1 William Carvalho Arsenal are preparing a £24million bid for Sporting Lisbon midfielder William Carvalho, according to O Jogo.The Gunners are on the hunt for a defensive midfielder this summer and have already shown an interest in Southampton’s Morgan Schneiderlin and Real Madrid’s Sami Khedira.However, Arsenal boss Arsene Wenger is now reportedly making a move for Sporting’s Carvalho.The 22-year-old enjoyed a breakthrough campaign last season, becoming a regular for Sporting and making his international debut. His displays attracted firm interest from Manchester United.Carvalho’s release clause is said to be around £35m, but Arsenal are hoping that the offer of £24m, in one single payment, will persuade Sporting to part with their star midfielder.
Combined with similarly sluggish growth rates since the mid-1990s, the data suggest the species is hanging on, but not bouncing back. “The fact is the population is not recovering, and we really don’t have a good explanation for why,” said Jim Estes, a veteran sea otter expert with the U.S. Geological Survey. Possibly an outgrowth of inbreeding, the disconcerting sexual behavior Tinker and Bentall observed last month isn’t killing California’s otters in disproportionate numbers, but may be a byproduct of something that is, according to Estes. Scientists are pretty sure elevated mortality rates among adult and young adult otters are responsible for the disappointing comeback, as opposed to low birth rates. Of particular concern is that survival rates for female otters have gone down since the 1980s while increasing for the more mobile males, Tinker said. “Reproductive-age females, the recovery for the population is entirely dependent on them,” he said. No one knows for sure why the otters are failing to thrive, although there are plenty of theories. Tests done on the carcasses of dead otters that wash ashore suggest they are succumbing to diseases that may be linked to water pollution damaging their immune systems. But scientists cannot know the cause of death for otters who never end up on land, so they can’t say whether disease or something else is the problem. Even so, any otter lost to contamination caused by humans is a cause for concern given their precarious numbers, Estes said. 160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set! MONTEREY – Training her binoculars on a dark patch of seaweed swaying in the shallows, Gena Bentall gasped. After searching for sea otters all day, the research biologist had spotted one: a mother with a pup on her belly, a mauled face dripping blood and a male pursuer hot on her tail. Female sea otters often sport scars on their noses, the price of breeding with clumsy, sharp-toothed partners. But vicious injuries like this one are showing up with unusual frequency off the California coast, one of several signs leading marine scientists to suspect something is amiss in the kelp beds where the state’s beloved aquatic mammals make their homes. “This is one of the things that makes us think the sex ratio is skewed in an unhealthy way,” said Tim Tinker, another otter expert who joined Bentall in watching the wounded mother try to outswim her menacing attacker in a rocky cove near Monterey’s famed Cannery Row. The biologists have seen female otters – many nursing babies and incapable of getting pregnant – with their muzzles ripped off. Even young males have become targets of aggressive mating. The culprits are thought to be itinerant, adolescent otters invading the territories of males who typically jealousy guard their harems. Every spring and fall for the last quarter-century, teams of scientists have fanned out across 375 miles of California coastline to count southern sea otters, a threatened species that was hunted to near-extinction a century ago. The census is used to gauge whether the struggling population is rebounding or declining, with at least three years of similar results required to demonstrate a trend. The survey conducted last month brought welcome news following two years of drops – a solid 12 percent, or 334-otter increase that brought the number of adults and pups combined above 3,000 for the first time. For the California sea otter to be removed from the threatened species list, the count would have to average 3,090 or more over three years. Scientists greeted the figures with measured optimism, noting that unusually balmy and clear weather in early May provided good conditions for a process that is subject to the vagaries of human error and constrained by the limits of the human eye. More significantly, they note, the average population for the last three years stands at 2,818, a figure still far below the delisting criteria and a 2.4 percent improvement over the previous three-year benchmark.
