Image copyright AFP/ Getty Image caption The nurse, known as Niels H, was jailed for life two years ago

 A nurse serving a life sentence for murdering two patients in northern Germany is now a suspect in at least 84 other murder cases, police say.

 The 40-year-old, named only as Niels H under German reporting rules, was convicted of attempted murder in 2006 and murder in 2015.

 His victims received lethal drug doses at units where he worked.

 Relatives of patients who died in clinics where he worked had urged police to investigate further.

 A commission was set up in 2014 to investigate the scale of his crimes, which could make him Germany's worst post-war killer.

 The medication caused heart failure or the collapse of patients' circulatory systems.

 Judges said he was motivated by a desire to win approval by resuscitating the patients he had drugged.

 During his 2015 trial, he admitted applying the drug to about 90 people at an intensive care clinic in the town of Delmenhorst.

 Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Niels H hid behind a folder during his trial

 Police say the abnormalities stretch back to 2000 at another clinic in Oldenburg.

 They said staff had a meeting there in 2001 to discuss the strange levels of deaths and resuscitations, but did not report the levels to police, and Niels H was able to move to the Delmenhorst clinic.

 A special police commission was set up in 2014 to investigate the case.

 It has been analysing hundreds of medical records and exhumed 134 bodies to test samples for drug residue.

 The investigations have been made more difficult because many patients had been cremated.

 "The findings continue to breach any imagination," said Oldenburg police chief Johann Kuhme. "It is simply not possible to say how many people were killed."

 Mr Kuhme warned the number could still rise further. The new charges are now likely to be filed at the beginning of 2018, he said. ||||| Oldenburg police choef Johann Kuehme speaks about the current investigations into the former nurse Niels Hoegel in Oldenburg, Germany, Monday, Aug. 28, 2017. The nurse who was convicted of killing... (Associated Press)

 Oldenburg police choef Johann Kuehme speaks about the current investigations into the former nurse Niels Hoegel in Oldenburg, Germany, Monday, Aug. 28, 2017. The nurse who was convicted of killing patients in Germany with overdoses of heart medication is now believed to have killed at least 84 people... (Associated Press)

 BERLIN (AP) — A male nurse who was convicted of killing patients in Germany with overdoses of heart medication is now believed to have killed at least 86 people — and the true scale of the killings could be even larger, investigators said Monday.

 Many of the deaths could have been prevented if health authorities had acted more quickly on their suspicions, said Johann Kuehme, police chief in the northwestern city of Oldenburg.

 Niels Hoegel, now 40, was convicted in 2015 of two murders and two attempted murders at a hospital in the northwestern town of Delmenhorst. He was sentenced to life in prison. But prosecutors have long said they believe he killed many more people, last year putting the figure at 43 at least.

 The crimes came to light after Hoegel was convicted of attempted murder in another case. Authorities subsequently investigated hundreds of deaths, exhuming bodies of former patients in Delmenhorst and nearby Oldenburg.

 Kuehme said Monday that authorities have now unearthed evidence of 84 killings in addition to the ones for which Hoegel was convicted. The number of actual killings is likely higher because some possible victims were cremated, making it impossible to gather evidence, Kuehme added.

 "Eighty-four killings ... leave us speechless," Kuehme told reporters. "And as if all that were not enough, we must realize that the real dimension of the killings by Niels H. is likely many times worse."

 The fact that the cases go back many years and people may struggle to remember the exact details of their loved ones' deaths hurts authorities' ability to determine an exact number, Kuehme said.

 He faulted local health authorities for being slow to act.

 "If the people responsible at the time, particularly at the Oldenburg clinic but also later in Delmenhorst, hadn't hesitated to alert authorities — for example police, prosecutors —" Hoegel could have been stopped earlier, Kuehme said.

 Authorities are already pursuing criminal cases against former staff at the two facilities.

 Hoegel worked at the Oldenburg hospital from 1999 to 2002 and in Delmenhorst from 2003 to 2005.

 Kuehme said other medical workers at Oldenburg were aware of an elevated number of resuscitations, and initial indications of possible wrongdoing by the nurse in Delmenhorst emerged as early as April 2003.

 During his trial, Hoegel had said he intentionally brought about cardiac crises in some 90 patients in Delmenhorst because he enjoyed the feeling of being able to resuscitate them.

 He later told investigators that he also killed patients in Oldenburg.

 Prosecutors are expected to try Hoegel on at least some of the additional killings but Germany's judicial system does not allow for consecutive sentences, so future convictions won't affect his life term.

 The identities of the suspected 84 victims haven't been released. There was no immediate comment Monday from any representatives of victims' families. |||||
What is a one-paragraph summary of the above article?

– He has been convicted of killing two and attempting to murder two more—and he could actually be "Germany's worst post-war killer," reports the BBC. Niels Hoegel, 40, was sentenced to life in prison in 2015 for those crimes, but prosecutors voiced their belief that the nurse had killed many more while working at clinics in Oldenburg (from 1999 to 2002) and Delmenhorst (from 2003 to 2005), reports the AP. Now police are giving a sense of just how many more: at least 84. Hoegel said at trial that he wanted to play the hero and drugged his patients so that he could then resuscitate them and win praise. Except a commission established three years ago to determine the breadth of his crimes has found that many patients ended up receiving lethal doses of drugs that brought on heart failure or destroyed the circulatory system. The BBC reports that 134 bodies have been exhumed and tested for traces of the drug, but "it is simply not possible to say how many people were killed," per Oldenburg police chief Johann Kuhme. That's in part because many of his patients were cremated. The AFP quotes chief police investigator Arne Schmidt as describing the death toll as "unique in the history of the German republic." There is "evidence for at least 90 murders," he said at a press conference, "and at least as many [suspected] cases again that can no longer be proven." Kuhme faulted the clinics for having "hesitated to alert authorities," saying the death toll could have been much lower if they had. New charges against Hoegel will likely be filed next year. (This nurse says she would get a "red surge" before killing one of her patients.)


News article:

Oil and water don’t mix — so why are there drops of fat in the newest bottle of H2O?

 Because the Silicon Valley techie who mixed butter with coffee and created a diet he calls “Bulletproof” put them there. He thinks his new drink — yes, it’s called FATwater — is better than real water.

 “My whole career in Silicon Valley has been about disruptive technology,” says Dave Asprey creator of FATwater and an early cloud computing pioneer. “This is a disruptive technology for beverages.”

 This is the only kind of water you should drink, some experts say. (Jorg Greuel/Getty Images)

 The secret ingredient in FATwater is teeny droplets of fat extracted from coconut oil in Asprey’s proprietary process. The oil helps the water do its job better because cells are more likely to take in H2O that has a tiny bit of fat in it, he says.

 Meanwhile, the fats in the oil provide a temporary energy boost and does not get stored as body fat in the way sugar does, he adds.

 Dave Asprey (Courtesy Bulletproof)

 Besides, it’s only two grams of saturated fat — the equivalent of two squares of Chocolove dark.

 “The oils enhance thermogenesis, which is a fancy word for ‘fat burning,’ ” says Asprey, 42. “They get burned as energy and have an appetite-suppression effect. It’s not like we put in sunflower oil or canola.”

 For now, Asprey is selling FATwater only at his Bulletproof Coffee Shop in Santa Monica, Calif., and at an L.A. natural foods store. But he has plans to expand nationally.

 Nutritionists say he shouldn’t rush — this oil is of the snake variety.

 “It is just getting crazier and crazier,” says Rochelle Sirota, a dietitian and nutritionist. “What is the need? Coconut water can be very hydrating because of the electrolytes, but I do not get this whole thing.”

 America’s lone water sommelier, Martin Riese, does not consider FATwater water. “It’s a ‘near water product,’” he sniffs. (© Mario Anzuoni / Reuters/REUTERS)

 Nutritionists at Brown & Medina in Manhattan also questioned FATwater’s claims, saying in a statement that the small amount of fat diluted in the water “would most likely not have an impact on fat burn.”

 There is “no research on the fat being more hydrating,” the statement continued.

 The country’s sole water sommelier, Martin Riese, who offers 20 mineral and spring waters at Ray’s & Stark Bar in Los Angeles, was aware of FATwater — and doesn’t think much of it.

 “Water should not have any calories and this has 20,” he says. “This, I say, is a ‘near water product.’ I believe water should come from nature and not a factory.”

 Though Asprey is not the first to extract the oil, he is the first to mix it in water, patent and market it.

 Research, smesearch, Asprey suggests.

 He cites his creation of Bulletproof Coffee as evidence that conventional wisdom is wrong and that everything — even nature itself — can be improved upon.

 “Biohacking is taking control of the environment around you so you have control of your biology,” he says. “So you are less stressed and recover better and are a nicer person. I am making it easier for people to make those little changes and feel good all the time.”

 Sidebar: Fat Water in the Taste Kitchen

 Tasters found FATwater lacking.

 We sent a bottle of lemon and berry flavors of FATwater into the Daily News Taste Kitchen — and about the nicest thing anyone said is that FATwater is an acquired taste.

 One reporter thought the berry tasted like “liquid soap,” while another thought the lemon was “like Crystal Light not fully diluted.”

 Two testers physically shook with revulsion. But one took a deep sip, swallowed, and gave FATwater its highest praise: “You know what? It’s not that bad.” ||||| TIME Health For more, visit TIME Health

 This is This Is Now a Thing, where we check out the science behind new health trends.

 Courtesy of FATwater

 The thing: A $3.95 bottle of water mixed with fat, a sweetener and some flavors. The new 20-calorie beverage, called FATwater, was developed by entrepreneur Dave Asprey, creator of the Bulletproof Coffee craze that still has people adding large amounts of butter and oil to their coffee in the hopes of losing weight. FATwater isn’t a weight-loss drink, per se (each bottle contains 2 grams of fat). Rather, the company bills its product as an alternative to sugary coconut waters and energy drinks.

 Asprey says he uses a patented process to take purified water and mix in tiny droplets of “Bulletproof XCT Oil”: medium chain triglycerides (MCTs) derived from coconut oil. “The water looks kind of iridescent, pearlescent,” Asprey tells TIME. “It has these tiny, invisible droplets of fat that your body really, really likes.” FATwater can be bought bottled or in a concentrated gel that you mix with water yourself.

