Ancient microbes 'revived' in lab

Ancient microbes 'revived' in lab

Microbes locked in Antarctic ice for as much as eight million years have been "resuscitated" in a laboratory.

Researchers melted five samples of ice from the debris-covered glaciers of Antarctica which range in age from 100,000 years to eight million years.

When given nutrients and warmth, the microbes resumed their activity - although younger microorganisms grew more successfully than the older ones.

Details appear in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The findings raise the possibility that ancient bugs, long frozen in ice, will return to life as climate change causes the glaciers to melt, flushing their genetic material into the oceans.

However, experts say this process has been going on for billions of years, and is unlikely to cause human disease.

Kay Bidle of Rutgers University in New Jersey, US, and colleagues extracted bacteria from ice found between three and five metres beneath the surface of a glacier in the Beacon and Mullins valleys of Antarctica.

"The ice sheets are continually undergoing accumulation, so they are flowing outward and the ice is lost through sublimation or calving into the ocean," explained co-author David Marchant of Boston University, US.

"What you have to do to get very old ice is go to secluded, very cold areas, where small alpine glaciers are covered by debris."

The combination of slow-moving glaciers with a debris covering that prevents ice from subliming - or evaporating - means that very ancient ice is preserved in these regions.

The ice gets older as it flows away from the headwall, where the snow and ice of the glacier first accumulates.

The researchers took five samples that were between 100,000 and eight million years old and were able to extract DNA and microbes from them. More organisms were found in the young samples than in the old.

Radiation damage

"We tried to grow them in media, and the young stuff grew really fast," Dr Bidle explained.

"We recovered them easily; we could plate them and isolate colonies."

The cultures grown from organisms in the 100,000-year-old ice doubled in size every seven days on average.

By contrast, microbes from the eight million-year-old ice grew much more slowly, doubling every 30-70 days.

This suggested some microorganisms in this old ice were alive, but only just. Their DNA had been severely damaged by long exposure to cosmic radiation. This radiation is stronger at the poles, where the Earth's protective magnetic field is weakest.

The researchers were unable to identify them as they grew, because their DNA had degraded so much.

The researchers found that DNA in the five samples examined showed an exponential decline in quality after 1.1 million years.

'Gene popsicles'

In the younger samples, the team found evidence of some of the most common bacteria around today, including the firmicutes, proteobacteria and actinobacteria.

But the team also compared genetic sequences extracted from the ice to known genes of modern bacteria. Curiously, there were few matches, meaning the ancient microbes may have had genes that were new to science.

Dr Bidle and his colleagues describe the glaciers as "gene popsicles" containing DNA that can be acquired by existing organisms when it is thawed.

Eske Willerslev, of the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, who was not involved in the research, described the work as "very significant".

But he cautioned that, as with most claims of ancient microbes being revived, contamination of samples with genetic material from modern microbes was always a possibility.

"These results show patterns that you can't easily explain by contamination," he told ScienceNow, "But I would feel more comfortable with the results if they had been replicated in two independent labs."

Dr Marchant said temperatures in the Beacon and Mullins valleys were so cold that any liquid melting on the surface only penetrated about 5cm into the ice. Samples were retrieved from below this depth in all cases.

"There's really no chance for modern contamination," he explained.

The team suggests that because DNA in the old ice samples had degraded so much in response to exposure to cosmic radiation, life on Earth is unlikely to have hitched a ride on a comet or on debris from outside the Solar System - as some scientists have suggested.

"Given the extremely high cosmic radiation flux in space, our results suggest it is highly unlikely that life on Earth could have been seeded by genetic material external to this Solar System," they wrote in their scientific paper.

Dr Marchant added: "The other thing that's interesting about this is the connection to Mars. There's near-surface ice on Mars where the surface landform looks identical to what you'll see in Beacon Valley."

On Saturday, Nasa launched its Phoenix spacecraft on a nine-month journey to the Red Planet. It will dig below the surface of Mars' northern plains to collect samples of soil and near-surface ice for analysis.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/6935146.stm

FEMA suspends use, sales of ‘toxic’ trailers

FEMA suspends use of 'toxic' trailers

Residents can get refund, new housing while agency tests for formaldehyde

By Alex Johnson

Reporter

MSNBC

Updated: 7:32 p.m. ET Aug 7, 2007

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has done an about-face and will immediately stop using, buying and selling disaster-relief trailers because they could be contaminated with formaldehyde.

The order, which went into effect July 31, is an interim measure while the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Health Affairs test the air quality in the estimated 120,000 travel trailers FEMA provided to victims of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which devastated the Gulf Coast in 2005.