Getty Napoli and Arsenal go head-to-head at the Stadio San Paolo tonight and it will be live on talkSPORT 2.The Gunners produced a fine display to win 2-0 in their Europa League quarter-final first-leg last week. And they will be confident of getting the job done this evening in Naples and reach the final four of the competition.We will have full coverage of the second-leg tie and here’s how you can tune in. 2 Alexandre Lacazette and Arsenal take on Napoli tonight Napoli vs Arsenal: How to listenFull coverage from Italy will be live on talkSPORT 2, with our programme getting underway at 6pm.Jim Proudfoot and Ray Houghton will bring you the build-up and commentary and to tune just click here for the live stream or click the radio player below.You can also listen through the talkSPORT App, on DAB Digital Radio or on MW 1053 or 1089.For more information about how to listen LIVE on talkSPORT click here.Napoli vs Arsenal: Kick-off timeThe Europa League clash will get underway at 8pm on Thursday, April 18.Arsenal lost 2-0 on their only ever trip to Naples but are two to the good in this tie following last week’s first-leg victory. Top scorer in 2019: Messi, Mbappe and Sterling trailing Europe’s top marksman Napoli vs Arsenal: Line-upsNapoli: Meret, Maksimovic, Chiriches, Koulibaly, Ghoulam, Callejon, Allan, Zielinski, Fabian, Insigne, MilikSubs: Ospina, Hysaj, Malcuit, Mario Rui, Verdi, Younes, MertensArsenal: Cech, Sokratis, Koscielny, Monreal, Maitland-Niles, Kolasinac, Torreira, Xhaka, Ramsey, Lacazette, AubameyangSubs: Leno, Mustafi, Elneny, Guendouzi, Mkhitaryan, Ozil, Iwobi LATEST EUROPA LEAGUE NEWS on target 2 Unai Emery’s Arsenal face Napoli tonight
A relaunch of the lounge area of The Stepping Stone in Dungloe looks set to give the premises yet another great boost.The Stepping Stone & Daniel O’Donnell visitor centre was first opened in 2012 after a complete renovation by Canadian businessman Dave Harvey.The initial building consisted of a bar with a function room/disco attached alongside a bistro and visitor centre. Because of the changing times in the bar and food industry it was decided to incorporate the function room as part of the bar, while at the same time keeping the option of closing the lounge to accommodate private functions.The new lounge will double the number of tables available for food and on busy sporting days will offer a quieter more relaxed area for families to enjoy their meal.There will continue to be music every weekend but also at one end there will be a pool table and dart board for those who enjoy a bit of competition. When the lounge area is closed off from the bar we will be able to cater to all types of groups, from family gatherings up to small weddings. On Thursday 13th April the premises will host a relaunch of the lounge, which is open to everyone, with music on the night by “The Duck Street Band”. We will be also have food & drink tasters from our new menu plus samples of our current favourites. And you never know who you will meet on the night!The aim of the renovation is to create a bar that will cater to every need by providing good affordable food, top quality drink, including specialised teas and coffees, in a peaceful and relaxed environment.If you want to discuss an upcoming family occasion including, communion and confirmation, we can be contacted at 074 9522334/61781 or e-mail us at firstname.lastname@example.orgRelaunch of the Stepping Stone lounge to give premises another boost was last modified: April 11th, 2017 by StephenShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Tags:donegaldungloeStepping Stone
Less than 2 years ago, Princeton agriculture expert Tim Searchinger published a paper in Science that sought to quantify how growing biofuels on cropland in the United States could lead to deforestation abroad. He estimated in some cases that indirect emissions could lead to a doubling of emissions associated with corn ethanol. Previously, researchers thought using the fuel could cut emissions by 30% since it would replace gasoline. Rarely do scientists have as immediate an impact on government policy. Since Searchinger’s paper was published, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, spurred by Congress, has been mulling whether to take so-called indirect land use into account when calculating the carbon footprint of biofuels for new regulations it is crafting, expected by December. Critics say Searchinger’s calculations were faulty and that uncertainties made it impossible to gauge their effects. Right now, indirect land use related to biofuels isn’t included in proposed climate change legislation in the U.S. Senate, as well as proposed agreements that will be on the table in Copenhagen. In a recent policy piece published in Science, Searchinger and colleagues wrote that such a policy “erroneously treats all bioenergy as carbon neutral,” calling it a major “accounting error.”Sign up for our daily newsletterGet more great content like this delivered right to you!Country *AfghanistanAland IslandsAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBolivia, Plurinational State ofBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, The Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and Mcdonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea, Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMacedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorwayOmanPakistanPalestinianPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalQatarReunionRomaniaRussian FederationRWANDASaint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofVietnamVirgin Islands, BritishWallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweI also wish to receive emails from AAAS/Science and Science advertisers, including information on products, services and special offers which may include but are not limited to news, careers information & upcoming events.Required fields are included by an asterisk(*)To discuss these issues, Insider conducted an e-mail conversation with Searchinger and John Sheehan, an expert on biofuels at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. Uncertainty means be cautious. Roughly a dozen major scientific assessments have now noted that because any use of productive land to produce biofuels has a high risk of creating large emissions through land-use change, we shouldn’t be pursuing that route. Among these studies are those by our National Academy of Sciences, SCOPE, a special U.K. government review of biofuels called the Gallagher Report, Dutch reviews, and studies by the Joint Research Centre of the European Union. To give you some idea of the risk, if palm oil grown in peatlands in Southeast Asia replaces only perhaps 5% of the soybean or rapeseed oil diverted to biodiesel, then the emissions from