 MORE: Bamboo Water Is Now a Thing

 The hype: Asprey says FATwater is more hydrating than plain water because the nanoparticles of fat “bring the water into the cells more effectively.” He adds: “Drink a glass of water, and some of it will absorb and some of it won’t. But when your body sees that fat, it says, ‘Oh, come on in, this is pure energy.’ It brings the water in with the fat.”

 Plus, he says, “you get a little bump of energy.”

 The bottle says this: “XCTs follow a special metabolic pathway to burn fat instead of storing it,” the label reads, while giving your body “the clean, high quality fuel it needs—and nothing else.” The bottle also includes this disclaimer, which is required by federal law: “These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.”

 The research: It is true that medium chain triglycerides are digested differently than other fats, says Marie-Pierre St-Onge, PhD, assistant professor in the department of medicine at Columbia University’s Institute of Human Nutrition and a researcher of MCTs. Instead of being stored into fatty tissue to be used for energy later, they’re typically just burned off.

 But does that mean they give you energy? “It’s actually the opposite,” St-Onge says. “You don’t have the energy—you’re not storing it—so you’re burning it. It’s not useful energy.”

 Where MCTs are useful, St-Onge says, is when you use them to replace another fat (cooking with a little coconut oil, for instance, instead of butter or olive oil). In one study by St-Onge lasting 16 weeks, people who consumed 18-24 daily grams of medium chain triglycerides lost more weight than people who ate the same amount of olive oil.

 “The type of fat that’s used in FATwater increases overall thermogenesis, which is fat-burning in the body,” Asprey says. But St-Onge, who’s own research has shown that MCT oil does enhance diet-induced thermogenesis compared to longer-chain fats, is skeptical that 2 grams of MCT oil—the amount found in FATwater—would have any impact on fat burn. She used a minimum of 18 grams all the way up to 60 grams in her research.

 And what about the notion that MCTs shuttle water more effectively into the body than water ever could alone?

 We asked David Julian McClements, professor in the department of food science at University of Massachusetts Amherst, who says he makes his own fat-infused emulsions all the time for research. Adding drops of oil to water infused with supplements like beta carotene, he’s found, helps your body make use of those nutrients. But improved hydration is not one of the established benefits of MCT emulsions like these, McClements says.

 When asked about it, Asprey says he’s aware of the lack of research. “We’re working on specific studies for these exact formulations,” he says.

 The taste: When TIME’s health team tried the berry and lemon flavors of FATwater, which are sweetened with xylitol, no one could agree on what it tasted like. One reporter thought it tasted “like lotion”; another thought it tasted like the sweet innards of liquid-filled chewing gum; and another said it tasted like “sweetened room water”—a glass of water that’s been sitting out and collects dust or other particulates from the air.

 Though you’re not supposed to be able to detect the fat, one writer said: “I feel like something’s coating my tongue in a not-pleasant way.”

 The bottom line: Water hydrates the body just fine on its own, St-Onge says. “If you’re thirsty, drink water,” she says. “If you’re hungry, eat food.”

 Read Next: Charcoal Juice Is Now A Thing |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– Remember that guy who started the Bulletproof Coffee fad, where people add butter and oil to their cups of joe in the hopes of losing weight? Well he's at it again, this time with what the Silicon Valley techie calls "a disruptive technology for beverages," reports the New York Daily News. It's called FATwater, and creator Dave Asprey swears it's better than real water because it is infused with tiny droplets of fat extracted from coconut oil (he's patented this) that improve both hydration and fat burning. The cloud computing pioneer calls it "biohacking," or "taking control of the environment around you so you have control of your biology," he says. "You are less stressed and recover better and are a nicer person. I am making it easier for people to make those little changes and feel good all the time." Not so fast, say the experts. "It is just getting crazier and crazier," one nutritionist says. "If you’re thirsty, drink water; if you’re hungry, eat food," Dr. Marie-Pierre St-Onge, who researches medium chain triglycerides (MCTs) at Columbia University’s Institute of Human Nutrition, tells Time. Asprey himself concedes that there isn't much research in this area, but he says he's got plenty of anecdotal evidence that because MCTs are digested differently than other fats, you do "get a little bump of energy." But St-Onge says he's actually got it backward because they're just burned off. "It's not useful energy." She adds that the 2 grams of fat in a bottle isn't close to enough to improve fat-burning. Meanwhile taste testers at both the Daily News and Time were unimpressed, describing the water as tasting like "lotion," "sweetened room water" that's gotten dusty from sitting around, and "liquid soap." FATwater is currently being sold in Santa Monica and Los Angeles. (Even asparagus water was a thing this summer.)


Summarize this article:

Focused crawls are collections of frequently-updated webcrawl data from narrow (as opposed to broad or wide) web crawls, often focused on a single domain or subdomain. ||||| With over 31,000 restaurants serving 58 million people throughout the world every day, McDonald's pretty much wrote the book on how a corporation can conquer the world. But despite its global domination as a cheap and easy burger joint, the fast-food monolith proved no match against the people of Bolivia and its cultural standards of culinary decency. For 14 years, McDonald's attempted to court Bolivians into making a habit out of eating their processed menu items -- only to experience an overwhelming, nation-wide rejection. And as a result, for the first time ever, the cogs of McDonald's international burger-slinging machine have ground to a halt, forcing the company to close its doors in Bolivia in 2002. Bolivians, its seems, are happy enough without the Happy Meal -- but why?

 As the Hispanically Speaking News reports, for well over a decade McDonald's, with eight locations in the South American nation of 10 million people, worked to win over the Bolivian public with its Big Macs and McNuggets, but consistently found itself losing money. So, in light of the loss of revenue, McDonald's Corporation made an unprecedented announcement: that it would close its restaurants in Bolivia -- making it the only country in the Americas without a McDonald's.

 But what makes Bolivia different from nearly every other country in its apparent distaste for McDonald's fare? A group of filmakers have attempted to answer that question in the documentary Why did McDonald’s Bolivia go Bankrupt? According to a review from Hispanically Speaking News, the McDonald's failure in Bolivia lies in the very marketing strategy that made it so popular elsewhere:

 The documentary includes interviews with cooks, sociologists, nutritionists and educators who all seem to agree, Bolivians are not against hamburgers per sé, just against ‘fast food,’ a concept widely unaccepted in the Bolivian community. Fast-food represents the complete opposite of what Bolivians consider a meal should be. To be a good meal, food has to have be prepared with love, dedication, certain hygiene standards and proper cook time.

 One might be hard-pressed to find consumers even outside of Bolivia who wouldn't agree with that definition of 'a good meal', yet none have expressed it so profoundly by simply choosing not to eat at McDonalds. There may be something a bit snarky about celebrating a corporate failure, even if it hardly dents the fast-food giant's bottom line, but it's difficult not to judge Bolivia better off for having rejected a restaurant so often associated with a menu of dubious nutritional value and less-than eco-friendly business practices.

 Perhaps if we all valued our meals as much as Bolivians, McDonald's corporate health would suffer at a rate inverse to improvements in our physical health and the health of our planet, which is already so full of people too removed from the food they put inside them. |||||

– Those traveling in Bolivia can forget about a Big Mac. McDonald's has closed its eight restaurants there because of weak sales, making Bolivia the only nation in Latin America without the golden arches, reports the Hispanically Speaking News blog. The chain tried without success for 14 years to gain a foothold in the nation. The blog's take: "Fast-food represents the complete opposite of what Bolivians consider a meal should be. To be a good meal, food has to have be prepared with love, dedication, certain hygiene standards and proper cook time." Ouch. Treehugger loves the development and wished the rest of the world valued meals as much as Bolivians apparently do.


Article:
In 1986, after a fire and explosion at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant released radioactive particles into the air, thousands of people left the area, never to return. Now, researchers reporting in the Cell Press journal Current Biology on October 5 have found that the Chernobyl site looks less like a disaster zone and more like a nature preserve, teeming with elk, roe deer, red deer, wild boar, and wolves.

 The findings are a reminder of the resilience of wildlife. They may also hold important lessons for understanding the potential long-term impact of the more recent Fukushima disaster in Japan.

 "It's very likely that wildlife numbers at Chernobyl are much higher than they were before the accident," says Jim Smith of the University of Portsmouth in the UK. "This doesn't mean radiation is good for wildlife, just that the effects of human habitation, including hunting, farming, and forestry, are a lot worse."

 Earlier studies in the 4,200 km2 Chernobyl Exclusion Zone showed major radiation effects and pronounced reductions in wildlife populations. The new evidence, based on long-term census data, now shows that mammal populations have bounced back.

 The relative abundance of elk, roe deer, red deer, and wild boar within the exclusion zone are now similar to those in four uncontaminated nature reserves in the region, the researchers report. The number of wolves living in and around the Chernobyl site is more than seven times greater than can be found in those nature reserves.

 Helicopter survey data also reveal rising trends in the abundance of elk, roe deer, and wild boar from 1 to 10 years after the accident. A dip in the wild boar population at one point was traced to a disease outbreak unrelated to radiation exposure.

 "These results demonstrate for the first time that, regardless of potential radiation effects on individual animals, the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone supports an abundant mammal community after nearly three decades of chronic radiation exposure," the researchers conclude. They note that these increases came at a time when elk and wild boar populations were declining in other parts of the former Soviet Union.

 "I've been working, studying, and taking photos of the wonderful wildlife in the Chernobyl area for over 20 years and am very pleased our work is reaching an international scientific audience," says Tatiana Deryabina from the Polessye State Radioecological Reserve in Belarus, a few miles from the site of the Chernobyl accident.

