Health24.com | Coronavirus morning recap: Mysterious post-Covid disease, and outbreak at the White House

LATEST SCIENCE AND RESEARCH

READ | A mysterious post-Covid inflammatory response in kids can also affect adults 

Although children tend to be more resilient to Covid-19, some children have developed a hyperinflammatory condition called multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C). This disease is dangerous and can even lead to death.

On 2 October 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a new report which suggests that a type of multisystem inflammatory syndrome can also affect some adults. This version is referred to as MIS-A.

According to the report, MIS-A is a severe illness that targets multiple organs and causes increased inflammation in the body.

As with children, the adults who presented with MIS-A either test positive for SARS-CoV-2, or they have antibodies, which means that they have been infected with the virus in the past.

The CDC received reports of at least 935 cases of children with MIS-C, including 19 fatalities – including teens and young adults.

Recently, a similar syndrome has been observed in adults, and the CDC refers to 27 cases from the United States and the United Kingdom.

READ | Last-ditch life support system is saving lives of Covid patients

A life support technique called ECMO has saved the lives of many critically ill Covid-19 patients, a new study shows.

The ECMO (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) machine takes over the function of the lungs and heart. Blood is pumped from the body into equipment that adds oxygen to the blood before it’s returned to the body.

This technique has saved lives in previous epidemics of lung-damaging viruses, but small studies published early in the coronavirus pandemic questioned its effectiveness.

This international study included 1 035 Covid-19 patients at high risk of death because ventilators and other types of care couldn’t support their lungs.

After being placed on ECMO, the death rate among these patients was less than 40%, according to the study authors.

“These results from hospitals experienced in providing ECMO are similar to past reports of ECMO-supported patients, with other forms of acute respiratory distress syndrome or viral pneumonia,” said co-author Dr Ryan Barbaro, of the University of Michigan.

CORONAVIRUS CASES LATEST

SA cases update: 

The latest number of confirmed cases is 685 155.

According to the latest update, 17 248 deaths have been recorded in the country.

There have been 618 127 recoveries.

So far, more than 4 318 514 tests have been conducted, with 23 583 new tests reported.

Global cases update:

For the latest global data, follow this interactive map from Johns Hopkins University & Medicine.

Early on Thursday morning, positive cases worldwide were more than 35.9 million, while deaths were over 1 million.

The United States had the most cases in the world – more than 7.5 million, as well as the most deaths – close to 211 500.

WHAT’S HAPPENING IN SA

Latest news:

WATCH | FEEL GOOD: Woman starts baking business after surviving Covid-19 and losing her job

Zanele Ngcoko, also known as “Chef Zan” in Gugulethu, Cape Town, was diagnosed with Covid-19 in May after she had trouble breathing.

“I’d take five steps but it would feel like I’d taken like one hundred steps to get to the bathroom,” she told News24.

At the hospital, x-rays of her chest revealed that she had pneumonia in her lungs and she was sent to the Groote Schuur Hospital for a Covid-19 test.

“It felt like I was literally dying in that moment, you know, when they tell you because there are so many family friends that have passed on due to Covid,” she said.

She spent nine days recovering at an isolation facility set up at the Lagoon Beach Hotel and when she returned home, her employer, told her she would be retrenched. Ngcoko worked as a chef at a catering company.

She said she expected the news and because of this, came up with a back-up plan.

WHAT’S HAPPENING IN THE REST OF THE WORLD 

Latest news:

READ | Boris Johnson’s scientific advisers want ‘drastic action’ to stop surge of Covid-19 deaths in the UK

Boris Johnson’s scientific advisers want him to introduce “drastic” new lockdown measures after the number of coronavirus cases and hospitalizations surged in the UK.

“We are starting to get to a point where we really will have to take really critical action,” Professor John Edmunds, a member of the government’s scientific advisory group said on Tuesday.

