Daily Archives: November 22, 2024

Controversial Science Museum sponsor charged in US over alleged bribery scheme

London’s Science Museum is today facing fresh scrutiny over one of its sponsors, Adani Green Energy—a subsidiary of the Indian conglomerate Adani Group—after charges were brought against the group’s billionaire founder and chairman, Gautam Adani.According to the Financial Times, Gautam Adani has been charged by US prosecutors over an alleged years-long scheme to bribe Indian officials in exchange for favourable terms on solar power contracts that were projected to bring in more than $2bn in profit. Adani was charged alongside seven others, including executives of Adani energy subsidiaries.A Science Museum spokesperson said: “We are aware of a case in the US relating to Adani Green Energy and will be monitoring developments in line with our due diligence processes.”The Science Museum’s Adani Green Energy Gallery, which opened in March this year, highlights how renewable energy can help tackle climate change. The space is sponsored by Adani Green Energy, part of the Adani Group which has ties to coal mining and arms manufacturing.Culture Unstained, which campaigns against fossil fuel sponsorship in the arts, said in a statement: “Will the Science Museum continue to defend a company whose chair and other senior executives have now been indicted by US prosecutors? Or will it finally admit the mistake it has made and drop this indefensible, polluting sponsor?”The Science Museum is part of The Science Museum Group (SMG), which also includes the Science and Industry Museum in Manchester and the Railway Museum in York. SMG’s “Group Ethics Policy” (June 2024) reads: “The Science Museum Group will not accept donations, sponsorship or grants where the donor has acted, or believed to have acted, illegally in the acquisition of funds or where there are concerns of fraud, money laundering or other financial crime.”A spokesperson for Adani Group says: “The allegations made by the US Department of Justice and the US Securities and Exchange Commission against directors of Adani Green are baseless and denied. As stated by the US Department of Justice itself, ‘the charges in the indictment are allegations and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.’ All possible legal recourse will be sought.“The Adani Group has always upheld and is steadfastly committed to maintaining the highest standards of governance, transparency and regulatory compliance across all jurisdictions of its operations.”This fresh controversy follows protests in April, during which climate activists occupied the Science Museum over its sponsorship links with the Adani Group, camping out in the Adani Green Energy Gallery. The campaigners described Adani’s sponsorship of the gallery as allowing the brand to “greenwash” its business, which derives 60% of its revenues from coal—one of the most polluting fossil fuels.

Crews work to clear smoke from Union Station after roof fire above Science City

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (KCTV) – Kansas City firefighters worked to remove smoke from Union Station after flames broke out on the roof of Science City.The fire billowed from the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) unit around 7:45 a.m. on Nov. 22.The Union Station caller said black smoke poured out of the lower levels and HVAC system. Firefighters were able to find, isolate, and put out the fire fairly quickly but the smoke is an issue as Union Station sets to open its Holiday Reflections exhibit today and welcome hundreds of school children on tour.Due to the enormity of the building, Fire Batallion Chief Hopkins called this an “enormous undertaking.” Building maintenance removed a window on an upper floor and used high-powered fans to create positive pressure and remove the smoke.George Guastello, President and CEO of Union Station told KCTV5 that they prepare for these things and he’s thankful fire crews worked quickly to get everything cleared just in time for the students.“We made some modifications for the school groups as we open at 10 am,” Guastello said. “They will be taken care of and will have a great experience at Science City. They will be entering our organization from the front of the building, so our team is ready to handle all of that. Everything is open and ready to go.”The Extreme Screens showtimes of Christmas Vacation at 12:30 pm and 4:00 pm today were canceled after the interior lobby and back-of-house areas experienced some water damage from the incident. Union Station said it plans to reopen for the 7:30 pm showtime. Visitors can watch for updates here.To get the latest news sent to your phone, download the KCTV5 News app here.Copyright 2024 KCTV. All rights reserved.

