Friends of FUCOBI donated 24 awards​ for international students from 12 countries to attend the AQUACULTURE 2022 symposium, San Diego, February 28 to March 04, 2022.

Arsenic occurs naturally in rocks and soil across Minnesota. Small amounts can dissolve into groundwater that may be used for drinking water. Drinking water with arsenic in it can increase your risk of cancer and other serious health effects. It is important to know how much arsenic is in your drinking water and how you can reduce your exposure.

Health Effects
Drinking water with low levels of arsenic over a long time is associated with diabetes and increased risk of cancers of the bladder, lungs, liver, and other organs. Arsenic can also contribute to cardiovascular and respiratory disease, reduced intelligence in children, and skin problems, such as lesions, discoloration, and the development of corns. Health impacts of arsenic may take many years to develop, especially if you are in contact with arsenic at a low level over a long time.

How to Protect Yourself and Your Family
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard for arsenic in drinking water is 10 micrograms per liter (µg/L).* However, drinking water with arsenic at levels lower than the U.S. EPA standard over many years can still increase your risk of cancer. As a result, EPA has set a goal of 0 µg/L for arsenic in drinking water. This goal does not consider the cost of water treatment to completely remove arsenic from drinking water. *1 microgram per liter (µg/L) = 1 part per billion (ppb).

If you have a private well
Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) recommends every private well is tested for arsenic at least once. As of 2008, well contractors test each newly drilled well for arsenic and share the results with the well owner and MDH. You can find existing test results online at Minnesota Well Index (see Resources). ▪ If arsenic was not detected in the first sample, your water is unlikely to have arsenic later. ▪ If arsenic was detected in the first sample, you may want to retest your well water about six months after construction. MDH research found that when arsenic is detected in a new well, the level may increase or decrease in the first few months after construction (see Private Well Protection Arsenic Study).

MDH recommends you use an accredited laboratory to test your water. Contact a laboratory to get sample containers and instructions, or ask your county environmental or public health services if they provide well testing services (see Search for Accredited Laboratories). If arsenic is detected in your water and repeat sampling confirms the results, consider installing home water treatment or using a different source of drinking water (see Home Water Treatment). MDH highly recommends taking action if your water has an arsenic level above 10 µg/L. 

If you are on a public water system

The EPA has a federal drinking water standard of 10 µg/L for public water systems serving places where people live, work, go to school, and receive childcare. These systems take action to reduce arsenic if levels exceed the standard. You can find the level of arsenic detected in the system serving where you live by reading the system’s water quality report (also known as a Consumer Confidence Report [CCR]). You can call your public water system to get a paper copy of your CCR, or you may be able to find it online (see Consumer Confidence Reports). Noncommunity systems serving schools, offices, factories, and childcare facilities test for arsenic; you can contact your non-community system to find the level of arsenic detected in the system. Noncommunity systems serving restaurants, resorts, and campgrounds are not required to test for arsenic. If you want to take additional steps to reduce your exposure to arsenic in drinking water, you can install home water treatment (see Home Water Treatment). 

Reduce Other Contact with Arsenic
You may come into contact with arsenic in ways other than water. Use these tips to reduce your contact: ▪ Throw away arsenic-treated wood in the trash; do not burn it. ▪ Know the ingredients of all medications or health remedies you use, especially "folk" remedies. ▪ Seal arsenic-treated wood structures every six months to two years. ▪ Make sure children wash their hands after playing on structures with arsenic-treated wood. ▪ Wash and peel vegetables grown underground (e.g., potatoes, carrots). ▪ Eat less rice, cereal grains, or other foods that contain arsenic. ▪ Do not use old pesticides and soil supplements if they contain arsenic. (If they contain arsenic, drop them off at a hazardous waste collection site.)

Background Information
Arsenic occurs naturally in soil and rock and can dissolve into groundwater. For most people, food and water are the biggest sources of exposure to arsenic. There are two forms of arsenic:
​

• Inorganic arsenic is the type found in contaminated drinking water, and is the most harmful type of arsenic. It is also found in rice, cereal grains, and other foods.
• Organic arsenic is the most common type of arsenic found in food. It is common in fish and shellfish and is less harmful to health than inorganic arsenic. Some arsenic in the environment comes from human activity. Arsenic was an ingredient in some pesticides and was used as a wood preservative for wood foundations, decks, and children's outdoor play structures.

Arsenic in Minnesota Water
Arsenic can be found in groundwater throughout Minnesota but is more likely in some areas than others. Approximately 10 percent of private drinking water wells in Minnesota have arsenic levels higher than 10 µg/L. Some wells have levels as high as 350 µg/L. Arsenic levels can vary between wells, even within a small area. See a map of arsenic levels in private wells at Private Wells-Arsenic. Few public water systems have detected arsenic levels above the EPA standard. If a system detects arsenic levels above the standard, MDH works with the system to reduce the level.