“These local restrictions that have been put in place in much of the north of England really haven’t been very effective,” Edmunds told the BBC’s Newsnight programme.

“We need to take much more stringent measures, not just in the north of England, we need to do it countrywide, and bring the epidemic back under control.”

Edmunds said that the government should introduce further national restrictions to replace the patchwork of local measures currently in place across the UK.

the most stringent measures, including a ban on household mixing indoors, have been enforced across much of northern England where the rate of infection is highest. But they do not appear to have worked, with new daily cases in cities including Manchester, Liverpool, and Newcastle soaring in the past seven days.

READ | The Covid-19 outbreak at the White House is the worst to hit any major government

The coronavirus outbreak at the White House is the worst to hit any major seat of government, an analysis by Business Insider has found.

The US is not alone in having the core of its central government stricken by Covid-19, nor is it the only country to have its national leader test positive.

But the number of senior US officials, along with their high level of seniority, makes the outbreak among the Trump Administration the worst so far.

Politico has counted 34 people who tested positive since President Donald Trump announced he had Covid-19 on October 1. 

Many were guests at Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination ceremony, at which social distancing was not observed and almost nobody wore masks. The event is now being scrutinized as a possible “super-spreader” event, as Business Insider’s Aylin Woodward and Susie Neilson reported. 

Among them are 16 senior figures in the Trump administration. They include First Lady Melania Trump, Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, Senior Adviser Steven Miller, and former Governor Chris Christie. And, of course, there is the president himself. 

HEALTH TIPS (as recommended by the NICD and WHO)

• Maintain physical distancing – stay at least one metre away from somebody who is coughing or sneezing

• Practise frequent hand-washing, especially after direct contact with ill people or their environment

• Avoid touching your eyes, nose and mouth, as your hands touch many surfaces and could potentially transfer the virus

• Practise respiratory hygiene – cover your mouth with your bent elbow or tissue when you cough or sneeze. Remember to dispose the tissue immediately after use.

Image credit: Getty Images

Share Button

Polar ice, atmospheric water vapor biggest drivers of variation among climate models

A Florida State University researcher is part of a team that has found varying projections on global warming trends put forth by climate change scientists can be explained by differing models’ predictions regarding ice loss and atmospheric water vapor.

The work will help climate scientists reconcile various models to improve their accuracy, said Florida State University Meteorology Professor Ming Cai, one of the authors of the study published in Nature Communications .

Climate scientists agree that the Earth’s surface temperature is warming, but the details of exactly where and by how much are less clear. A worst-case climate change scenario (known as the “Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5”) predicted a likely increase in average global temperatures of about 2.6 degrees Celsius to 4.8 degrees Celsius (or about 4.7 degrees Fahrenheit to 8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100.

“This uncertainty limits our ability to foresee the severity of the global warming impacts on nature and human civilization,” Cai said. “The more information we have about the effects of climate change around the world, the better prepared we will be.”

The difference in those conclusions would mean the difference between a sea level rise of about a half-meter to close to one meter, for example.

As scientists around the world have studied the climate, they have developed their own models. Although the major components of these climate models are based on the same general physical principles, such as conservations of energy and mass, they still differ from one another in many details, which is what leads to a range of conclusions about something like the future average global temperature.

“What are the best ways to represent those details in a climate model?” Cai said. “That’s something that climate science is still working to answer. The model gets into the ‘art’ part of science.”

The researchers investigated the variability among 25 climate models that participated in the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They found that climate models that predicted higher average temperatures for the Earth’s surface overall also yielded results that showed more polar ice loss and more water vapor in the atmosphere.

“We found that these two factors explain close to 99 percent of the difference in global-mean warming forecasts among these 25 climate models,” Cai said. “Our findings suggest that variability among climate models could be significantly reduced by narrowing the uncertainty in models simulating ice-albedo and water vapor feedbacks.”

The research also found that cloud cover is less important than scientists previously thought for explaining variation among models.

