word used to describe that which was cheap, flimsy, or fake. In The Graduate, one of the top movies of 1968, Dustin Hoffman's character was urged by an older acquaintance to make a career in plastics. Audiences cringed along with Hoffman at what they saw as misplaced enthusiasm for an industry that, rather than being full of possibilities, was a symbol of cheap conformity and superficiality.
Plastic Problems: Waste and Health
Plastic's reputation fell further in the 1970s and 1980s as anxiety about waste increased. Plastic became a special target because, while so many plastic products are disposable, plastic lasts forever in the environment. It was the plastics industry that offered recycling as a solution. In the 1980s the plastics industry led an influential drive encouraging municipalities to collect and process recyclable materials as part of their waste-management systems. However, recycling is far from perfect, and most plastics still end up in landfills or in the environment. Grocery-store plastic bags have become a target for activists looking to ban one-use, disposable plastics, and several American cities have already passed bag bans. The ultimate symbol of the problem of plastic waste is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which has often been described as a swirl of plastic garbage the size of Texas floating in the Pacific Ocean.

The reputation of plastics has suffered further thanks to a growing concern about the potential threat they pose to human health. These concerns focus on the additives (such as the much-discussed bisphenol A [BPA] and a class of chemicals called phthalates) that go into plastics during the manufacturing process, making them more flexible, durable, and transparent. Some scientists and members of the public are concerned about evidence that these chemicals leach out of plastics and into our food, water, and bodies. In very high doses these chemicals can disrupt the endocrine (or hormonal) system. Researchers worry particularly about the effects of these chemicals on children and what continued accumulation means for future generations.
The Future of Plastics
Despite growing mistrust, plastics are critical to modern life. Plastics made possible the development of computers, cell phones, and most of the lifesaving advances of modern medicine. Lightweight and good for insulation, plastics help save fossil fuels used in heating and in transportation. Perhaps most important, inexpensive plastics raised the standard of living and made material abundance more readily available. Without plastics many possessions that we take for granted might be out of reach for all but the richest Americans. Replacing natural materials with plastic has made many of our possessions cheaper, lighter, safer, and stronger.

Since it's clear that plastics have a valuable place in our lives, some scientists are attempting to make plastics safer and more sustainable. Some innovators are developing bioplastics, which are made from plant crops instead of fossil fuels, to create substances that are more environmentally friendly than conventional plastics. Others are working to make plastics that are truly biodegradable. Some innovators are searching for ways to make recycling more efficient, and they even hope to perfect a process that converts plastics back into the fossil fuels from which they were derived. All of these innovators recognize that plastics are not perfect but that they are an important and necessary part of our future.

[1] Joseph L. Nicholson and George R. Leighton, "Plastics Come of Age," Harper's Magazine, August 1942, p. 306.

[2] Susan Freinkel, Plastics: A Toxic Love Story (New York: Henry Holt, 2011), p. 4.
View as PDF

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
History and Future of Plastics What Are Plastics and Where Do They Come From? Plastic is a word that originally meant "pliable and easily shaped." It only recently became a name for a category of materials called polymers. The word polymer means "of many parts," and polymers are made of long chains of molecules.

# data[].attributes.body
This will tell you if Mt.Everest should be closed. Read all about it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Warnings that an ecological disaster is imminent in the area around the mountain have largely been ignored amid years of turmoil in Nepal. But conservationists think that growing political stability in the Himalayan kingdom means that the time has come and that the damage caused every year by thousands of climbers and tourists can no longer be ignored.

Maoist rebels declared a ceasefire with Nepal's government in April after a decade-long insurgency and are negotiating to join an interim government with the country's mainstream political parties. The Kathmandu Environmental Education Project (Keep) said that the relative calm has removed an obstacle in its efforts to persuade the authorities that a temporary closure of the mountain is the only solution to help it repair itself.

PT Sherpa, a spokesman for Keep, said: 'The Maoist insurgency presented conservation organisations in Nepal with serious challenges - constraining programmes, damaging infrastructure and threatening the security of staff. Now we are hoping for more open dialogue on conservation with the government, and resting Mount Everest for a number of years is at the top of our list.'

Campaigners warn that the price of tourism is discarded rubbish and medical waste and the colonisation of the area by restaurants and internet cafes. Sherpa spelled out the strain being placed on the indigenous population. 'Providing enough electricity and water for the small communities surrounding Everest and the other Himalayan mountains becomes very challenging when there are tens of thousands of additional tourists and climbers in the region competing for these same resources,' he said. 'Nepal is ravaged by water and air pollution caused by industrialisation and increased tourism. Water supplies for local villages, delivered through irrigation systems in the mountains, are being critically depleted and urgent action needs to be taken.'

This year a geological team, sponsored by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), found signs that the landscape of Mount Everest has changed significantly since Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay first conquered the peak in 1953. A primary cause is the warming global climate, but the research party concluded that the growing effect of tourism was also critically taxing the region surrounding the planet's tallest mountain.

According to the survey, the glacier that once came close to Hillary and Norgay's first base camp has retreated three miles in the past two decades. Hillary himself has become outspoken on a situation he believes is turning into an ecological scandal. 'I have suggested to the Nepal government that they should stop giving permission and give the mountain a rest for a few years,' he has said.

Elizabeth Hawley, a Kathmandu-based patron of The Himalaya Trust, an environmental charity founded and still run by Hillary, said yesterday that the pioneer remained utterly 'appalled' at the levels and standards of tourism around Everest and the Khumba Valley.

'When Sir Edmund has said he wanted the mountain closed or visits limited, the last thing he wants is for the sherpas to lose their livelihoods, but we in the trust strongly believe that not just Everest but the whole of the Khumba Valley needs a sustained rest. These villages have become enormously wealthy by local standards, but along the trail towards Everest there are now restaurants and cyber cafes and bars, and this just doesn't seem right.'

She added: 'Climate change and the receding glacial waters are global issues and not within localised control, but we are particularly worried about deforestation of the area, much of it to sustain tourism, and our campaigning has helped improve the situation, but it still isn't enough. We feel that we have to start from the beginning in order for the region to recuperate and recycle itself. '

Others have proposed limiting the number of professional expeditions and banning all commercial trips to base camp. Junko Tabei, 66, of Japan, the first woman to reach the summit, said: 'Everest has become too crowded. It needs a rest. Only two or three teams should be allowed in a season to climb Everest, and tourist trips to base camp should be banned altogether. Along the trail to the Mount Everest base camp in Nepal, deforestation is getting worse as locals cut down trees to heat meals and to provide hot showers for foreign eco-trekkers. The local environment is in danger and the dignity of the mountain is being undermined.'

There are also fears that even 'eco-tourism' is doing more harm than good. The WWF estimates that 'only 20 pence of every £2 spent by an average trekker each day reaches village economies'.

Prakash Sharma, director of Friends of the Earth Nepal, believes that, while many of the Western charity groups who trek to the foot of the mountain may be doing so for honourable causes, they are not considering the environmental consequences. 'The exponential increase in pollution and other negative environmental situations on Mount Everest is a direct result of the massive increase in visitors to the region,' he said. 'The Khumbu region and the city of Kathmandu can comfortably hold about 40,000 people. In the coming months, during peak tourist season in the lower valley, there will be as many as 700,000.

'Twenty to forty thousand of these people attempt, at some altitude, to ascend the mountains of the Himalayas, including thousands who will at least trek to the foot of Everest. There is no infrastructure in this region to cope with the pollution this many people generate, and as a result the Nepali Himalayas have become the highest junkyard in the world.'

Sharma claims that the tonnes of rubbish on Everest include climbing equipment, foods, plastics, tins, aluminium cans, glass, clothes, papers, tents and even discarded electronic equipment such as satellite dishes. Some climbers have reported finding bloody syringes and vials of unlabelled medications. Other campaigners claim the dead body count on the mountain, 188 according to varying estimates, is enough reason to temporarily close it.

But the sherpas who earn their living from the perilous work of guiding adventurers to the summit vociferously oppose any reduction in climbing permits. Ang Dawa, a Sherpa guide in Kathmandu, said: 'For us it is simple. There are tens of thousands of people in the region who solely depend on the trekkers and mountaineers for their income. If they don't come, these people and their families will starve. A sherpa who summits on Everest is looking at making a minimum of £1,600 for 60 days' work. That's a lot of money in Nepal - it can support an entire village.'

Nepalese officials claim, despite the UN report and environmentalist warnings, that they have no immediate plans to close down the mountain. 'All climbers are welcome as long as long as they are willing to pay,' a government spokesman said. Critics say it is no surprise that the Nepali authorities have no plans to scale back tourism in the region. To even set foot on the slopes of Everest, each team of seven climbers must pay a royalty of £50,000 to the Nepalese government.
Mountains under threat
Mt Blanc, France
Ten million tourists visit the Alps every year. Slopes and skies are exposed to hundreds of flights, freight and holiday traffic. New ski lifts replace old ones, leaving them abandoned and obsolete: cables, pylons and deserted construction sites litter the mountains while the human traffic destroys vegetation. The region is a water reservoir for both the Po (Italy) and the Rhone (France and Switzerland). Rising temperatures are melting glaciers, reducing snow cover and crumbling rocks.

Tianshan, China
China yesterday closed melting glaciers in its north-west Tianshan mountain range to tourists who littered, polluted and even drove across ice. The mountains supply 2.3 million people in Urumqi with water and are crucial to hydro-electric schemes but are shrinking by eight metres a year as a result of global warming and increased tourism. China is battling to clean up its heavily polluted waterways and stave off water shortages across the arid northern regions that have been exacerbated by waste and mismanagement.

Kilimanjaro, Tanzania
A popular site for 'charity treks', Africa's most famous mountain is showing signs of wear and tear. The glaciers that have covered its top for 11,700 years have shrunk by more than 80 per cent and are predicted to disappear by 2010. Locals depend on water from the mountain in dry seasons. But man-made forest clearances around Kilimanjaro for agriculture also have an effect on the climate; reducing foliage causes less moisture in the atmosphere, with less cloud cover and rain.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Warnings that an ecological disaster is imminent in the area around the mountain have largely been ignored amid years of turmoil in Nepal. But conservationists think that growing political stability in the Himalayan kingdom means that the time has come and that the damage caused every year by thousands of climbers and tourists can no longer be ignored.

# data[].attributes.body
please do something!

# data[].attributes.headline
5 arguement text for why orca's should be in captivity

# data[].attributes.subject
5 arguement text for why orca's should be in captivity

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.leisurepro.com/blog/scuba-diving-stories-news/for-keeping-captive-cetaceans/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Editor's note: This is the second of a two-part series regarding the great debate roiling over captive cetaceans. Click here for yesterday's arguments against the practice.
With the recent documentary Blackfish casting Sea World and the practice of keeping captive cetaceans such as orcas in a negative light, many animal-rights groups are calling for a mass release. Others want Sea World shut down entirely, while others are calling for legislation to ban the keeping of killer whales. However, proponents of retaining captive whales and dolphins see that solution as a short-sighted, knee-jerk reaction to propaganda. While many supporters often cite public education and awareness as a valid reason to keep cetaceans in captivity, here are five other arguments that come up in the fierce debate.

Cetaceans are family-oriented and live in pods.

In the ocean, orcas live in family groups called pods. Those who do not have a pod cannot join another at random. In captivity, orcas are kept with one or more others. If released, Sea World's orcas will be forced into social isolation. For such intelligent creatures, this can be both cruel and deadly. Being forced to wander the ocean alone or with a single companion, avoiding other orcas, and being forced to hunt alone is seen by some as a fate even worse than captivity.

Many orcas have been bred in captivity.

Sea World has not captured a wild orca since the late 1970s. Their breeding program has produced dozens of calves, all of whom have lived their entire lives with human contact. They have no knowledge of how to hunt for themselves and have no reason to avoid humans. The idea of releasing captive-bred orcas into the wild could very well just lead to them being killed or recaptured because they have no fear and will approach boats.

Breed-and-release programs have failed spectacularly before.

Humans have attempted such programs with elephants, rhinos and other endangered species in the past. In many cases, the animals were poached or captured by others. This does nothing to preserve the species or protect it from extinction. A killer whale named Keiko, who was the star of the film Free Willy, was returned to the wild. He only lived another five years, dying from pneumonia. He never integrated with other orcas and spent his last years wandering the fjords of Norway alone. Were more killer whales to be released, similar results could be expected.

The ocean is highly polluted.

Orcas in captivity live in sparkling tanks. The temperature and salinity of the water is controlled. After decades of this, plunging these animals back into the oceans could likely be a death sentence. Orcas in the wild deal with floating garbage, spilled oil, the presence of fisheries and other dangers for which captive cetaceans will be entirely unprepared. The Fukishima Reactor in Japan is still leeching radiation into the sea as well. None of these factors bode well for released orcas.

There are ethical concerns regarding responsibility.

While some people believe that releasing captive-bred orcas is a necessity, many others question if humans do not have the responsibility to care for the animals created. For example, many ethical breeders of dogs and horses take responsibility for every foal or pup born in their program. Shouldn't Sea World be held to the same standards?

The issues surrounding this controversy are varied and complex. While heart-strings may demand that the animals are freed, common sense, the health of the orcas, and all sides of the ethical debate must also be considered.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Arguments For Keeping Captive Cetaceans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Editor's note: This is the second of a two-part series regarding the great debate roiling over captive cetaceans. Click here for yesterday's arguments against the practice. With the recent documentary Blackfish casting Sea World and the practice of keeping captive cetaceans such as orcas in a negative light, many animal-rights groups are calling for a mass release.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How You Can Help Stop Plastic Pollution in Our Oceans | The Weather Channel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The problem with plastic in our oceans grows every day. Meteorologist Kait Parker looks at some things we can do to lend Mother Nature a helping hand.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Posted By Savannah Wilson

Plastics make up a large percentage of the immediate world, and just about anything humans need or conceptualize can be created from this versatile substance. Plastics allow cars to carry people farther than feet, food to be preserved, and technology to solve a range of problems. However, despite their virtues, plastics are not a natural part of the world.

Plastics are synthetic materials, and they are not degraded and assimilated into the natural world without serious side effects. In fact, plastic pollution today is encroaching across the landscape, besmirching pristine countrysides, choking rivers, and eventually making its way to the sea where the worst effects of contamination are taking a serious toll.

Today, the problem with plastic pollution has reached critical levels and directly threatens the biological processes and ecosystems of the oceans. Because the environment that humans enjoy and much of the food humans eat comes from the ocean, plastic pollution does not bode well for the human race either.

This article offers an exploration of plastic pollution, as well as an examination of some programs seeking to reverse the growing issue. Additionally, it takes about smaller-scale changes that all individuals can make to decrease the severity of the issue.

Plastic Plastics Everywhere!

Why are humans so enamored with plastics? Well, quite simply because of their "plastic" capacity. The word plastic means flexible, and plastics can be stretched, formed, and set into any shape or dimension with incomparable strength and resistance to the elements. They owe their special qualities to their long-chain molecular structure that repeats itself over and over.

But the truth is that plastics are simply too good to be true-this is a notion that is taking some time for people to catch onto. Today, plastic is applied abundantly for single-use packaging materials and described as "disposable." However, people are discovering on an alarming scale that there is nothing inherently "disposable" about plastic products.

The biggest problem with plastic is its disposal. Very few plastic products can be successfully repurposed, and each type of plastic must be recycled in a specific way. This leads to larger and larger quantities of plastics making their ways to landfills with no thought about the environmental impact this could have.

Plastic can't be effectively assimilated into the environment because it is a synthetic product. Natural materials have natural processes that work to break down larger materials into smaller materials that can serve to feed and nourish the land. Plastic does not respond to any bacterial or enzymatic processes that decompose natural materials.

Instead, plastics undergo another process called photodegradation which uses the light of the sun to break the bonds of their long molecular chains. This means that plastic left in the sunlight will eventually break down into smaller and smaller pieces. While this may sound like a good thing, the story of plastics is far from over.

The Problem With Plastic Pollution

Larger, more visible pieces of trash are being eaten by sea turtles, ensnaring whales, and constricting the natural cycles of marine life. However, there has been increasing concern over the detrimental effects of microplastics, in particular. These plastics are no larger than five millimeters in diameter-much too small to be seen without a magnifying glass.

Some microplastics are manufactured for specific benefits as cleaning agents, cosmetics, household chemicals, and paints. These are called primary microplastics and are most often introduced into the ocean through sewage and wastewater. Even when treated, the small dimensions of these microplastics allow them to traverse filtration systems and enter waterways, contaminating the environment.

Then there are the secondary microplastics which are produced by the photodegradation of larger pieces of plastic. One of the worst culprits here are synthetic clothing materials that quickly break apart in the sunlight and become harmful microparticles. The vast patches of plastic garbage festering in the warm sunlight from dawn to dusk have ample time to produce a great slurry of microplastics.

Effects of Plastic Pollution in the Ocean

The effects of large quantities of plastics in a natural environment are bad news wherever that may be. In the ocean, the effects of plastics have unhealthy implications for humans and marine life alike, some of which are described below.

Plastic Consumption

Big and small pieces of plastic are being gobbled up by birds, turtles, fish, and marine life of all types. This results in digestive blockages, poor immune defense, and death.

Death and Toxicity Accumulation

Some animals will die quickly when eating plastic junk, while others are not so lucky. Plastics in the diet can lead to starvation and the accumulation of toxicity within the gut that can be passed to larger predators.

