Boris Johnson Clashes With Liz Truss As He Attacks ‘Dubious’ Fracking Claims

Boris Johnson has clashed with his likely successor by hitting out at supporters of fracking.

The outgoing prime minister said he was “slightly dubious” that shale gas exploration “will prove to be a panacea” for the energy crisis.

Johnson’s comments, as he gave his backing to the Sizewell C nuclear power plant, came just days after Liz Truss signalled she will end the current moratorium on shale gas exploration.

Writing in the Daily Mail, she said: “We will end the effective ban on extracting our huge reserves of shale gas by fracking but be led by science, setting out a plan to ensure communities benefit.”

But Johnson hit out at fracking supporters and insisted the UK should instead increase the amount of power it generates from cleaner sources like wind.

He said: “If we could frack effectively and cheaply in this country, that would be possibly a very beneficial thing. I’m just, I have to say, slightly dubious that it will prove to be a panacea.

“I would much rather that we focused on the things where we are brilliant, and where the environmental damage is really minimal.”

Johnson later added: “Tell everybody who thinks hydrocarbons are the only answer and we should get fracking and all that: offshore wind is now the cheapest form of electricity in this country.”

Share Button

No, Boris Johnson Didn’t Advise Buying A New £20 Kettle To Save Money On Electricity Bills

Boris Johnson has finally spoken up about the cost of living crisis, although even his well-intentioned speech has not landed among his online critics.

But, the clip going viral on Twitter has been taken out of context.

Here’s what you need to know.

What happened?

On Thursday, during his final public speech as the prime minister, Johnson was praising the virtues of nuclear power.

He said he would be assigning £700 million funding for a new nuclear plant to improve the UK’s energy security, and tried to explain how it might seem more expensive now to install but it would pay off in the long-run.

He claimed that if Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (in Somerset) were running now, it would be cutting “our national fuel bills by £3 billion”.

He explained: “Nuclear always looks – when you begin – relatively expensive to build and to run, But look at what’s happening today, look at the results of Putin’s war. It is certainly cheap by comparison with hydrocarbons.”

He then made this analogy: “If you have an old kettle that takes ages to boil, it may cost you £20 to replace it, but it will save you £10 a year every year, on your electricity bill.”

However, this last sentence was taken out of context on social media, and was widely mocked for appearing like real, cost of living advice.

Why did people react so strongly to the clip?

Had this been real advice, it would have meant saving £10 a year – this is just 0.28% of the £3,549 energy price cap set to kick in for the average household from October 1.

This increase is set to exacerbate a crisis already gripping the UK, as it is an 80% leap compared to the already high current energy price cap of £1,971.

An extra three million people into poverty this winter as a result, according to the Resolution Foundation.

So, understandably, people weren’t keen on letting the prime minister – who has been accused of being missing in action since he resigned at the start of July – off the hook when they believed it was genuine advice.

Has Johnson been forthcoming throughout the cost of living crisis?

Well, not exactly.

Johnson has faced repeated scrutiny for not engaging with the cost of living crisis ever since he resigned back at the start of July.

The government also decided it would not be making any financial decisions for the rest of Johnson’s time in office, despite the speed at which the cost of living crisis is worsening.

Since he quit, the prime minister has gone on holiday twice, avoided essential Cobra meetings and moved to the grace-and-favour country home in Chequers.

In the meantime, iInflation has soared to 10.1%, the fastest rate of increase for 40 years, and could even jump beyond 18% according to forecasts from Citi investment bank.

Only last October, the prime minister had tried to quell any worries about inflation by claiming such fears were “unfounded”.

Neither of his potential successors, Rishi Sunak or Liz Truss, have outlined coherent plans to tackle the crisis.

But Johnson claimed on Thursday that further government help was on the way.

Speaking in Suffolk, the prime minister said: “We’re helping people now with the cost of living and of course there will be more cash to come, whoever takes over from me, in the months ahead – substantial sums, that’s absolutely clear.”

He claimed that it was “clear that come the new administration, there is going to be a further package”, because “we have the fiscal firepower to sort it out.”

So, what was he actually saying about nuclear power?

The energy crisis stems from Europe’s reliance on Russia’s supplies. Since Moscow launched its invasion into Ukraine, the west has been adding a growing list of sanctions against Russia and has been trying to wean itself off its oil and gas exports.

Russia has also been squeezing the amount of energy it sends to Europe to leverage the west over its continual support for Ukraine.

So, Johnson’s decision to back nuclear energy comes at a time when the UK desperately needs new energy sources.

His speech at the new reactor at the Sizewell site in Suffolk could power the equivalent of around six million homes once built.

However, as Johnson leaves office on Tuesday, it’s not clear if the building will go ahead. Downing Street has not provided any more details about the funding according to PA news agency and EDF energy company (meant to be in partnership with the plant) did not respond.

The total cost of the project could be around £20 billion, and would not start generating electricity until around the 2030s.