 "These unique data showing a wide range of animals thriving within miles of a major nuclear accident illustrate the resilience of wildlife populations when freed from the pressures of human habitation," says Jim Beasley, a study co-author at the University of Georgia. ||||| People were evacuated after the Chernobyl accident, but what happened to the local wildlife? A new study shows that wildlife in the Chernobyl disaster zone is thriving, indicating that the presence of humans is more damaging to wildlife than is radiation poisoning

 After a fire and explosion destroyed the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in 1986, more than 100,000 people were permanently evacuated from the area to avoid radiation levels that were twenty times greater than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. But what happened to the local wildlife? According to a letter published today in the journal, Current Biology, scientists report that the Chernobyl disaster area is home to a rich and varied wildlife community, indicating that the mere presence of people is more damaging to wildlife than is radiation poisoning.

 Chernobyl was a disaster for people, but for wildlife? Not so much

 When the Chernobyl nuclear power plant melted down in 1986, more than 116,000 people were permanently relocated from a contaminated area comprising 4200 km2, an area that was later designated the Chernobyl exclusion zone.

 Facebook Twitter Pinterest Chernobyl radiation map from the CIA’s online World Factbook. Chernobyl is indicated with a gold star. ( Sting [vectorisation], MTruch [English translation], Makeemlighter [English translation]). Illustration: CIA/Wikipedia.

 But what happened to the local wildlife? Previous studies indicate that wildlife numbers initially dropped in the months after the accident (i.e.; doi:10.1098/rsbl.2008.0778). However, thirty years later, what effect is radiation contamination having on the abundance of Chernobyl’s large mammals?

 An international team of researchers, headed by Tatiana Deryabina of the Polessye State Radioecological Reserve (PSRER), conducted surveys to find out. The PSRER is the Belarus sector of the Chernobyl exclusion zone. It covers 2,165 km2 (half of the total Chernobyl exclusion area) and has similar radiation levels to the Ukrainian sector. The findings for PSRER were compared to four nearby nature reserves that were uncontaminated by the Chernobyl accident: Berezinsky Biosphere Reserve, a state nature reserve covering 852 km2; Braslav Lakes National Park, which covers 645 km2; Belovezhskaya Puscha National Park, a UNESCO World Heritage site situated both in Poland (105 km2) and Belarus (1501 km2); and Narochansky National Park, which covers 874 km2. Of these, just two (Belovezhskaya Puscha and Narochansky National Park) allow limited wildlife hunting.

 Facebook Twitter Pinterest Ermine (or stoat), Mustela erminea, in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Photograph: Valeriy Yurko/T.G. Deryabina et al/Current Biology 2015

 The team tested three fundamental hypotheses concerning the resilience of wildlife to the world’s worst nuclear accident:

 Hypothesis 1: densities of mammals were suppressed due to the levels of radioactive contamination in the Chernobyl exclusion zone Hypothesis 2: densities of large mammals were suppressed at PSRER compared with those in four uncontaminated nature reserves in Belarus

 Hypothesis 3: densities of large mammals declined between 1 and 10 years after the accident

 To test these hypotheses, trained staff conducted wildlife snow track censuses between 2008 and 2010 along 35 permanent track survey routes (total combined length of 315 km with an average track length of 9 km) (doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.10.025). Specific PSRER habitat types (former agricultural lands, former villages, evergreen forest, and deciduous forest) and levels of radiocæsium contamination density were mapped using GIS along each of these routes.

 Aerial surveys were conducted between 1987 and 1997 from February through early March when snow cover was present. The study area survey took place from a height of 100 metres at a speed of 70-100 km/h and extended to approximately 250 metres on each side of the helicopter.

 As you can see, the empirical data show no evidence of long-term radiation damage to the large mammal populations at Chernobyl, and thus, the evidence does not support any of the three hypotheses being tested (Figure 1):

 Facebook Twitter Pinterest Figure 1. Animal abundances in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. (Top) Mean number of track counts per 10 km (in 2008–2010) for elk and wolf plotted against mean 137-Cs contamination density of each route. Analysis using linear mixed models including habitat variables found no evidence of correlation between mammal density and contamination density. (Bottom) Change in relative abundance of three species in the 10 years after the Chernobyl accident. Illustration: T.G. Deryabina et al (2015)/T.G. Deryabina et al/Current Biology 2015

 In fact, increases in elk (moose) and wild boar populations in the Chernobyl exclusion zone occurred in the early 1990s, when these species’ populations were undergoing a rapid decline in former Soviet Union countries due to increased rural poverty and weakened wildlife management.

 Further, the relative abundance of wolves living in and around the Chernobyl exclusion zone site is more than seven times greater than in the four nearby uncontaminated nature reserves.

 Facebook Twitter Pinterest Wolves were seven times more abundant in the Chernobyl exclusion zone site than in nearby uncontaminated nature reserves. Photograph: Valeriy Yurko/T.G. Deryabina et al/Current Biology 2015

 “There have long been rumours that the Chernobyl site has abundant wildlife — including carnivores — so I welcome this piece”, said wildlife demographer Tim Coulson, a Professor of Zoology at the University of Oxford, who was not part of this study.

 “Because it is contaminated land, it is not easy to study wildlife in detail, and any studies are going to have to rely on approaches like this taken here”, said Professor Coulson in email.

 In fact, this study demonstrates that, regardless of potential radiation effects on individual animals, the Chernobyl exclusion zone supports a thriving and abundant mammal community despite nearly three decades of chronic radiation exposure.

 “It’s very likely that wildlife numbers at Chernobyl are much higher than they were before the accident,” said co-author Jim Smith, a Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Portsmouth, in a press release.

 Facebook Twitter Pinterest Wild boar in the snow in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Wild boar populations plummeted in 1993–1994 (Figure 1), due to a large increase in wolves as well as an outbreak of African swine fever. Photograph: Tatyana Deryabina/T.G. Deryabina et al/Current Biology 2015

 Chernobyl’s wild boar populations grew especially fast -- until 1993-1994, when they suddenly crashed (Figure 1). This was due to a large increase in wolves, which are particularly fond of dining on wild boar, combined with an outbreak of African swine fever.

 Humans are more damaging to wildlife and ecosystems than is radiation poisoning

 “This study is a very positive move forward in conducting research concerning the potential health and environmental impacts of nuclear accidents”, said population biologist Timothy Mousseau, a Professor in the Biology Department at the University of South Carolina, who was not part of this study.

 “I applaud the authors in their efforts to bring hard scientific data to bear on the question of impacts to wildlife in the stricken regions of Ukraine and Belarus. Much more research on this and related questions are desperately needed”, said Professor Mousseau in email.

 “This doesn’t mean radiation is good for wildlife, just that the effects of human habitation, including hunting, farming, and forestry, are a lot worse,” said Professor Smith.

 “This is an extremely sad indictment on how bad people are for wildlife”, agreed Professor Coulson. “Once [people] have left an area the wildlife appear to thrive — even if the habitat is laced with radiation.”

 Although the detrimental effects of radiation on individual animals has been well documented, particularly on Chernobyl’s wildlife, its effects on populations isn’t so clear.

 “This study does not address the issue of whether radiation has effects on reproduction, survival, longevity, or general health of the animals surveyed”, Professor Mousseau pointed out.

 Nonetheless, this study indicates that populations of large mammals in the Chernobyl exclusion zone are doing at least as well as those in uncontaminated national parks in the vicinity. But sadly, this study clearly shows that putting a big fence around an area to keep people out is beneficial to wildlife, even if the negative effects of radiation contamination on wildlife -- increased mutation rates, cancers and other abnormalities -- may be masked by this advantage.

 “Obviously I am not condoning nuclear accidents for the sake of wildlife! Far from it”, said Professor Coulson. “But hopefully some good can come from it. Hopefully we will realise that for wildlife and ecosystems to flourish, we must leave them be and stop interfering.”

 In short, this paper suggests that not every nuclear wilderness is a bad thing.

 Facebook Twitter Pinterest A group of wild boar frolic in front of abandoned buildings in the Chernobyl exclusion zone, free from human interference. Photograph: Valeriy Yurko/T.G. Deryabina et al/Current Biology 2015

 Source:

 T.G. Deryabina, S.V. Kuchmel, L.L. Nagorskaya, T.G. Hinton, J.C. Beasley, A. Lerebours, and J.T. Smith (2015). Long-term census data reveal abundant wildlife populations at Chernobyl, Current Biology, published online on 5 October 2015 ahead of print | doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.017 (OA)

 also cited:

 Anders Pape Møller and Timothy A. Mousseau (2009). Reduced abundance of insects and spiders linked to radiation at Chernobyl 20 years after the accident, Biology Letters, 5:356–359 | doi:10.1098/rsbl.2008.0778 (OA)

 Anders Pape Møller and Timothy A. Mousseau (2013). Assessing effects of radiation on abundance of mammals and predator–prey interactions in Chernobyl using tracks in the snow, Ecological Indicators, 26:112–116 | doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.10.025 (free)

 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

 GrrlScientist is very active on twitter @GrrlScientist ||||| Image copyright V Yurko Image caption The team carried out a long-term survey of mammals including wild boar

 Removing humans from what is now the exclusion zone around the damaged Chernobyl nuclear reactor has allowed wildlife to return, researchers say.

 They say a long-term census of mammals in the area has shown that wildlife numbers are likely to be "much higher than they were before the accident".

 Professor Jim Smith of the University of Portsmouth led the study, published in the journal Current Biology.

 He stressed that this "does not mean that radiation is good for wildlife".

 "It's just that the effects of human habitation, including hunting, farming, and forestry, are a lot worse," Prof Smith said.

 With the help of with colleagues from the Polesky State Radioecological Reserve in Belarus, the researchers examined data from aerial surveys that counted large mammals including roe deer, elk, wild boar and wolves.

 Image copyright T Deryabina Image caption Tracks in the snow allowed the researchers to estimate roe deer populations in the exclusion zone

 They also carried out tracking studies in the winter - using footprints in snow to calculate the numbers of different mammal species. And measuring the levels of radioactive contamination in those tracks.

 "The numbers of animals we see in Chernobyl is similar to the populations in uncontaminated nature reserves," Prof Smith said.

 The number of wolves was particularly striking - up to seven times higher than in nearby nature reserves of a comparable size. Prof Smith attributed this to the lack of hunting in the exclusion zone.