that decomposing peat alone cancel out any benefit from not using fossil fuels. And in reality, that percentage will probably be much more than 5%, and there will be lots of other land-use change as well to replace the other 95% of the vegetable oil. The alternative is to pursue biofuels that present little risk of significant land use change emissions. That means using timber and crop residues or trying to grow high-yielding grasses or trees on truly marginal and degraded land, and that is the recommendation of these many reviews. However, the first policy that negotiators need to fix is the accounting error. This error applies not just to indirect land-use change but direct land-use change. According now to two separate modeling analyses published in Science, this error would lead to the loss of most of the world’s natural forest because clearing those forests for bioenergy becomes one of the cost-effective means of complying with laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Obviously, the emissions “cuts” these forms of bioenergy would achieve are not true in scientific fact. And the way to fix the accounting error is to count the very real emissions from using bioenergy and then provide a credit to that bioenergy which results from a source that really is “additional” carbon. Turning to John’s response, I appreciate his agreement and that the error is common sense. Yet I do not think we are focusing on worst case scenarios. Modelers working on this are doing the best they can to predict as accurately as possible what the likely consequences of various flawed policies, and for the most part they are noting the very real uncertainties. The reason using existing cropland for biofuels tends not to show up as yielding large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is simply because those croplands are already absorbing large quantities of carbon. An Iowa corn field today, whatever critics say of its environmental impacts, is an extraordinary technological achievement and produces more food on an acre than almost any acre known in history—certainly any nonirrigated acre. Using that crop for fuel is not only unlikely to yield much greenhouse gas benefit, but much of that “benefit” for greenhouse gases may come at the expense of reduced food consumption (which would be good if that came from my plate but not when it comes from the plates of billions of poor, who unfortunately have less money to buy it than I do). Insider Tim John Insider Tim John Tim John ScienceInsider: First for Tim: Can you explain the concept of indirect carbon impact? And for John: What do you make of Tim’s idea of accounting errors in his latest paper? I can state without qualification that I agree with the premise of Tim’s recent article that there is a major flaw in current and proposed accounting systems for carbon. This is a flaw not just for biofuels. It is a flaw that creates a gaping hole in the global accounting of carbon. Broadly speaking, land-use related emissions of greenhouse gases are a large contributor to our annual release of carbon to the atmosphere.The devil is in the details, however. Our ability to measure, let alone project, what the indirect land-use emissions for biofuels would be is sketchy at best. We are in the early days of scoping out how to do such analyses. And this is more than just an analytical problem. It is a genuine political problem. That is what makes the whole debate over biofuels so difficult. We not only have to sort out genuine analytic, economic, and scientific uncertainties about the interactions between biofuels and land-use change, but we have to recognize and deal with the political and ethical influences globally that lead to land-use change.It’s a simple matter of what I call “bathtub dynamics.” When biofuels are burned, they reduce the amount of fossil carbon that would flow into the bathtub. If biofuels are produced by clearing forests and just dumping the aboveground carbon back into the atmosphere, then the bathtub fills up with carbon emitted from the sequestered carbon in the forest. Likewise, if biofuels cause other land to be cleared, there will be additional flow into the bathtub.But if biofuels genuinely capture carbon beyond what was being captured on the land before the land was put into biofuels production, then there is a net savings. That’s common sense. My biggest concern about the debate on biofuels is that we are not sufficiently focused on policies that encourage truly low carbon biofuels, and we publish results that focus on the worst case scenarios.ScienceInsider: So there’s a lot of uncertainty in greenhouse gas calculations on indirect emissions from biofuels. But with negotiations on emissions reductions, credibility is particularly important. What should negotiators in D.C. and in Copenhagen do about biofuels? Separating direct and indirect effects is far from an ideal solution to proper regulating of carbon emissions from biofuels. But it may be the only thing we can do in the interim. I think Tim and I have a different understanding of what I mean by “direct emissions.” These direct estimates of carbon emissions can indeed be designed to account for diverting land currently in food production to biofuels production. Such analyses do not require making the erroneous assumption of carbon neutrality for biomass. And, if I had limited my proposal [in my last response] to just direct land-use regulation, I would agree with Tim that this would not be meaningful with respect to preventing international “shell games” of the sort he describes for palm oil. Such approaches are at the heart of what is wrong with the current European focus on accepting biodiesel only made from previously cleared land. My point was that regulators should be flexible in reducing or eliminating the indirect carbon emission penalty based on offset strategies offered by the biofuels producers. In the absence of any sound policy controls on international land use, I think this at least offers a way forward.We have enough areas of agreement that I believe we can begin to focus on real solutions to both our energy security and climate change problems and that these solutions will involve, at least to some extent, biofuels. There are some transportation needs that simply must have a low-carbon liquid fuel alternative. Tim has pointed out that there are probably “safer” options for biofuels that minimize the risk of indirect land use. We should pursue those. But I think it would be a mistake if we narrowed the field to just [making fuel out of agricultural] residues and wastes a priori. Finally, I think we need to broaden the discussion of biofuels beyond the question of carbon emissions. After all, carbon emissions are just one lens through which to look at our