Entanglement

From giant whales to smaller organisms, plastic garbage is trapping animals, and many have a hard time living afterward.

Plastics photodegrading in the sunlight release toxins that can be carried for miles even into the deepest ocean floor. This can destroy the immune system of corals and bivalve mollusks. Even humans swimming at toxic beaches can be affected.

Human Contamination

Removing Garbage From the Ocean

Now that you have a good idea of just how bad the problem with plastic in the ocean is and how much greater it can be, it's time for a change of perspective. Despite the rising tide of toxins and pollutants threatening planetary health, there are individuals and organizations who have set out to rectify the misdoings of human global industrial naivety.

The task is colossal, and at times, it may seem like moving a mountain with a tablespoon, but remedial action must begin somewhere. Below are some organizations and projects dedicated to cleaning up the oceans and relieving the threat of plastic pollution.

The Ocean Cleanup Project

The Ocean Cleanup could be considered the largest-scale cleanup endeavor in human history and is the idea of an enterprising Norwegian 18-year-old, Boyan Slat. Slat's idea was to target the ocean gyres and use the "sweeping" action of wind and ocean currents to gather the trash and then devise a clever collection strategy.

Using a fleet of boats and fulltime collection would be costly and ineffective. So, Slat designed the first ever Ocean Cleanup Passive Collection System. This is an ingenious device that can be located in the circular path of the oceans gyre and works to concentrate and trap the floating garbage. Slat estimates that with a fully operative system of these devices, the ocean gyres can be diminished by as much as 50 percent each year.

The Seabin is another floating mechanism that can be applied for keeping human garbage from encroaching on marine life. The Seabin functions as an empty bucket floating around harbors and coastal developments in strategic locations to capture as much trash as possible.

Even with the herculean efforts of ocean cleanup projects, the question of what to do with all these plastics still stands. Trawlers could soon begin hauling in loads of plastic debris from the ocean, but it can't be buried in the land. One solution that has been applied to old vehicle tires may have the potential for plastic pollution of all types.

Ocean Conservancy

This nonprofit organization has its headquarters in Washington D.C. and works to formulate policies that protect the oceans at a federal level. Part of the plan laid out by Ocean Conservancy involves highlighting the locations that are producing the most plastic waste and seeking out solutions for collecting, transporting, and otherwise disposing of plastic materials in a safe and responsible manner.

Seven Essential Steps for Relieving the Strain of Plastic Pollution

It's clear that the rising levels of plastic pollution being produced internationally are presenting a very real danger to the planet. In addition to the consequences to oceans and health mentioned above, the vast swathes of plastic wastelands are also contributing to climate change. If there was ever a time for environmentally-aware individuals to unite, it is now.

Here are some of the most effective steps that must be implemented quickly in under to remedy or eradicate the problems posed by plastics in the ocean.

Reduce the Dependency on Plastic

The first step to a complete solution to plastic pollution begins with a reduction in the amounts of plastic that people depend on. The most notable example is single-use plastic that is found in fast-food restaurants, supermarket bags, and disposable plates and cups still being used legally in most of the world.

Many countries have placed bans on plastic bags at supermarkets and plastic straws. However, until single-use plastic has been completely abolished, the pollution problem is rising.

Producer Responsibility

Since the "plastic revolution" about half a century ago, the production of plastic products has exploded. From toys and disposable hospital equipment to components for space stations and high-tech weaponry, plastic fits every need.

This has led humanity in an extravagant direction and much of human comfort and lifestyle needs are founded on plastics. Because there are no laws against it, producers capitalize on this great need and no one party is any more to blame than the other.

However, if producers were required to take responsibility for the recollection of the plastic they produce, the scene will change dramatically.

Tax Fossil Plastics

It takes a lot of time and logistics to recollect plastic for recycling. It is far easier just to grab some more barrels of fossil fuels and create more plastic. This could be reversed if the taxes levied on plastic from fossil fuels were increased to a prohibitive level. This way, recycling plastic will become the only way to create this needed material and big industries can go fish their source materials out of the ocean.

Improved Waste Management Where It Is Most Needed

While plastic is present in every country and each is dealing with the issue as best they can, most of the plastic waste entering the oceans is coming from five countries in particular.

Due to a rapid rise in commercialization and population expansions, these countries are experiencing an economic boom, and it is ultimately translating into heaping piles of garbage and plastic waste. If the majority of efforts are focused on addressing the sanitation needs of these countries, efficacy in the pollution solution will be increased.

Plans and support for next-generation recycling solutions for these countries lie at the heart of solving plastic problems on a global scale. If these countries were made exemplary plastic-processing civilizations, the future of oceans would have much better prospects.

Increased Understanding and Study of the Ocean

Perhaps the worst element about plastic pollution is that it affects a world that humans know relatively little about and one that is far more extensive than individuals could ever imagine. The oceans cover more than two-thirds of the Earth's surface, and much of the ocean's more remote regions are as alien to humans as outer space.

Research has shown that a great quantity of toxins produced by plastic degradation is reaching the ocean floor, but people have no idea what it could be causing down there or how it can be collected. One of the most significant projects at the moment is an expedition vessel named REV which will help humans understand the ocean better and has many applications in resolving the plastic problem.

Reduce Plastic Flow to the Ocean

No matter who you are or what you do, you can begin to take small, incremental steps towards reducing the amounts of plastics that make it to the ocean. This could include picking up litter while spending time at the beach and waterways. Alternatively, it could mean volunteering for cleanup organizations or supporting those who are keeping the oceans clean. At the very least, you can begin by making smarter consumer choices that leave less plastic in the environment.

Increase Funding for Operations

The projects at hand are large, and the operations at play are badly under-sourced to meet the needed advancements to contain the plastic menace. One of the most effective ways to contribute to a solution is to fund those who are well-equipped to handle the situations where they are needed the most. The final goal will be to set up an international funding operation that will organize and direct larger resources directed at collecting pollution and preserving marine life and oceanic ecosystems.

Conclusion

One of the greatest indirect threats to the health of the oceans is thinking that things have gone too far or that there is nothing an average individual could really do to reverse this condition. However, now that you are fully aware of the terrifying effects that plastic and microplastic products can have on the oceans, marine life, and consequently humans, you have become part of the solution. Slow, incremental progress is the surest path to success and can guide you to a lifestyle suitable for healthy oceans.

Photo credits: AndreiDubadzel/shutterstock.com, RichCarey/shutterstock.com, OlgaGorevan/shutterstock.com, RichCarey/shutterstock.com, katatonia82/shutterstock.com, BubbersBB/shutterstock.com

By Savannah Wilson

Savannah is an aromatherapy enthusiast who takes pride in knowing everything about essential oils, from ylang-ylang to chamomile. When taking a break from learning more about essential oils, Savannah likes to spend her time reading books or working out.

Favorite MONQ blend: Sexy

The above information relates to studies of specific individual essential oil ingredients, some of which are used in the essential oil blends for various MONQ diffusers. Please note, however, that while individual ingredients may have been shown to exhibit certain independent effects when used alone, the specific blends of ingredients contained in MONQ diffusers have not been tested. No specific claims are being made that use of any MONQ diffusers will lead to any of the effects discussed above. Additionally, please note that MONQ diffusers have not been reviewed or approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. MONQ diffusers are not intended to be used in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, prevention, or treatment of any disease or medical condition. If you have a health condition or concern, please consult a physician or your alternative health care provider prior to using MONQ diffusers. MONQ blends should not be inhaled into the lungs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Posted By Savannah Wilson Plastics make up a large percentage of the immediate world, and just about anything humans need or conceptualize can be created from this versatile substance. Plastics allow cars to carry people farther than feet, food to be preserved, and technology to solve a range of problems. However, despite their virtues, plastics are not a natural part of the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Image: Milos Bicanski / Getty Images

Plastic is kind of like a Twitter reply guy: It never goes away. And there's more coming in.

Each year, 8 million metric tons of plastic go into the ocean (that's equal to about one garbage truck per minute), according to a 2016 report by the World Economic Forum, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, and McKinsey & Company.

"Plastic is a substance that once created essentially exists almost in perpetuity and just breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces in the environment," says Graham Forbes, the global plastics project leader at Greenpeace, an international environmental organization.

It's vital to pay attention to the plight of plastic and implement small changes in your daily life to keep plastic out of the world's oceans. World Water Day may be Friday, but we should be working to minimize the harm of plastics every day.

Plastic pollution impacts sea creatures in a huge variety of ways. As National Geographic notes, about 700 species of marine animals have been found to eat or become ensnared by plastic. Sea turtles swallow it thinking it's jellyfish. A whale was found with plastic bags in its stomach. Birds like albatrosses eat plastic believing it's food, according to Smithsonian. And as marine biologist Matthew Savoca told National Geographic, anchovies eat algae-covered plastic because it smells like a meal.

Jacqueline Savitz, the chief policy officer for North America at Oceana, an ocean conservation nonprofit, says that "if we don't figure out a way to turn the tide on plastic," we'll continue to poison these sea creatures.

But don't panic ... yet. "The good news is that there's something everyone can do," says Forbes. "A lot of people understand that it's a problem and want to do something about it."

Here are five ways you can help reduce the amount of plastic that's produced, as well as keep the plastic that already exists out of the world's oceans.

1. Ditch single-use plastic and buy reusable items

Be a conscious consumer and steer away from single-use plastic items. Instead, buy in bulk or opt for reusable items like bottles or cups. The impact of this choice extends beyond your own home: Your money has leverage. When you change your spending habits, companies and governments will start to pay attention, says Forbes.

To make a real impact, however, you'll need to make sure you get the most from your reusable item.

"In the end, the key for those reusable materials, for them to truly be holistically environmentally better, is the actual reuse of them - many, many times," says Erin Simon, the director for sustainability research and development at World Wildlife Fund.

2. Pressure big business to produce less plastic

It's important that individuals do what they can to reduce plastic waste, but there also needs to be a systemic change, meaning big companies have to change the way they package their items.

"At some point, we have to shift and demand the big businesses creating all of this plastic, just produce less of it to begin with because a lot of it is just completely unnecessary," says Forbes.

Similarly, Savitz encourages individuals to put the responsibility on companies who don't offer consumers plastic-free options.

"I don't want people to feel bad if they're drinking out of a plastic container when they weren't given a choice," she says.

To hold large grocery retailers, in particular, accountable, Greenpeace recommends individuals complete this survey about the amount of plastic in their local grocery store. The data will help Greenpeace rank 20 top supermarkets based on their plastic usage. For tips on how to complete the survey, check out this toolkit.

The organization also suggests people deliver this sample letter to grocery store managers, which asks them to "introduce transparency by publishing yearly audits of single-use plastic use, set annual targets to reduce your single-use plastic footprint, eliminate unnecessary and non-recyclable plastic packaging in 2019, and invest in reuse and new delivery systems."

If you don't feel comfortable with in-person confrontations, Greenpeace suggests taking a photo of the excessive plastic on grocery store shelves and then posting it on social media, making sure to tag the company and add the hashtag #pointlessplastic.

Dianna Cohen, the CEO and co-founder of the Plastic Pollution Coalition, recommends people take part in a brand audit, which requires volunteers to record data about the trash collected at a community or beach cleanup, including the brand name and manufacturer of each plastic item.

"This tells us which companies are creating the most plastic pollution and helps us put pressure on those companies to reduce their plastic footprint on the Earth," Cohen wrote in an email.

3. Tell local governments to improve waste management infrastructure

Change is going to occur where individuals have the most leverage: at the local level, Simon and Forbes say.

In fact, there's already been some progress. In January, the Berkeley City Council passed a ban on non-compostable food containers.

"I think the more people are connected to each other and looking at some of these examples in other cities, you can start to see a roadmap for how to really make a difference in your own community," says Forbes.

To email your representatives about passing policies that reduce the production of single-use plastic or sign a petition to demand that the Association of Volleyball Professionals stopusing single-use plastic water bottles on beaches across the U.S., visit the Take Action Center, provided by the Plastic Pollution Coalition.

For even more ideas on how to get involved, whether that means writing a letter to the editor for your local newspaper or starting a plastic-free community group, refer to Greenpeace's Million Acts of Blue toolkit.

4. Take initiative wherever you are

Savitz says people can make demands to reduce plastic at companies they work for or purchase from, universities, churches, synagogues, mosques, or other areas. And don't feel like you have to wait for organizations to start a campaign. Speak up and let companies know that you are a valued customer.

"Don't feel like you can't be a leader because this is really going to take a lot of campaigns - maybe not 10, maybe hundreds of individual campaigns with different targets," says Savitz.

5. Think beyond recycling

Forbes and Savitz agree that recycling is not the end-all-be-all solution to plastic pollution. It's not enough for companies to say they'll recycle as much plastic as much as they put out. To begin with, many American towns and cities have cancelled their recycling programs or limited what they accept from residents, according to the New York Times. Meanwhile, China is no longer accepting most foreign recycled materials.

"The fundamental reality is that there's no way for us to recycle our way out of this problem, and we just need less plastic," says Forbes. "Pushing companies to produce less plastic and governments to incentivize away from endless single-use plastic is really what it's going to take to get us to healthy, clean oceans where marine life can thrive, people can enjoy it, and protect our food systems, as well."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 ways to keep plastic out of the world's oceans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic is kind of like a Twitter reply guy: It never goes away. And there's more coming in. Each year, 8 million metric tons of plastic go into the ocean (that's equal to about one garbage truck per minute), according to a 2016 report by the World Economic Forum, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, and McKinsey & Company.

# data[].attributes.body
Read all about it! Is a good story it tell you everything.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Extreme Sports Challenge the Courts

Product Liability Law & Strategy, August 2015

Extreme sports are increasingly popular in the U.S., and participation is growing. "Extreme" means different things to different people. But participation is not only up in sports such as mountain biking and snowboarding, more people also are bungee jumping, hang gliding, wind surfing and rock climbing. As more Americans become involved in hazardous recreation, the number of personal injuries is also rising, especially among minors. With injuries comes litigation, of course, and the popularity of extreme sports raises challenging questions of liability.

Risky Business

A study presented at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons analyzed data reported to the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) to quantify injuries associated with extreme sports. The results were staggering, though not particularly unexpected. From 2000 to 2011, over four million injuries were reported for participants in all seven sports selected for study: surfing, mountain biking, motocross, skateboarding, snowboarding, snowmobiling, and snow skiing. Of these, 11.3% were head and neck injuries, with concussions the most common risk among participants of all types of extreme sports.

Virtually all participants in extreme sports voluntarily embrace the risks and thrills of going faster, higher and farther, but many enthusiasts also must pay for the privilege. Government agencies and private companies often charge admission to parks, slopes, and tracks, and one of the common conditions of admission is the requirement that participants sign releases waiving their right to sue for injuries, including those caused by the provider's negligence. Although these liability waivers can be enforceable in some states under certain circumstances, outcomes are highly fact-driven and often unpredictable.

Waiving Liability for Extreme Sports

As a general rule, exculpatory clauses are valid and enforceable under common law principles unless they violate public policy or the damage was the result of willful or wanton conduct on the part of the defendant. Some states have created statutory exceptions to this general principle. See, e.g., La. Civ. Code. Ann. art. 2004; N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law 5-326; see also Alaska Stat. 05.45.120 (excepting "special events" from prohibition against use of exculpatory agreements by ski area operators). However, agreements to limit liability for injury are strongly disfavored by courts. Therefore, a pre-injury release will only be enforced if, in clear and conspicuous language, it explicitly indicates the intent to release the provider from liability for injury caused by that party's own conduct or negligence.

Even well-drafted releases and waivers can be invalidated as contrary to public policy. Each jurisdiction can apply slightly different factors when assessing the public policy exception, but the basic analysis can be boiled down to two interrelated inquiries.

Assuming that the terms of the waiver are clear and unambiguous, the most important factors governing the enforceability of a waiver are: 1) whether the party being released provides a necessity or other essential service; and 2) whether the agreement is inherently fair not unconscionable. Neither factor is dispositive by itself, but the two are always in the equation when assessing enforceability. Because recreational activities generally are not public necessities or essential services, courts generally find in favor of the released parties on the first factor. It is the second factor where decisions diverge.

The fairness of an exculpatory agreement generally boils down to a question of bargaining power. Almost all releases are provided as take-it-or-leave-it agreements, usually a preprinted form that must be signed before engaging in the desired activity. This fact gives some courts pause. See Stelluti v. Casapenn Enters., LLC, 1 A.3d 678, 688 (N.J. 2010) (discussing the fact that a fitness club exculpatory agreement was a contract of adhesion due to its "take-it-or-leave-it basis," but ultimately holding that the agreement was not unconscionable). Still, most courts conclude that, when participation in recreational activities is purely voluntary, i.e., no one is compelled to engage in extreme sports, the relative inequality of the parties' bargaining power is not sufficient to invalidate the release.

For instance, white-water rafting is a recreational activity that is "not the sort where one party is at so great a disadvantage as to render the agreement void." Lahey v. Covington, 964 F. Supp. 1440, 1445 (D. Colo. 1996); see also Saenz v. Whitewater Voyages, Inc., 276 Cal. Rptr. 672 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990). Similarly, skydiving is not an "essential service, so no decisive bargaining advantage exist[s]" in the agreement to waive liability for injury caused by negligence. Schutkowski v. Carey, 725 P.2d 1057, 1060 (Wyo. 1986). And in the context of amateur auto racing, the Sixth Circuit not only considered the voluntary nature of the activity, but also the fact that "the races could not continue without such protection from liability" Donegan v. Beech Bend Raceway Park, Inc., 894 F.2d 205, 207 (6th Cir. 1990).