The agency most recently sent about 40 of the trailers to Miami, Okla., where residents were forced out of their homes because of flooding.

CDC workers began collecting samples last week from FEMA trailers in Louisiana and Mississippi, where more than 56,000 trailers are still occupied. Residents will be offered assistance finding new housing anywhere in the country, FEMA said in an internal memo, while buyers of surplus FEMA trailers will be offered full refunds.

“Nothing is as important to FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security as ensuring that disaster victims have a safe and healthy place to reside during their recovery,” the agency said in a statement.

Formaldehyde is the airborne form of a chemical used in a wide variety of products, including composite wood and plywood panels in the travel trailers FEMA purchased after Katrina. It is considered a human carcinogen, or cancer-causing substance, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and a probable human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

MSNBC.com disclosed in July 2006 that many of the trailers harbored potentially harmful levels of formaldehyde, but testimony last month before a House subcommittee revealed that FEMA was aware of the problem several months earlier, after many of its own employees came forward with concerns.

As recently as late last month, FEMA said it would continue using the trailers, but congressional leaders were outraged after documents revealed that FEMA lawyers had advised the agency to downplay the concerns to “prevent ownership of the problem” and limit exposing the agency to liability issues.

Summer heat aggravates exposure
The congressional hearing was convened last month after Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and Rep. Bobby Jindal, D-La., blasted FEMA for its seeming disregard of occupants’ complaints.

“This takes the cake,” Landrieu told NBC affiliate KPLC-TV of Lake Charles. “Now people living in the trailers have to worry if their children are breathing fumes that could cause cancer or some other disease.”

Many residents say that when they have complained about the risk, FEMA advised them to leave the windows open. But “the heat makes the formaldehyde very noticeable, and even though we’ve been here as long as we have, we still notice it,” said Nancy Sonnier, whose family has been living in one of the trailers in Vinton, La., since their home was destroyed by Hurricane Rita.

“My husband and I both have some health problems that we hadn’t had prior to the storm, and when they first started I really chalked it up to the stress,” Sonnier told KPLC, describing respiratory, sinus and intestinal problems, along with skin rashes, insomnia and headaches — all potential signs of formaldehyde poisoning.

“I usually spend my time outside,” said 7-year-old Mason Sonnier, “because of that stuff that my grandma talks about.” Evangeline Sonnier, 9, added: “It’s that toxic stuff. It can get you really sick.”

Trailers only, not mobile homes
FEMA Administrator David Paulison stressed in the memo that the directive applied only to recreational-style vehicles, such as trailers and larger park homes, which are designed for short-term housing, and not to mobile homes, which are regulated and tested by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Paulison said any occupant of a FEMA trailer could request replacement or alternative housing. The agency will refund the price of a trailer purchased within the past 12 months; authorize rental assistance, plus travel expenses, up to the fair market rate anywhere in the continental United States; offer residency in a mobile home, if available; or pay for hotels or motels until suitable housing can be found.

The order is likely to put a strain on FEMA, which said “additional temporary land will be immediately required within the Gulf Coast Recovery Office area of operation to meet ballooning capacity needs.”

The agency said that if necessary, it would exercise its authority under the 1988 Stafford Disaster Relief Act to take over as much as 1,300 acres of land to store 70,000 returned trailers in Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, most likely by forcing the closing or downsizing of recreational vehicle sites.

NBC affiliate KPLC of Lake Charles, La., contributed to this report.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20165754/

Brown grows gray as siege drags on

DAN TUOHY
New Hampshire Union Leader
Monday Aug 6, 2007

Ed Brown's neighbors are growing anxious. Ed Brown is growing gray.

The gun-toting tax dodger turned 65 on July 22, according to his "Oath of Allegiance to the New Hampshire Republic" filed in county tax records. He's now eligible for Medicare, an odd milestone since he hunkered down in his fortified home in Plainfield some seven months ago.

Other anniversaries may come and go: Ed and Elaine Brown say they will not leave without a fight and U.S. Marshal Stephen R. Monier insists federal forces will not storm their compound off Center of Town Road.

As the standoff continues without end in sight, the federal government is giving financial assistance to the town to defray the cost of extra police patrols and related details, Selectman Robert W. Taylor said.

"It's definitely been an added expense," said Taylor, who did not have an estimate last night. "It's pretty much a stalemate at this point."

Federal authorities have cut off power and telephone service to the Brown property, hoping to make life difficult for them and have them give up. Monier said Friday his team continues to reach out to the Browns and encourage them to end the conflict peacefully. "We do have open lines of communications with them and continue to encourage them to turn themselves in," he said. "A lot of good people are working on this."