 A 30km exclusion zone now surrounds the infamous Chernobyl nuclear power plant. And Prof Smith says the picture from this study reveals what happens in terms of wildlife conservation "when you take humans out of the picture".

 Image copyright Valeriy Yurko Image caption Researchers think wolves in the exclusion zone have thrived thanks to a lack of hunting

 But, he said, the study did not look at the health effects of radiation on individual animals.

 That is something that Prof Tim Mousseau from the University of South Carolina, has spent many years trying to unpick in his studies of wildlife - particularly bird populations - in the exclusion zone.

 Prof Mousseau said the study was a "very positive move forward in conducting research concerning the potential health and environmental impacts of nuclear accidents".

 "Much more research on this is desperately needed," he added.

 But Prof Mousseau is also troubled by "the characterisation that Chernobyl and the surrounding area is teeming with wildlife".

 "This study only applies to large mammals under hunting pressure, rather than the vast majority of animals - most birds, small mammals, and insects - that are not directly influenced by human habitation," he told BBC News.

 Image copyright Victoria Gill/BBC Image caption In Pripyat, the largest town in the exclusion zone, it is difficult to tell where the town ends and the wilderness begins

 In their study of mammal tracks, however, Prof Smith and his colleagues did compare the abundance of animals in different areas of the exclusion zone. They found that more contaminated areas had just as many animals as less contaminated sites.

 Prof Mousseau said that the study simply showed that, "if left unchecked, some populations of animals will grow exponentially and eventually overpopulate a region".

 "There is no evidence that the animals of Chernobyl are achieving the levels of population growth that are frequently seen in other regions where they are protected from predation or hunting," he added. |||||Summary:

– What happens when humans abandon 1,600 square miles because of radioactivity? Wildlife runs rampant, apparently. A new study on animals in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone shows what once looked something like a wasteland is now packed with elk, roe deer, red deer, wild boar, and wolves. Researchers conducted aerial surveys in the zone during winter months between 1987—a year after the Chernobyl disaster—and 1997 and estimated animal populations based on tracks in the snow, reports the Guardian. They found the number of animals in the area was actually on par with those in four uncontaminated nature reserves nearby; but the number of wolves was more than seven times greater than in reserves. The numbers of elk, roe deer, and wild boar also jumped at a time when elk and wild boar populations were sliding elsewhere in the former Soviet Union. "It's very likely that wildlife numbers at Chernobyl are much higher than they were before the accident," a researcher says in a release. "This doesn't mean radiation is good for wildlife, just that the effects of human habitation, including hunting, farming, and forestry, are a lot worse." But another researcher who has studied birds in the zone tells the BBC the research "only applies to large mammals under hunting pressure, rather than the vast majority of animals—most birds, small mammals, and insects—that are not directly influenced by human habitation." And since the study didn't look at radiation exposure, it "does not address the issue of whether radiation has effects on reproduction, survival, longevity, or general health of the animals surveyed." While scientists found Chernobyl's wild boar population dipped in 1993, they say hungry wolves and a disease outbreak were to blame. (There's something wrong with Chernobyl's forests.)


Article:

Christopher Morris / VII for TIME Fareed Zakaria interviews President Obama for TIME in the Oval Office on Jan. 18, 2012

 Fareed Zakaria: When we talked when you were campaigning for the presidency, I asked you which Administration’s foreign policy you admired. And you said that you looked at George H.W. Bush’s diplomacy, and I took that to mean the pragmatism, the sense of limits, good diplomacy, as you looked upon it favorably. Now that you are President, how has your thinking evolved?

 President Obama: It is true that I’ve been complimentary of George H.W. Bush’s foreign policy, and I continue to believe that he managed a very difficult period very effectively. Now that I’ve been in office for three years, I think that I’m always cautious about comparing what we’ve done to what others have done, just because each period is unique. Each set of challenges is unique. But what I can say is that I made a commitment to change the trajectory of American foreign policy in a way that would end the war in Iraq, refocus on defeating our primary enemy, al-Qaeda, strengthen our alliances and our leadership in multilateral fora and restore American leadership in the world. And I think we have accomplished those principal goals.

 Christopher Morris—VII for TIME

 We still have a lot of work to do, but if you look at the pivot from where we were in 2008 to where we are today, the Iraq war is over, we refocused attention on al-Qaeda, and they are badly wounded. They’re not eliminated, but the defeat not just of [Osama] bin Laden, but most of the top leadership, the tightening noose around their safe havens, the incapacity for them to finance themselves, they are much less capable than they were back in 2008.

 Our alliances with NATO, Japan, South Korea, our close military cooperation with countries like Israel have never been stronger. Our participation in multilateral organizations has been extremely effective. In the United Nations, not only do we have a voice, but we have been able to shape an agenda. And in the fastest-growing regions of the world in emerging markets in the Asia Pacific region, just to take one prominent example, countries are once again looking to the United States for leadership.

 That’s not the exact same moment as existed post–World War II. It’s an American leadership that recognizes the rise of countries like China and India and Brazil. It’s a U.S. leadership that recognizes our limits in terms of resources, capacity. And yet what I think we’ve been able to establish is a clear belief among other nations that the United States continues to be the one indispensable nation in tackling major international problems.

 (MORE: Read TIME’s Cover Story on Obama, Now Available to Subscribers)

 And I think that there is a strong belief that we continue to be a superpower, unique perhaps in the annals of history, that is not only self-interested but is also thinking about how to create a set of international rules and norms that everyone can follow and that everyone can benefit from. So you combine all those changes, the United States is in a much stronger position now to assert leadership over the next century than it was only three years ago.

 We still have huge challenges ahead. And one thing I’ve learned over the last three years is that as much as you’d like to guide events, stuff happens and you have to respond. And those responses, no matter how effective your diplomacy or your foreign policy, are sometimes going to produce less-than-optimal results. But our overall trajectory, our overall strategy, I think has been very successful.

 Mitt Romney says you are timid, indecisive and nuanced.

 Ah, yes.

 I particularly like the third one. What do you say?

 I think Mr. Romney and the rest of the Republican field are going to be playing to their base until the primary season is over. Once it is, we’ll have a serious debate about foreign policy. I will feel very confident about being able to put my record before the American people and saying that America is safer, stronger and better positioned to win the future than it was when I came into office.

 And there are going to be some issues where people may have some legitimate differences, and there are going to be some serious debates, just because they’re hard issues. But overall, I think it’s going to be pretty hard to argue that we have not executed a strategy over the last three years that has put America in a stronger position than it was when I came into office.

 Romney says if you are re-elected, Iran will get a nuclear weapon, and if he is elected, it won’t. Will you make a categorical statement like that: If you are re-elected, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon?

 I have made myself clear since I began running for the presidency that we will take every step available to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. What I’ve also said is that our efforts are going to be … Excuse me. When I came into office, what we had was a situation in which the world was divided, Iran was unified, it was on the move in the region. And because of effective diplomacy, unprecedented pressure with respect to sanctions, our ability to get countries like Russia and China — that had previously balked at any serious pressure on Iran — to work with us, Iran now faces a unified world community, Iran is isolated, its standing in the region is diminished. It is feeling enormous economic pressure.

 (MORE: See TIME’s Interview with Hillary Clinton on Libya, China, the Middle East and Barack Obama)

 And we are in a position where, even as we apply that pressure, we’re also saying to them, There is an avenue to resolve this, which is a diplomatic path where they forego nuclear weapons, abide by international rules and can have peaceful nuclear power as other countries do, subject to the restrictions of the [Nuclear] Non-Proliferation Treaty.

 But the way, the Iranians might see it as that they have made proposals — the Brazilian-Turkish proposal — and that they never go anywhere. They aren’t the basis of negotiations.

 Yes, I think if you take a look at the track record, the Iranians have simply not engaged in serious negotiations on these issues.

 We actually put forward a very serious proposal that would have allowed them to display good faith. They need medical isotopes; there was a way to take out some of their low-enriched uranium so that they could not — so that there was clarity that they were not stockpiling that to try to upgrade to weapons-grade uranium. In exchange, the international community would provide the medical isotopes that they needed for their research facility. And they delayed and they delayed, and they hemmed and they hawed, and then when finally the Brazilian-Indian proposal was put forward, it was at a point where they were now declaring that they were about to move forward on 20% enriched uranium, which would defeat the whole purpose of showing good faith that they weren’t stockpiling uranium that could be transformed into weapons-grade.

 (PHOTOS: Political Pictures of the Week)

 So, not to get too bogged down in the details, the point is that the Iranians have a very clear path where they say, We’re not going to produce weapons, we won’t stockpile material that can be used for weapons. The international community then says, We will work with you to develop your peaceful nuclear energy capacity, subject to the kinds of inspections that other countries have agreed to in the past. This is not difficult to do. What makes it difficult is Iran’s insistence that it is not subject to the same rules that everybody else is subject to.

 Suppose that with all this pressure you have been able to put on Iran, and the economic pressure, suppose the consequence is that the price of oil keeps rising, but Iran does not make any significant concession. Won’t it be fair to say the policy will have failed?

 It is fair to say that this isn’t an easy problem, and anybody who claims otherwise doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Obviously, Iran sits in a volatile region during a volatile period of time, and their own internal conflicts makes it that much more difficult, I think, for them to make big strategic decisions. Having said that, our goal consistently has been to combine pressure with an opportunity for them to make good decisions and to mobilize the international community to maximize that pressure.

 Can we guarantee that Iran takes the smarter path? No. Which is why I have repeatedly said we don’t take any options off the table in preventing them from getting a nuclear weapon. But what I can confidently say, based on discussions that I’ve had across this government and with governments around the world, is that of all the various difficult options available to us, we’ve taken the one that is most likely to accomplish our goal and one that is most consistent with America’s security interest.

 When you look at Afghanistan over the past three years — the policies you’ve adopted — would it be fair to say that the counterterrorism part of the policy, the killing bad guys, has been a lot more successful than the counterinsurgency, the stabilizing of vast aspects of the country, and that going forward, you should really focus in on that first set of policies?