Louisiana surgeon general’s opt-out for flu vaccines feels flimsy when held up to science

A form letter from two of Louisiana’s top health officials ostensibly provides health care workers with a way to get around an employer’s flu vaccine requirements. 
And even anti-vax proponents have acknowledged the document might not carry much weight.
The letter from Surgeon General Dr. Ralph Abraham and his top deputy, Dr. Wyche Coleman III, has circulated online over the past week, though there’s no mention of it on the Louisiana Department of Health (LDH) website. 
A health department spokesperson has not responded to requests for more information about the letter and Abraham’s reasons for making it available. 
Physicians can fill in the blanks to personalize the would-be permission slip written on LDH letterhead that includes the names of Gov. Jeff Landry and Health Secretary Michael Harrington on top. 
“Please allow this letter to serve as an exemption from your hospital’s influenza vaccination requirement for Dr. ____,” the letter starts. The doctors state that evidence doesn’t prove the flu vaccine is effective at preventing “infection, transmission, hospitalization, or death … and represents little more than a guess” in combating the upcoming flu season’s predominant strain.
“Where there is risk there must be choice,” the letter continues. “In the case of Dr. ____, risks of influenza vaccination outweigh benefits, and there should be no further coercion to comply.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Abraham makes no mention of specific flu vaccine risks in his letter. The most common side effects, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, include injection site soreness, muscle aches and fever. More serious complications are extremely rare.   
The message Abraham’s letter conveys concerns Jennifer Herricks, who holds a Ph.D. in microbiology and molecular genetics. She’s also the founder of Louisiana Families for Vaccines, a group that combats medical misinformation and falling vaccine rates.
“If there are certain health care workers who do choose to use this form … then it’s scary to think about people who are in the hospital, who are vulnerable, who could get exposed,” Herricks said.
Doctors and Infectious disease experts acknowledge that, in some years, flu vaccines are a best “guess” at what a particular strain will be, meaning there a vaccine cannot promise 100% protection against preventing the flu. But they still stand behind its real world effectiveness.
“We typically don’t know the effectiveness of the vaccine until we really get into flu season, and we can see what types of viruses actually end up circulating in the population,” said Dr. Kate Kirley, a family physician and the American Medical Association’s director of chronic disease prevention.
“It typically falls somewhere between 40% and 60% effectiveness,” she said for the AMA’s What Doctors Wish Patients Knew series. “Even when the vaccine is only 30% effective at preventing flu, that is still very meaningful and crucial for preventing hospitalizations and deaths.”   
Kirley’s words are similar to language on the LDH website that actually encourages the public to be vaccinated against the flu. Both counter the viewpoints of Abraham and Coleman as stated in their opt-out letter.
“Everyone six (6) months of age and older should get a flu shot by the end of October, though getting one anytime during flu season is still beneficial,” the LDH website reads. “It will help reduce your chances of getting and spreading the flu. You can also help care for a loved one who may be at high risk of contracting the flu by helping make sure he or she gets a flu shot, too.”
There’s data to back up those claims. For the 2022–23 flu season, the CDC estimates people vaccinated for the flu in the U.S. prevented 6 million flu-related illnesses, 2.9 million medical visits, 65,000 hospitalizations and 3,700 deaths.
Abraham makes another dubious claim in his letter. 
“Conclusive evidence has not shown masks to be effective against transmission of respiratory viruses,” he writes, linking to a scientific study to support his claim. The study’s authors evaluated dozens of randomized controlled trials from around the world to determine that “wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome” of flu-like and COVID-related illnesses. 
Herricks questioned Abraham’s reliance on research without including greater context.
“A single study doesn’t prove or disprove anything,” she said. “They’re always considered within the full body of knowledge.”
The surgeon general’s take clashes with science that went into evaluating what should go into this year’ flu vaccine. Each year’s dose typically includes protection against multiple strains of the flu, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration decided that influenza type B wasn’t needed for this season, NPR reported. 
The reason: There hasn’t been a case of influenza B since spring 2020, which scientists attribute to widespread social distancing and masking at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. In simple terms, those measures cause the strain to go extinct, according to Dr. Rebecca Wurtz, an infectious disease physician and epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health.
And there’s also the question of whether the Abraham-Coleman letter will hold any weight if a health care facility decides to part ways with an employee who decides to defy a vaccine requirement. The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the Ochsner Health System’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement after some of its employees challenged it. 
In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked a federal rule that would have allowed businesses with more than 100 employees to require COVID vaccines or weekly testing for those who refused the shot. But justices made an exception for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that allows health care facilities to have vaccine mandates.    
The Illuminator’s questions to Louisiana’s three largest hospital owner-operators — Ochsner Health System, LCMC Health and the Franiscan Missionaries of Our Lady Health System — about their flu vaccine policy have gone unanswered.
Health Freedom Louisiana, a group that supports efforts to end vaccine mandates, has circulated Abraham’s “incredible” letter and offered to send the public copies customized with their name. 
“There are no guarantees that the hospital will honor this letter,” the group stated in a recent Substack email, which also said people who get flu shots “are more likely to get the flu with repeated annual doses.” While the vaccine might cause minor flu-like symptoms as a side effect, medical experts – including the Mayo Clinic – say annual flu shots do not increase the likelihood of contracting the virus.