A Nation of Daredevils in a Changing Legal Landscape

Looking for legal trends, a category of extreme sports that is nearly ubiquitous-downhill skiing and snowboarding-makes a useful bellwether. Participation is certainly high in these sports. Snowsports Industries America (SIA) calculates that more than 16 million people participated in skiing and snowboarding in the 2013-2014 season. 2015 SIA Snow Sports Fact Sheet.

The vast majority of courts considering the issue over the years concluded that properly drafted and executed releases of liability are valid and enforceable in the context of downhill skiing and snowboarding. See, e.g., Myers v. Lutsen Mountains Corp., 587 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 2009); Platzer v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, 128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 885 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002); McGrath v. SNH Dev., Inc., 969 A.2d 392 (N.H. 2009); Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, L.P., 2 A.3d 1174 (Pa. 2010); Chauvlier v. Booth Creek Ski Holdings, Inc., 35 P.3d 383 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). But see Dalury v. S-K-I, Ltd., 670 A.2d 795 (Vt. 1995) (finding "legitimate public interest" based on large number of people that "ride lifts, buy services, and ski the trails").

In December 2014, however, the Oregon Supreme Court rejected the traditional approach in an opinion which should certainly trouble organizers of extreme sport activities.

In Bagley v. Mount Bachelor, Inc., 340 P.3d 27 (Or. 2014), a young man was injured while snowboarding on the defendant's privately owned mountain. The snowboarder crashed while going off of a jump located in the "Air Chamber" in the resort's freestyle terrain park. The accident resulted in severe injury and permanent paralysis. See generally Park & Ride: Mt. Bachelor, Oregon., TransWorld SNOWboarding

(Apr. 30, 2004), (for description of the Air Chamber.) The defendant moved for summary judgment, and won, based on a signed waiver. Oregon's Supreme Court reversed, however, finding that the unequivocal release signed by the plaintiff violated public policy.

Unlike many previous courts, the Oregon Supreme Court did not think it significant that the plaintiff could have negated all risks by not snowboarding at the defendant's facility. Instead, the court concluded that the resort owner was in a superior bargaining position because the plaintiff had "no meaningful alternative to defendant's take-it-or-leave-it terms if he wanted to participate in downhill snowboarding." Id. at 562.

The court's themes in Bagley merit attention. First, the snowboarder was injured in a terrain park, while unsuccessfully attempting a "human-made jump," and he alleged negligence in "designing, constructing, maintaining, and inspecting the jump." Id. at 548. The fact that the jump was constructed by the ski company was critical to the result. The court relied heavily on the ski company's duty of reasonable care "to avoid creating risks of harm to its business invitees." Id. at 565.

This reasoning suggests that the result would have been different if the plaintiff had injured himself on a naturally-occurring hazard. Of course, since almost all ski resorts now include terrain parks in their list of attractions, this reasoning essentially establishes two separate classes of skiers and snowboarders: those who choose to ride manmade portions of the park and those who do not. Perversely, this division essentially immunizes the biggest risk-takers from the release of liability contained in the release agreement they are forced to sign.

In addition to applying premises-liability principles to undermine the ski resort's exculpatory agreement, Bagley also cited the high rates of participation in skiing and snowboarding. High rates of participation helped the court invalidate the agreement. The court observed that a ski resort is "open to the general public virtually without restriction, and large numbers of skiers and snowboarders regularly avail themselves of its facilities." Id. at 568. This fact, in light of the "limited number of ski areas that provide downhill skiing and snow-boarding opportunities in Oregon, and the generality of the use of similar releases among that limited commercial cohort," was ultimately central to the conclusion that the release in question violated public policy. Id. at 562.

In short, the combination of two factors, the popularity of the snow sports and the added dangers presented by the creation and maintenance of terrain park obstacles, led the court to conclude that the release of liability violates public policy. In essence, the court found it inequitable for the ski company to invite large numbers of people to a hazard it created, and then disclaim any liability for resulting injuries.

While Bagley can be viewed as an outlier, it may also signal a course correction in response to wider participation and increasing injuries in extreme sports. As participation in extreme sports becomes more common, we may see more courts viewing anticipatory releases like Oregon's Supreme Court, focusing less on the voluntary, recreational nature of the activity and more on the specific equities. This would obviously create greater uncertainty for the providers and organizers of extreme sport experiences and likely prompt new strategies for limiting their liability.

Future Releases

One way to limit the impact of decisions like Bagley would be to require a separate release for terrain parks and other man-made obstacles, similar to the registration requirements for amateur ski racing venues. How Do I Register to Race? Nastar.com. Such waivers have been upheld in the racing context. See Collins v. Schweitzer, Inc., 774 F. Supp. 1253, 1263 (D. Idaho 1991); cf. Rowan v. Vail Holdings, Inc., 31 F. Supp. 2d 889, 898 (D. Colo. 1998) (finding that racing release violated public policy, but opining that "if the skiing were recreational in nature only, I don't think that the release would have been entered into unfairly since Rowan could simply have gone somewhere else to ski or chosen not to ski").

In other words, for skiing and snowboarding-nearly ubiquitous in many areas of the country-separating the more "extreme" aspects of the sport may help insulate providers from liability for the injuries.

On the other hand, the Bagley rationale does not bode well for sponsors of all those extreme sports that rely heavily on manmade tracks and terrain. Virtually any motocross park, for example, is at least partially designed or constructed to add jumps and bumps. Skateboard parks often are designed to give participants smooth half-pipes and faux rails. Even bike trails can be designed or constructed in some respects to add challenges to already challenging natural terrain. And one brand new category of extreme sports, military or adventure-style races, is totally fabricated. Participants in these so-called "Spartan" events often face unreasonably tough running terrain and seriously dangerous obstacles like fires and barbed wire fences. Some of these participants are being seriously injured, and a few have died. Can lawsuits be far behind?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Extreme sports are increasingly popular in the U.S., and participation is growing. "Extreme" means different things to different people. But participation is not only up in sports such as mountain biking and snowboarding, more people also are bungee jumping, hang gliding, wind surfing and rock climb...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We develop and scale technologies to rid the oceans of plastic

Every year, millions of tons of plastic enter the oceans, of which the majority spills out from rivers. A portion of this plastic travels to ocean garbage patches, getting caught in a vortex of circulating currents. If no action is taken, the plastic will increasingly impact our ecosystems, health, and economies.

We aim to clean up 90% of floating ocean plastic pollution

The Ocean Cleanup is a non-profit organization developing and scaling technologies to rid the oceans of plastic. To achieve this objective, we have to work on a combination of closing the source and cleaning up what has already accumulated in the ocean and doesn't go away by itself. This goal means we plan to put ourselves out of business - once we have completed this project, our work is done.

The Ocean Cleanup is developing cleanup systems that can clean up the floating plastics caught swirling in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. System 002, our latest system iteration, reached proof of technology on October 20 th, 2021, meaning we can now start the cleanup.

Learn more

The Ocean Cleanup has developed the first scalable solution to efficiently intercept plastic in rivers before it reaches the oceans. By tackling 1000 rivers around the world, we aim to halt 80% of riverine plastic from entering the oceans in five years from rollout.

Learn more

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every year, millions of tons of plastic enter the oceans, of which the majority spills out from rivers. A portion of this plastic travels to ocean garbage patches, getting caught in a vortex of circulating currents. If no action is taken, the plastic will increasingly impact our ecosystems, health, and economies.

# data[].attributes.body
is it a new kind of shark?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Kentucky lies on the Cumberland Plateau, hundreds of miles away from the ocean. It lies at an elevation of about 230 meters above sea level surrounded by the Appalachian Mountains on the east with the Black mountain being its nearest peak.

However, many geographical pieces of evidence proved several phenomena, indicating the collision of plates and the formation of mountains. Now there is new evidence regarding the presence of sharks in the current plateau where Kentucky is present.

Fossils of sharks were found in the Mammoth Cave in Kentucky that proves the presence of sharks in that particular region. In a damp tunnel that was mined a century ago, Rick Toomey (Cave Specialist and Research Coordinator at Mammoth) conducted research, clambering down the cave and discovering something that surprised everyone.

Rick Toomey, who is the park's cave specialist and research coordinator in Mammoth Cave National Park led people into the dark cave.The Park specialist's discovery in Kentucky astonished everyone.

Join our writing team and develop your writing skills, as you see your articles featured on Apple News, Google News, and all around the world.

The brown fossils present in the walls represented the fossils of relics of now-extinct sharks. The finding shocked everyone, that's when Toomey stated that "Kentucky was underwater before millions of years ago" without any surprise.

The photos of these fossils were sent to the J.P Hodnett, a paleontologist in Washington D.C, and the discovery of the shark's teeth excited him. Hodnet identified that the fossil was found to be the Saivadus, an extinct shark that lived 330 million years ago. Later, in November, he went to Mammoth Cave National park and confirmed his identification by researching the fossils.

"We're starting to get a pretty good idea of what this ocean would've looked like," said Toomey, pointing out the fossils. He believes that these recent discoveries were just the start of learning about extinct animals and the history of Earth's geography.

Source: wdrb

Join our writing team and develop your writing skills, as you see your articles featured on Apple News, Google News, and all around the world. Subscribe to our newsletter, What Just Happened, where we dive deep into the hottest topics from the week!

More from World - News Landed

+ Missing Bermuda Triangle shipwreck might have been found after 95 years

+ Airlines stop providing blankets, pillows, and meals amid coronavirus outbreak

Popular Stories - News Landed

+ China's coronavirus vaccine may expose people to a more serious disease

+ The top 5 pandemics in human history

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fossils of ancient, prehistoric shark found in Kentucky - News Landed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kentucky lies on the Cumberland Plateau, hundreds of miles away from the ocean. It lies at an elevation of about 230 meters above sea level surrounded by the Appalachian Mountains on the east with the Black mountain being its nearest peak.

# data[].attributes.body
plastic pollutions in the ocean.read all about of how much plastic pollutions end in the ocean and it is always have air pollutions and ends in the ocean

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Even if you live hundreds of miles from the coast, the plastic you throw away could make its way into the sea. Once in the ocean, plastic decomposes very slowly, breaking down in to tiny pieces known as micro plastics that can be incredibly damaging to sea life. 80% of plastic in our oceans is from land sources - but what does that really mean? Where is it coming from?

There are three main ways the plastic we use every day ends up in the oceans.

Plastic you put in the bin ends up in landfill. When rubbish is being transported to landfill, plastic is often blown away because it's so lightweight. From there, it can eventually clutter around drains and enter rivers and the sea this way.

Litter dropped on the street doesn't stay there. Rainwater and wind carries plastic waste into streams and rivers, and through drains. Drains lead to the ocean!

Careless and improper waste disposal is also a big contributor - illegal dumping of waste adds greatly to the plastic surge in our seas.

Many of the products we use daily are flushed down toilets, including wet wipes, cotton buds and sanitary products. Microfibres are even released into waterways when we wash our clothes in the washing machine. They are too small to be filtered out by waste water plants and end up being consumed by small marine species, eventually even ending up in our food chain.

A positive move in recent months was a ban on microbeads in rinse-off cosmetic and cleaning products introduced by the UK Government, so that these small plastic beads will no longer get washed down the sink and out into our oceans, but there are many more items that can also contribute to the problem.

The bottom line

How does plastic get into the ocean? The bottom line is us. Whether we mean to litter or not, there's always a chance the plastic we throw away could make it into the sea, and from there who knows? Maybe as far as the Arctic.

Big changes start with small steps and we all have the power to make a difference. What will you do to start cutting the plastic in your life?

We're working with Sky to protect and restore our amazing oceans. Find out more about Sky Ocean Rescue's fight against plastic pollution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Even if you live hundreds of miles from the coast, the plastic you throw away could make its way into the sea. Once in the ocean, plastic decomposes very slowly, breaking down in to tiny pieces known as micro plastics that can be incredibly damaging to sea life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The flow of plastics into our environment has reached crisis proportions, and the evidence is most clearly on display in our oceans. It is estimated that up to 12 million metric tons of plastic enter our ocean each year.

Our oceans are slowly turning into a plastic soup, and the effects on ocean life are chilling. Discarded plastic fishing lines entangle turtles and seabirds, and plastic pieces of all sizes choke and clog the stomachs of creatures who mistake it for food, from tiny zooplankton to whales. Plastic is now entering every level of the ocean food chain and is even ending up in the seafood on our plates.

Our planet can no longer tolerate a culture of throw-away plastics. Single-use plastics are filling up our landfills, choking our rivers, and contaminating our oceans. For far too long, corporations have put the onus on all of us to deal with their own failed design problem. We have been told that the individual should simply recycle away the billions of tons of plastics corporations produce and that it will make the difference needed to sustain our planet.

We have been told a lie.

Over 90% of plastics are not recycled. Recycling alone is simply never going to solve this problem. The scale of the problem corporations have created must be met with a fundamental shift in how they bring products to people. It is up to all of us to demand better - to tell these corporate giants that we will no longer tolerate the plastics they force upon us. Our world deserves better, and we don't need their products if they refuse to adapt.

It's time for us to reject the old corporate story that a throw-away lifestyle makes us happy. Nothing that is used for a few minutes should end up polluting our oceans for a lifetime.

With enough pressure from our supporters and allies around the world , the biggest companies like Coke, Pepsi, Starbucks, McDonald's, Unilever, Nestlé, and Procter & Gamble will embrace a better model through innovation and redesign. They will reject the old story, and rediscover how to produce and deliver goods in a way that respects our oceans and our planet.

Together, we can do better. We can bring about a simpler life without endless waste. A life where people and the planet flourish.
Demand big corporations do their part to end plastic pollution!
What You Can Do

At Greenpeace, we think the industry plays a larger role than individuals. Why is it that something intended to be used for minutes is packaged in something that lasts forever? We're demanding that corporations take responsibility for the plastic pollution crisis and end the use of destructive single-use plastics and packaging. They have created this mess and must be held accountable. Here are the steps you can take now to end plastic pollution:

It is going to take commitments both large and small to tackle the scale of the plastic pollution crisis in front of us, and we all have a role to play. Every action to reduce single-use plastics sends a message to the industry that it's time to change. Use our Million Acts of Blue Toolkit to learn more about how you can take action and stop single-use plastic at its source!

Sign our petition demanding that the CEOs of seven of the largest producers of single-use plastics take responsibility for their products. Join us in letting executives at Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestlé, Unilever, Procter & Gamble, Starbucks, McDonald's, and others know that we no longer want products made with single-use plastic packaging.

Document the single-use plastic pushed on you and use your social media to tell corporations enough is enough! You can share your images highlighting the problem in one of 3 ways:

On Facebook: Tag @GreenpeaceUSA and the brand responsible!

On Twitter: Use hashtags #PointlessPlastic, #RidiculousPackaging, #BreakFreeFromPlastic, and the brand responsible!

On Instagram: Tag @greenpeaceusa and the brand responsible!

Doing a trash clean up? Help us identify and expose the corporations contributing to plastic pollution on our beaches and in other natural areas by adding a brand audit to your cleanup!
Need more ideas? Here are more individual actions you can take on a daily basis to help solve this problem:

Refuse plastic whenever possible. Say no to straws, lids, plastic bags, and plastic takeaway containers. Carry your own utensils or a wooden spork and avoid using plastic utensils.

Review restaurants and cafes and recognize them when they avoid straws and plastic packaging - and let them know you want them to do better when they don't.

Use reusable water bottles, coffee mugs, and bags. Some retailers will even give you a discount for doing so!

If you forget your reusable coffee mug at a coffee shop, ask to have your coffee "for here" in a real mug and drink it there. Many coffee shops have ceramic mugs for customers, but they only use them upon request.

Tell your local supermarket that you won't buy produce wrapped in plastic. Purchase loose fruits and vegetables or shop at the farmers market.

Bring your own glass container or mesh baggies and buy grains, nuts, and other items in the bulk section.

Avoid items wrapped in excess plastic.

Replace plastic items at home with alternatives made from natural materials (bamboo toothbrushes, glass jars, wooden toys).

Whenever you see plastic in nature, collect it and recycle it if possible or put it in the trash can.

Talk trash with your friends, family, and colleagues! Share this website with them and show them photos and videos about plastic pollution on social media to help spread awareness about this global problem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The flow of plastics into our environment has reached crisis proportions, and the evidence is most clearly on display in our oceans. It is estimated that up to 12 million metric tons of plastic enter our ocean each year. Our oceans are slowly turning into a plastic soup, and the effects on ocean life ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While soaking up the relaxing cadence of crashing waves on the beach, no one wants to think about how the ocean has basically become garbage soup. But here's the buzz-killing reality: There are millions of tons of debris floating around in that water-and most of it is plastic.

This constant barrage (the equivalent of 136 billion milk jugs each year, estimates a study published in the journal Science) poses a serious danger to marine life. Animals can get tangled up in this trash or ingest it-either because they mistake it as prey or because the plastic has been broken down into tiny particles by seawater.