 Well, what is fair to say is that the counterterrorism strategy as applied to al-Qaeda has been extremely successful. The job is not finished, but there’s no doubt that we have severely degraded al-Qaeda’s capacity.

 When it comes to stabilizing Afghanistan, that was always going to be a more difficult and messy task, because it’s not just military — it’s economic, it’s political, it’s dealing with the capacity of an Afghan government that doesn’t have a history of projecting itself into all parts of the country, tribal and ethnic conflicts that date back centuries. So we always recognized that was going to be more difficult.

 Now, we’ve made significant progress in places like Helmand province and in the southern portions of the country. And because of the cohesion and effectiveness of coalition forces, there are big chunks of Afghanistan where the Taliban do not rule, there is increasingly effective local governance, the Afghan security forces are beginning to take the lead. And that’s all real progress.

 (MORE: The Obama Campaign’s Romney Glossary)

 But what is absolutely true is that there are portions of the country where that’s not the case, where local governance is weak, where local populations still have deep mistrust of the central government. And part of our challenge over the next two years as we transition to Afghan forces is to continue to work with the Afghan government so that it recognizes its responsibilities not only to provide security for those local populations but also to give them some credible sense that the local government — or the national government is looking out for them, and that they’re going to be able to make a living and they’re not going to be shaken down by corrupt police officials and that they can get products to market. And that’s a long-term process.

 I never believed that America could essentially deliver peace and prosperity to all of Afghanistan in a three-, four-, five-year time frame. And I think anybody who believed that didn’t know the history and the challenges facing Afghanistan. I mean, this is the third poorest country in the world, with one of the lowest literacy rates and no significant history of a strong civil service or an economy that was deeply integrated with the world economy. It’s going to take decades for Afghanistan to fully achieve its potential.

 What we can do, and what we are doing, is providing the Afghan government the time and space it needs to become more effective, to serve its people better, to provide better security, to avoid a repetition of all-out civil war that we saw back in the ’90s. And what we’ve also been able to do, I think, is to maintain a international coalition to invest in Afghanistan long beyond the point when it was politically popular to do so.

 But ultimately, the Afghans are going to have to take on these responsibilities and these challenges, and there will be, no doubt, bumps in the road along the way.

 From the perspective of our security interests, I think we can accomplish our goal, which is to make sure that Afghanistan is not a safe haven from which to launch attacks against the United States or its allies. But the international community — not just us; the Russians and the Chinese and the Indians and the Pakistanis and the Iranians and others — I think all have an interest in making sure that Afghanistan is not engulfed in constant strife, and I think that’s an achievable goal.

 As the Chinese watched your most recent diplomacy in Asia, is it fair for them to have looked at the flurry of diplomatic activity — political, military, economic — and concluded, as many Chinese scholars have, that the United States is building a containment policy against China?

 No, that would not be accurate, and I’ve specifically rejected that formulation.

 I think what would be fair to conclude is that, as I said we would do, the United States has pivoted to focus on the fastest-growing region of the world, where we have an enormous stake in peace, security, the free flow of commerce and, frankly, an area of the world that we had neglected over the last decade because of our intense focus on Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East.

 So if you look at what we’ve done, we’ve strengthened our alliances with Japan and South Korea — I think they’re in as good of shape as they’ve ever been. We have involved ourselves in the regional architecture of — including organizations like ASEAN and APEC. We’ve sent a clear signal that we are a Pacific power and we will continue to be a Pacific power, but we have done this all in the context of a belief that a peacefully rising China is good for everybody.

 One of the things we’ve accomplished over the last three years is to establish a strong dialogue and working relationship with China across a whole range of issues. And where we have serious differences, we’ve been able to express those differences without it spiraling into a bad place.

 I think the Chinese government respects us, respects what we’re trying to do, recognizes that we’re going to be players in the Asia Pacific region for the long term, but I think also recognize that we have in no way inhibited them from continuing their extraordinary growth. The only thing we’ve insisted on, as a principle in that region is, everybody’s got to play by the same set of rules, everybody’s got to abide by a set of international norms. And that’s not unique to China. That’s true for all of us.

 But do you think they’re not?

 Well, I think that when we’ve had some friction in the relationship, it’s because China, I think, still sees itself as a developing or even poor country that should be able to pursue mercantilist policies that are for their benefit and where the rules applying to them shouldn’t be the same rules that apply to the United States or Europe or other major powers.

 (MORE: Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence)

 And what we’ve tried to say to them very clearly is, Look, you guys have grown up. You’re already the most populous country on earth, depending on how you measure it, the largest or next-largest economy in the world and will soon be the largest economy, almost inevitably. You are rapidly consuming more resources than anybody else. And in that context, whether it’s maritime issues or trade issues, you can’t do whatever you think is best for you. You’ve got to play by the same rules as everybody else.

 I think that message is one that resonates with other Asia Pacific countries, all of whom want a good relationship with China, all of whom are desperately seeking access to China’s markets and have forged enormous commercial ties, but who also recognize that unless there are some international norms there, they’re going to get pushed around and taken advantage of.

 You think it’s inevitable that China will be the largest economy in the world? It’s now the second largest, even on PPP.

 Well, they are — assuming that they maintain stability and current growth patterns, then, yes, it’s inevitable. Even if they slow down somewhat, they’re so large that they’d probably end up being, just in terms of the overall size of the economy, the largest.

 But it’s doubtful that any time in the near future they achieve the kind of per capita income that the United States or some of the other highly developed countries have achieved. They’ve just got a lot of people, and they’re moving hundreds of millions of people out of poverty at the same time.

 You have developed a reputation for managing your foreign policy team very effectively, without dissention. So how come you can manage this fairly complex process so well, and relations with Congress are not so good?

 Well, in foreign policy, the traditional saying is, Partisan differences end at the water’s edge, that there is a history of bipartisanship in foreign policy.

 Now, obviously, there were huge partisan differences during the Bush years and during the Iraq war. But I do think there’s still a tradition among those who work in foreign policy, whether it’s our diplomatic corps or our military or intelligence services, that says our focus is on the mission, our focus is on advancing American interests, and we’re going to make decisions based on facts and analysis and a clear-eyed view of the world, as opposed to based on ideology or what’s politically expedient.

 And so when I’m working with my foreign policy team, there’s just not a lot of extraneous noise. There’s not a lot of posturing and positioning and “How’s this going to play on cable news?” and “Can we score some points here?” That whole political circus that has come to dominate so much of Washington applies less to the foreign policy arena, which is why I could forge such an effective working relationship and friendship with Bob Gates, who comes out of that tradition, even though I’m sure he would’ve considered himself a pretty conservative, hawkish Republican. At least that was where he was coming out of. I never asked him what his current party affiliation was, because it didn’t matter. I just knew he was going to give me good advice.

 But have you been able to forge similar relationships with foreign leaders? Because one of the criticisms people make about your style of diplomacy is that it’s very cool, it’s aloof, that you don’t pal around with these guys.

 I wasn’t in other Administrations, so I didn’t see the interactions between U.S. Presidents and various world leaders. But the friendships and the bonds of trust that I’ve been able to forge with a whole range of leaders is precisely, or is a big part of, what has allowed us to execute effective diplomacy.

 I think that if you ask them, Angela Merkel or Prime Minister Singh or President Lee or Prime Minister Erdogan or David Cameron would say, We have a lot of trust and confidence in the President. We believe what he says. We believe that he’ll follow through on his commitments. We think he’s paying attention to our concerns and our interests. And that’s part of the reason we’ve been able to forge these close working relationships and gotten a whole bunch of stuff done.

 You just can’t do it with John Boehner.

 You know, the truth is, actually, when it comes to Congress, the issue is not personal relationships. My suspicion is that this whole critique has to do with the fact that I don’t go to a lot of Washington parties. And as a consequence, the Washington press corps maybe just doesn’t feel like I’m in the mix enough with them, and they figure, well, if I’m not spending time with them, I must be cold and aloof.

 The fact is, I’ve got a 13-year-old and 10-year-old daughter, and so, no, Michelle and I don’t do the social scene, because as busy as we are, we have a limited amount of time, and we want to be good parents at a time that’s vitally important for our kids.

 In terms of Congress, the reason we’re not getting enough done right now is you’ve got a Congress that is deeply ideological and sees a political advantage in not getting stuff done. John Boehner and I get along fine. We had a great time playing golf together. That’s not the issue. The problem was that no matter how much golf we played or no matter how much we yukked it up, he had trouble getting his caucus to go along with doing the responsible thing on a whole bunch of issues over the past year.

 You talked a lot about how foreign policy ultimately has to derive from American strength, and so when I talk to businessmen, a lot of them are dismayed that you have not signaled to the world and to markets that the U.S. will get its fiscal house in order by embracing your deficit commission, the Simpson-Bowles. And that walking away from that,which is a phrase I’ve heard a lot, has been a very bad signal to the world. Why won’t you embrace Simpson-Bowles?

 I’ve got to say, most of the people who say that, if you asked them what’s in Simpson-Bowles, they couldn’t tell you. So first of all, I did embrace Simpson-Bowles. I’m the one who created the commission. If I hadn’t pushed it, it wouldn’t have happened, because congressional sponsors, including a whole bunch of Republicans, walked away from it.

 The basic premise of Simpson-Bowles was, we have to take a balanced approach in which we have spending cuts and we have revenues, increased revenues, in order to close our deficits and deal with our debt. And although I did not agree with every particular that was proposed in Simpson-Bowles — which, by the way, if you asked most of the folks who were on Simpson-Bowles, did they agree with every provision in there?, they’d say no as well.

 What I did do is to take that framework and present a balanced plan of entitlement changes, discretionary cuts, defense cuts, health care cuts as well as revenues and said, We’re ready to make a deal. And I presented that three times to Congress. So the core of Simpson-Bowles, the idea of a balanced deficit-reduction plan, I have consistently argued for, presented to the American people, presented to Congress.

 There wasn’t any magic in Simpson-Bowles. They didn’t have some special sauce or formula that avoided us making these tough choices. They’re the same choices that I’ve said I’m prepared to make. And the only reason it hasn’t happened is the Republicans were unwilling to do anything on revenue. Zero. Zip. Nada.