These models are tools for making forecasts for things like sea level rise, flood risk, the viability of crops and wildlife and other considerations.

“Knowing that polar ice and water vapor in the atmosphere are the most important drivers of variability in different climate models will help climate scientists further refine those models,” Cai said.

Researchers from Sun Yat-sen University and Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory in China, Science Systems and Applications Inc. in Hampton, Virginia, and NASA contributed to this study.

This research was funded in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation, NASA and the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Story Source:

Materials provided by Florida State University. Original written by Bill Wellock. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Share Button

Apparently I’ve Been Breathing All Wrong

This week I’ve been enthusiastically digesting the book The Oxygen Advantage: The Simple, Scientifically Proven Breathing Techniques for a Healthier, Slimmer, Faster, and Fitter You. It’s eye-opening and counter-intuitive in many ways. I thought I knew how to breathe, but it turns out I didn’t.

Someone recommended this book to me earlier this year, so I added it to my audiobook queue. I wondered what I’d learn about breathing from nine hours of audio that I didn’t already know. I figured it would just be reinforcement of some relaxation techniques and meditative practices that I was already familiar with. Nope, that’s not what it’s about.

What I didn’t expect was that it would challenge what I thought I knew about breathing. This book encouraged me to experiment with breathing differently – not just during some deliberate breathing practice but all day, including during exercise.

It’s too soon to share long-term results since I’m only a couple of days into this type of experimenting, but I like to share what I’m learning along the way since I think there’s value in the newbie perspective.

Shallow Breathing Is Better

I always thought that deep diaphragmatic breathing was good. Breathe slowly and deeply. Sometimes I’ve heard “in through the nose and out through the mouth,” at least for meditative breathing.

Nope – all wrong. Apparently it’s healthier to breathe shallowly, so shallowly that it barely looks like you’re breathing at all. Just inflate the lungs a little, not deeply. And pause for several seconds between breaths.

Perhaps you believe that if you take deeper breaths, it will oxygenate your blood more. Lots of people believe that. So did I. It’s a myth. Breathing more deeply won’t oxygenate your blood any more than breathing shallowly.

I tested this for myself using the new Apple Watch’s blood oxygen sensor, which takes 15 seconds to test each time. Normally my readings are 96-100%. If I breathe deeply, it doesn’t get any better. And when I slow my breathing down even more and breathe as shallowly as I can, the readings are still in the same range.

Is 100% the best result for this test anyway? No, a slightly lower reading is actually better. You want your cells taking the oxygen out of the blood, so if you’re at 100%, it may mean that your cells aren’t absorbing the oxygen as well as they could be. The high 90s are apparently best.

Taking in enough oxygen through breathing isn’t the issue. Your lungs are really good at taking in oxygen, unless you’ve damaged them through smoking or coal mining. If you’re already close to 100%, taking in more oxygen isn’t going to get you any higher. The blood is already as full as it should be.

What matters here is getting your cells to absorb oxygen from the blood more efficiently. This depends on the level of carbon dioxide in the blood, not on the oxygen level. Whether your blood is at 96% or 99% oxygen capacity, you’re unlikely to notice a difference because anywhere in that range, your blood still has plenty of oxygen for your cells. So your blood oxygen is like a cup that’s always full. The real question is how fast your cells are drinking from that cup. Trying to overfill the cup won’t get you anywhere since it’s never low or empty (or you’d be dead).

With more CO2 in the blood, cells naturally take in more oxygen. Shallow breathing doesn’t affect blood oxygen levels, but it does increase the amount of CO2 in the blood. And apparently there are measurable health and fitness advantages to building up your CO2 tolerance, so your blood is higher in CO2 and your cells absorb oxygen more efficiently. Basically you’re helping your cells absorb more of a key resource they need, so your brain and body will work more efficiently. Help your cells at the micro level, and you’ll likely see benefits at the macro level. This sounds reasonable to me as it’s explained in the book, but of course it invites personal testing to know for sure.