Full article here

Google And The Personalized Search -- All's Well.. Or Orwell

Scott Buresh
Post Chronicle
Monday Aug 6, 2007

You go to Google and enter your search term. Big Brother, the totalitarian character from George Orwell's novel 1984, watches with detached interest. You see, to Big Brother, you are only a number - but he'd like to know as much about you as he can. Knowing you allows Big Brother to do many things - both good and evil.

Alright, enough of the "Big Brother" comparison - it's been done many times before (and done many times better). However, there is an important central point to be made about personalized search. Google is now (and has been for some time) collecting data on individual users, and they are assuming that users will trust them with this data to "Do No Evil," as their famous slogan goes. Only time will tell whether the trust is well-placed, or if people are willing to trust search engines with this type of data at all.

The basic principle behind personalized search is simple. When you go to Google and type in a search query, Google stores the data. As you return to the engine, a profile of your search habits is built up over time. With this information, Google can understand more about your interests and serve up more relevant search results.

For instance, let's say that you have shown an interest in the topic of sport fishing in your search queries, while your neighbor has shown an interest in musical instruments in his search queries. Over time, as these preferences are made clear to the engine, your personalized search results for the term "bass" will largely be comprised of results that cover the fish while your neighbor's results for "bass" will be comprised of results that primarily cover the musical instrument.

At present, you need to have signed up for a Google service for your results to be personalized. Such services include Gmail, AdWords, Google Toolbar, and many others. By default, as long as you are signed in to one of these programs, your personal search data will be collected. The term "at present" is used because Google certainly could implement personalized search on any user of the engine, regardless of whether he or she has a Google account. Google already places a cookie, or unique identifier, on the machine of anyone who types in a search query on Google - it would not be hard for them to use that information, rather than the Google account, to collect individual user data and personalize results. It is quite possible that Google is testing the waters of personalized search with people who have opted in to one of its services, and will expand the system to all users if there is limited uproar or government intervention.

For search engine optimization firms, the major shift brought about by personalized search will be in how they report on Google ranking data to clients. When collecting this data, they will have to run from a "clean" machine - that is, one that has no Google programs or cookies on it. The baseline results that are reported to the client will essentially be a snapshot of what a search engine user would see if they had no Google software installed. The good news is that Google account holders who have shown an interest in certain products and services will likely have results more favorable to the client than the baseline results indicate since personalized search assures that their search histories will be reviewed and the results likely skewed toward the client's industry. The bad news is that the search engine optimization firm will be hard-pressed to demonstrate this - not to mention that the results that the client using a Google program has on its own personal machines will almost certainly not match up with the results that the firm is reporting (although the client machines should have better results, for the same reasons cited above).

Some people find the practice of storing information for personalized search purposes disturbing; others find the end result to be useful (still others find themselves experiencing an odd combination of both reactions). In defense of the engines, it is not as if they are building a dossier on individuals - again, you are only a number to them. However, the potential for misuse of the data is fairly high.

There are many advertising firms out there already that go through the cookies on your machine to figure out which ads will have the best effect on you. If you've ever been on a website and seen a banner ad that is directly related to something you have been doing research on lately, it is most likely not a coincidence. The ad platform simply browsed through the cookies on your machine to find out what topic held your interest, and dropped in a related ad once it determined what that topic was. Search engines have been buying firms with this technology lately; notable recent purchases include that of DoubleClick by Google and aQuantive by Microsoft. There seems to be little doubt that your search history will be combined with existing ad-serving technology to deliver even more relevant ads. Whether this constitutes misuse seems to be debatable - some people seem to have no problem with it, while it makes many others fairly uneasy.

Privacy issues that arise from personalized search are also a big question. The EU recently announced that it is probing into how long Google stores user information (this probe was subsequently extended to include all search engines). AOL recently committed a serious blunder when it released search data from 500,000 of its users, and it was discovered that it was fairly easy to identify many people by the search terms that they use (anybody ever "ego surf" - that is, type your own name into a search engine to see what comes up? If so, you wouldn't be hard to spot). In addition, since the IP address of the computer creating the query is also reportedly tracked, a court order forcing the engine and the ISP (Internet Service Provider) to provide specific search data on individuals is a distinct possibility - the technology required to deliver upon such a demand is already in use.

Unless the government intervenes, the question will probably be decided by personal preference. As it becomes more common knowledge that Google (and other engines) store this type of data to enable personalized search, many users will take measures to block its use.

Are the search engines that collect this data "Doing No Evil?" The answer, I believe, will depend on each individual's definition of evil. In the meantime, don't be surprised when you type in a search query, and the engine seems to be reading your mind. It isn't, really - it's merely parsing through your memories.