 The revenues that we were seeking were far less than what was in Simpson-Bowles. We’ve done more discretionary cuts than was called for in Simpson-Bowles. The things that supposedly would be harder for my side to embrace we’ve said we’d be willing to do. The whole half of Simpson-Bowles that was hard ideologically for the Republicans to embrace they’ve said they’re not going to do any of them.

 So this notion that the reason that it hasn’t happened is we didn’t embrace Simpson-Bowles is just nonsense. And by the way, if you talk to some of these same business leaders who say, Well, he shouldn’t have walked away from Simpson-Bowles, and you said, Well, are you prepared to kick capital gains and dividends taxation up to ordinary income —

 — which is what Simpson-Bowles —

 — which is what Simpson-Bowles called for, they would gag. There’s not one of those business leaders who would accept a bet. They’d say, Well, we embrace Simpson-Bowles except for that part that would cause us to pay a lot more.

 And in terms of the defense cuts that were called for in Simpson-Bowles, they were far deeper than even what would have been required if the sequester goes through, and so would have not been a responsible pathway for us to reduce our deficit spending. Now, that’s not the fault of Simpson-Bowles. What they were trying to do was provide us a basic framework, and we took that framework, and we have pushed it forward.

 And so there should be clarity here. There’s no equivalence between Democratic and Republican positions when it comes to deficit reduction. We’ve shown ourselves to be serious. We’ve made a trillion dollars worth of cuts already. We’ve got another $1.5 trillion worth of cuts on the chopping blocks. But what we’ve also said is, in order for us to seriously reduce the deficit, there’s got to be increased revenue. There’s no way of getting around it. It’s basic math. And if we can get any Republicans to show any serious commitment — not vague commitments, not “We’ll get revenues because of tax reform somewhere in the future, but we don’t know exactly what that looks like and we can’t identify a single tax that we would allow to go up” — but if we can get any of them who are still in office, as opposed to retired, to commit to that, we’ll be able to reduce our deficit.

 Now, to your larger point, you’re absolutely right. Our whole foreign policy has to be anchored in economic strength here at home. And if we are not strong, stable, growing, making stuff, training our workforce so that it’s the most skilled in the world, maintaining our lead in innovation, in basic research, in basic science, in the quality of our universities, in the transparency of our financial sector, if we don’t maintain the upward mobility and equality of opportunity that underwrites our political stability and makes us a beacon for the world, then our foreign policy leadership will diminish as well.

 Can we do that in a world with so much competition from so many countries? One of the things you do hear people say is, You know, we have all this regulation. You’re trying to make America more competitive, but you’ve got Dodd-Frank, you’ve got health care. There’s all this new regulation. And in that context, are we going to be able to be competitive, to attract investment, to create jobs?

 Absolutely. Look, first of all, with respect to regulation, this whole notion that somehow there’s been this huge tidal wave of regulation is not true, and we can provide you the facts. Our regulations have a lower cost than the comparable regulations under the Bush Administration; they have far higher benefits.

 We have engaged in a unprecedented regulatory look-back, where we’re weeding out and clearing up a whole bunch of regulations that were outdated and outmoded, and we’re saving businesses billions of dollars and tons of paperwork and man-hours that they’re required to fill out a bunch of forms that aren’t needed. So our regulatory track record actually is very solid.

 I just had a conference last week where we had a group of manufacturing companies — some service companies as well — that are engaging in insourcing. They’re bringing work back to the United States and plants back to the United States, because as the wages in China and other countries begin to increase, and U.S. worker productivity has gone way up, the cost differential for labor has significantly closed.

 And what these companies say is, as long as the United States is still investing in the best infrastructure in the world, the best education system in the world, is training enough skilled workers and engineers and is creating a stable platform for businesses to succeed and providing us with certainty, there’s no reason why America can’t be the most competitive advanced economy in the world.

 But that requires us to continue to up our game and do things better and do things smart. We’ve started that process over the last three years. We’ve still got a lot more work to do, because we’re reversing decade-long trends where our education system didn’t keep pace with the improvements that were taking place in other countries; where other countries started to invest more in research and development, and we didn’t up our game; where our infrastructure began to deteriorate at a time when other countries were investing in their infrastructure; and, frankly, where we have gotten bogged down politically in ways that don’t allow us to take strong, decisive action on issues in ways that we’ve been able to do in the past.

 And so my whole goal in the last three years and my goal over the next five years is going to be to continue to chip away at these things that are holding us back. And I’m absolutely confident there’s no problem that America is facing right now that we can’t solve, as long we’re working together. That’s our job. ||||| AP Photo

 President Obama blames the press for creating the image that he's aloof and disconnected from the rest of Washington, insisting in a new interview that he's just more interested in spending time with his family than in exchanging pleasantries with strangers.

 "My suspicion is that this whole critique has to do with the fact that I don’t go to a lot of Washington parties and, as a consequence, the Washington press corps maybe just doesn’t feel like I’m in the mix enough with them, and they figure, well, if I’m not spending time with them, I must be cold and aloof," Obama said in an interview with Time Magazine released Thursday.

 "The fact is, I’ve got a 13-year-old and 10-year-old daughter. And so, no, Michelle and I don’t do the social scene, because as busy as we are, we have a limited amount of time, and we want to be good parents at a time that’s vitally important for our kids."

 Jodi Kantor touches on the same theme in "The Obamas," published last week, which depicts the first couple as more interested in spending time with their family and inner circle than with in schmoozing with Washington's power players.

 And, Obama said in the interview with Time, it's not like socializing with congressional Republicans has done anything to boost his legislation and attempts at bipartisanship.

 "In terms of Congress, the reason we’re not getting enough done right now is because you’ve got a Congress that is deeply ideological and sees a political advantage in not getting stuff done," he said. "John Boehner and I get along fine. We had a great time playing golf together. That’s not the issue. The problem was that no matter how much golf we played or no matter how much we yukked it up, he had trouble getting his caucus to go along with doing the responsible thing on a whole bunch of issues over the past year."

 Brendan Buck, Boehner's press secretary, challenged Obama's assessment. "The problem hasn't been getting our team to do what is responsible. It has been that the president honestly believes his agenda is responsible, and we -- led by the speaker -- know it's actually making the economy worse." |||||
What is a summary?

– President Obama isn't aloof, he says—it's just that he and Michelle don't tend to paint the town red. "My suspicion is that this whole critique has to do with the fact that I don’t go to a lot of Washington parties and, as a consequence, the Washington press corps maybe just doesn’t feel like I’m in the mix enough with them," he tells Time in an interview, noted by Politico. "And they figure, well, if I’m not spending time with them, I must be cold and aloof." "Michelle and I don’t do the social scene, because as busy as we are, we have a limited amount of time, and we want to be good parents at a time that’s vitally important for our kids." The Obamas' social life has nothing to do with his clashes with Congress, he notes. "John Boehner and I get along fine. The problem was that no matter how much golf we played or no matter how much we yukked it up, he had trouble getting his caucus to go along with doing the responsible thing on a whole bunch of issues over the past year." Click to read the extensive interview.


Write a summary based on this article:

Pentagon spokesman Col. Rob Manning issued a statement explaining that an “authorized operator” of the account “erroneously re-tweeted content that would not be endorsed by the Department of Defense.” | Getty Images Pentagon ‘erroneously’ retweets call for Trump's resignation

 The Pentagon today quickly disavowed what it called a mistaken retweet from its official social media account of an activist’s call for President Donald Trump to step down.

 A Twitter user identified as @proudresister, in referring to recent allegations of sexual misconduct, tweeted: “The solution is simple… Roy Moore: Step down from the race. Al Franken: Resign from congress.” The tweet concluded with "Donald Trump: Resign from the presidency. GOP: Stop making sexual assault a partisan issue. It’s a crime as is your hypocrisy.”

 Story Continued Below

 The Pentagon’s official Twitter account then reposted the broadside before quickly deleting it.

 Pentagon spokesman Col. Rob Manning issued a statement explaining that an “authorized operator” of the account “erroneously re-tweeted content that would not be endorsed by the Department of Defense.”

 He added that “the operator caught this error and immediately deleted it.”

 Pentagon press secretary Dana White tweeted a similar clarification, which the Pentagon's official Twitter account also shared.

 Many Twitter profiles contain a disclaimer saying that retweets do not constitute an endorsement, but the Pentagon account, @DeptofDefense, does not.

 The @proudresister account also links to a website selling anti-Trump collectibles such as T-shirts. ||||| The Pentagon's official Twitter account retweeted a tweet saying President Trump should resign, a move that was made "erroneously," according to the Department of Defense's chief spokesperson.

 On Thursday afternoon, the Pentagon's account retweeted a tweet from the account "Proud Resister," claiming Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, Sen. Al Franken and Mr. Trump — all of whom are now accused of sexual misconduct — should step aside or resign. Ahead of the election, 16 women accused then-candidate Trump of behaving inappropriately towards them, and Mr. Trump was caught on camera talking about grabbing women by their genitalia.

 Twitter

 Dana White, assistant to the secretary of defense for public affairs, said on Twitter that retweet happened "erroneously," and included content that "would not be endorsed by the Department of Defense."

 An authorized operator of the @DeptofDefense’s official Twitter site erroneously retweeted content that would not be endorsed by the Department of Defense. The operator caught this error and immediately deleted it. — Dana W. White - DoD (@ChiefPentSpox) November 16, 2017

 Sexual harassment allegations against other figures in Washington and Hollywood have forced the White House to once again answer lingering questions about the president's own behavior.

 Last month, CBS News White House reporter Jacqueline Alemany asked White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders if it is the White House's position that the women who have accused him are lying. In the past, Mr. Trump has called the claims "fake news."