When you hold your breath, what makes you feel that strong urge to breathe again? You may think that it’s your need for more oxygen. It isn’t. It’s actually the urge to get rid of the CO2 that’s building up.

Even while you hold your breath, there will still be plenty of oxygen in your blood being delivered to your cells for a good while longer, but the carbon dioxide buildup feels incredibly uncomfortable, and that increasing CO2 makes you want to breathe again.

As it turns out, developing a higher tolerance for CO2 is advantageous. While CO2 is a waste product, it actually does some good if you can handle higher concentrations of it, including potentially reducing depression and improving focus. And that’s because CO2’s presence encourages cells to take in more oxygen, as previously noted.

I wasn’t aware of this before reading this book, so this simple reframe motivates me to experiment with it to see how breathing differently affects me physically, mentally, and emotionally. I love these types of growth experiences where I learn some new tidbit of information, and then I can dive into some fresh experimentation to see where that information leads in terms of results.

Consequently, this week I’ve begun practicing with making my breathing slower and more shallow, such as while I sit at my desk and work, challenging myself to lean into a less comfortable way of breathing until I get comfortable with it.

Take a Simple Breathing Test Right Now

Here’s a simple breathing test you can take right now. It’s called the BOLT test (Body Oxygen Level Test). It will take less than a minute. You just need a timer or stopwatch – some way to measure seconds. I’m sure you can Google to find an online timer if necessary.

Here’s what to do:

  1. Stabilize your breathing if you’ve been moving around.
  2. Breathe in once normally and then out normally, through your nose.
  3. After your out-breath, pinch your nose with your fingers to prevent any extra air from getting in, and keep your mouth closed. This is when you begin timing.
  4. For this next step I’ll quote the exact wording from the Oxygen Advantage website: “Time the number of seconds until you feel the first definite desire to breathe, or the first stresses of your body urging you to breathe. These sensations may include the need to swallow or a constriction of the airways. You may also feel the first involuntary contractions of your breathing muscles in your abdomen or throat as the body gives the message to resume breathing. (Note that BOLT is not a measurement of how long you can hold your breath but simply the time it takes for your body to react to a lack of air.)”
  5. When you feel that first definite desire to breathe, release your nose, take a normal breath, and note how many seconds have passed. Keep breathing normally afterwards.

Your BOLT score is the number of seconds you timed.

If you do this right, you should be able to breath calmly afterwards. If your breathing is strained or rapid after you release your nose, you held your breath for too long. You want to breathe when you feel the urge to breath, so it’s not a contest to try to hold your breath for longer than that. Keep your ego out of the testing process, and seek the truth.

I suggest you do this test now if you can before you continue reading. I’ll wait. 🙂

When I do this test, I’m not always sure about the exact second when I feel that definite desire to breathe because it comes on semi-gradually. So there might be a 3-4 second range where I’m not really sure if I’m there yet. But I figure that even if I’m off by +/- a few seconds, I’ll still get some worthwhile info from the measurement, and I can also see if I’m improving over time. I might not notice a 3-second improvement, but I’d surely notice a 10-second gain.

According to the book, a typical score is around 20 seconds, and the ideal score to build towards is 40 seconds. If you’re below 10 seconds, you likely have some health challenges that you probably already know about. Apparently you’ll notice health improvements with every 5 seconds of improvement in your score. The book goes into detail on those improvements, along with many exercises for how to improve.

The first few times I tested my BOLT score earlier this week, I kept landing in the 13-17 second range. Yesterday I tried it again after breathing calmly and shallowly for a while, and I got 19-21 seconds. I just tested it now this morning, and I’m currently getting 15-16 seconds. So my scores aren’t hideous, but they aren’t great either. Awesome! That means this is likely to be a growth experience. Now I’m extra curious about what would happen if I trained up to 40 seconds.

Nose Breathing While Exercising

Do you breathe through your nose or mouth while exercising?