global land-use problems. Biofuels have done us all a big favor by turning a spotlight on what my colleague Jon Foley refers to as the “other inconvenient truth”: land use. In the face of uncertainty, Tim is invoking the precautionary principle with respect to the risks of aggravated land-related greenhouse gas emissions associated with biofuels. But the risk equation has two sides to it. There are risks to falling prey to what I call “paralysis by analysis.” One of the studies Tim has referenced basically concludes that the only thing policymakers can do is work on the assumption that biofuels, at this moment in time, are worse than petroleum fuels because of the future risk of land clearing and other GHG emission increases. In that case, we do nothing and suffer the consequences of dealing with a burgeoning demand for liquid transportation fuels globally without offering any alternatives to petroleum.Policymakers certainly have my sympathy. Never before have we faced such complex issues. From a technical point of view, we are managing and monitoring our land at best like someone who is trying to drive a car by looking in the rear-view mirror. And that is the most positive spin I can put on it. In reality, our ability to see where we are going with sustainable land management is more like trying to drive blindfolded.To carry the car analogy even further, the lack of jurisdictional infrastructure for international land management means we are trying to drive with a broken steering wheel. Ultimately, the political problem that regulators face here in the U.S. as they struggle with the California low-carbon fuel standard and the revised EPA Renewable Fuel Standard is that they are trying to regulate biofuels producers with respect to indirect changes over which they (both the regulators and the biofuels producers) have little control.I would encourage policymakers to adopt flexible policies that take different approaches to dealing with direct versus indirect land-use effects. We know and understand direct emissions far better than we do indirect effects. So, tough and clear hurdles for reduced direct emissions are appropriate. On the indirect land-use side, policymakers should encourage mitigating or offsetting strategies from biofuels producers that help to address external land-use problems while we try to fix the international policy problems.Finally, as to the question of whether modelers are focusing too much on worst case scenarios, this is a point on which Tim and I probably just disagree. This is where we need more open and transparent discussion of assumptions and approaches. Frankly, the models we are using now are too complex and impossible to understand. All the potential benefits, and most of the potential costs, from bioenergy turn on land management. When cars burn biofuels instead of gasoline or diesel, what comes out of the tailpipe does not change. Similarly, when power plants burn wood instead of coal, what comes out of the smokestack is roughly the same amount of real carbon dioxide. The potential of bioenergy to reduce greenhouse gases results from the fact that growing plants absorbs carbon from the atmosphere. When plants are turned into fuel and then burned, the carbon released is just what the plants absorbed, potentially offsetting the emissions.But that is just potential. It occurs, for example, if barren land is planted to crops because all that carbon taken up by the crops would otherwise be in the atmosphere. But when existing trees are burned for bioenergy, bioenergy takes carbon that would otherwise be stored and puts it into the air, just like burning coal or oil. And when forests are cleared to grow bioenergy crops, sure there is plant growth that takes up carbon, but that comes at the expense of not having ongoing forest growth that does the same and after losing much of the stored carbon in the forests. So bioenergy only reduces greenhouse gases if it results from additional plant growth or in some other way uses carbon that would not otherwise be stored (for example, by using the waste material left after timber harvest that would decompose rapidly anyway).The problem with the treaties and laws limiting carbon dioxide from energy use is that they treat all bioenergy as carbon neutral. They implicitly assume that it all results from additional plant growth when in fact it often occurs by displacing stored carbon, such as forests.The food problem is a subset of this issue. When existing corn is used for ethanol, what comes out of the tailpipe doesn’t change and what is taken out of the atmosphere doesn’t change either because the corn would be grown anyway. So the first question you have to ask is whether you get any additional carbon at all from this process and therefore reduce greenhouse gases. The reason that carbon in corn is not stored is that livestock and people consume it and burn it and put it back in the atmosphere. So it is wrong to assume that using crops gives you any direct benefit. Any benefit or cost depends on how it is replaced. If it is replaced by people eating less, you get a benefit. If it is replaced by other farmers boosting their yields more than they otherwise would, spurred by higher prices, you may get a benefit because higher yields absorb more carbon (but it comes at some greenhouse gas costs from fertilizer use and the like). But if corn is replaced by clearing other land to grow more food, then you have emissions. That does not mean farmers are penalized for land use elsewhere. It means they are not rewarded simply because their crops are used for fuel instead of food. I do not believe it is logically or practically legitimate to distinguish direct from indirect land use.The problem is that life-cycle analyses for biofuels literally assign a carbon credit to the biofuel that cancels out all the emissions from burning the fuel in the car. But that credit is invalid because the carbon in the plants is not necessarily additional. Or put another way, as I have said, just switching the use of already existing carbon from food to fuel does not result in any direct net gain. You have to examine indirect effects to determine if there is a gain or a loss.Administratively, regulating direct but not indirect land use would have largely meaningless real-world consequences. For example, nearly all the world’s palm oil today is used for vegetable oil from plantations previously carved out of forest. If the law limits direct land-use change, a palm oil producer cannot clear a new acre to make palm oil and sell that for biodiesel. But the company can take all the existing palm oil from already cleared forests and sell that for biodiesel, and then clear new land to make more palm oil and sell that for food. This approach doesn’t do you any good.