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

SUPPORT

Abraham’s letter is reminiscent of steps Landry took in 2021 when he was attorney general. In an email to employees in his agency, he suggested strategies for students to get out of a mask mandate then-Gov. John Bel Edwards would put in place for K-12 schools just hours later. The governor’s order came during a surge in COVID-19 cases, with higher numbers among students, from the Delta variant of the virus.
“Louisiana law offers broad and robust protections for students’ and parents’ religious and philosophical objections to certain state public health policies,” Landry wrote to his staff. “I support your religious liberties and right to conscientiously object.”
At the time, public health experts said the biggest reason behind the emergence and severity of the Delta variant was low vaccination rates. Herrick and others fear a broader anti-vax mindset could lead to a reemergence of largely eradicated diseases such as measles, mumps and pertussis.  
It appears Abraham would rather repeat history than learn from it.

Scientists grow human brains in space for first time and they could help cure world’s top killer disease

By ELLYN LAPOINTE FOR DAILYMAIL.COM Published: 14:13 EST, 22 November 2024 | Updated: 14:36 EST, 22 November 2024

Solving a 40-year mystery, scientists ID chemical found in millions of Americans’ tap water

For more than four decades, scientists have noticed a mysterious chemical in the treated drinking water of millions of people in the United States, but no one’s been able to pinpoint exactly what it is – until now.The authors of a study published Thursday in the journal Science believe the chemical – which they named chloronitramide anion – is a decomposition byproduct of chloramine, a chemical that many treatment plants use to make water safe to drink. About 113 million people drink tap water that exposes them to chloronitramide anion, the study says.It’s not clear whether the byproduct could be harmful to human health, but the study authors say its properties are similar to those of other molecules that are toxic enough for the government to regulate them.And there is some precedent, the researchers say, for chemicals that are used to purify drinking water creating byproducts that the U.S. Environmental Protectio Agency must regulate because they are likely carcinogens.In the early 20th century, many public water systems started using chlorine in low levels to make drinking water safe.It solved a major public health problem that had plagued leaders for centuries by ridding the water of cholera and typhoid, deadly germs that can spread through drinking water. But it also caused its own health problems.Epidemiological studies showed that some people who drink chlorinated water over a long period of time have a higher risk of colon and bladder cancers. For pregnant people who drink chlorinated water there was also a potential association with miscarriages and people who gave birth to babies with low birth weights.Although chlorine itself is safe to consume at low levels, research showed that toxic byproducts were created when it came into contact with other elements that naturally occurred in the water.Water systems still use chlorine for purification, but the EPA monitors and limits the amount of byproducts in drinking water to ensure that it is safe for human consumption.Some systems switched to chloramine, a compound created when chlorine and ammonia are combined. Chloramine doesn’t seem to have the same potentially dangerous byproducts as chlorine, and it was more stable and tended to last longer.More recently, scientists started noticing that chloramine also created byproducts. Some were familiar, but one remained a mystery, dogging study co-authors Dr. Julian Fairey and Dr. David Wahman for years.”There’s this outstanding mystery compound in the literature that’s always been out there,” Fairey said Tuesday.After graduate school at the University of Texas, Fairey and Wahman went on to study chloramine chemistry – Wahman at the EPA and Fairey at the University of Arkansas – and they decided they wanted to pin down this unnamed, unknown compound that had been showing up in research for about 40 years.It seemed straightforward at first, but it took them 15 years to solve the mystery.One of the first people they asked for help was Dr. Juliana Laszakovits, an expert in mass spectrometry, an analytical tool that can measure mass-to-charge ratio and determine a substance’s exact molecular weight.”My first thought is, ‘let’s get this on a mass spectrometer, and let’s try and determine its accurate mass, so then we can determine its chemical formula,’ ” said Laszakovits, a co-author of the study who works in the department of environmental chemistry at the Institute of Biogeochemistry and