 "Yeah, we've been clear on that since the beginning, and the president has spoken on it," Sanders said, declining to comment further. ||||| Tweet with a location

 You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more |||||

– See, this is why all those Twitter profiles are sure to note that retweets do not equal endorsements. CBS News reports the Pentagon's official Twitter account on Thursday retweeted a tweet calling for President Trump's resignation. "GOP: Stop making sexual assault a partisan issue," tweeted "Proud Resister" while calling for Roy Moore, Sen. Al Franken, and Trump to all resign or step aside due to allegations of sexual misconduct. The tweet was retweeted—and then soon deleted—by the Department of Defense Twitter account. According to Politico, Pentagon spokesperson Col. Rob Manning confirmed the retweet was made by the "authorized operator" of the department's Twitter account. In her own tweet, Pentagon spokesperson Dana White said the call for Trump's resignation was "erroneously retweeted" and contained "content that would not be endorsed by the Department of Defense."


News article:

Get ready for a lunar occultation Tuesday night. (Photo: GEORGI LICOVSKI, EPA)

 The moon and one of the brightest stars in the sky will play hide-and-seek Tuesday night.

 So grab your telescope or binoculars and get ready for a moon "occultation," which sounds like something perfect for a spooky pre-Halloween night.

 Not as well known as an eclipse or a meteor shower, a lunar occultation occurs when the moon passes in front of a star. Tuesday night, the moon will occult Aldebaran, which is one of the brightest and most colorful stars in the sky, according to Space.com.

 Lunar occultations are either classified as "total" or "grazing," the International Occultation Timing Association reports.

 The "total" occultation is simply a matter of a star vanishing behind the moon and then reappearing an hour or so later, which is what folks in most of the eastern and southern U.S. will see.

 A "grazing" occultation, when the star appears to slide right along the edge of the moon, is especially cool, asSky and Telescope notes:

 "You'll probably see Aldebaran disappear and reappear several times in the darkness just barely off the moon's dazzlingly sunlit north polar region," the magazine said. "Most of the events will be gradual rather than instantaneous, as hills and valleys on the moon's northern limb slide across the face of the giant star."

 Where will you be on the night of October 19th/20th? We'll be watching the Moon occult the bright star Aldebaran: https://t.co/Em6hvXH3typic.twitter.com/HBbZ5OxxfJ — Sky & Telescope (@SkyandTelescope) October 13, 2016

 This so-called "graze line" is only a few hundred yards wide, but it runs right through Los Angeles and Denver, about 50 miles southeast of Las Vegas, and about 30 miles southeast of Minneapolis, Sky and Telescope says.

 YOUR TAKE: Share your photos of the night sky

 These occultations of Aldebaran have been happening once per lunar month in a series that began in January 2015 and will end in September 2018. But most aren't visible in the U.S.

 After this series ends, the next occultation of Aldebaran won't be until 2033.

 As noted above, binoculars or a telescope are needed to fully enjoy the spectacle.

 Skies will be mostly clear across the southern tier of the U.S. late Tuesday and early Wednesday, the National Weather Service predicts:.

 Skies should be clear (blue) across most of the southern tier of the U.S. while clouds (gray) are forecast for portions of the north-central U.S. and the Ohio Valley. This is the sky cover prediction for 2 am ET Wednesday (11 pm PT Tuesday). (Photo: National Weather Service)

 Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2emUAuw ||||| Observers in portions of Mexico, Central America, southeastern Canada, the eastern U.S. and southern Europe will see the waning gibbous moon occult the bright naked eye star Aldebaran in the early hours of Wednesday (Oct. 19).

 The waning moon will cross in front of one of the brightest and most colorful stars in the sky on the night of October 18-19 for viewers in the southern and eastern United States, and part of eastern Canada.

 Late Tuesday night (Oct. 18), users of even the smallest telescopes will be glued to their eyepieces as the edge of the waning gibbous moon, 85 percent illuminated, occults the 1st-magnitude star Aldebaran, which forms the bright orange eye of Taurus, the Bull.

 We're currently in the midst of an almost four-year series of Aldebaran occultations. Every month as the moon circles the Earth it passes in front of the star as seen from some part of the world. On the night of Oct. 18-19, the lucky region includes anywhere south of a line running from Los Angeles to about 50 miles south of Las Vegas, through Denver, to 30 miles southeast of Minneapolis, then northeast to Ishpeming Township, Michigan, and continuing to George's Island, Labrador. If you are north of this line (which includes the Pacific Northwest, northern and central California, northern and central Rockies, northern and central Plains), the moon will pass tantalizingly close to Aldebaran, but will not cover it. Observers right on this line, probably less than two-tenths of a mile (three-tenths of a kilometer) wide, will be able to watch Aldebaran graze the bright limb of the moon. [Planets, Constellations and Orionid Meteors In Oct. 2016 Skywatching (Video)]

 Many observers will aim smartphones and camcorders at their eyepieces to capture a video of the event while shortwave radio time signals play in the background. That setup will allow viewers to time the instant when the star vanishes behind the moon's limb, and when it reappears later from behind the other limb, to a few hundredths of a second.

 The International Occultation Timers Association (IOTA) has set up a special web page for the upcoming Aldebaran graze, complete with maps, predicted lunar-limb profiles and other information.

 For prospective viewers in Southern California, Aldebaran will disappear soon after 10 p.m. PDT. In the eastern U.S., it will happen between 1 and 2 a.m. EDT. The star will disappear on the moon's bright side and reappear on the dark side.

 As the moon, three days past full, ascends the eastern sky, Aldebaran will appear to creep up to the moon's bright limb for many minutes, then hang on the sunlit edge of a few seconds — an eerie orange fire among the lunar hills. You'll need a telescope to see it there through the moon's glare. Then, in an instant, it will snap out of view.

 Aldebaran will reappear from behind the moon's dark portion (depending on your location) up to 75 minutes later. This time you may be able to see the event with binoculars, since the star will pop back into view farther away from the dazzling lunar surface.

 IOTA has also created a web page depicting the entire viewing zone (which includes parts of Africa and Europe) and a listing of disappearance and reappearance times for over 1,000 locations — including nearly 300 in the United States.

 For example, what can you expect to see from a rooftop in Philadelphia? The City of Brotherly Love is location #920. The listings are in Universal Time; for Philadelphia this is 5:41:05, which corresponds to 1:41:05 a.m. EDT. At that time, the moon will be 54 degrees high at an azimuth of 122 degrees, corresponding to 32 degrees south of due east. The position angle (PA) is 48 degrees, measured counterclockwise from the top of the moon. This gives the position along the moon's limb where Aldebaran will disappear.

 So 0/360 degrees = 12 o'clock; 90 degrees = 9 o'clock; 180 degrees = 6 o'clock; 270 degrees = 3 o'clock.

 In this case, if the moon was the face of a clock, 48 degrees would correspond to between 10 and 11. For the reappearance: 6:47:39 UT (2:47:39 a.m. EDT); Altitude 64 degrees; Azimuth 148 degrees (SSE) and the PA is 284 degrees.

 The U.S. Nautical Almanac Office provides an alternate occultation visibility map here.

 As I noted earlier, the current series of Aldebaran occultations runs for nearly four years. The current series began Jan. 29, 2015, with an occultation visible from the Arctic regions. The next Aldebaran occultation visible from North America (and Hawaii, too) will come on the night of Dec. 12-13. The series will come to an end Sept. 3, 2018, for Greenland and the Arctic regions. After that, we must wait until Aug. 18, 2033, for the series of Aldebaran occultations to begin.

 Joe Rao serves as an instructor and guest lecturer at New York's Hayden Planetarium. He writes about astronomy for Natural History magazine, the Farmer's Almanac and other publications, and he is also an on-camera meteorologist for News 12 Westchester, New York. Follow us @Spacedotcom, Facebook and Google+. Original article on Space.com. |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– Sky watchers will get a bit of a show Tuesday night: People across the Eastern US and much of the Southwest will be able to see the moon move in front of Aldebaran, one of the brightest stars in the night sky, a phenomenon known as a lunar occultation, reports USA Today. Most in the viewing zone will see a "total occultation," in which the star disappears behind the moon. But the real treat comes for residents in certain areas of LA and Denver, who will be able to witness a "grazing occultation," where the star moves along the very periphery of the moon. Those with high-powered telescopes (or perhaps a nice pair of binoculars) should be able to see the star move in and out of view as mountain ranges and craters on the moon rise and fall. In the West, Aldebaran will disappear shortly after 10pm PDT, per Space.com. In the Eastern US, it will happen between 1am and 2am EDT. Astronomy site Sky and Telescope has the nitty-gritty on when and where to look.


News article:

Click to listen to Howard Stern speak out about his divorce and the differences between himself and Charlie Sheen

 For his wide-ranging interview with Howard Stern in the new issue of Rolling Stone, on stands and online in the digital archives (subscription required) this Friday, writer Neil Strauss spoke to Howard Stern for over three hours at SiriusXM headquarters in New York. They discussed Stern's traumatic divorce from his ex-wife Alison, the wild period in his personal life that followed before he met his second wife Beth, former sidekick Artie Lange's suicide attempt, his many years in therapy and his plans for the next five years of his radio show.

 Watch video of Stern interviewing Rolling Stone's Neil Strauss below

 Right now Stern tapes on Mondays through Thursdays, but that's probably going to change. "When it came down to sort of figuring out what I was really after, I was pretty sure I was going to leave the radio," Stern says about his recent contract renewal. "I thought I'd kind of done what I needed to do. I still enjoyed it, but I also found that I wanted time to do some other things. Right now, my schedule is pretty much the same as it's always been. And then as time rolls on I'll probably do about three shows a week."

 Howard Stern's Universe: Robin Quivers, Crackhead Bob and 14 More People to Know

 Other highlights:

 • Before the interview Stern spoke with Strauss on the air for nearly an hour, eventually getting the writer to reveal a shockingly personal detail about his girlfriend. "When you got into your girlfriend being dry [during sex], that's when I knew I hit a home run. You hit it, but I brought you there. I knew my audience was going out of their minds. I could sense them all with us. And I did my job."

 • Artie Lange, Stern's former sidekick who attempted to kill himself early last year and has been off the air ever since, has spoken with Stern recently about returning to the air. "He said to me recently that he would be willing to come on the air and explain what happened and stuff," says Stern. "I don't even feel strong enough within myself or that I'd be doing the right thing by him, because I don't want to do the wrong thing for Artie. I just want Artie to stay alive."