I’ve always been breathing through my mouth. Even while walking, I usually breathe through my mouth unless I’m going fairly slowly.

I can’t recall ever doing running, cycling, elliptical, weight training, martial arts, tennis, or any other kind of sustained exercise while breathing through my nose.

If I tried to breath through my nose while exercising, I’d feel like I wasn’t getting enough air. So I always breathe like a doggie. 🙂

The possible exception is yoga, but only if it’s a very yin style with long, slow stretches. If I’m doing a form of yoga that gets my heart rate up, including hot yoga, then I’ll be breathing through my mouth for at least part of it.

When I’m not exercising, I normally breathe through my nose, but even then I might sometimes catch myself breathing through my mouth, depending on what I’m doing.

According to the book, I’ve been doing it all wrong. Supposedly it would be wise to retrain myself to breathe through my nose all the time, including during exercise. I wondered if I could even do that.

I love running and typically run 5-6 miles most mornings, sometimes more. I always breathe through my mouth when I run though. Breathing through the nose doesn’t seem like it would give me enough air. But apparently I don’t need as much air (or oxygen) as I might think. Instead I need to develop a higher tolerance for CO2. Breathing through my mouth all of these years has likely made me extra sensitive to CO2, so I breath through my mouth while running to get rid of CO2 quickly.

Feeling like I can’t get enough air while breathing through my nose is actually the discomfort of CO2 buildup. It’s not the need to take in more oxygen. Fascinating!

I wondered how to retrain myself to run while breathing through my nose. I didn’t see any way that I could just immediately switch over and still be able run for an hour or more. I figured I might only last a minute the first time I tried it, and then I’d be choking for air like that scene in Total Recall.

So how to train if I can’t just switch right away? Do I try doing intervals, switching between mouth and nose breathing? I figured I could do that and then extend the intervals till I could fully sustain nose breathing.

Fortunately the book had another suggestion, which is to do only nose breathing but go slower, and then drop down to walking if necessary. So it can still be done like interval training but between walking and slow running, not between mouth and nose breathing. Okay, I could try that approach.

This morning I decided to see what would happen if I tried breathing through my nose. The book notes that warming up adequately makes it easier. So I walked for 15 minutes to warm up slowly, breathing through my nose the whole time. Even that felt a bit awkward, but I’ve been practicing walking with nose breathing for a couple of days now, so it’s getting easier. Now I can walk with nose breathing sustainably if I don’t go too fast, even though it still feels a little weird and unnatural.

After 15 minutes of walking, I switched to running at an easy pace. It felt like my body was confused right away. I struggled to coordinate a good rhythm between my steps and my breathing. I didn’t know how big or fast my breaths should be. It was pretty obvious that my breathing wasn’t in very good sync with my running.

I made it 1:44 before I had to drop down to walking again to catch my breath, so not even 2 minutes. But I stuck with nose breathing throughout and didn’t open my mouth. I stabilized my breathing with a few minutes of walking and decided to try again. I figured I’d make a game of it and see if I could keep beating my previous best each time I tried. Could I beat 2 minutes this next time?

The second time was better – still awkwardly unnatural at first, but I began falling into a better rhythm. I ran with nose breathing for 5 minutes straight. I probably could have gone longer, but I thought it wise not to push too far too quickly. I figured I’d give my brain some time to process the learning experience more gradually.

I did a few more minutes of walking, still nose breathing. Then I ran for 10 minutes with nose breathing – starting to get the hang of it. That’s more than I expected to be able to do in my first training session of this type.

Then a little more walking, and for the final stretch I ran for 31:30, which was closer to 30 minutes of actual running since I had to stop at a traffic light to cross the street at one point near the end. Amazing!

I was surprised that I could do that in just my first training session with this approach. I don’t think I’ve ever run for 30 minutes straight while breathing through my nose – like never in my life. Somehow I just learned to exercise while breathing through my mouth, and I never thought that might be a problem.