Researchers tracked how much people ate on “ultraprocessed” (left) and “minimally processed” (right) diets that were matched for calories and nutrients. ‘Ultraprocessed’ foods may make you eat more, clinical trial suggests Something about the industrial processing of food makes us more likely to overeat, according to a new study. Volunteers ate more and gained more weight on a heavily processed diet than an unprocessed one, even when the two diets had the same available calories and nutrients.The study is “a landmark first,” and a “shot over the bow” in a debate over the health of processed food, says Steven Heymsfield, an obesity researcher at Louisiana State University’s Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge who was not involved with the work. But some experts question whether the study controlled for important differences between the diets.The definition of “processed food” is controversial. Nearly all the food at grocery stores is subject to some processing: It’s pasteurized, vacuum sealed, cooked, frozen, fortified, and mixed with preservatives and flavor enhancers. Some of these processes can change its nutritional qualities. And some studies have found associations between processed diets and increased risk of obesity, cancer, and even earlier death, but none has shown a causal link.Sign up for our daily newsletterGet more great content like this delivered right to you!Country *AfghanistanAland IslandsAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBolivia, Plurinational State ofBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, The Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and Mcdonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea, Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMacedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorwayOmanPakistanPalestinianPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalQatarReunionRomaniaRussian FederationRWANDASaint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofVietnamVirgin Islands, BritishWallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweI also wish to receive emails from AAAS/Science and Science advertisers, including information on products, services and special offers which may include but are not limited to news, careers information & upcoming events.Required fields are included by an asterisk(*)Still, some health officials and national governments have seized on processing as a culprit in the global epidemic of obesity and related diseases. The official dietary guidelines of Brazil, for example, recommend that people “limit consumption of processed foods.”Kevin Hall, a physiologist at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases in Bethesda, Maryland, suspected that processed foods were linked to poor health simply because they were likely to contain lots of fat, sugar, and salt. So in the new experiment, he and his team tried to rule out those factors. They recruited 20 healthy people and gave each about $6000 to surrender some freedoms, dietary and otherwise. Participants spent 28 straight days in a National Institutes of Health facility—with no excursions. They wore loose-fitting scrubs to make it harder for them to guess whether their weight was changing. Each was restricted to an “ultraprocessed” diet or a “minimally processed” diet for 2 weeks, and then switched to the other diet for 2 more weeks.The study used a food classification system called NOVA developed by a team of researchers in Brazil. It describes “ultraprocessed” foods as ready-to-eat formulations with five or more ingredients, often including flavor-enhancing additives, dyes, or stabilizers. To be considered “minimally processed,” foods can be frozen, dried, cooked, or vacuum packed, but they can’t include added sugar, salt, or oil. Meals in the ultraprocessed arm of the study included packaged breakfast cereals, sweetened yogurt, canned ravioli, and hot dogs. Those in the unprocessed diet included oatmeal, steamed vegetables, salads, and grilled chicken. Dietitians carefully matched the processed and unprocessed diets for calories, sugar, sodium, fat, and fiber.The captive participants did enjoy one big freedom: They chose how much to consume. Once they ate their fill, Hall’s team calculated their intake by painstakingly weighing the leftovers, down to every dollop of ketchup that didn’t make it onto a hot dog. The researchers found that by the second week of each diet, people were eating, on average, about 500 more calories per day when the fare was ultraprocessed. That extra consumption led to a weight gain of about a kilogram during the 2 weeks on the ultraprocessed diet, versus a loss of about a kilogram on the unprocessed diet, they report today in Cell Metabolism.