Plastic, of course, is uniquely problematic because it's nonbiodegradable and therefore sticks around for a lot longer (like up to 1,000 years longer) than other forms of trash. And we're not just talking about people dumping their garbage overboard. Around 80 percent of marine litter actually originates on land-either swept in from the coastline or carried to rivers from the streets during heavy rain via storm drains and sewer overflows.

So the best thing we can do to protect our waterways is try to keep as much plastic as possible out of the waste stream in the first place. The good news? There are many small ways you can have a big impact.

1. Wean yourself off disposable plastics.

Ninety percent of the plastic items in our daily lives are used once and then chucked: grocery bags, plastic wrap, disposable cutlery, straws, coffee-cup lids. Take note of how often you rely on these products and replace them with reusable versions. It only takes a few times of bringing your own bags to the store, silverware to the office, or travel mug to Starbucks before it becomes habit.

2. Stop buying water.

Each year, close to 20 billion plastic bottles are tossed in the trash. Carry a reusable bottle in your bag, and you'll never be caught having to resort to a Poland Spring or Evian again. If you're nervous about the quality of your local tap water, look for a model with a built-in filter.

3. Boycott microbeads.

Those little plastic scrubbers found in so many beauty products-facial scrubs, toothpaste, body washes-might look harmless, but their tiny size allows them to slip through water-treatment plants. Unfortunately, they also look just like food to some marine animals. Opt for products with natural exfoliants, like oatmeal or salt, instead.

4. Cook more.

Not only is it healthier, but making your own meals doesn't involve takeout containers or doggy bags. For those times when you do order in or eat out, tell the establishment you don't need any plastic cutlery or, for some serious extra credit, bring your own food-storage containers to restaurants for leftovers.

5. Purchase items secondhand.

New toys and electronic gadgets, especially, come with all kinds of plastic packaging-from those frustrating hard-to-crack shells to twisty ties. Search the shelves of thrift stores, neighborhood garage sales, or online postings for items that are just as good when previously used. You'll save yourself a few bucks, too.

It seems obvious, but we're not doing a great job of it. For example, less than 14 percent of plastic packaging is recycled. Confused about what can and can't go in the bin? Check out the number on the bottom of the container. Most beverage and liquid cleaner bottles will be #1 (PET), which is commonly accepted by most curbside recycling companies. Containers marked #2 (HDPE; typically slightly heavier-duty bottles for milk, juice, and laundry detergent) and #5 (PP; plastic cutlery, yogurt and margarine tubs, ketchup bottles) are also recyclable in some areas. For the specifics on your area, check out Earth911.org's recycling directory.

7. Support a bag tax or ban.

Urge your elected officials to follow the lead of those in San Francisco, Chicago, and close to 150 other cities and counties by introducing or supporting legislation that would make plastic-bag use less desirable.

8. Buy in bulk.

Single-serving yogurts, travel-size toiletries, tiny packages of nuts-consider the product-to-packaging ratio of items you tend to buy often and select the bigger container instead of buying several smaller ones over time.

9. Bring your own garment bag to the dry cleaner.

Invest in a zippered fabric bag and request that your cleaned items be returned in it instead of sheathed in plastic. (And while you're at it, make sure you're frequenting a dry cleaner that skips the perc, a toxic chemical found in some cleaning solvents.)

10. Put pressure on manufacturers.

Though we can make a difference through our own habits, corporations obviously have a much bigger footprint. If you believe a company could be smarter about its packaging, make your voice heard. Write a letter, send a tweet, or hit them where it really hurts: Give your money to a more sustainable competitor.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While soaking up the relaxing cadence of crashing waves on the beach, no one wants to think about how the ocean has basically become garbage soup. But here's the buzz-killing reality: There are millions of tons of debris floating around in that water-and most of it is plastic.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why Killer whales should not be in captivity

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Killer whales should not be in captivity

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160310-why-killer-whales-should-not-be-kept-in-captivity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to BBC Earth, a place to explore the natural world through awe-inspiring documentaries, podcasts, stories and more.

# data[].attributes.body
What they've learned in their studies

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-21/killer-whales-in-captivity-phase-out-are-dolphins-next/11600318

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated October 21, 2019 14:20:33

In hindsight, it seems ludicrous to think that holding an animal like Ramu in captivity would ever end well.

At a length of almost six metres and weighing in at two tonnes, the male orca became the star attraction of Marineland on the Gold Coast in March, 1970.

"If the Australian public react like the public do in America we are on to a sure thing," Marineland director David Brown told the ABC at the time.

"He's in excellent shape ... in a matter of a few days he'll be coming up to a platform and accepting food right out of our hands."

But Ramu died within two months.

While public attitudes towards captive orcas have changed dramatically since then, some conservationists argue that we will soon look back on the treatment of captive dolphins in the same way.

Will the 'Blackfish effect' work for dolphins?

Public perceptions around orcas in captivity have shifted significantly, especially since the 2013 film Blackfish documented the history and treatment of captive killer whales.

Canada has passed legislation banning whales, dolphins or porpoises from being bred or held in captivity, while SeaWorld in the United States announced in 2016 that it had stopped breeding orcas.

In September this year the New South Wales Government established an inquiry into the exhibition of dolphins and other exotic animals at commercial facilities.

Virgin Holidays announced in July that it will no longer promote or sell tickets to attractions which use captive cetaceans, with TripAdvisor following suit in October.

Those announcements followed the Dolphin Marine Conservation Park in NSW's decision in March to no longer breed dolphins in captivity, leaving Sea World on the Gold Coast as the last Australian facility to still do so.

Cathy Williamson, from the international charity Whale and Dolphin Conservation, said the phasing out of captive orcas at commercial facilities is just the first step.

"What we want them also to do is to focus on the hundreds of bottlenose dolphins they hold in captivity, also the belugas, pilot whales and the other species," she said.

"It's now their turn - they suffer from similar problems and that needs be recognised."

Call for measured, rational change

Griffith University marine scientist Dr Olaf Meynecke said despite captive and wild dolphins having similar life spans, "the same life expectation doesn't necessarily mean that they had a much better life than in the wild."

He said while there should be a change in attitudes around captive dolphins, it may not be as radical as that seen with orcas.

"Putting an orca, for example, into rehabilitation or into captivity seems a lot more complicated and difficult process to do," he said.

"Orcas have evidently also killed, attacked trainers, whereas that's not the case for dolphins."

But Dr Meynecke said Sea World plays an important conservation role due to the high cost of rehabilitating injured wild dolphins - he said the use of them for entertainment is outdated.

"A dolphin is not like a dog that we can use for our amusement ... these are some of the more intelligent animals on this planet," he said.

"They've got their own languages and they do actually create friends ... they create bonds, they develop very distinctive hunting techniques that are adapted to the environment."

Aquariums 'more required now than ever before' says Sea World

Sea World on the Gold Coast has 28 captive dolphins, three of which were rescued and are unable to be released back into the wild.

Head of Marine Sciences, Wayne Philips, said community expectations are changing, but that there is no need for Sea World to end the practice.

"We need to think of what we lose by doing that, not what is gained," Mr Philips said.

"What we do here at Sea World with our presentations from our dolphins and seals, is what we refer to as entertainment, and it's a proven model of learning

"We generate an emotional connection to nature and wildlife which encourages people to change their daily behaviour."

Mr Philips said Sea World's research and rescue operations have provided valuable insights to dolphin behaviour and health.

"When you're looking at marine mammal wild populations, it's hard to get access to them," he said.

"When we do get access, it's usually an animal that's either sick or, unfortunately, dead.

"There's not much we can do with those specimens, so having a human care control group is really important to researchers."

Sea World on the Gold Coast has never held captive killer whales and is not commercially related to SeaWorld in the United States.

China fuelling wild capture of dolphins, whales

Opposition to the use of captive dolphins and other marine vertebrates for entertainment is nothing new.

A 1985 Federal Parliamentary report noted "critics have argued that the question of keeping cetacea captive is essentially an ethical one which cannot be resolved simply by weighing scientific evidence."

Under Australian law, the import or export whales, dolphins or porpoises is not permitted unless under special conservation plans, while the rehabilitation and release of injured wild dolphins is managed through state government agencies.

Yet Dr Meynecke said ethical standards around dolphins in captivity are changing.

"Younger generations might see animals in a different way than 40 years ago," he said.

"And we also have different understandings of animals and what they require."

While efforts to phase out or ban whale and dolphin captivity are underway in Canada, India, Croatia, Chile and Costa Rica, Ms Williamson said the practice remains problematic elsewhere.

"China is a particular case that we're really concerned about - the number of whale and dolphin facilities there continues to grow, and unfortunately that's fuelling wild captures in Russia and also ... Taiji in Japan."

"Whales and dolphins fare very poorly in captivity.

"It's impossible to replicate their natural environment and their social groups, which are very complex.

"Really it is stress and stress related disease that that ends up killing these creatures at a young age."

Topics: mammals---whales, animal-attacks, animal-welfare, surfers-paradise-4217, coffs-harbour-2450

First posted October 21, 2019 14:00:32

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Keeping killer whales in captivity is being phased out - are dolphins next?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated October 21, 2019 14:20:33 In hindsight, it seems ludicrous to think that holding an animal like Ramu in captivity would ever end well. At a length of almost six metres and weighing in at two tonnes, the male orca became the star attraction of Marineland on the Gold Coast in March, 1970.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Actions You Can Take to Reduce Air Pollution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
United States Environmental Protection Agency

# data[].attributes.body
Mt Everest is very deadly, look  at this website to find out.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 2019 climbing season on Mount Everest has been one of the deadliest on record.

At least 11 people have died trying to make the ascent, and images of a traffic jam of climbers at the top of the mountain have put pressure on the Nepalese government to limit the number of permits it issues.

National Geographic journalist Freddie Wilkinson, who has been reporting from Everest's base camp, tells Here & Now's Peter O'Dowd the Everest summit season is winding down.

"It was an eventful year," Wilkinson says, "and there was a little more unsettled weather, which resulted in less days to summit and forced a lot of people to go for the top on the same few days."

Some people are well-prepared to make the ascent, while others - who are often accompanied by guides offering a cheaper rate - aren't ready, Wilkinson says. Mountains can also become more dangerous the more crowded they are, he adds.

"I also spoke to several veteran guides, who were a little agitated about this narrative that has come from the photo of the line," Wilkinson says. "And they were quite adamant that the line isn't killing people per se - it's more of a cascade of events, bad decision-making and a lack of leadership that is really behind some of the tragedies you've been hearing about."
On what can go wrong when climbing Everest
"Well, when you're going through the top of a mountain, you have to always remember that things aren't going to go according to plan and be flexible, be willing to adjust your plans when something bad happens. On Everest, people do tend to get tunnel vision and keep going to the top when maybe if there was a more experienced climber, who could step in and say, 'Jeez, you're not moving too fast, and you've already used half your oxygen. You really need to turn around.' You know, those sorts of ... common sense decision-making that sounds very straightforward at sea level, but when you're at 27 or 28,000 feet, it's hard to keep your eye on the big picture.

"For every Everest climber, summit day is the culmination of a journey that is probably years in the making, and certainly, requires weeks and weeks of time away from home. So everyone wants to get their best crack at the top."
On criticism that the Nepalese government is allowing too many permits
"People need to understand that the guiding on Mount Everest happens in a very unregulated, free-market dynamic. And so there's a huge variety and diversity in the levels of professionalism that different commercial expeditions provide. You do see that many of the Nepal-based trekking companies are charging less and attracting more of a budget client. Fees for a Western-guided Mount Everest ascent cost around $70,000 and up, whereas you can book with a Nepali trekking agent for about half that - maybe [$30,000] or $35,000."
Peter O'Dowd produced and edited this interview for broadcast with Kathleen McKenna. Samantha Raphelson adapted it for the web.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Deadly Everest Overcrowding Prompts Question: Who Should Be Allowed To Climb It?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 2019 climbing season on Mount Everest has been one of the deadliest on record. At least 11 people have died trying to make the ascent, and images of a traffic jam of climbers at the top of the mountain have put pressure on the Nepalese government to limit the number of permits it issues.

# data[].attributes.body
Turns out Earth has it's rings-they're made out of trash.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NASA estimates that there are more than 100 million pieces of human-produced space debris in orbit. Only 21,000 or so of those objects are big enough to be tracked by space surveillance sensors. Circling around at speeds upwards of five miles per second, even tiny pieces of space junk can pack a wallop, endangering current and future space missions. Here are a few solutions that have been proposed to clean up the mess in orbit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 Ways to Solve Our Dangerous Space Junk Problem

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NASA estimates that there are more than 100 million pieces of human-produced space debris in orbit. Only 21,000 or so of those objects are big enough to be tracked by space surveillance sensors. Circling around at speeds upwards of five miles per second, even tiny pieces of space junk can pack a wallop, endangering current and future space missions.

# data[].attributes.body
READ ALL AB0UT IT!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This summer I entertained some media interest in regulating extreme sport. This story fascinates certain people, baffled by how something so seemingly dangerous has not fallen under some government agency's mandate. The Globe led with a story in June (that I contributed to) on extreme sport and teenage brain development ( link) noting that there is no regulation and those implications for youth, followed by a Toronto Star story in July ( link). The ball was further kicked along with the CBC's Ontario Morning, with whom I interviewed on July 27 (you can hear that interview by downloading the segment in iTunes link).

This all started with an editorial by noted lawyer Patrick Brown ( link). Mr. Brown represented Ian McAdam in his case against Blue Mountain regarding his debilitating spinal injury while DH biking there. Mr. Brown is well versed in the adventure and action sport field, and has done important advocacy work, especially regarding cycling safety ( link). His current push is to have 'extreme sport' facilities publish their injury data (and be answerable to some agency), in order to better help participating individuals assume the risks inherent in whatever activity they are pursuing. I have not seen any detailed proposal at this point.

In general, I agree with Mr. Brown and his intentions. I disagree on the means to get there, though.

First off, what is and is not an extreme sport is up for debate. In our field we don't use the term 'extreme sport' (as it is usually scoffed at) and instead fall back on either adventure sports or action sports. Even these are not delineated in any clear fashion. Deciding what is in or out will be somewhat subjective. I can go on about the differences here, but will save that for a future post.

Secondly, the nut of Mr. Brown's proposal is the public posting of injury data. His whole point is that individuals need to go into an activity with their eyes open. Here I do agree that our action and adventure operators downplay or gloss over the risks inherent, and I believe this needs to change. Posting injury rates, however, won't do it. Here's why:

·Despite appearances, in these activities severe injuries are rare. This does not change the facts for those few individuals who experience life altering injuries, but injury rates are very low. At 2013 study, for example, ( link) found indoor climbing injuries to occur at 0.01 per 1000 hours of participation (more on 'rates' in a moment). This is a very small number. In effect, for every 100,000 hours of participation, there is 1 injury. (For the record, there are very few academic and legitimate studies on injury rates in action and adventure sports. Any data referring to such rates has to be suspect as estimation). I also see little value in dumping all injuries into this data, as a slip/fall leading to a broken finger or stitches in the knee is not life altering and potentially unrelated to the activity.

·What's more, injuries in action and adventure are 'asymptomatic'. Just because someone was injured does not mean someone else was at fault. My following of the whitewater rafting industry points to a significant number of deaths in that activity occur due to heart attack, typically from middle age or older inactive men. Is this the 'fault' of the operator? Inherent risk is a fundamental aspect of adventure and action sports. When these risks are realized, it does not necessarily reflect back upon the host of such activities. There are some caveats to this, below.

· A Toronto Star follow up article ( link) cited injury rates of 1.01 per 20,000 hours in a climbing gym, 300 'accidents' per 150,000 skier visits, and a separate ski area injury rate of 1.6 per 1000 visits. What is the public to do with this data? As I was quoted in the Star and on CBC, I don't think people are sophisticated enough to interpret these numbers, especially without context and comparison to other activities such as hockey, football, soccer or even riding a bike on the road (let alone driving a car). Regardless, the numbers are so small I can't see them deterring a child or parent: 'Heck, I'm going to climb here for an hour, so I only have a 1 in 100,000 chance of getting injured'. That sounds pretty reasonable.

·Mr. Brown's initiative, by necessity, will be limited to pay-for-play facilities (running into the what-is-an-extreme-sport question again). It seems lift serviced mountain biking, freestyle terrain parks, indoor bike and skate parks, and climbing gyms could all fall into this area. The borders are pretty fuzzy though: a whitewater kayak instruction program? Guided mountain climbing? Races? Go carts? I saw an article that called short track speed skating an extreme sport (!). This initiative of posting injury rates puts pressure on the operators who profit from such activities and the risk inherent in these activities, even though they typically don't pay the price (injury) when the risks are realized. I'm on board with this. Commercializing action and adventure needs to be attached to a significant social obligation to go above and beyond in informing and managing those risks. It leaves out, though, public and free skateparks, trails and the vast wilderness where adventure sports take place. Is it unduly burdening the commercial operators? I don't think so, given the social license we grant them. But I also don't think it effective given the points above on the effectiveness of rates.

·Comparing apples to oranges: a side effect of this injury data could be parents shopping for the 'safest' operator or safest activity. Each one is different. Whistler ski resort's terrain parks are the world's biggest, most progressive, and busiest, so naturally they will have more injuries. I would argue that they do it better, however, than 99% of the smaller, under-managed and under-funded terrain parks trying to get a piece of that pie.