Additionally during the last stretch, I also wove in some breath holding, which is supposed to help even more with the training effect. Now and then I’d hold my breath while running for 10-12 paces, so that’s just a few seconds each time. Then I’d resume normal breathing, always through my nose the whole time. I did about 12-15 of these breath holds during the 30-minute segment. It took me 2-3 breaths to stabilize my breathing after each hold. The hardest were when I was running uphill.

Eventually I’d like to build these breath holds to 20-40 paces, which should be doable as I get more efficient.

I’ll keep training with this approach to see where it leads since I’m super curious about it. I imagine that I could do a 60-minute run with nose breathing very shortly, maybe even tomorrow, since I just did half of that this morning. The key seems to be giving my brain and body enough practice to learn to sync breathing and movement, so I get into a nice rhythm. The rhythms for exercising with nose breathing and mouth breathing are different. I think I figured out one version of a sustainable rhythm today, but I’ll likely need more time to learn the rhythms for different conditions like faster pacing and doing hills. I think it’s just a matter of keeping my mouth closed while running, and my body will figure it out.

Note that I did today’s run at a slower pace than usual, so my heart rate was on the low side for cardio – only in the 120s most of the time (124 bpm average, 140 max). It may take a while longer to rebuild the pacing with sustainable nose breathing.

I’m especially curious if I can eventually run faster while breathing through my nose than I could through my mouth. That seems impossible if I’d need more air to run faster since I can’t take in as much air through my nose. But now that I know that this is really about CO2 tolerance, not oxygen intake, I have to wrap my mind around the idea that it’s very possible that I could run faster while taking in less air than before. That idea makes my brain do a double-take, but it will be fun to find out. That would be freakishly weird – and cool – to discover that I might actually run faster with nose breathing.

For now I revel in the challenge of exploring a different way of running. After decades of doggie style, I’m ready for a fresh approach. For the next few weeks at least, every run will seem different than before, even on familiar routes.

I also have to relearn how to do other exercises with nose breathing. And even when I was doing nose breathing, I have to practice how to take shallower breaths with longer pauses between breaths. I practiced this while doing 40 minutes of yoga last night, and I noticed that my heart rate was lower than usual… as low as 52 bpm on some floor stretches. I think that’s the lowest heart rate I’ve ever seen during a yoga session.

If any of this fascinates or challenges you, I encourage you to read The Oxygen Advantage. See if it inspires you to retrain yourself to breathe differently and to improve your BOLT score. If you get into this and notice some improvements, please let me know how it goes, so we can compare notes.

Share Button

Patients’ access to vital NHS tests delayed by warehouse failure

Covid swabs and key tests for cancer could be unavailable after problems at diagnostics firm Roche.

Share Button

Nitrous oxide emissions pose an increasing climate threat

Rising nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions are jeopardizing the climate goals of the Paris Agreement, according to a major new study by an international team of scientists.

The growing use of nitrogen fertilizers in the production of food worldwide is increasing atmospheric concentrations of N2O — a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2) that remains in the atmosphere for more than 100 years.

Published today in the journal Nature, the study was led Auburn University, in the US, and involved scientists from 48 research institutions in 14 countries — including the University of East Anglia (UEA) in the UK — under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project and the International Nitrogen Initiative.

The aim was to produce the most comprehensive assessment to date of all global sources and sinks of N2O. Their findings show N2O emissions are increasing faster than any emission scenario developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), consistent with greenhouse gas scenarios that lead to global mean temperature increases well above 3°C from pre-industrial levels. The Paris Agreement aims to limit warming to less than 2°C but ideally no more than 1.5°C.

The study points to an alarming trend affecting climate change: N2O has risen 20 per cent from pre-industrial levels — from 270 parts per billion (ppb) in 1750 to 331ppb in 2018 — with the fastest growth observed in the last 50 years due to emissions from human activities.