“They showed that the effect [of processing] goes beyond nutrients,” says Carlos Monteiro, an epidemiologist at the University of São Paulo in São Paulo, Brazil, who helped develop the NOVA classification system and supports government interventions to limit processed food consumption. Simply reformulating packaged foods to contain less sugar, salt, or fat—as many large companies are now attempting—won’t eliminate their risks, he says.If participants continued eating those extra 500 calories, they would “gain a lot of weight—a lot —over time,” says Heymsfield, though he notes that their gusto for the ultraprocessed diet might have waned if the study had gone on a few weeks longer. He suspects people overate processed food because it was more appealing. “The ultraprocessed foods look like foods I might overeat also, given the chance,” he says.Yet on surveys, the participants rated the processed meals as no more pleasant than the unprocessed ones. If they weren’t enjoying the food more, why were they eating more of it?One possibility is that industrial processing produces softer foods that are easier to chew and swallow—and thus easier to scarf down. The participants ate faster on the ultraprocessed diet, and studies have found that people tend to eat more when they eat faster. Blood tests also revealed that, while on the unprocessed diet, people had higher levels of an appetite-suppressing hormone called PYY and lower levels of the appetite-stimulating hormone ghrelin, though it’s not clear how these changes relate to food processing.And despite the researchers’ efforts to perfectly match the nutrition of the diets, there were some differences that may have influenced how much people ate. The ultraprocessed meals contained slightly less protein, and some research has found that people tend to eat until they reach a certain protein target. If that protein is more diluted, those studies hint, people will consume more calories to hit the same target.Ultraprocessed foods also tend to be more energy-dense—they have many more calories per gram, notes Barbara Rolls, an obesity researcher who studies eating behavior at Pennsylvania State University in State College. (Although Hall’s team concluded the two diets were roughly equal in energy density, the measurements included low-energy-density beverages added to the ultraprocessed diet to boost fiber via dissolved supplements.) Rolls’s team has found that more energy-dense foods lead people to eat more calories because they tend to eat a consistent weight or volume of food day to day.Hall and his colleagues are now planning a similar-size study with a few tweaks: They’ll bump up the protein in the ultraprocessed diet and swap fiber-enriched beverages for soups, which may encourage people to eat more slowly.For now, some researchers aren’t convinced that processing itself is a menace. “A lot of … the ultraprocessed foods in this study are perhaps ones that we [shouldn’t] to be eating too often,” Rolls says. And most people don’t have the time or resources to prepare farm-to-table meals, she adds. “If we had to live without processed foods, I don’t think we would be able to feed the population—nor would people like it.” HALL ET AL./CELL METABOLISM By Kelly ServickMay. 16, 2019 , 11:00 AM
Anita Jat New DelhiMay 24, 2019UPDATED: May 24, 2019 14:59 IST Sri Lanka defeated Australia to win the 1996 World Cup. (Getty Images)HIGHLIGHTSIndia defeated 2-time World Cup champions West Indies to win the 1983 World CupIn 1996, Sri Lanka caused a major upset by defeating Australia to lift the World Cup trophyIreland had knocked Pakistan out of the World Cup in 2007Upsets. Heartbreaks. The triumph of David over Goliath. Jubilation. Nothing charms sports aficionados like a good underdogs story. Days away from the 12th edition of the Cricket World Cup, the lesser fancied teams in England will look to what lesser fancied teams in the past have done – shock and awe.Cricket history is littered with the conquest of the greats by the minnows. Back in 1983, who would have backed India to beat the powerful West Indies? How many thought Sri Lanka could stun Australia to win the World Cup in 1996?These are stories of endurance. These are stories that allow subsequent generations to dream.As the 2019 Cricket World Cup draws closer, it is as good a time as ever to look back at some of the greatest stories in cricket. How many do you remember? How many do you cherish?We walk down memory lane to bring together some of the finest instances in the history of the World Cup.1983: When India beat world power West IndiesIn the first two editions of the cricket World Cup, West Indies had set a reputation for themselves. They had announced themselves as undefeatable on the world stage with 1975 and 1979 win. That changed in 1983.Until 1983, there was a reason India were called the ‘underdogs’. They had not made it to the knockout round before and thus a World Cup win looked a distant dream for them.Losing the toss, India were asked to bat first, and proving worthy of everyone’s expectations, couldn’t stand the wind against the West Indies bowlers and were all out for 183 in 54.4 overs. K Srikanth became the highest scorer for the side with his 36 runs.advertisementBut then, Gordon Greenidge was bowled by Balwinder Sandhu and a little later Desmond Haynes was caught out by Roger Binny. Then Vivian Richards came into attack and just when it all started to look in favour of West Indies, millions of Indians were deprived of a live telecast of what happened next as the Doordarshan lost its signal from London.But those with a radio handy knew Viv was caught out by Kapil Dev. Then fell Larry Gomes, was followed by a limping Clive Lyod and Faoud Bacchus. Jeff Dujon and Malcolm Marshall batted bravely but Amarnath had picked his men.West Indies were all out for 140. India had won the World Cup.1996: Kenya beat West IndiesTo figure out the magnitude of what happened in Pune on February 29, 1996, Banconsider this: West Indies were two-time champions and three-time finalists, while Kenya ODI run had begun only in the 1996 World Cup.When West Indies restricted Kenya to a mere total of 166 runs, a win looked certain for them.Going in to defend the below-par total, West Indies posed the likes of Sherwin Campbell, Richie Richardson and the great Brian Lara, who could make the run-chase look like a child’s play. But such is not the case always.Lara came in to bat at 22 for 2 but looked much out of his groove. Medium pacer Rajab Ali bowled an outside off and Lara tried to play a back-foot drive, without juding the swing in the ball, and got a thick edge to wicketkeeper Tariq Iqbal.Out went Lara, in came the signs of win. Rajab Ali and Maurice Odumbe shared 3 wickets apiece to emerge the unlikely heroes as West Indies scattered for 93 and suffered a 73-run defeatThis is how Kenya’s Aasif Karim recalled the night before the huge victory: “We were playing West Indies, so we thought it would be nice to have some photographs for our memory. It would be good to play against them and hopefully one of us would get Brian Lara’s wicket and we could tell our grandsons. 