 More from Stern's cover story: Howard on Sex, Therapy and Charlie Sheen

 Video clip courtesy Howard TV On Demand. For more information, go to www.howard.tv

 From the Archive:

 Howard Stern Does Hollywood: Rolling Stone's 1997 Cover Story

 Howard Stern: Man or Mouth? Rolling Stone's 1994 Cover Story

 Who Is Howard Stern? Rolling Stone's 1990 Feature

 Peter Travers' 1997 Review of Private Parts

 Artie Lange Exposed: Rolling Stone's 2009 Feature

 Artie Lange's Life in Photos: From Hometown Comic to Howard Stern's Sidekick

 Artie Lange: The Story Behind the Story ||||| “The biggest criticism of my interviews is that I cut people off. I think my biggest asset is that I cut people off. It sounds like a contradiction, but the fact is you can't allow people to drone on. You are the orchestra leader. You are the one who is saying, ‘My audience wants something new. I've got to get out of this. I gotta keep it fresh.’”

 RELATED

 - Howard Stern Does Hollywood: 1997 Cover Story

 - Sixteen People In Howard Stern's Universe - From Robin Quivers To Crackhead Bob

 - Howard Stern: Man or Mouth: 1994 Cover Story

 - Who is Howard Stern?: 1990 Feature

 - Howard Stern Speaks Out About Artie Lange, His New Contract and His Divorce in New Rolling Stone Cover Story

  |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– In a new interview with Rolling Stone, Howard Stern says former sidekick Artie Lange may return to the air for the first time following last year’s suicide attempt. “He said to me recently that he would be willing to come on the air and explain what happened and stuff," says Stern, but adds that he wants to make sure “I’d be doing the right thing by him … I just want Artie to stay alive." More from the interview: On Charlie Sheen: "I sort of admire Charlie Sheen's ability to say f*** you to the world. It's a fascinating car wreck because, you know, how many people are in Hollywood dying for a hit television show? I don't know whether to give him a medal or to throw him in a loony bin.” On the wild days following his divorce: "After my divorce, I realized, ‘Oh, wow, I can go have sex.’ And I was running around, picking up women. Then all of a sudden, it dawned on me that I really didn't need that much sex.” Why he’ll never hire a prostitute: "I'm too germ-phobic." Why he’s not a Rush Limbaugh fan: “Wouldn't he be a lot more interesting if once in a while he was for something that the Republican Party was against? I thought he had a real opportunity with that whole drug-addiction thing to maybe open up and say, ‘Man, I'm as confused as all of you.’ But, no, he has to keep the persona.” Click for more from the interview.


Write an article based on this summary:

– Lightning strikes people often enough, but usually not when they're opening the fridge for a snack. Such is the plight of Texas high school student Macie Martinez, who was home with her parents on Memorial Day when a storm blew in. She was opening the fridge to grab some applesauce when the bolt struck. "It was so surreal," her mom tells the Houston Chronicle. "There was a loud explosion, everything went dark and at the same time, Macie started screaming, but it wasn't from her throat. It was a deep scream." The teen tells MyFox Austin that she remembers not being able to feel her legs, and her parents hustled her to the hospital. She suffered nerve damage in her arms and hands, and doctors are keeping an eye on her kidney and liver, but she seems to have escaped major harm. "I feel very lucky," she tells the TV station. "Lucky to be sitting here doing this interview today." She's even making light of herself on Instagram, telling people to call her Sparky. It turns out that Martinez's father also got zapped, though his telltale rash didn't show up until after the family had returned from the hospital. "My right arm gets tingly," he says. The family home sustained significant damage from the strike, which a neighbor says appeared to have come from beneath the house and exited through the roof. Appliances were fried, with the coffee maker one of the few survivors. That's fine with mom: "I get my daughter and coffee maker, so I'm set." (This guy survived a lightning strike to the head.)

Central Texas teen has sense of humor as she recovers from being struck by lightning

 photo_prev_inline|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0 photo_next_inline|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0

 photo_prev_inline|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0 photo_next_inline|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0

 photo_prev_inline|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0 photo_next_inline|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0

 photo_prev_inline|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0 photo_next_inline|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0

 photo_prev_inline|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0 photo_next_inline|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0

 photo_prev_inline|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0 photo_next_inline|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0

 photo_prev_inline|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0 photo_next_inline|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0

 photo_prev_inline|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0 photo_next_inline|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0

 photo_prev_inline|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0 photo_next_inline|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0

 photo_prev_inline|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0 photo_next_inline|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0

 photo_prev_inline|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0 photo_next_inline|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0

 photo_prev_inline|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0 photo_next_inline|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0 gallery_thumbnails_photo|photo-8090663|article-gallery-6304355|1

 gallery_thumbnails_photo|photo-8089846|article-gallery-6304355|2

 gallery_thumbnails_photo|photo-8090639|article-gallery-6304355|3

 gallery_thumbnails_photo|photo-8090645|article-gallery-6304355|4

 gallery_thumbnails_photo|photo-8089852|article-gallery-6304355|5

 gallery_thumbnails_photo|photo-8090632|article-gallery-6304355|6

 gallery_thumbnails_photo|photo-8090176|article-gallery-6304355|7

 gallery_thumbnails_photo|photo-8090732|article-gallery-6304355|8

 gallery_thumbnails_photo|photo-8090739|article-gallery-6304355|9

 gallery_thumbnails_photo|photo-8090749|article-gallery-6304355|10

 gallery_thumbnails_photo|photo-8090761|article-gallery-6304355|11 Image 1 of / 12 Caption Close gallery_thumbnails_show|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0 gallery_overlay_open|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0 gallery_overlay_open_thumbs|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0 Image 1 of 12 Macie Martinez's mother, Misty Villareal, said her daughter, who is currently a trainer for the Lake Travis High School softball team, hopes to be a nurse some day. Her mother worries the nerve damage from the incident may affect her long-term. Macie Martinez's mother, Misty Villareal, said her daughter, who is... Image 2 of 12 Austin teen recovers after being struck by lightning on Memorial Day. Austin teen recovers after being struck by lightning on Memorial Day. Image 3 of 12 Macie's mother, Misty Martinez, said it appears the lightning entered through the roof of her home. Macie's mother, Misty Martinez, said it appears the lightning... Image 4 of 12 In addition to the family's gaming systems, wood flooring, fridge and other appliances, the garage door sensor was destroyed by the lightning. In addition to the family's gaming systems, wood flooring, fridge... Image 5 of 12 Lake Travis high school student Macie Martinez jokes on social media after being struck by lightning. Lake Travis high school student Macie Martinez jokes on social... Image 6 of 12 Macie Martinez, a Lake Travis High School junior stays positive after getting struck by lightning. Macie Martinez, a Lake Travis High School junior stays positive... Image 7 of 12 Macie Martinez's step dad Anthony Villarreal realized his "fern rash" upon returning home from the hospital. Macie Martinez's step dad Anthony Villarreal realized his "fern... Image 8 of 12 Macie Martinez, a Lake Travis junior, serves as a trainer for her high school softball team. Macie Martinez, a Lake Travis junior, serves as a trainer for her... Image 9 of 12 Macie Martinez, a Lake Travis junior, stays positive after being struck by lightning. Macie Martinez, a Lake Travis junior, stays positive after being... Image 10 of 12 Macie Martinez, a Lake Travis junior, stays positive after being struck by lightning. Macie Martinez, a Lake Travis junior, stays positive after being... Image 11 of 12 Macie Martinez, a Lake Travis junior, stays positive after being struck by lightning. Macie Martinez, a Lake Travis junior, stays positive after being... Image 12 of 12 Central Texas teen has sense of humor as she recovers from being struck by lightning 1 / 12 Back to Gallery gallery_thumbs_close|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0 gallery_overlay_close|article-gallery-6304355|article-gallery-6304355|0

 Just over one week after being struck by lightning in her Dripping Springs home, Lake Travis High School student Macie Martinez is taking a light-hearted approach on social media as she recalls the events that left her with a "cool scar."

 In her most recent post on Instagram, Martinez joked "call me Sparky" with bolts of lighting bracketing the caption, but on Memorial Day the mood was entirely different as Martinez's mother, Misty Villarreal, said her daughter let out the worst scream she has ever heard as Macie opened the refrigerator door.

 "Macie went in the kitchen to get some applesauce. It was so surreal, there was a loud explosion, everything went dark and at the same time, Macie started screaming, but it wasn't from her throat. It was a deep scream. It was just so scary," Villarreal said in a phone interview.

 RELATED: John Cena brings boy battling cancer into the ring during WWE Raw in San Antonio

 After Macie's father Anthony Villarreal removed his daughter from the kitchen, Macie was rushed to the hospital where doctors surveyed the Fern rash on her back, which doctors told Misty is a typical symptom of those who have been struck by lightning.

 Upon their return home, Anthony noticed similar marks on his arms.

 Macie told myFOXAustin the ordeal was the most painful thing she had ever experienced. After the incident, Macie's legs were paralyzed for 45 minutes, but the long-term damages are still unknown.

 What Macie and her family do know is that Macie suffered nerve damage in her arm and hands, and while Macie maintains a cheerful spirit in light of her painful experience, doctors are monitoring her liver and kidneys as she follows doctors' orders to finish her final exams and rest.

 She said she still experiences bouts of fatigue and numbness in her arm, and her mother said Macie exhibits random incidents of confusion and forgetfulness.

 "We're so overwhelmed, that we can't help but laugh or we would cry all the time," Misty said.

 "So, we're calling her things like Sparky and Bolt to boost our spirits."

 Her parents are glad their only losses that day were inanimate household objects, losing just about everything but the coffee maker.

 "I get my daughter and coffee maker, so I'm set," Misty joked. "We want to be positive, because we are so thankful. There's so much to be thankful for because for me, it was such a traumatic experience."

 mmedina@mysa.com

 Twitter: @mariahmedinaaa ||||| Have a news tip? Here's how you can reach us:

 Call the News Tip Line: (512) 472-0988

 Or send us an email: KTBCnews@foxtv.com |||||