Pollutant Dynamics, ETH Zurich.But she quickly learned that there was a reason this substance had remained a mystery for so long. Water samples that contained the substance had high salinity, much higher than that of salt water. It was difficult to separate the compound from all the salts with the mass spectrometer.Laszakovits had to get creative and use a technique called ion chromatography, which separates and analyzes ions and polar molecules, coupled with mass spectrometry.”This combination of techniques isn’t so commonly used in environmental studies,” Laszakovits said. But it did the trick: She was able to separate the compound to get its mass and then help figure out its chemical formula.Dr. Kristopher McNeill, a co-author of the study and a professor of environmental chemistry at ETH Zurich, confirmed its structure, and Fairey then created the same compound using a different technique to show the similarities.Wanting to prove that the substance was a byproduct of disintegrating chloramines, Wahman looked for it in drinking water systems across the U.S. that used the chemical and compared it with systems in Switzerland that didn’t.He found chloronitramide anions in the water with chloramines but not in the Swiss water systems.Although the team learned a lot about chloronitramide anions, they couldn’t determine whether it hurt human health.”Its toxicity is currently unknown,” Fairey said. “Its presence is expected, quite honestly, in all chlorinated drinking waters to some extent because of the chemistry, and it has similarity to other toxic molecules. Therefore, future research on chloronitramide anion is needed to understand its potential implications in drinking water.”Water expert Dr. David Sedlak called the research a “fascinating story and a very nice piece of science.””Chloramines have their own families of disinfection byproducts that they make, and so maybe the last 30 years we’ve seen a little bit of buyer’s remorse for this switch from free chlorine to chloramines, because we keep discovering these chloramine disinfection byproducts,” said Sedlak, vice chair for graduate studies and the Plato Malozemoff Professor of Environmental Engineering at UC Berkeley, who was not involved with the new research.”The challenge is, we don’t really know about the health impacts, because unlike the free chlorine disinfection byproducts, there just hasn’t been as much toxicology done on these compounds.”Local water systems don’t have the funding to investigate the health effects of these byproducts, Sedlak said, so it will be up to the federal government.”It’s pretty expensive to look at these things, and when you think about the kind of money that we spend on understanding whether new drugs are toxic to patients, we should be willing to spend that kind of money to understand whether our water is safe to drink or not,” he said.”It’s the kind of thing that, when government is functioning well, it does a good job protecting us by looking at these things. But I don’t think the EPA or CDC or NIH has the funding needed to answer these questions,” he said.Oliver Jones, a professor of chemistry at RMIT University in Melbourne, said the study does some elegant chemistry and he is “quite convinced by their analytical evidence” that the unknown compound is chloronitramide anion. Although he agrees that a toxicological investigation of the anion would be useful now that its identity is known, “I’m not overly worried about my tap water,” Jones said.”The compound in question is not newly discovered, just newly defined,” Jones told the Australian Science Media Centre. “We should remember that the presence of a compound does not automatically mean it is causing harm.”Everything can be toxic at the right amount, even water, he said. The question is, is it toxic at the level people are exposed to? “I think the answer is probably not,” Jones said.The authors of the study suggest that in the meantime, if people are concerned about their drinking water, while they don’t know for sure if it would work, a simple filter may help.”I think a Brita filter or something like that is probably logical, in terms of any kind of carbon-based filter that you have in your refrigerator would probably remove it if someone was concerned,” Wahman said.

For more than four decades, scientists have noticed a mysterious chemical in the treated drinking water of millions of people in the United States, but no one’s been able to pinpoint exactly what it is – until now.The authors of a study published Thursday in the journal Science believe the chemical – which they named chloronitramide anion – is a decomposition byproduct of chloramine, a chemical that many treatment plants use to make water safe to drink. About 113 million people drink tap water that exposes them to chloronitramide anion, the study says.