Still, nuclear is considered a feasible alternative to fossil fuels.

Johnson also took aim at previous governments (led by both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown) for not injecting funding into it sooner – even though the Tories have been in power for 12 years now.

“So no more national myopia,” he concluded. “No more short-termism, let’s think about the future, let’s think about our kids and our grandchildren, about the next generation.”

Share Button

Review into Nottingham NHS maternity failings launches

Families are urged to take part in the review being conducted by influential midwife Donna Ockenden.

Share Button

Hakeem Hussain: ‘Horrendous’ lack of help for asthma death boy

A review finds fault with various agencies over their handling of seven-year-old Hakeem Hussain.

Share Button

Energy crisis: Leeds NHS trust expects £2m monthly price hike

Hospital trusts in Leeds and Sheffield predict a huge jump in energy bills.

Share Button

Drug combo therapy in mice blocks drug resistance, halts tumor growth

An experimental combination of two drugs halts the progression of small cell lung cancer, the deadliest form of lung cancer, according to a study in mice from researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Grenoble Alpes University in Grenoble, France, and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

One of the drugs, cyclophosphamide, is an outdated chemotherapy drug once used to treat small cell lung cancer. It was displaced in favor of platinum-based drugs in the 1980s. Both kinds of drugs work at first but falter after a few months as the cancer develops resistance. Platinum-based drugs became the standard of care mainly because they cause lesser side effects, but they have not substantially improved prognosis. Today, the typical patient survives less than a year and a half after diagnosis.

In this study, however, researchers showed that small cell lung cancer cells resist cyclophosphamide by activating a specific repair process, and demonstrated that throwing a wrench into the repair process makes the drug much more effective, at least in mice. The findings, available online in Cancer Discovery, suggest a pathway to better therapies for one of the least treatable forms of cancer.

“Small cell lung cancer has one treatment option — platinum-based chemotherapy — and that adds maybe two to six months of life,” said co-senior author Nima Mosammaparast, MD, PhD, an associate professor of pathology & immunology and of medicine at Washington University, and a researcher at Siteman Cancer Centerat Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine. “The problem is that these tumors respond to treatment initially, but then they come back. This has not changed for 30 years. These tumors are just massively resistant to just about everything. So what this study shows is that we can actually combine a new target with an old drug to reduce resistance and potentially make the treatment much better and give these patients a much better chance.”

The study came together fortuitously. Co-senior author Nicolas Reynoird, PhD, a professor at Grenoble Alpes University, studies how internal signaling within cells — and deregulation of such signaling — can lead to cancer progression and drug resistance. A few years ago, his team discovered that a protein called RNF113A may play a role in small cell lung cancer, but the researchers could not determine what the protein does. Meanwhile, Mosammaparast was studying how cells repair injured DNA. In 2017, he published a paper in the journal Nature describing how cancer cells repair a kind of DNA damage known as alkylation damage, the kind caused by cyclophosphamide. The paper noted that RNF113A plays a role in the process. Reynoird essentially cold-called Mosammaparast, and the two teamed up — along with co-senior author Pawel K. Mazur, PhD, an associate professor of experimental radiation oncology at MD Anderson and a longstanding collaborator of Reynoird’s — to investigate how small cell lung cancer cells resist alkylation damage, and whether it’s possible to magnify the effects of alkylating chemotherapy drugs such as cyclophosphamide by interfering with that resistance.

The team discovered that RNF113A is regulated by a protein called SMYD3 that is highly expressed in small cell lung cancer and some other cancers. High levels of SMYD3 are associated with more invasive disease, increased resistance to alkylating chemotherapy and worse prognosis. Healthy lung tissue has very little SMYD3, which led the researchers to think that knocking it down might target cancerous cells while sparing healthy ones.

So they tried it. The researchers created mouse models of human disease by grafting cancerous cells from two people with small cell lung cancer onto separate groups of mice. One set of cells came from a patient who had not yet been treated, so the cells had not had a chance to develop resistance. The other came from a patient who had been treated with and become resistant to standard platinum-based therapy.

All of the mice grew tumors. When the tumors were big enough, the researchers treated the mice with an inhibitor of SMYD3, cyclophosphamide, both or an inactive solution. Inhibiting SMYD3 alone modestly slowed down the growth of the tumors. Cyclophosphamide initially halted the growth of tumors from both patients, but the tumors started to grow again after about two weeks, indicating that they had developed resistance. However, the combination of the two drugs stopped the tumors in their tracks. They did not restart growing for the duration of the experiment.

“We’re talking to a number of other groups about starting a phase 1 clinical trial as soon as possible,” Mosammaparast said. “One of the challenges we will face is convincing doctors to go back to an old drug. But the nice thing about this strategy is that it may work where current therapies have failed. This treatment worked just as well against the tumor from the patient who had already relapsed on platinum-based therapy as it did against the untreated patient. People with small cell lung cancer are in desperate need of better treatments, and I’m very excited about the possibilities here.”