Prof Hanqin Tian, director of the International Center for Climate and Global Change Research at Auburn University’s School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, co-led the study.

“The dominant driver of the increase in atmospheric nitrous oxide comes from agriculture, and the growing demand for food and feed for animals will further increase global nitrous oxide emissions,” said Prof Tian. “There is a conflict between the way we are feeding people and stabilizing the climate.”

Like CO2, N2O is a long-lived greenhouse gas and is also currently the most significant human-induced agent depleting the stratospheric ozone layer, which protects Earth from most of the Sun’s harmful ultraviolet radiation

Lead UK author Dr Parvadha Suntharalingam, of UEA’s School of Environmental Sciences, said: “This study presents the most comprehensive and detailed picture to date, of N2O emissions and their impact on climate.

“This new analysis identifies the factors driving the steadily increasing atmospheric levels of N2O, and highlights the urgent need to develop effective mitigation strategies if we are to limit global warming and meet climate goals.”

The study presents a comprehensive global N2O inventory that incorporates both natural and human-related sources, and accounts for the interaction between nitrogen additions to the earth system and the biochemical processes that control N2O emissions. It covers 21 natural and human-related sectors between 1980 and 2016.

Human-induced emissions, which are dominated by nitrogen additions to croplands, increased by 30 per cent over the past four decades to 7.3 teragrams of nitrogen per year.

The analysis also reveals an emerging N2O-climate ‘feedback’ resulting from interactions between nitrogen additions to crops for food production and global warming, further enhancing emissions derived from agriculture.

The study found that the largest contributors to global N2O emissions come from East Asia, South Asia, Africa and South America. Emissions from synthetic fertilizers dominate releases in China, India and the US, while emissions from the application of livestock manure as fertilizer dominates releases in Africa and South America. The highest growth rates in emissions are in emerging economies, particularly Brazil, China and India, where crop production and livestock numbers have increased.

However, N2O emissions in Europe decreased in agriculture and the chemical industry. This was due to a combination of factors, including voluntary measures to remove N2O from flue gases in the Nylon industry and the introduction of an emissions trading scheme, as well as agriculture in many Western European countries moving to more efficient use of fertilizer to reduce environmental impacts such as pollution of groundwater and surface water. Policies on nitrogen fertilizer usage were also introduced.

Study co-leader Dr Josep ‘Pep’ Canadell, of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia, is executive director of the Global Carbon Project. He said: “This new analysis calls for a full-scale rethink in the ways we use and abuse nitrogen fertilizers globally and urges us to adopt more sustainable practices in the way we produce food, including the reduction of food waste.

“These findings underscore the urgency and opportunities to mitigate nitrous oxide emissions worldwide to avoid the worst of climate impacts.”

Share Button

Researchers find consistent mercury levels in Arctic seals

Wiley. “Researchers find consistent mercury levels in Arctic seals.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 7 October 2020. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201007123129.htm>.

Wiley. (2020, October 7). Researchers find consistent mercury levels in Arctic seals. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 7, 2020 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201007123129.htm

Wiley. “Researchers find consistent mercury levels in Arctic seals.” ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201007123129.htm (accessed October 7, 2020).

Share Button

Coronavirus: Specialist ‘long Covid’ clinics to be set up in England

They will offer support for people with long-term health problems after infection with coronavirus.

Share Button

Sugar reduction in food well below target of 20%

Between 2015 and 2019 it fell by just 3% overall, according to a Public Health England report.

Share Button

Coronavirus: Health experts join global anti-lockdown movement

Scientists warn of the “devastating” effect of Covid-19 policies, calling for a return to normal for healthy people.

Share Button

Does zinc work for colds?

Mayo Clinic does not endorse companies or products. Advertising revenue supports our not-for-profit mission.

Advertising & Sponsorship

Mayo Clinic Marketplace

Check out these best-sellers and special offers on books and newsletters from Mayo Clinic.

Share Button