How to talk to your ‘skeptic’ family about science misinformation

Share

We may earn revenue from the products available on this page and participate in affiliate programs. Learn more ›

Public trust in science is declining in the U.S.. As people become increasingly leery of scientists and scientific institutions, belief in mis- and disinformation is on the rise. Some science ‘skeptics’ are pushing back on pasteurization, eschewing vaccines, and buying into speculative, or even dangerous supplements and diet trends. You might have friends and family members who’ve fallen prey to pseudoscientific influencers or who’ve begun to parrot common, but debunked ideas about health. 

Experts in misinformation and psychology say that a complex set of factors explain the worrying trend, but that there are ways to combat the spread of false ‘facts.’ Understanding the root of peoples’ belief in unfounded ideas and deploying certain communication strategies can help. Here’s what you can do.

Get the Popular Science newsletter
Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday.

Email address

Sign up
Thank you!

By signing up you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Why do people believe scientific misinformation?

In science, simple answers are rare and information is constantly evolving as new data and research emerges. Because of that, identifying the most accurate guidance amid a sea of potential truths is difficult, says Lucy Butler, a psychology researcher who studies misinformation at Northeastern University. In contrast, mis- and disinformation (inaccurate info and intentionally misleading content, respectively), often offer straightforward explanations that “seem plausible,” she says. “Solutions that appear simple and logical are often quite appealing,” Butler adds. 

[ Related: Is raw milk safe? Science has a clear answer. ]

Some well-known, common logical flaws fuel the fire. “People often fall for this naturalistic fallacy, and assume that things that are natural are better,” she says. Hence, the paleo diet fad and also the growing popularity of raw milk, despite no evidence that either carries significant benefits and well-supported knowledge of risks. Yet, lots of things that are natural are deadly and many human-made solutions save lives. Decades removed from the conditions that incited public health changes like widespread pasteurization and vaccination campaigns, cultural memory fades. This “cognitive distance” can make it hard to understand the value of scientific advances in the present, adds Butler. 

Then, there’s our atomized information ecosystem. In recent years, there’s been a migration away from mainstream, centralized media which–though imperfect–is subject to an editorial process, and to platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and Facebook. In the decentralized information environment facilitated through the internet and social media, “anybody can produce content about anything, regardless of their expertise, regardless of the factual nature of that information,” Butler notes. Low quality information has proliferated, much of it peddled by bloggers and influencers who project likable personas onto the internet. Followers trust the faces and stories they see, often falling into parasocial relationships. Influencers “build these networks, and they’re completely separated from any sort of fact checking process,” she says. 

Sometimes, the people parroting incorrect information aren’t aware they’re spreading falsehoods, but others craft disinformation with the intent of selling a product, says Gale Sinatra, a professor of psychology and education at the University of Southern California and author of the book Science Denial: Why it Happens and What to Do About It. As an example, she points to those pushing ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19. 

[ Related: Why do we have fevers? It’s more complicated than ‘heat kills bugs.’ ]

“In this wellness industry, millions of dollars in supplements and other things are being sold by many of these influencers,” Sinatra says. In 2023, U.S. influencers carried a $21.1 billion market value, according to analysis from Statista. Through social media algorithms and tech companies’ influencer compensation schemes based on follower count and engagement times, even simply your attention can be enough for spreaders of health and science misinformation to profit.

Though money fuels a subset of influencers, others end up sharing mis- and disinformation for free, as they come to believe it and spread it through their immediate social networks. Many find themselves down the rabbit hole of science and health pseudoscience because they’re trying to resolve a problem or question they’re personally facing, they may feel let down by mainstream medicine or experts, says Butler. Sinatra agrees. Frequently, personal health problems or negative experiences with the healthcare system prompt people to seek alternatives and predispose someone to taking in misinformation, she says. Unfortunately, in the information overload, most are ill-equipped to discern fact from fiction, Butler says.

“We don’t teach science in a way that makes how science works accessible,” notes Sinatra. People tend to learn science as a set body of knowledge, or a list of facts. But the truth is that our understanding continually advances and changes. “Science is a process of finding out information and adjudicating evidence,” she adds. “The strength of science is that it shifts with new evidence. But if you understand it as a list of facts, then you’re like ‘hey, wait a minute. They were wrong.’” 