Story Source:

Materials provided by Washington University School of Medicine. Original written by Tamara Bhandari. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Share Button

Scientists discover compound found in trees has potential to kill drug-resistant bacteria

Researchers have found a naturally occurring compound, known as hydroquinine, has bacterial killing activity against several microorganisms.

Antimicrobial resistance has become one of the greatest threats to public health globally. It occurs when bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites change over time and no longer respond to medicines, making it difficult to treat infections. Because of this, there is a pressing need for the development of new antimicrobial drugs to combat infections.

A new study by scientists from the University of Portsmouth and Naresuan and Pibulsongkram Rajabhat Universities in Thailand explored whether hydroquinine, which is found in the bark of some trees, could inhibit any bacterial strains. Hydroquinine is already known to be an effective agent against malaria in humans, but until now there has been little investigation into its drug-resistant properties.

The findings, published in the Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease journal, suggest the antimicrobial properties of the organic compound make it a potential candidate for future clinical investigation.

Dr Robert Baldock from the School of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences at the University of Portsmouth, said: “Using bacterial killing experiments, we found that hydroquinine was able to kill several microorganisms including the common multidrug-resistant pathogen pseudomonas aeruginosa.

“Characteristically, we also discovered that one of the main mechanisms used by these bacteria to escape killing activity of the drug was upregulated with treatment — indicating a robust response from the bacteria.

“By studying this compound further, our hope is that it may in future offer another line of treatment in combatting bacterial infections.”

Drug-resistant bacteria occur in more than 2.8 million infections and are responsible for 35,000 deaths per year. Common antibiotic-resistant “superbugs” cause diseases including sepsis, urinary tract infections, and pneumonia. Statistics show bloodstream infections with the bacteria — P. aeruginosa are associated with high mortality rates of between 30 and 50%.

The study recommends further investigation into the antimicrobial resistance properties and side effects of hydroquinine.

Dr Jirapas Jongjitwimol from the Department of Medical Technology at Naresuan University added: “Our future research aims to uncover the molecular target of hydroquinine. This would help our understanding of how the compound works against pathogenic bacteria and how it could potentially be used in a clinical setting.”

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Portsmouth. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Share Button

Covid: Pregnant women targeted with false vaccine claims

Posts shared by thousands across social media wrongly suggested government advice had changed.

Share Button

Covid inquiry starts to examine Boris Johnson’s pandemic decisions

Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock and Dominic Cummings are likely to appear in hearings next summer.

Share Button

What you know changes how you see things

Researchers at the George Washington University have gained important insight into how the human brain processes an object in the visual system and where in the brain this processing takes place. Their study, “Mugs and Plants: Object Semantic Knowledge Alters Perceptual Processing with Behavioral Ramifications,” shows people perceive objects differently depending on their prior knowledge and experience with that object.

The findings could have important implications in applied settings such as medical displays, cognitive assistants, and product and environmental design, according to the researchers.

“Since the way we perceive objects determines how we interact with them, it is important to visually process them quickly and with high detail” Sarah Shomstein, a professor of cognitive neuroscience at GW said. “However, the way our eyes perceive and process an object can be different depending on what we know about this object. Our study shows, for the first time, that if we recognize an object as a tool, we perceive it faster but with less detail. If we recognize an object as a non-tool, we perceive it slower but with higher detail.”

To determine how the human brain processes an object visually, Shomstein and Dick Dubbelde, a recent PhD graduate at GW and co-author on the study, showed participants several images of objects that can be easily manipulated by hand such as a coffee mug, snow shovel or screwdriver, and several images of objects that are infrequently manipulated by hand, such as a potted plant, a picture frame or a fire hydrant. For half of the experiment, a small gap could be cut out of the bottom of each object. For the other half of the experiment, the objects could flicker on the screen. The team asked participants to report the presence or absence of a gap or the flicker, which helped the researchers figure out the speed and detail of object processing, and also which regions of the brain were being used to process the object.

Researchers found that objects usually manipulated by your hands are perceived faster than non-manipulable objects, making it easier to see the flickering. Alternatively, objects that we usually do not manipulate are perceived with greater detail than manipulable objects, making it easier to see the small gaps.

“The differences in perception between ‘mugs’ and ‘plants’ in both speed and detail of perception means that these objects are sorted by the visual system for processing in different brain regions,” Dubbelde said. “In other words, your knowledge of the object’s purpose actually determines where in the brain object processing will occur and how well you will perceive it.”

The study also showed that if you interfere with object recognition by making it harder to recognize an object as either manipulable or not manipulable — for example, by turning it upside down — then the differences in the speed and detail perception of the objects disappear.

Shomstein and Dubbelde note that this study could possibly explain individual differences in object perception and underscores that what you know and what your personal experience is with any particular object has direct consequences for perception.

The National Science Foundation (BCS-1921415 and BCS-2022572) supported this work.

Story Source:

Materials provided by George Washington University. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Share Button