1996: Sri Lanka beat Australia to lift the trophyThe 1996 World Cup was co-hosted by Sri Lanka and Pakistan.In Sri Lanka’s first group match, they were scheduled to play Australia, but that didn’t happen as Mark Taylor’s men preferrred forfeiting 2 points than playing in Colombo due to security reasons after a terrorist attack just before the World Cup.Reacting to that, then Sri Lanka captain Arjuna Ranatunga said, “We want the Australians in the final.” Rest was destiny and history.Sri Lanka qualified for the finals from World Cup’s first default win following the ruckus created by a disappointed Indian crowd.Aravinda de Silva outshined with 3 for 42 to restrict Australia for 241 and then smashed an unbeaten 107 to take Ranatunga’s revenge from Australia.Not only did Sri Lanka won the trophy that year, but also redefined Powerplay. At a time when teams scored mere 50-60 runs during the field-restricted overs, Sri Lanka scored 117 runs in those overs against India, 123 against Kenya, and 121 against England in the quarter-final.advertisement2007: When Ireland showed the door to Pakistan With Pakistan’s complacent and impatient batting, they managed to put up a target of 133 runs against Ireland. But what Pakistan had always boasted off was their fast bowlers, who failed to limit Ireland on a St Patrick’s Day.A classic knock from wicket-keeper Niall O’Brien sent Pakistan crashing out of the World Cup, while Ireland in their debut at the cricket’s most biggest stage, qualfied to the Super Eights.Chasing 133 runs on a difficult pitch, O’Brien led Ireland’s response with his superb 72 runs in a rain altered game. Once O’Brien left the crease, finishing half the work for Ireland, in came his brother Kevin, who picked up the game just where O’Brien left.O’Brien smashed crucial 16 runs to hand Ireland their first win in a World Cup, while Paksitan packed their bags to airport. 2011: Bangladesh defeated IndiaA confident Rahul Dravid opted to bat first against ‘minnows’ Bangladesh. Going into the World Cup, India boasted a strong batting line-up, arguably one of the best on papers.They had likes of Sourav Ganguly, Virendra Sehwag, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Yuvraj Singh and MS Dhoni. But Mashrafe Mortaza, Abdur Razzak and Mohammad Rafique dismissed India for a paltry 191.After showing their beauty on the bowling part, Bangaldesh followed it by even a greater show at batting. A 17-year-old Tamim Iqbal (51), left Zaheer Khan out of bowling options.Mushfiqur Rahim (56*), Shakib Al Hasan (53) gave Iqbal’s knock a strong thrust.In that match, Bangladesh showed what they had build upon slowly and steadily in all those years. They had defeated India by 5 wickets with 9 balls remaining. And the jubilant Bangladesh fans celebrated the staggering victory by defying a government ban on public gatherings.In other group matches, India went on to win against Bermuda but lost to Sri Lanka and left the World Cup after the first round.2015: Kevin O’Brien’s onslaught against EnglandUntil 2015, Kevin O’Brien was mostly known for his pink hair. After March 2, 2011, he was known for hitting the second-fastest century in the history of World Cup.Ater posting 327 runs on board, England thought they had done a reasonable job with the bat and a win against Ireland with such a target would be a walk in the park. But what they hadn’t thought was about the hulk power of kiren O Brien.Everything went according to England’s plan when Ireland were 111 for 5 halfway through the chase. But then came the big man and played the innings of his life.O’Brien hit the then fastest hundred in World Cup history with his 113 off 63 deliveries. He added match-changing 162 with Alex Cusack while John Mooney later helped the man in charge to earn Ireland the highest World Cup run-chase with four balls to spare and script a beautiful chapter in Irish sport.Also Read | Such losses are irreparable: Sachin Tendulkar condoles Asif Ali daughter’s demiseAlso Read | Every captain would lose a left leg to reach World Cup 2019 final: Eoin MorganAlso SeeadvertisementFor sports news, updates, live scores and cricket fixtures, log on to indiatoday.in/sports. Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter for Sports news, scores and updates.Get real-time alerts and all the news on your phone with the all-new India Today app. Download from Post your comment Do You Like This Story? Awesome! Now share the story Too bad. Tell us what you didn’t like in the comments Posted byAnita Jat Tags :Follow World Cup 2019Follow Viv RichardsFollow Brian Lara World Cup 2019: Recapping some of the greatest upsets in World Cup historyWorld Cup 2019: There have been instances in past where weaker teams have played to their will while stronger teams failed to play to their potential to give us cricket’s most shocking upsets.advertisement