“When people [lose trust] in one facet of science, they will generalize that to other areas,” says Butler. And thus, recent events like rapidly shifting policies and recommendations over masking during the Covid pandemic has spurred distrust of medical professionals and the entire scientific endeavor writ large. 

The mainstream media environment doesn’t always help. Cutting edge science and health findings or emerging research are generally nuanced, and most coverage doesn’t or can’t tell the full story within the format, says Sinatra. “Nuance is really hard to convey to the general public,” she notes. Simplifying research and excluding complicating information to avoid confusion can leave gaps that are easily filled by false facts. Most health and science findings involve statistics and risk assessment which “we do struggle as human beings to understand,” Sinatra adds. 

The mathematical probabilities underlying something like a public health decision by the CDC are not intuitive. What is intuitive, in contrast, are stories, she says. Peoples’ decisions and beliefs are often unduly influenced by narrative and individual anecdotes, even if these are the exception. You may hear about one person experiencing a very rare vaccine side effect, and erroneously decide that the risk of that shot is greater than the risk of the disease it defends against. 

What are the best ways to talk about science misinfo?

It can be frustrating to watch misunderstanding spread. And it’s woefully easy to dismiss or disparage anyone who expresses skepticism or concerns about scientific ideas as unhinged or unintelligent, says Sinatra. But that would be inaccurate and ineffective. It’s important to remember that anyone can fall for a falsehood, and that people generally come to their beliefs with good intentions.

“People are, almost all of the time, trying to do what’s best for themselves and their families,” says Butler. Health ends up at the center of so many conspiracies and disinformation campaigns because people care deeply about their own well-being and that of their loved ones. And in some ways, it can feel like we’re collectively losing control over our health. Rising rates of chronic disease like hypertension and diabetes, cancer among young people, and even depression–all of these real trends can spur desperation for answers and action that leads, again, to the overly-simplistic answers offered by digital wellness brands and grifters. “There’s nothing psychologically weird about wanting to be well and healthy,” says Sinatra.

So if you find yourself in a conversation with a family member who seems misinformed about a hot-button health topic, one of the most critical aspects of bridging the divide is approaching them with empathy, respect, and understanding–and without judgment, say both Sinatra and Butler. 

[ Related: What science actually says about seed oils ]

Sharing personal experience and narrative, if applicable, can potentially help build trust and connection–via the same human tendency to favor familiar faces and stories that influencers exploit. But well-sourced, reliable information remains more critical, they each note. 

“We’ve got pretty consistent evidence now that corrections work, especially for people who aren’t so staunch in their beliefs,” says Butler. “You might not necessarily convince everybody… but clear, accessible evidence [can] often really shift peoples’ belief,” she adds. There used to be concern within the field of misinformation psychology that corrections backfired–making people defensive and doubly-assured in their unfounded beliefs–yet newer assessments conducted by Butler and others have found that concern doesn’t bear out, she explains. 

It has to be understandable, it has to be well-explained, it should account for nuance, and it has to be delivered with respect, says Sinatra, but under these conditions, accurate information can prevail, particularly when delivered by a close social connection like a friend or family member. 

If you don’t know the answer to a question, don’t pretend to. It can be tempting to exaggerate risk or fabricate examples, in a heated discussion, but creating new falsehoods will only lead to more distrust. Instead, make sure you have a good strategy for evaluating information sources, and arm yourself with a few key facts. “We all need to become more digitally literate and learn how to assess information online,” says Sinatra. A critical first step to combatting belief in misinformation is for all of us to “become better fact-checkers.”

 

SEE LATEST GIFT GUIDES

Shopping for, well, anyone? Our best birthday and holiday gift recommendations mean you’ll never need to buy another gift card.

SEE GIFT GUIDES

 

Lauren Leffer
Contributor

Lauren Leffer is a science, tech, and environmental reporter based in Brooklyn, NY. She writes on many subjects including artificial intelligence, climate, and weird biology because she’s curious to a fault. When she’s not writing, she’s hopefully hiking.

Internet

Science

Technology