·Tracking injury rates does not make an activity safer. Injuries happen after someone got hurt (obviously). The point is to prevent injuries. Scaring participants away is not an effective means of generating safety, especially given the significant benefits of participating in risk oriented sports. Mr. Brown's initiative is using reactive data to pressure pro-active measures. Here is where the opportunity lies.

I don't support posting injury data at adventure/action facilities. I do support an accreditation system that forces facilities to provide at least minimum levels of risk management and the existence of a client information system. This will improve safety. New Zealand, the UK, and the ISO have all implemented systems oriented around this with regards to adventure activities or outdoor education. Action/adventure risk management has basic principles that apply across sectors, so skate and bike parks, climbing gyms and terrain parks could all be captured. A less formal system is a self-audit type arrangement, with elevated levels of inspection and accreditation as the initiative becomes more formalized. I don't see this as onerous on the operators, although they will certainly complain about it. Forward thinking operators will see how these 'standards' help develop quality facilities, and that posting an accreditation standing will help their legitimacy and therefore their marketing efforts.

Who runs this? I always support industry self-regulation, first and foremost, but most of these operators are too small and too busy to think big picture and organize themselves. Given the fuzzy borders I don't think this will work. Insurance providers play this role by default, somewhat reluctantly. The TSSA and Canada's D. of Transport already are involved in slices of adventure (ziplines - are they extreme sport? - for the former and rafting and sea kayaking for the latter). Occupational health and safety are involved cross sector. If this were to be a government initiative, it will best fall under a provincial health mandate. I'll leave that to the bureaucrats.

Mr. Brown's initiative has put this conversation in the public sector, and I believe that there are some fundamental improvements that need to be made in the action/adventure sectors dealing with informed consent and assumed risk. Injury rates are the wrong end of the equation. Risk management has evolved dramatically over the past ten years, the majority of which is centred around our new understanding of how people make choices and a sophisticated understanding of 'need to know'. Pushing facilities to systemize their risk management will go further to building safety than shaming them or scaring off participants.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Regulating Extreme Sport : the case against injury rates

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This summer I entertained some media interest in regulating extreme sport. This story fascinates certain people, baffled by how something so seemingly dangerous has not fallen under some government agency's mandate.

# data[].attributes.headline
NASA Seeks New Ways to Handle Trash for Deep Space Missions

# data[].attributes.subject
NASA Seeks New Ways to Handle Trash for Deep Space Missions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NASA Seeks New Ways to Handle Trash for Deep Space Missions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NASA is turning to U.S. industry to advance concepts for deep space trash compaction and processing systems.

# data[].attributes.body
Four extreme sports.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Winter is over and you're no longer interested in hibernating. Time to try an extreme sport.

There's something about that first whiff of spring that makes us eager to embrace the outdoors. Swimming is nice and hiking can be amazing, but how about trying something infinitely more spectacular? Something that gets your heart racing and your blood pumping. We give you four extreme sports that will satiate your wanderlust while giving you the thrill of a lifetime.

Caving - but not as you know it

Described as one of the most dangerous sports in the world, freshwater cave diving is not for the claustrophobic. It involves scuba diving in water-filled caves, sometimes in places where your only chance to rise for fresh air is to swim all the way back to the beginning - possibly kilometres away.

For the advanced diver, it's an opportunity to explore where no-one has ever been before, discovering untouched worlds with rare flora and fauna. But there are exhilarating opportunities for the novice too, who can soak up all the wonders of cavern diving with the help of a guide.

Cavern diving - as opposed to cave diving - is different again. It requires you to stay close to the entrance of a cave (no further than 60 metres away) where you're always able to see natural light, and hence your exit. There you can enjoy the beauty of stalactites and stalagmites and a whole host of marine life in what can only be described as an ethereal light.

Where to begin? A good place to start is the cenotes (or sinkholes) of Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula. Think crystal-clear turquoise pools surrounded by lush tropical jungle. But if you get a taste for it - and the requisite certification - there are plenty of opportunities back home. South Australia is a drawcard for divers from around the world.

Cliff hopping

If you want an adventure where you pit your wits directly against nature, coasteering might be the extreme sport for you. Originating in Wales with its rugged, windswept cliff tops, it's about exploring the inter-tidal zone - scaling large rock formations, leaping from cliffs and battling through impossible waves as you scramble your way along the coastline without the use of a boat.

Of course, it can be highly dangerous and there's enough death-defying moments to get your adrenalin going. But that's why you enlist the support of an accredited guide with safety equipment, who can also ensure you see the best on offer, whether that's hidden caves, peregrine falcons or Atlantic seals.

While Wales is a prime location for coasteering, the sport has now spread to other countries with similarly rugged coastlines. That includes Portugal, South Africa and New Zealand, not to forget Australia.

The art of flying

If you want to get your heart racing as you take in the most divine scenery, then microlight flying might be your thing. It involves a tiny sport aircraft with open cockpit - essentially a motorised glider - designed to carry no more than two people.

While you remain a passenger (assuming you don't get your licence), there are amazing experiences to be had. Top destinations include Zimbabwe and Nepal, two countries steeped in natural wonders. Imagine soaring over the thundering waters of Victoria Falls before you glide upstream across the Mosi Oa Tunya National Park to spot elephants, zebras and giraffes. Or how about flying over the impossibly beautiful Himalayas - snow-capped mountains emblazoned with the pink of a setting sun?

If you're tempted to learn to pilot a microlight plane once you're back home, it's worth trying a trial 'hands-on' instructional flight before you commit to a course of flying lessons.
NB: If you're a passenger in the plane you mustn't weigh over 110 kg.
Riding a volcano

Here's one you might not have considered: volcano boarding. If you're addicted to speed, imagine throwing yourself down the side of an active, 728-metre-high volcano, picking up pace to a possible 95 kilometres per hour on its 41-degree slope.

It doesn't come without work - but it does come with a stunning setting. Based in Nicaragua, the extreme sport of volcano boarding requires you to hike up the relatively new volcano Cerro Negro, lugging your reinforced plywood board and other equipment with you. Once you get to the top though, you'll be met by the stunning sight of two steaming craters, the black of the volcano in dramatic contrast to the green of the surrounding countryside.

The rather arduous journey up can take an hour, but you then fly back down in less than three minutes. Whether you sit or stand on your board is your choice. Standing may seem more impressive (and makes for a great photo), but it's actually meant to be slower.

Each participant dons a suit, goggles and bandana (around the mouth) with good reason. While Cerro Negro is largely made up of tiny grains of volcanic sand - perfect for surfing down - you can still take a rather sharp hit or two from flying gravel.

From all accounts, any minor cuts are worth it though, as is a wipe out. The best thing to do is start climbing back up that volcano again.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pushing your limits: Four extreme sports to make you feel alive | Business Research and Insights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Winter is over and you're no longer interested in hibernating. Time to try an extreme sport. There's something about that first whiff of spring that makes us eager to embrace the outdoors. Swimming is nice and hiking can be amazing, but how about trying something infinitely more spectacular?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sometimes, people are lazy and don't want to get up and find a trash can. They think that if they throw their cigarette out the car window, spit their gum on the sidewalk, let a few napkins get carried away by the wind, or toss an empty plastic bottle in the gutter, nothing will happen. After all, how can this one piece of trash cause any harm to our environment? Well, all this trash has to build up someplace or another and in 1997 Charles Moore discovered where most of it has accumulated - in the middle of our ocean. It's a garbage patch so big that the state of Texas can fit into it twice. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

There are five major garbage patches in the world. The Pacific garbage patch, which is the largest of the five, is located 1,000 miles northeast of Hawaii. In some places, the patch can reach depths of up to 90 feet.

This patch consists of about 3.5 million tons of trash such as light bulbs, Styrofoam cups, plastic bags, bottle caps, Popsicle sticks, bottle, cans, fishing gear, nets, buoys, and even toothbrushes. Plastic makes up over 80% of the garbage floating around in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch because even though plastic can break down, it can never decompose and biodegrade fully. Therefore, it builds up very quickly, especially considering the fact that people all over the world use plastic in everyday non-usable items, such as water bottles. That means every plastic ounce that humans have made is still on this planet today, whether the pieces are microscopic or not. There are about 46,000 particles of plastic per every square kilometer in the ocean.

Fun Fact: New York Mayor Bloomberg is doing his part in reducing the amount of plastic New York is producing by ordering jugs of water instead of plastic water bottles for major events and parties such as his 2011 State of the City Address. Bloomberg is also a strong supporter in using re-usable bags to put groceries in.

Did you know that 10% of the plastic we make gets emptied into our oceans? When plastic finally breaks down, it causes trillions of plastic particles to float around in the ocean. This causes pollution in the oceans and has harmful effects on the sea life.

When fish eat plankton, they are ingesting the very small plastic particles floating around in the water. While conducting biopsies on the plankton and fish, scientists have also found that they have tiny particles of plastic in their tissue. These particles begin to accumulate in the sea life, which causes them to have a high level of toxic chemicals in their bodies and tissues. Then, when other fish eat the fish with the toxins inside their bodies, they absorb the plastic particles into their bodies, too. Plastic acts as poison, and millions of sea life have died already. The plastic works its way through the food chain, and without even knowing it, we humans might be absorbing the plastic particles from the fish we eat, too. The PCBs in the plastic in the fish cause people to get sick. This is why we have to protect our oceans, because the effects are huge and critical; our health is on the line!

Many people, including celebrities, are trying to help this urgent cause by getting people's attention on how important it is to protect the oceans. Many marine research organizations are also forming. One organization is trying to clean up the Pacific garbage patch by collecting the plastic in the patch, and turning it into diesel fuel. Edward Norton, a Hollywood star, did his part by telling the world to recycle plastic bags, since plastic bags are also in the ocean. He stressed the need to recycle, and how important it is to not litter. Charles Moore created the Algalita Foundation in 1994 to sample and study the Pacific garbage patch. The foundation examines plastic debris found in the ocean, samples the polluted ocean waters by the California coast and across the Pacific Ocean, and tests fish tissue to find out how much plastic is in their body. By collecting water samples, scientists are able to figure out the amount of plastic in a gyre and any raises of plastic or garbage in the water. By studying fish tissue, scientists discovered that one fish, a rainbow fish, had 84 pieces of plastic in its stomach. That is not healthy for the fish and we can prevent it if we do the right thing and take care of our oceans.

If we recycle garbage, and if we don't litter, then the oceans will be cleaner, and it will be better for the fish in the ocean and better for our health. Our life depends on the ocean, so we have to take care of it. Take the extra step to dispose of you trash the right way and help rid the world of "litter-bugs!"

Image source: Norway UN (via Flickr)
References
Grant, R. " Drowning in Plastic: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is Twice the Size of France." Telegraph. April 24, 2009.

Lee, J. "City Council Shuns Bottles in Favor of Water From Tap." New York Times. June 17, 2008.

" Sailing the Pacific on a Plastic Boat." Oprah Winfrey Show. April 22, 2010.

" Think Beyond Plastic" Great Garbage Patch.org

Silverman, J. " Why is the World's Biggest Landfill in the Pacific Ocean?" How Stuff Works.com September 19, 2007.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
garbage dump in the middle of the pacific ocean

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Garbage Dump in the Middle of the Pacific Ocean

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sometimes, people are lazy and don't want to get up and find a trash can. They think that if they throw their cigarette out the car window, spit their gum on the sidewalk, let a few napkins get carried away by the wind, or toss an empty plastic bottle in the gutter, nothing will happen.

# data[].attributes.body
by RSPCA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Statistically speaking, you're at more risk of dying from falling off your chair or out of bed than from a shark-related incident.
Yet with recent shark attacks in the eastern states broadcasted across the media, summer's approaching promise of beach days and seaside frolicking has some people calling for shark culls.

Six sharks have already been captured and shot, despite no linking evidence to suggest they were responsible for the attacks.

Here's why we at RSPCA South Australia believe you should return happily to the water this summer and start cultivating, not culling, the magnificent population that keep our oceans healthy.

1. Not all sharks are boat-consuming beasts' hell-bent on ruining a town's tourism industry that we need to cull

The actual act of culling is often inhumane and cruel. Drumlines with baited hooks can ensnare sharks for days at a time before they eventually die, causing extreme suffering and distress.

Even shooting the trapped animals does not always result in a quick and painless death.

With limited numbers of skilled shooters able to accurately aim for a shark's relatively small brain, bullets often miss the target.

2. We kill over 100 million sharks every year

We kill them much more than they kill us. Humans globally are responsible for over 100 million shark deaths every year.

Most die to meet global demand for fins, regarded as a delicacy in some cultures.

Sharks kill between five and 15 people a year. We are by far the bigger predator.

3. Shark culling also kills innocent turtles and dolphins

Shark culling is ineffective and the shark responsible for the attacks is not always among the ones killed.

Instead, other marine animals like seals, turtles and dolphins can get caught on the hooks, resulting in their death or serious injury.

4. The Great White is being pushed inshore ... because of us

The number one shark breed that comes to people's minds when they think of a shark attack is the Great White.

Unfortunately, this beautiful species is actually being pushed inshore towards more populated or traversed waters in search of food due to overfishing in the waters further out.

If a shark has a good food source it won't cover as much distance while hunting. We have to remember that sharks need to eat something. Which leads to our next point...

5. They don't actually want to eat us

There is a misconception that - given a choice of different menu items - sharks will choose to eat us. But when they attack a human, they could be seeing if the taste appeals.

According to Scientific American, sharks like to test things out and investigate by mouthing them, much like a puppy or baby.

Unfortunately, being bitten by a mouth containing over 300 teeth - even in just a taste test - can have fatal consequences.

And when sharks do eat humans, it's not necessarily because they want to. In the absence of anything else, they have no choice.

6. Much more humane and effective ways to reduce attacks exist

We here at RSPCA South Australia believe much more humane and effective ways exist to reduce risks of attacks, including sonar systems, eco-barriers, tagging, tracking and alert systems, active and passive electrical repellents, and more awareness from the general public.

We believe shark awareness programs, strategies such as 'shark spotting' and beach surveillance programs are incredibly important, along with the need to educate the public on the risk factors and remote likelihood of a shark attack.

7. They've developed epic senses ... so don't radiate hectic vibes, man

You know when surfers talk about feeling the positive energy? Well, the same goes for sharks.

They have developed more senses than humans over time and can pick up hectic electromagnetic waves of energy that we radiate when our survival reactions kick in and we start to panic.

Unfortunately, these waves often encourage the predator in the shark to flourish - your panic can trigger a shark to attack.

8. We're seeing more shark attacks because more people are in the water

A report published by CSIRO found the recent rise in shark attacks has coincided with "an increasing human population, more people visiting beaches, a rise in the popularity of water-based fitness and recreational activities, and people accessing previously isolated coastal areas".

In other words, the rising number of shark attacks is due to our continued expansion and exploration of areas that they previously inhabited undisturbed.

9. We're often swimming in the wrong weather

One of the most obvious yet ignored recommendations is to make sure you don't swim in confusing circumstances for a shark.

Sharks will struggle to distinguish things in rainy, cloudy waters and may get a little curious as to what you are exactly.

Swimming in clear waters helps sharks to see that you are not worth biting into.

10. We're not using common sense - don't stay in the water if you're bleeding!

Sharks are attracted to blood, so if you hurt yourself, hop straight out of the water. Don't surf in the middle of a seal colony, either, no matter how cute the photos or experience promises to be.

And don't stick around fishing boats hauling in masses of bloody fish.

11. What we wear can help reduce attacks - opt for dull colours and leave the bling at home

If you're venturing out into shark territory, a study by the International Shark Attack File found that the grey beasts thoroughly enjoy the bright colours popularly used by kayak, swimsuit and surfboard designers and manufacturers.

Yellows, oranges and bright greens are colours to avoid. Instead, opt for a matte colour or shade of blue.

And, even though you're unlikely to wear Grandmother's precious jewels during a surf-sesh, do leave any bling at home. Sharks will definitely notice anything that sparkles.

12. If you do see a shark... don't freak out!

We know it's easier said than done, but any extra splashing will draw attention. Remain calm, keep eye contact as a way of deterring aggression and letting the shark know that you're aware of them, and get to shore as quickly as you can.

If a shark gives you a little knock or poke, or starts circling you, that's when you release all your energy into defending yourself with your best right hooks to the nose, eyes, gills and sensitive areas.

If you can avoid using your hands, use whatever you have, such as a selfie-stick, scuba gear or paddle to smack the shark.

Surfers might also want to investigate the use of shark repellent products including shark deterrent swimsuits or electrical repellents such as the Shark Shield.
So there you go. If you're still doubting your return to the waters this summer, you shouldn't.
Instead, take extra care when sitting on your chair and getting out of bed, and remember our quick tips when taking a dip in the big blue.

If you want to understand more about the impact of human exploitation of sharks, we recommend viewing the award-winning documentary Shark Water.
And if you'd like to join us in our fight to combat animal cruelty and help animals, become an RSPCA South Australia volunteer today!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
12 facts that prove we shouldn't cull sharks, or fear going swimming this summer - RSPCA South Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Statistically speaking, you're at more risk of dying from falling off your chair or out of bed than from a shark-related incident. Yet with recent shark attacks in the eastern states broadcasted across the media, summer's approaching promise of beach days and seaside frolicking has some people calling for shark culls.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.zoosociety.org/About/AcquiringAnimals.php

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How New Animals Come to the Zoo

You can't just walk into any pet store and buy an African elephant. And animal shelters certainly don't have rare western lowland gorillas available for adoption. So, what does the Milwaukee County Zoo do when it wants to add a new animal to its collection?