Vinyl is currently enjoying a major resurgence in popularity, but there are plenty of people who still look at the turntable as old technology. While that may indeed be the case for some turntables, it’s far from it with the Mag-Lev Audio, a gravity-defying marvel that is currently seeking funding on Kickstarter.The Mag-Lev Audio will play your records the same as any other turntable, but this model takes the unique approach of electromagnetically floating the platter over the rest of the turntable while in use. The turntable includes built-in feet that the platter rests on when not in use, but these retract while the turntable is operating, giving it a truly futuristic appearance.The floating platter does more than simply look cool, though it does indeed look impressive. Vibrations are the bane of any turntable’s existence, and physically decoupling the platter from the rest of the turntable effectively removes any trace of vibration from the platter. While we’d need some hands-on time with the Mag-Lev Audio in order to be sure, this could also make for super-accurate operation, removing minor variances in speed and reducing motor noise.“By using innovative, patented technology, we were able to achieve magnetic levitation while maintaining the incredibly precise turning of the platter,” the Mag-Lev Audio team wrote in a press release. “Air is the smoothest medium possible with the least amount of friction, meaning this project has elevated listening to music into a truly magical listening experience.”The turntable will ship with a preset tonearm and included cartridge, meaning all the user has to do is plug it in to their receiver or preamp and they’re ready to start listening. In order to keep from damaging records if the power goes out, the Mag-Lev Audio even features a built in UPS (uninterruptible power supply) that will allow the player to lift the tonearm, stop the record, and extend the platter feet before it shuts off.The Mag-Lev Audio has an estimated retail price of $1,390, but Kickstarter backers pay substantially less, with the black model available for a pledge of $880 and the imitation wood model for $940. Early bird pricing is also currently available to backers, bringing the price down to $780 for the black model and $840 for the imitation wood model.The Mag-Lev Audio campaign is aiming for a relatively lofty goal of $300,000, and the team raised around $5,000 on the first day of its campaign. That leaves plenty of time to go before the November 21 closing date, and it’s certainly an interesting idea. All the usual risks associated with crowdfunding are also present here, of course, and the Mag-Lev will need to ramp up to reach its goal. If the campaign is successful and everything goes according to plan, the team expects to be shipping rewards to backers beginning in August 2017. See the Kickstarter page for more details. Editors’ Recommendations The Maserati Quattroporte: Luxury You Can Sort of Almost Imagine Affording The Evolution and History of the Home Stereo A Soaring Roof Defines This Paradise of an Arizona Desert Dwelling The Best Wired and Wireless Headphones for Travel Koy Gear Aims to Revolutionize Men’s Everyday Apparel
Cumberland County: Road Closure Malagash Road in Cumberland County is closed due to storm damage. Local traffic can detour on Malagash Station Road. Motorists should continue to use caution as heavy rains continue. Drivers should adjust speed where hydroplaning and flooding may occur. -30-
Kolkata: Calcutta High Court set up a single-member committee to probe the April 24 incident in which Howrah police resorted to lathi-charge on the Howrah District Court premises.On Wednesday, the division bench of Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice Arindam Mukherjee said what the police did on April 24 on the Howrah Court premises was wrong. Justice Somadder and Justice Mukherjee engaged former Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court Justice (Retd.) Kalyanjyoti Sengupta to conduct a probe and submit a report before the bench within three months. Also Read – City bids adieu to Goddess DurgaThe two justice bench also ordered seven police officers, including a few IPS officers, not to enter the court premises till the report is submitted. Calcutta High Court instructed the police not to investigate the cases lodged against the lawyers. On April 24, a major clash took place between the lawyers and staff of Howrah Municipal Corporation (HMC) over vehicle parking at Howrah Court area. It was alleged that when the HMC staff asked a lawyer not to park his vehicle at the paid parking area, they got into an argument. Also Read – Centuries-old Durga Pujas continue to be hit among revellersThe argument heated up when some lawyers and law clerks allegedly arrived there and physically harassed the HMC staff and a security personnel. Within minutes more HMC staff members arrived and there was a clash between them. It was alleged that both HMC staff and lawyers started hurling bricks at each other. Later, the Rapid Action Force (RAF) had to be called and the police resorted to lathi-charge. The situation took an ugly turn when the lawyers retaliated and attacked the police personnel. To disperse the violent mob, the police fired a few tear gas shells on the Howrah Court premises. Commissioner of Police (CP), Howrah, Vishal Garg had visited the spot later.