We talk to other zoos, of course.

Jessica Munson, a zookeeper at the Milwaukee County Zoo, feeds a red kangaroo in February 2008.*

Today, many of our new animals come from other zoos. Through a mutual commitment to conservation, zoos work together to protect the growing number of endangered animal species. By continuously shifting the animal populations, zoos not only keep their collections fresh and exciting, but they also help to preserve the genetic diversity of each species. They do this through Species Survival Plans (SSPs) coordinated by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums.*

Some species are so rare that they have only a few animals left in captivity. For example, as of November 2009 there were only 116 Guam kingfisher birds left on the planet, all of which can be found in zoos. When there are so few animals left, zoo officials must work together to find out which animals have the best chance for successfully breeding. This may mean moving one of our adult animals to another zoo where there is a potential mate. Or it could mean that another zoo sends us a couple of young animals in hopes of giving them a good chance at reproducing.

The Milwaukee County Zoo has exhibited elephants since 1907, when Henry "Heine" Bulder, one of the founding members of the Zoological Society of Milwaukee, personally purchased for the Zoo an elephant named Countess Heine. Here elephants Ruth (foreground) and Brittany play outdoors in the aftermath of a 10-inch snowfall on March 21, 2008. Even though they are warm-climate mammals, African elephants have thick skin that soaks up solar rays, keeping them warm in cold Wisconsin.

However, animals weren't always brought to our Zoo under such carefully orchestrated means.
From its beginning up through the 1970s or so, the Zoological Society committed to paying for and acquiring animals for the Zoo. As part of the Zoological Society of Milwaukee's (ZSM's) centennial celebration, we took a look through some previous ZSM publications to get the details of how a variety of animals came to the Zoo.

The first issue of Animal Talk newsletter (the predecessor of the ZSM's Alive magazine) was published in 1963. It was written by Walter Kroening, a ZSM Board member. Until August 1980, this newsletter kept Zoological Society members informed on all the latest news, special events, and animal information at the Zoo.

One of the most interesting features of Animal Talk were the detailed accounts of the negotiations for and the arrival of new Zoo animals. They were written in Kroening's colorful language. Here are a few examples (we've taken excerpts but made some grammatical corrections to the text):

The February 1963 issue of Animal Talk:

This is the cover of the first issue of Animal Talk, a Zoological Society newsletter that was the precursor to Alive magazine.

"We have a magnificent collection now, thanks to the Zoological Society - six elephants and five rhinos, to mention a few. You may be interested in knowing that the Indian rhino is still thought to be on the decrease. If any permits are granted to take them at all, they cost $12,000 each. West Berlin has had $12,000 in the bank for a female for the past two years - just awaiting word - but word has not come. Add to this the catching costs, insurance, transportation, and the many other incidentals. We paid $14,000 each for ours FOB [free on board] ship in Belgium and London. The best bargain in which we shall ever participate. One shudders at the thought we almost lost the male a few years ago. When they were moved from the Washington Park Zoo last fall [to the new Zoo on Blue Mound Rd.], the male, Rudra, weighed 5,510 pounds, and the female, Mohinija, 4,150 pounds. When the rhinos left Basel [Switzerland] in June of 1959, Rudra weighed 2,800 pounds. He is now a tremendous animal and due to scientific diet could well be the largest Indian rhino in the world."

The January 1973 issue of Animal Talk:

"Red Kangaroos Arrive at Last: After two years of effort-- letter writing, form filling, and exercise of international friendship - Zoological Society Board Member Atty. Clifford Randall, past international president of Rotary, while touring Australia, asked his buddy and former Rotary District Governor, Charles Butler, to use his influence to help us get red kangaroos. Mr. Butler of Townsville, Australia, persuaded high government mucketymucks to release three choice red kangaroos for export to Milwaukee. The frosting on the cake of the kangaroo deal is that they are a gift from the Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary at Brisbane, which means we got them 'for nothing.' The gift consists of a male and two females, about 15 months old, weight about 30 pounds. Mr. Butler said one of the females is suspected of pregnancy which, if true, would be the cherry on top of the frosting on top of the cake. Since the period of gestation is only five to six weeks, we shall soon know whether this is a fact. Although it would be difficult to discover because of the minute size of the offspring."

The September 1973 issue of Animal Talk

"It is becoming more and more difficult, if not impossible, to import animals of all and any kinds. Because of the prevalence of various diseases (hoof and mouth, respiratory, etc.), rarity to the point of being wiped out, ecological problems, all of which are causes of dwindling supply, zoo directors are hard-pressed to replace animals. It becomes mandatory for zoos to raise their own animals whenever possible or to trade surplus animals with other zoos. Sometimes either a male or female of a rare pair do not get along or one of them dies; in a few instances females have killed their husbands, more frequently than vice versa."

The spring 1980 issue of Animal Talk:

"There is a population of some 600 polar bears that live in the vicinity of the city of Churchill, Manitoba, on the west coast of Hudson Bay. While in Churchill last October, Zoological Society members Tom Fifield and Bill Chester and their wives asked about the possibility of obtaining a couple of polar bears for the Milwaukee County Zoo. Our new Zoo Director, Dr. Gilbert Boese, considers this source of a wild polar bear an excellent opportunity to establish a change in bloodline since he is planning to re-populate our polar bear exhibit."

In 2010, the 100th anniversary of the Zoological Society, the Milwaukee County Zoo still has its beloved polar bears and several red kangaroos. We no longer have any Indian rhinos, but we do have two black rhinos, named Brewster and Mimi. Since the Endangered Species Act of 1973, zoos have been severely restricted from importing or exporting endangered or threatened species. Therefore, zoos have had to place a much higher priority on expanding their breeding programs and working with other zoos to acquire new animals.

* To keep track of animals and their "family trees," the Association of Zoos and Aquariums keeps what it calls "studbooks." These record books try to track the genetic history of every zoo animal in a species and are used to prevent inbreeding. Take the example of red kangaroos. In 2008, Milwaukee zookeeper Jessica Munson was producing the first-ever studbook on red kangaroos. "I've always wanted to do a studbook," says Munson. "It's a way to get involved in the zoo community." Working several hours a week, both at the Milwaukee County Zoo and on her own time, Munson requests information about red kangaroos from every North American zoo that houses them. She then logs data into a computer program designed to plot animal family trees. As the population manager for red kangaroos, Munson also helps match up animals for breeding. There are people like Munson at zoos and aquariums throughout North America, each person tracking a specific animal species.

***Endangered Species Act - http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/esa.html

Join the Zoological Society's Centennial Celebration in 2010.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How New Animals Come to the Zoo | Zoological Society of Milwaukee

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You can't just walk into any pet store and buy an African elephant. And animal shelters certainly don't have rare western lowland gorillas available for adoption. So, what does the Milwaukee County Zoo do when it wants to add a new animal to its collection?

# data[].attributes.headline
panda  "Rent" Too High U.S. Zoos Say....

# data[].attributes.subject
panda  "Rent" Too High U.S. Zoos Say....

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2006/03/united-states-panda-zoo-animals/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Giant pandas are a popular zoo attraction in the United States. But the high cost to "rent" the black-and-white bears from China may force some zoos to close their exhibits.

Today zoos in Atlanta, Georgia; Memphis, Tennessee; San Diego, California; and Washington, D.C., rent pandas for display and research.

These four U.S. institutions must each pay an annual fee of one million U.S. dollars to the Chinese government, which retains ownership rights to the animals.

On top of that, if a cub is born-as with last summer's birth of Tai Shan at the National Zoo in Washington-the zoo is charged an extra one-time "baby tax" of $600,000.

The loan agreements, most spanning ten years, have become a financial headache for the nation's zoos.

"It's tough for a zoological institution like ours, or the other three zoos [with pandas in the U.S.], to sustain that level of spending indefinitely," said Dennis Kelly, chief executive of Zoo Atlanta.

Both Zoo Atlanta and the San Diego Zoo's panda exhibits lose money.

"It really is turning out to be somewhat of a hardship," said Don Lindburg, head of the office of giant pandas at the San Diego Zoo.

Informal talks are now underway with the Chinese government to slash fees on renewal agreements to keep the bears.

In May a delegation that includes representatives from the four U.S. zoos is scheduled to go to China to work, in part, on a new agreement.

Lindburg said there is some sentiment among U.S. zoos that the fee should be cut by as much as 50 percent.

If a lower cost cannot be negotiated, some institutions may give back their star attractions once their current contracts end, says David Towne of the nonprofit Giant Panda Foundation.

San Diego's contract, which ends in 2008, will be the first to expire. The last one is the Memphis Zoo's agreement, which ends in 2013.

About a year ago Towne looked at the financial health of the four U.S. panda exhibits.

"It was a little astonishing to see, in most cases, how much more it was costing the institutions than [the panda exhibits] were bringing in," he said.

China bases the fees, in part, on the economic condition of the country renting the bears.

"The Chinese think we're rich and can do anything we want," he said, explaining why he thinks U.S. zoos pay so much.

Other countries, he says, pay substantially less to rent a pair of pandas-anywhere from $250,000 to $500,000 per year.

At first the high fees didn't scare U.S. zoos. Administrators thought visitor revenue and corporate sponsorship would cover the cost.

Public frenzy over the bamboo-eating bearshas, at times, reached levels usually reserved for rock stars.

Two months ago, for example, tickets to see Tai Shan, the National Zoo's new panda cub, were being hawked on the online auction site eBay for as much as $500 a pop.

All four zoos have live panda cams, and thousands of fans spend countless hours watching their favorite animals online.

"I would log on just before going to bed and early morning to see the progress of Tai Shan," Elaine Gustafson said. The Glastonbury, Connecticut, resident still checks back daily to witness the growing relationship between mother and cub.

At Zoo Atlanta visitation levels shot up by 60 percent when pandas Lun Lun (female) and Yang Yang (male) first arrived in 1999.

After a few years, though, the crowds usually dwindle while costs remain high.

"Like a number of other species, pandas are expensive to care for," Kelly, of Zoo Atlanta, said.

"They require more keeper time. They have very specialized food needs. And we chose-as every other zoo has done-to build them their own state-of-the-art exhibit."

The pandas cost about $500,000 to care for annually, Kelly said. That's five times more than for Zoo Atlanta's next most expensive animal, the elephant.

Despite the economic challenges, both Kelly and Towne say the money paid by U.S. zoos has helped with panda research and conservation projects in the U.S. and in China.

Reserves in China are now better protected, Towne said. Efforts have been stepped up to prevent poaching and ban logging in those areas.

In communities near the panda reserves, schoolchildren are taught the importance of preserving these national treasures.

In the wild, about 1,600 pandas roam forests scattered across six mountain ranges in southwestern China. Another 170 live in captivity.

The roughly 200-pound (91-kilogram) solitary animals come together only as adults when the female is in heat.

The rest of the time pandas communicate through scent marking-rubbing scent-producing glands on their rumps against objects-a behavior also seen in captivity.

At Zoo Atlanta researchers observe and record panda behavior, often for eight hours a day. The information is put into a scientific database for biologists.

In three years, though, if a financial agreement cannot be reached, the pandas will be sent back to China.

"We'd love to work on the panda forever," Kelly said.

"But we're not going to do it at the expense of all the other animals that are part of our mission and part of our stewardship."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Giant pandas are a popular zoo attraction in the United States. But the high cost to "rent" the black-and-white bears from China may force some zoos to close their exhibits. Today zoos in Atlanta, Georgia; Memphis, Tennessee; San Diego, California; and Washington, D.C., rent pandas for display and research.

# data[].attributes.headline
What is space junk, and why is it a problem?

# data[].attributes.subject
What is space junk, and why is it a problem?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As long as humans have been exploring space, we've also been creating a bit of a mess. Orbiting our planet are thousands of dead satellites, along with bits of debris from all the rockets we've launched over the years. This could pose an issue one day.

What is space junk?

Space junk, or space debris, is any piece of machinery or debris left by humans in space.

It can refer to big objects such as dead satellites that have failed or been left in orbit at the end of their mission. It can also refer to smaller things, like bits of debris or paint flecks that have fallen off a rocket.

Some human-made junk has been left on the Moon, too.

How much space junk is there?

While there are about 2,000 active satellites orbiting Earth at the moment, there are also 3,000 dead ones littering space. What's more, there are around 34,000 pieces of space junk bigger than 10 centimetres in size and millions of smaller pieces that could nonetheless prove disastrous if they hit something else.

How does space junk get into space?

All space junk is the result of us launching objects from Earth, and it remains in orbit until it re-enters the atmosphere.

Some objects in lower orbits of a few hundred kilometres can return quickly. They often re-enter the atmosphere after a few years and, for the most part, they'll burn up - so they don't reach the ground. But debris or satellites left at higher altitudes of 36,000 kilometres - where communications and weather satellites are often placed in geostationary orbits - can continue to circle Earth for hundreds or even thousands of years.

Some space junk results from collisions or anti-satellite tests in orbit. When two satellites collide, they can smash apart into thousands of new pieces, creating lots of new debris. This is rare, but several countries including the USA, China and India have used missiles to practice blowing up their own satellites. This creates thousands of new pieces of dangerous debris.

What risks does space junk pose to space exploration?

Fortunately, at the moment, space junk doesn't pose a huge risk to our exploration efforts. The biggest danger it poses is to other satellites in orbit.

These satellites have to move out of the way of all this incoming space junk to make sure they don't get hit and potentially damaged or destroyed.

In total, across all satellites, hundreds of collision avoidance manoeuvres are performed every year, including by the International Space Station (ISS), where astronauts live.

How can we clean up space junk?

The United Nations ask that all companies remove their satellites from orbit within 25 years after the end of their mission. This is tricky to enforce, though, because satellites can (and often do) fail. To tackle this problem, several companies around the world have come up with novel solutions.

These include removing dead satellites from orbit and dragging them back into the atmosphere, where they will burn up. Ways we could do this include using a harpoon to grab a satellite, catching it in a huge net, using magnets to grab it, or even firing lasers to heat up the satellite, increasing its atmospheric drag so that it falls out of orbit.

However, these methods are only useful for large satellites orbiting Earth. There isn't really a way for us to pick up smaller pieces of debris such as bits of paint and metal. We just have to wait for them to naturally re-enter Earth's atmosphere.

What is the Kessler syndrome?

This is an idea proposed by NASA scientist Donald Kessler in 1978. He said that if there was too much space junk in orbit, it could result in a chain reaction where more and more objects collide and create new space junk in the process, to the point where Earth's orbit became unusable.

This situation would be extreme, but some experts worry that a variant of this could be a problem one day, and steps should be taken to avoid it ever happening. This idea was also popularised in the movie Gravity.

Will space junk be a problem in the future?

It could well be. Several companies are planning vast new groups of satellites, called mega constellations, that will beam internet down to Earth. These companies, which include SpaceX and Amazon, plan to launch thousands of satellites to achieve global satellite internet coverage. If successful, there could be an additional 50,000 satellites in orbit. This also means a lot more collision avoidance manoeuvres will need to be done.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is space junk and why is it a problem?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Your guide to space junk, or space debris, that humans have left in space. What is space junk, where did it come from and how do we get rid of it?

# data[].attributes.body
READ ALL ABOUT IT!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Extreme Sports, Laws, and Regulations - Fit People

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Extreme sports are often practiced by people who love danger and the adrenaline rush. But are there laws regulating extreme sports?

# data[].attributes.headline
Culling is a terrible idea to stop shark attacks

# data[].attributes.subject
Culling is a terrible idea to stop shark attacks

# data[].attributes.body
stop shark culling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Eleven-time world surf champion Kelly Slater has always been one of the good guys. Creative, astute, and generous, the improbably humble master of a sport not known for its understatement, he even managed to make appearing on Baywatch seem cool. He teaches autistic kids to surf. He plays guitar with Eddie Vedder. One time, he saved a mother and toddler from being swept away by a rogue wave. And he's an activist. Climate change, fair trade, turtle conservation: name an environmental issue, Slater has stood up for it. The tagline for his clothing company, Outerknown, is #ItsNotOk. "We need to shift our awareness," he is quoted, on its website. "It's not ok to destroy our ocean." So it was startling last week when Slater issued an impassioned call for a mass slaughter of sharks on Reunion Island, a tiny French territory in the Indian Ocean.

Reunion's backstory is well known to surfers. Over the past six years, there have been 20 shark attacks in its surrounding waters, which happen to contain some of the world's most alluring breaks. Eight of the attacks were fatal. The most recent victim, bodyboarder Alexandre Naussance, 26, died on February 21. Naussance, like the others, was bitten by a bull shark. "Honestly, I won't be popular for saying this, but there needs to be a serious cull on Reunion, and it should happen everyday [sic]," Slater wrote afterward on Instagram. "There is a clear imbalance happening in the ocean there."

That last sentence is certainly true. But not for the reasons Slater and infuriated locals believe; and far from improving things, their prescription-kill the sharks, open the island's marine preserve to commercial fishing-would make the situation worse. Reunion's real problem is not a crazy glut of marauding bull sharks, but an utterly tweaked marine ecosystem, sluiced with run-off pollution and garbage, overfished to the point of collapse. The solution is to fix it, not ruin it further.

In the wake of tragedy it's understandable that emotions run hot, but shark culls are an awful idea, no matter how you look at it. Sharks have been here for 400 million years: they are older than trees on this planet. Somehow, they've managed to survive every mass extinction, with the possible exception of the one that's unfurling right now, caused by us. Scientists estimate that we have already wiped out 90 percent of the world's sharks, most deplorably by finning. The notion of killing more of them because they interfere with our watersports is obscene. As apex predators, they keep the entire ocean ecosystem in balance, particularly coral reefs. And if deep moral and environmental reasons aren't enough, there's also a pragmatic reason not to cull sharks: it doesn't work.

Between 1959 and 1976, Hawaii culled almost 5,000 sharks-and the number of attacks stayed the same. (In recent years, they have risen.) In 2014, after a run of three shark fatalities in three years, Western Australia set out to cull great whites. Not a single white shark was captured, but the effort did kill 68 tiger sharks, a near-threatened species that hadn't bitten anyone in Australia since 1929. Meanwhile, the nets and long-lines set out to ensnare sharks ended up killing everything else that swam by. The three-year program was terminated after 13 weeks.

Removing predators from an ecosystem always brings unintended consequences; it's never a good idea. One reason bull sharks (a highly aggressive, non-native species) have moved into Reunion's waters, in fact, is because the reef sharks (a relatively mellow native species) that competed with them for food are gone, killed by fishermen. (It also doesn't help that the fish the sharks are competing for are largely gone, too.) In 2011, when the French government hired a team of freedivers to investigate Reunion's waters, the team came back with unexpected news: they hadn't encountered many sharks, but the few they could find were all in one area, orbiting a heap of trash on the seafloor near the Boucan Canot marina and Saint Gilles harbor, food and garbage and fish guts tossed from boats and washed off beaches. Virtually all of the attacks had occurred along this same stretch of coastline.

Bull sharks aren't anyone's favorite species-they're wily, beady-eyed, hunchbacked sharks with an exceptionally strong bite (even for a shark), and they're not choosy about what they attack. They're fond of sewage, and like to lurk in the muddy, murky waters caused by rain runoff from Reunion's steep volcanic slopes and urban areas. But like them or not, we need them. After decades of post- Jaws vilification, the critical role of sharks in the ocean seems to be gaining awareness, even in fraught situations like Reunion. After Slater posted his comment, thousands of people responded with varying degrees of outrage, ranging from, "Kind of blew it with that shark cull idea ya brah?" to "Maybe nobody has ever told you but it's not YOUR ocean just because you get paid ridiculous amounts of money to surf in it," to "Calling for a daily shark cull? You selfish, arrogant Vin Diesel looking motherfucker."

So let's take that cull off the table, and talk about what else can be done to help the good people of Reunion Island, who very reasonably want to be able to dip a toe in the ocean without having their foot ripped off. Shark tagging and monitoring, increased lookouts above and below the water, shark-repelling pylons on the seafloor, relocating certain sharks, cleaning up the garbage, mitigating runoff, allowing fish stocks to recover, avoiding surfing at dusk, or alone, or in the most dangerous areas, especially spots with murky, muddy water-yes, sorry, even when the waves are firing-all of these things would help. Nobody wants to tell a kid that he can't go out on his boogeyboard because he might get bitten in half. But no one wants to see a sharkless, algae-slicked, trash-filled, dead ocean, either-including Kelly Slater, who walked back his comment a couple days after he'd made it, admitting: "I did not think my words through."
Susan Casey is the best-selling author of The Devil's Teeth: A True Story of Obsession and Survival Among America's Great White Sharks.
Lead Photo: Ryan Miller/Red Bull Content Pool

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over the past six years, there have been 20 shark attacks around Reunion Island. The deaths have inspired some surfers-most famously and recently Kelly Slater-to advocate for a cull. Susan Casey argues why that's a terrible, immoral, and totally ineffective way to deal with the problem.

# data[].attributes.body
What the ESA (European Space Agency) is doing to help out with the big space trash problem

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ClearSpace-1 will be the first space mission to remove an item of debris from orbit, planned for launch in 2025. The mission is being procured as a service contract with a startup-led commercial consortium, to help establish a new market for in-orbit servicing, as well as debris removal.

Following a competitive process, a consortium led by Swiss startup ClearSpace - a spin-off company established by an experienced team of space debris researchers based at Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne ( EPFL) research institute - will be invited to submit their final proposal, before starting the project next March.

"This is the right time for such a mission," says Luc Piguet, founder and CEO of ClearSpace. "The space debris issue is more pressing than ever before. Today we have nearly 2000 live satellites in space and more than 3000 failed ones.

"And in the coming years the number of satellites will increase by an order of magnitude, with multiple mega-constellations made up of hundreds or even thousands of satellites planned for low Earth orbit to deliver wide-coverage, low-latency telecommunications and monitoring services. The need is clear for a 'tow truck' to remove failed satellites from this highly trafficked region."

At Space19+, ESA's Ministerial Council, which took place in Seville, Spain, at the end of November, ministers agreed to place a service contract with a commercial provider for the safe removal of an inactive ESA-owned object from low-Earth orbit.

Supported within ESA's new Space Safety programme, the aim is to contribute actively to cleaning up space, while also demonstrating the technologies needed for debris removal.

"Imagine how dangerous sailing the high seas would be if all the ships ever lost in history were still drifting on top of the water," says ESA Director General Jan Wörner.

"That is the current situation in orbit, and it cannot be allowed to continue. ESA's Member States have given their strong support to this new mission, which also points the way forward to essential new commercial services in the future."

"Even if all space launches were halted tomorrow, projections show that the overall orbital debris population will continue to grow, as collisions between items generate fresh debris in a cascade effect," says Luisa Innocenti, heading ESA's Clean Space initiative. "We need to develop technologies to avoid creating new debris and removing the debris already up there.

"NASA and ESA studies show that the only way to stabilise the orbital environment is to actively remove large debris items. Accordingly we will be continuing our development of essential guidance, navigation and control technologies and rendezvous and capture methods through a new project called Active Debris Removal/ In-Orbit Servicing - ADRIOS. The results will be applied to ClearSpace-1. This new mission, implemented by an ESA project team, will allow us to demonstrate these technologies, achieving a world first in the process."

The ClearSpace-1 mission will target the Vespa (Vega Secondary Payload Adapter) upper stage left in an approximately 800 km by 660 km altitude orbit after the second flight of ESA's Vega launcher back in 2013. With a mass of 100 kg, the Vespa is close in size to a small satellite, while its relatively simple shape and sturdy construction make it a suitable first goal, before progressing to larger, more challenging captures by follow-up missions - eventually including multi-object capture.

The ClearSpace-1 'chaser' will be launched into a lower 500-km orbit for commissioning and critical tests before being raised to the target orbit for rendezvous and capture using a quartet of robotic arms under ESA supervision. The combined chaser plus Vespa will then be deorbited to burn up in the atmosphere.

Thank you for liking

You have already liked this page, you can only like it once!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ESA commissions world's first space debris removal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ClearSpace-1 will be the first space mission to remove an item of debris from orbit, planned for launch in 2025. The mission is being procured as a service contract with a startup-led commercial consortium, to help establish a new market for in-orbit servicing, as well as debris removal.

# data[].attributes.headline
National Zoo animals still need  to be fed despite government shutdown.

# data[].attributes.subject
National Zoo animals still need  to be fed despite government shutdown.

# data[].attributes.body
https://kutv.com/news/nation-world/national-zoo-animals-still-need-to-be-fed-despite-government-shutdown

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
National Zoo animals still need to be fed despite government shutdown

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hungry pandas don’t particularly care whether there’s a partial government shutdown. The Washington National Zoological Park’s most famous residents still need to be fed, as do thousands of other animals, even as the facility closed its gates Wednesday. The zoo is part of the Smithsonian network of museums, and all stayed open through New Year’s Day using pre-existing funds.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While soaking up the relaxing cadence of crashing waves on the beach, no one wants to think about how the ocean has basically become garbage soup. But here's the buzz-killing reality: There are millions of tons of debris floating around in that water-and most of it is plastic.

This constant barrage (the equivalent of 136 billion milk jugs each year, estimates a study published in the journal Science) poses a serious danger to marine life. Animals can get tangled up in this trash or ingest it-either because they mistake it as prey or because the plastic has been broken down into tiny particles by seawater.

Plastic, of course, is uniquely problematic because it's nonbiodegradable and therefore sticks around for a lot longer (like up to 1,000 years longer) than other forms of trash. And we're not just talking about people dumping their garbage overboard. Around 80 percent of marine litter actually originates on land-either swept in from the coastline or carried to rivers from the streets during heavy rain via storm drains and sewer overflows.

So the best thing we can do to protect our waterways is try to keep as much plastic as possible out of the waste stream in the first place. The good news? There are many small ways you can have a big impact.

1. Wean yourself off disposable plastics.

Ninety percent of the plastic items in our daily lives are used once and then chucked: grocery bags, plastic wrap, disposable cutlery, straws, coffee-cup lids. Take note of how often you rely on these products and replace them with reusable versions. It only takes a few times of bringing your own bags to the store, silverware to the office, or travel mug to Starbucks before it becomes habit.

2. Stop buying water.

Each year, close to 20 billion plastic bottles are tossed in the trash. Carry a reusable bottle in your bag, and you'll never be caught having to resort to a Poland Spring or Evian again. If you're nervous about the quality of your local tap water, look for a model with a built-in filter.

3. Boycott microbeads.

Those little plastic scrubbers found in so many beauty products-facial scrubs, toothpaste, body washes-might look harmless, but their tiny size allows them to slip through water-treatment plants. Unfortunately, they also look just like food to some marine animals. Opt for products with natural exfoliants, like oatmeal or salt, instead.

4. Cook more.

Not only is it healthier, but making your own meals doesn't involve takeout containers or doggy bags. For those times when you do order in or eat out, tell the establishment you don't need any plastic cutlery or, for some serious extra credit, bring your own food-storage containers to restaurants for leftovers.

5. Purchase items secondhand.

New toys and electronic gadgets, especially, come with all kinds of plastic packaging-from those frustrating hard-to-crack shells to twisty ties. Search the shelves of thrift stores, neighborhood garage sales, or online postings for items that are just as good when previously used. You'll save yourself a few bucks, too.

It seems obvious, but we're not doing a great job of it. For example, less than 14 percent of plastic packaging is recycled. Confused about what can and can't go in the bin? Check out the number on the bottom of the container. Most beverage and liquid cleaner bottles will be #1 (PET), which is commonly accepted by most curbside recycling companies. Containers marked #2 (HDPE; typically slightly heavier-duty bottles for milk, juice, and laundry detergent) and #5 (PP; plastic cutlery, yogurt and margarine tubs, ketchup bottles) are also recyclable in some areas. For the specifics on your area, check out Earth911.org's recycling directory.

7. Support a bag tax or ban.

Urge your elected officials to follow the lead of those in San Francisco, Chicago, and close to 150 other cities and counties by introducing or supporting legislation that would make plastic-bag use less desirable.

8. Buy in bulk.

Single-serving yogurts, travel-size toiletries, tiny packages of nuts-consider the product-to-packaging ratio of items you tend to buy often and select the bigger container instead of buying several smaller ones over time.

9. Bring your own garment bag to the dry cleaner.

Invest in a zippered fabric bag and request that your cleaned items be returned in it instead of sheathed in plastic. (And while you're at it, make sure you're frequenting a dry cleaner that skips the perc, a toxic chemical found in some cleaning solvents.)

10. Put pressure on manufacturers.

Though we can make a difference through our own habits, corporations obviously have a much bigger footprint. If you believe a company could be smarter about its packaging, make your voice heard. Write a letter, send a tweet, or hit them where it really hurts: Give your money to a more sustainable competitor.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While soaking up the relaxing cadence of crashing waves on the beach, no one wants to think about how the ocean has basically become garbage soup. But here's the buzz-killing reality: There are millions of tons of debris floating around in that water-and most of it is plastic.

# data[].attributes.body
this is not help us!Culling shark is not the answer to all of the shark attack

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Humans are global super predators. So, should we hunt and cull sharks just because they kill some of us?

What is shark culling? Shark culling is a governmental policy to capture and kill sharks in coastal areas with the goal of reducing the number of predators in public beaches, and the attacks on swimmers and surfers.

It's an intense and emotional debate with fierce representations and opinions on both sides of the table. But let's start with the basics. If we defend and protect thousands of animal species, why shouldn't we protect sharks?

Yes, unfortunately, there have been thousands of human deaths caused by mosquitoes, snakes, dogs, tsetse flies, assassin bugs, freshwater snails, Ascaris roundworms, tapeworms, and crocodiles.

Yet, should we eliminate them from the face of the Earth, just because they've taken aways the lives of our dearest ones? Although it is perfectly understandable that we feel that way, would it be a rational decision?

Everyone agrees that is profoundly sad to lose a young life to sharks. And it hurts, even more, when it happens to a friend or relative. But because human beings were given the power of thinking, there should be other ways of keeping us safe, and sharks alive.

It's rare to see sharks in the headlines for good reasons. In the majority of the cases, they're featured as the brutal predators that attack innocent surfers and swimmers.

Yes, we want, need, and deserve to surf. Yes, coastal areas are also part of the daily human life. But can't we simply find a way of coexisting peacefully?

Let's put things into perspective. On average, mosquitoes kill around 725,000 people every year; on the other side, sharks attacks result in 10 deaths.

Experts have already said that using baited drum lines to hook large sharks is pointless and worthless on the medium-term, and will not reduce the number of shark attacks.

We can't put shark culling in a pros and cons chart. It's just not as simple as that. Sharks exist for over 450 millions years, and there's a reason for that. Here's why shark culling is not a good idea:

1. Sharks are in their natural environment swimming and finding food;
2. Sharks are irrational predators;
3. Sharks will always keep returning to beaches and surfing/swimming zones;
4. There are more than 480 species of sharks, but only three are implicated in unprovoked attacks: the great white shark, tiger shark, and the bull shark;
5. Shark culls are expensive;
6. Sharks are critical to marine life because they reduce the super-abundance of other species;
7. Shark culling is an endless task;

Are there any alternatives to shark culling? Yes, there are a few that will dramatically reduce the number of unprovoked attacks:

1. Physical barriers in the world's most popular and crowded beaches;
2. Effective personal shark deterrents;
3. Professional shark spotters equipped with drone technology;
5. Sonar devices that warn swimmers and surfers if a shark is detected;
6. Colored and striped surfboards, wetsuits, and swimwear;
7. Beach closures and staying out of the water for a certain period of time;

In the end, humans must remember that they don't have control over Nature and the oceans. Capturing and killing sharks is not a good idea, especially when we pollute their waters with chemicals, plastics, and human waste on a daily basis.

Take a look at a few interesting facts about sharks. Learn how to increase the chances of surviving a shark attack.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is shark culling? Shark culling is a governmental policy to capture and kill sharks in coastal areas with the goal of reducing the number of predators in public beaches, and the attacks on swimmers and surfers. It's an intense and emotional debate with fierce representations and opinions on both sides of the table.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-things-zoos-wont-tell-you-1306528026434

# data[].attributes.body
you are killing sharks!!!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dear The Western Australia government,
Please stop the shark culling in WA. It is not humane for the Western Australian government to be okay with killing all these sharks! You are being extremely prejudice. Have you ever met a shark? People are entering the sharks natural habitat at their own risk, and they have paid the price.
How would you feel if a stranger walked into your home? You would get scared wouldn't you? You are killing sharks at a faster rate than they can recover!

Killing sharks is something based on emotion rather than of scientific research.
Lets listen to science and END the slaughter.
It's their home and we will ALWAYS be the visitors.

Magnificent. Maligned. Misunderstood

Sharks are essential to maintaining the natural balance of oceans ecosystem.

Sharks prevent prey from over-grazing vital habitats.

Sharks are worth MILLIONS in tourism revenue.

Sharks are good indicators of ecosystem health.

How many sharks are getting killed a year? 100 million! By who? US, and you and I know we don't want that on our conscience.
How many people are killed a year by sharks (in Australia) ? Over the past 50 years, there is an average of 1 a year. The chance of you being killed by a shark is 1 in 3,748,067. As Australia's population is around 21 000 000. then there is a 6 in 21 000 000 chance that you will be the person being declared dead after a shark attack. You have more chance of dying from a ballpoint pen or getting stung by a bee etc.
Wouldn't it be better to spend tax payer's money on education?

Why does the WA government even have rights to kill these sharks? Sharks are protected!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sharks are essential to maintaining the natural balance of oceans ecosystem. Sharks prevent prey from over-grazing vital habitats. Sharks are worth MILLIONS in tourism revenue. Sharks are good indicators of ecosystem health. How many sharks are getting killed a year? 100 million! By who?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal-facts/do-animals-live-longer-in-zoos/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Only recently has there been enough data on the longevity of wild animals to establish whether animals live longer in captivity or in the wild.

A study of more than 50 mammal species found that, in over 80 per cent of cases, zoo animals live longer than their wild counterparts.

In terms of lifespan, at least, it seems that the protection afforded by zoos against predators, disease and the elements outweighs any social and behavioural problems arising from life in captivity.

The effect was most pronounced in smaller species with a faster pace of life. Larger, slower species with few predators, such as elephants, live longer in the wild.
Do you have a wildlife question you'd like answered? Email your question to wildquestions@immediate.co.uk or post it to Q&A, BBC Wildlife Magazine, Immediate Media Company, 2nd Floor, Tower House, Fairfax Street, Bristol BS1 3BN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Only recently has there been enough data on the longevity of wild animals to establish whether animals live longer in captivity or in the wild. A study of more than 50 mammal species found that, in over 80 per cent of cases, zoo animals live longer than their wild counterparts.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cmzoo.org/support/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For all the innovation and choice that define the food and drink industries, if you want to make money, you could do a lot worse than bung some water in a bottle and flog it. A litre of tap water, the stuff we have ingeniously piped into our homes, costs less than half a penny. A litre of bottled water can cost well over a pound, especially for something fancy that has been sucked through a mountain.

Yet the bottled water market is more buoyant than ever, defying the plastics backlash inspired by stricken albatrosses on the BBC's Blue Planet, and a broader, growing sense that something has to change.

Sales in the UK were worth a record £558.4m in the year to last November, an increase of 7%, according to the latest figures from the market analyst Kantar. Separate data from the analysts Nielsen show that last year we guzzled more than 2.2bn litres of bottled water, including "take-home" and "on-the-go" products. That's an annual rise in volume of 8.5%.

Imagine laying out half-litre bottles on the pitch at Wembley Stadium. You could fit 1.7m bottles on the grass, packed into a tight grid. Now imagine building up layers of bottles, covering the same area, to build a tower. To contain all the bottled water we buy each year, you would end up with a 514-metre skyscraper - 200 metres taller than the Shard.

Environmental campaigners are struggling to fathom why nations blessed with clean tap water grow only fonder of the bottle. "It's very surprising to me," says Sam Chetan-Walsh, a political adviser at Greenpeace and campaigner against ocean plastic. "Public awareness has never been higher, but the message is not quite reaching all the people it needs to."

Where it is heard, the message is stark. As well as requiring oceans of fossil fuels to make and ship, single-use plastics of all types are polluting our cities and seas. Blue Planet II, broadcast in 2017, showed how albatrosses unwittingly feed plastic fragments to their chicks, ultimately killing them, and how even dolphin milk can become contaminated.

Campaigners cite the show as a watershed moment, and moves against various plastics have gathered pace, from shopping bags to straws and plastic-lined coffee cups. Chetan-Walsh argues that bottled water is different because the alternatives are so obvious. "If a product that is so nakedly unnecessary can exist, then the whole system is failing," he says.

Hope is not entirely out of reach. That plastic skyscraper conceals attempts in the bottled water industry to change. If nothing else, the rate of growth has begun to ease (sales were up 7% in the year to November 2018, compared with 8% the previous year).

But even if large numbers of us are quitting bottled water because of care for the environment, others are taking it up. The introduction of the "sugar tax" on juices and fizzy drinks has pushed more people to bottled water, while health awareness has boosted its desirability. Kantar says tap water consumption is growing at roughly the same pace (we still drink almost three times as much tap water as bottled water).

So the plastic tide only creeps higher. The industry is quick to point out that all its bottles are recyclable. "But collection rates are, at the most generous estimates, 56%, so the actual recycling rate will be lower than that," Chetan-Walsh says. And while bottles may be recyclable, very few are made of recycled plastic. Highland Spring launched recycled half-litre "eco" bottles alongside its standard bottles in January; Evian has vowed to use only recycled plastic across its range by 2025.

Chetan-Walsh believes in a ban on single-use bottles. Bans exist in some places. Glastonbury festival organisers announced that water bottles will not be sold this summer. San Francisco has banned them from city property and events. Last year, the UK parliament set out plans to ban single-use plastic from its estate.

Water bottlers, unsurprisingly, don't support bans. But they raise concerns about health rather than bottom lines. Last month, the chief executive of Harrogate Water, James Cain, said that bans would "result in greater consumption of sugary drinks, adding to all the health dangers of obesity, diabetes and tooth decay ".

Kinvara Carey, general manager of the Natural Hydration Council, an association of the biggest bottled water manufacturers, cites a survey in which people were asked what they would do if bottled water were not available. "Forty-four per cent would buy another drink, which is not great, 14% would go without and 4.5% said they would find a fountain," she says. "The choice is important."

What if fountains were more numerous, and tap water more clearly available in cafes, restaurants and elsewhere? The London mayor, Sadiq Khan, is installing dozens of fountains in partnership with Thames Water. There are similar initiatives elsewhere. Before plastic and the marketing that made us think we needed bottled water in the first place, fountains were an urban fixture.

Greenpeace, among others, is also pushing for a "deposit return" scheme in which a levy on bottled water would be refunded to customers who returned the plastic for recycling.

Even if bottled water sales are growing slightly more slowly, the industry is racing to adapt to changing concerns and tastes. Flavoured water is booming: sales of the sparkling variety shot up by 20%, according to the latest Kantar data. Meanwhile, brands including Evian, as well as a range of startups, are selling high-end reusable bottles. And if you must fill them with tap water, why not add flavouring?

As the owner of multiple sugary drink brands - and Aquafina bottled water - PepsiCo is facing challenges on health and environmental fronts. Last year, the company bought SodaStream for $3.2bn (the drinks machines make tap water fizzy; you add flavours). It also launched Drinkfinity, a range of fancy bottles that work with tap water and flavour pods (think more lemongrass and spirulina than 7 Up). The bottle is reusable. The pods? Not so much, and, yes, they are made of plastic, although Pepsi invites users to post them back for recycling.

As is so often the case, ingenious marketing can trump reason; awareness is rarely enough. "There is always this kind of slip between concern, intent and changed behaviour," says Giles Quick, an analyst at Kantar. "The best example is five a day. Almost everyone is aware of it, but something like 15% of us achieve it." Unless a far-reaching bottle ban does come into force, it will be up to consumers to not only demand change - but to act themselves.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
If we care about plastic waste, why won't we stop drinking bottled water?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For all the innovation and choice that define the food and drink industries, if you want to make money, you could do a lot worse than bung some water in a bottle and flog it. A litre of tap water, the stuff we have ingeniously piped into our homes, costs less than half a penny.

# data[].attributes.headline
How much does an animal eat foods per day?

# data[].attributes.subject
How much does an animal eat foods per day?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2018/11/animals-eat-huge-amounts-food-thanksgiving-news/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the U.S. it's nearly Thanksgiving, a time we gather to appreciate what we have-and feel our waistlines expand like a puffer fish.

With the most food-centric holiday upon us, we wondered which non-human animals stuff themselves, and why?

Many birds chow down to sustain themselves before long non-stop flights over oceans or deserts, says Dan Roby, a wildlife ecologist at the U.S. Geological Survey and Oregon State University, by email. Scientists call these periods of intense feeding "hyperphagy."

With one of the world's longest migrations, the blackpoll warbler has to seriously fuel up before its trip. The tiny birds breed as far north as Alaska, and each year fly to New England, where they "double their weight by storing an amount of fat equal to their lean body weight," Roby says, before an 80-hour nonstop flight over the Atlantic Ocean to Venezuela.

Likewise, bar-tailed godwits double their weight by storing fat to make it through a 10-day non-stop flight from Alaska to New Zealand, the longest of any animal. (Related: Alaska bird makes longest nonstop migration ever measured.)

Chickadees and tits living above the Arctic circle consume mass quantities so they "have enough stored fat to keep their body temperature above freezing throughout the long winter night."

The birds aren't really overindulging like a human holiday eater, but putting on enough fat to get through a time of long fasts sometimes combined with intense exercise.

"In this context, "over-eating" is a critical adaptation for many birds," Roby says.

Then there are animals that eat massive quantities on a regular basis.

The largest animal on earth, the blue whale, puts away four tons of krill a day. That's sounds like a lot, but this animal has a 200-ton body to feed, so that's not a high percentage of its body weight.

By contrast, a pygmy shrew of Britain weighs less than an ounce, but can eat "one-and-a-quarter times its body weight," says biologist Elmer Finck of Fort Hays State University in Oklahoma.

In general, he says, if you compare consumption to body size, "the small animals eat more than the large animals."

Tiny hummingbirds, for example, have a fast metabolism requiring them to eat about twice their weight in nectar every day, Finck says. It takes a lot of energy to keep them moving as fast as they do; their hearts beat 1,200 times a minute while in flight.

Other animals, such as big cats, eat huge amounts but feed less often. "Big cats in the wild do not make kills every day, so there are days they will not eat," says Susan Bass of Big Cat Rescue in Tampa, Florida. But then they will feed from a large kill for days, some guarding the meat so they can eat more later.

"Leopards can climb trees carrying an animal more than twice their weight" to keep it from other predators, Bass says.

Afton Tasler, Big Cat Rescue's media producer, says tigers can eat between 35 and 90 pounds in a sitting, which is more than lions, who "share their kills with their pride."

Adult Burmese pythons eat once a month, sometimes less, but they make the most of it. (Related: See how a python can swallow a crocodile.)

A 2013 study of Burmese pythons' genes found that during digestion, changes in their gene activity allow their metabolism to increase and some of their organs to grow radically in size - up to 150 percent in 24 to 48 hours - and then return to normal after digestion. This " physical remodeling " allows the snakes to digest meals bigger than themselves.

In 2017 alone pythons of various species were caught on camera, devouring or regurgitating huge animals including a pregnant sheep and a monitor lizard. (Related: Seven python meals that got really ugly.)

Makes a little extra pie seem like no big deal.

Tweet me, leave me a note in the comments, or find me on Facebook with your questions about the weird animal world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
These animals eat absurd amounts of food

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the U.S. it's nearly Thanksgiving, a time we gather to appreciate what we have-and feel our waistlines expand like a puffer fish. With the most food-centric holiday upon us, we wondered which non-human animals stuff themselves, and why?

# data[].attributes.body
should we actually clean up the trash from space? Watch this video to find how much debris there!

# data[].attributes.headline
shark are not so dangerous like we thought of them

# data[].attributes.subject
shark are not so dangerous like we thought of them

# data[].attributes.body
shark do not attack on purpose

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sharks use their gills to filter oxygen from the water. They are a special type of fish known as "elasmobranchs", which translates into fish made of cartilaginous tissues- the clear gristly stuff that your ears and nose tip are made of. This category also includes rays, sawfish, and skates. Their cartilaginous skeletons are much lighter than true bone and their large livers are full of low-density oils, both helping them to be buoyant.

Even though sharks don't have bones, they still can fossilize. As most sharks age, they deposit calcium salts in their skeletal cartilage to strengthen it. The dried jaws of a shark appear and feel heavy and solid; much like bone. These same minerals allow most shark skeletal systems to fossilize quite nicely. The teeth have enamel so they show up in the fossil record too.

Most sharks can see well in dark lighted areas, have fantastic night vision, and can see colors. The back of sharks' eyeballs have a reflective layer of tissue called a tapetum. This helps sharks see extremely well with little light.

Sharks have small black spots near the nose, eyes, and mouth. These spots are the ampullae of Lorenzini - special electroreceptor organs that allow the shark to sense electromagnetic fields and temperature shifts in the ocean.

4. Shark skin feels similar to sandpaper.

Shark skin feels exactly like sandpaper because it is made up of tiny teeth-like structures called placoid scales, also known as dermal denticles. These scales point towards the tail and help reduce friction from surrounding water when the shark swims.

When you flip a shark upside down they go into a trance-like state called tonic immobility. This is the reason why you often see sawfish flipped over when our scientists are working on them in the water.

Based on fossil scales found in Australia and the United States, scientists hypothesize sharks first appeared in the ocean around 455 million years ago.

Vertebrae contain concentric pairs of opaque and translucent bands. Band pairs are counted like rings on a tree and then scientists assign an age to the shark based on the count. Thus, if the vertebrae has 10 band pairs, it is assumed to be 10 years old. Recent studies, however, have shown that this assumption is not always correct. Researchers must therefore study each species and size class to determine how often the band pairs are deposited because the deposition rate may change over time. Determining the actual rate that the bands are deposited is called "validation".

The blue shark displays a brilliant blue color on the upper portion of its body and is normally snowy white beneath. The mako and porbeagle sharks also exhibit a blue coloration, but it is not nearly as brilliant as that of a blue shark. In life, most sharks are brown, olive, or grayish.

Whale sharks are the biggest fish in the ocean. They can grow to 12.2 meters and weigh as much as 40 tons by some estimates! Basking sharks are the world's second largest fish, growing as long as 32 feet and weighing more than five tons.

A shark's spiracle is located just behind the eyes which supplies oxygen directly to the shark's eyes and brain. Bottom dwelling sharks, like angel sharks and nurse sharks, use this extra respiratory organ to breathe while at rest on the seafloor. It is also used for respiration when the shark's mouth is used for eating.

Mako sharks have very pointed teeth, while white sharks have triangular, serrated teeth. Each leave a unique, tell-tale mark on their prey. A sandbar shark will have around 35,000 teeth over the course of its lifetime!

Sharks exhibit a great diversity in their reproductive modes. There are oviparous (egg-laying) species and viviparous (live-bearing) species. Oviparous species lay eggs that develop and hatch outside the mother's body with no parental care after the eggs are laid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1. Sharks do not have bones. Sharks use their gills to filter oxygen from the water. They are a special type of fish known as "elasmobranchs", which translates into fish made of cartilaginous tissues-the clear gristly stuff that your ears and nose tip are made of. This category also includes rays, sawfish, and skates.

# data[].attributes.headline
hot topic:Is it time for zoos to be banned?

# data[].attributes.subject
hot topic:Is it time for zoos to be banned?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/travel/2017/05/hot-topic-it-time-zoos-be-banned

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The polar bears in Winnipeg have disco poo. Their droppings look like little glitterballs.

Before anyone starts sprinkling the stuff on their cornflakes, this isn't the hottest new beauty trend nor is it a natural phenomenon: Assiniboine Park Zoo's keepers use coloured glitter in the bears' feed to identify their droppings.

Why? Well, scat reveals all sorts of things about individual animals; information the keepers share with the scientific community. Many zoos conduct such studies, and also run captive breeding programmes for endangered species. However, critics say this doesn't justify their existence.

"Zoos are prisons for animals, camouflaging their cruelty with conservation claims," Mimi Bekhechi, director of international programmes at PETA, explains. "Animals in zoos suffer tremendously, both physically and mentally. They often display neurotic behaviour, like repetitive pacing, swaying, and bar biting. Not surprising, perhaps, considering the typical polar bear enclosure is one million times smaller than the area they would naturally roam."

PETA isn't alone. In April, ethical tour operator Responsible Travel - after consultation with wildlife charity Born Free Foundation - axed trips that include zoo visits. It's the first travel company to publicly make such a move.
Read more: Should I worry about chemtrails?
"Only 15% of the thousands of species held in zoos are considered 'threatened'," says Will Travers OBE, president of Born Free. "An even smaller proportion are part of captive breeding programmes and, of those, a tiny fraction have been released back into the wild. That's not a record that justifies tens of millions of wild animals kept in zoos."

PETA's Bekhechi adds, the aim of breeding programmes is just "to produce baby animals to attract visitors."

Some, however, argue that children benefit from zoos. "We engage huge audiences with wildlife, inspiring the conservationists of tomorrow," argues zoological director of ZSL London and Whipsnade Zoos, Professor David Field. That claim is up for debate. A 2014 study by the Society for Conservation Biology found that of over 2,800 children surveyed following visits to London Zoo, 62% showed no positive learning outcomes.

But, for every story that casts zoos in a bad light - from Vince the rhino's poaching at Paris' Thoiry Zoo in March; Cincinnati Zoo shooting endangered gorilla, Harambe, last year after a child fell into his enclosure; or Copenhagen Zoo killing and publicly dissecting Marius, a two-year-old giraffe in 2014 - there are heart-warming tales too.

Zoos across the US can take credit for reviving the wild Arabian oryx, golden lion tamarin and Californian condor populations, among many others. And Steve Irwin's Australia Zoo has an on-site Wildlife Hospital to save sick and injured native species.

In the age of social media, high profile culls have sparked heated debates. The shooting of Harambe the gorilla spawned the most-shared meme of 2016 and caused a hounded Cincinnati Zoo to suspend its social media accounts. When it comes to lethal force and animal welfare, at least, public opinion swiftly sides against zoos.

But whether recent events have triggered a profound shift in public consciousness is harder to quantify. Regardless of the merits or ethics of zoos, one thing's for certain: they're going to be around for some years yet.

How can you tell a zoo from a sanctuary?

The Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS) operates an accreditation system for sanctuaries, rescue centres and rehabilitation centres. Look out for the GFAS seal of approval.

So it's better to have 'close encounters' with animals in the wild, right?

Wrong! Step away from the selfie stick. Don't be suckered into supporting companies that offer experiences like hugging a tiger, swimming with dolphins, riding elephants, or kissing sharks. These experiences are often harmful to wildlife and dangerous for you.

How do we save wildlife if not by breeding programmes?

PETA says: "People who care about protecting endangered species should donate to organisations that safeguard them in their natural habitats - if a species' native environment has been destroyed, there's nowhere left for the animals to go."
Published in the June 2017 issue of National Geographic Traveller (UK)
Follow us on social media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hot topic: is it time for zoos to be banned?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The polar bears in Winnipeg have disco poo. Their droppings look like little glitterballs. Before anyone starts sprinkling the stuff on their cornflakes, this isn't the hottest new beauty trend nor is it a natural phenomenon: Assiniboine Park Zoo's keepers use coloured glitter in the bears' feed to identify their droppings.