Source and Resources:
 https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/water/docs/contaminants/arsenicfactsht.pdf

Advancing Mangrove Knowledge
A Newsletter from the Global Mangrove Alliance
 The International Day for the Conservation of Mangrove Ecosystems, adopted by UNESCO in 2015, is an important commemorative day, not only to recognize the incredible benefits that mangroves provide wildlife and humanity, but also to learn about the coastal trees and better understand their full value. 
The Global Mangrove Alliance is proud to be connecting knowledge and supporting tools required to integrate mangroves and their ecosystem services into mitigation, adaptation, disaster risk reduction and land-use strategies with community and national leaders.
A variety of tools and resources are available in our Knowledge Hub and are added to regularly. This mangrove day, take a look through the Global Mangrove Watch evidence base, read about The State of the World’s Mangroves–globally and in the Western Indian Ocean Region–or look through a variety of principles and manuals for restoration and management success. 
The latest updates from our Alliance are below and you can stay connected with news on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to learn about additional projects, international events, and more. If you are part of an organization that is interested in joining the Alliance and getting advanced knowledge and access to data tools, you can find all the information you need here.
​
Happy International Day for the Conservation of Mangrove Ecosystems!

Mangrove Photography Awards Gallery
Mangrove Action Project 

​Celebrate World Mangrove Day by enjoying every submitted photo from this year's Mangrove Photography Awards. For the past month we have invited people from all over the world to raise their voices for the protection of one of our most critical and undervalued ecosystems. The photos illustrate the importance and diversity of life in our coastal forests and give us a fascinating insight into the world of mangroves from all corners of the earth.
​

Dr Acacia Alcivar Warren was born in Chone, Ecuador, and is looking for help to begin replanting mangroves at the Chone River Estuary of Ecuador. She was invited to talk about "Shrimp Farming and Mangroves of Ecuador" in the past meeting ( Wednesday, May 11 ) for ESRAG Projects Division Seminar Series.

The presentation covered from the status of shrimp farming in Ecuador, its impact on mangroves deforestation, carbon emissions, and contaminants like endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in mangroves, shrimp, and people from the mangroves, and future sustainability and food security issues. Ecuador is the major shrimp producer in the Western Hemisphere.
 
Dr Acacia Alcivar Warren has a PhD in Veterinary Medicine and Zootechnics from the University of Guayaquil, Ecuador, a MS in Reproductive Physiology and Endocrinology and a PhD degree on Immunobiology from Iowa State University (ISU). She was a postdoctoral fellow at the Biology Department at Tufts University, Medford, MA, a Research Associate at the Roche Institute of Molecular Biology in New Jersey, Nutley, USA, and visiting scientist at Boston College, MA. Acacia has worked at educational and non-governmental organizations, and private industry.
 
She directs the global ‘ONE HEALTH Epigenomics Educational Initiative' and ‘Shrimp Scampi: A Citizens Science Project’ started by high school students to examine the levels of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) like metals, glyphosate, and bisphenol A (BPA) in shrimp sold in MA supermarkets.  She also coordinates the holistic program ‘UNA SALUD / ONE HEALTH Epigenomics & Microbiomes: Somos lo que comemos / We are what we eat’, monitoring EDCs in mangrove sediment, shrimp and oysters, and people from the mangroves. 
 

Preliminary data, among a multitude that are being collected around the world, indicate that there is a reduction in immunity against the omicron variant among those who have the complete initial vaccination schedule (two or one dose, depending on the vaccine received) or who have passed the COVID-19 infection.

This may indicate - without being a categorical statement - that this variant can "evade" a person's immune system.

"So far there is limited evidence available and it is not peer-reviewed on the efficacy or effectiveness of thevaccine against Omicron," the organization said in an update of the information gathered on this issue, which is at the center of concerns in the whole world.

The WHO pointed out, however, that the evidence is stronger regarding the advantage that omicron has in spreading compared to the delta variant, since in countries where local transmission of the former has been detected, it is being observed that cases they double in 1.5 to 3 days.

Omicron is spreading rapidly in countries with high levels of the immunized population and it is not yet clear whether this is due to evading immunity, being more easily spread, or a combination of both factors, according to those data.

"Omicron is likely to outperform delta in community transmission scenarios," the WHO said.

Omicron has so far been detected in 89 countries and the threat it will pose will become clear when scientists can confidently answer a series of key questions, such as how transmissible it is and how well current vaccines work or an infection previous covid protects from infection, transmission, serious illness or death. (EFE)

​Source:https://acortar.link/np22IT

Fig. 4 Epimutation overlaps. Generational DMR overlap with F1 generation ncRNA p < 0.05. A Venn diagram overlap of F1, F2, and F3 generation DMR (p < 1e−06) with F1 generation ncRNA (p < 0.05). a Vinclozolin lineage DMR and ncRNA overlap. b DDT lineage DMR and ncRNA overlap. Generational DMR overlap with F3 generation DHR p < 0.05. A Venn diagram overlap of F1, F2, and F3 generation DMR (p < 1e−06) with F3 generation DHR (p < 0.05). c Vinclozolin lineage DMR and DHR overlap. d DDT lineage DMR and DHR overlap. Generational DMR overlap. A Venn diagram overlap of F1 generation DMR (p < 1e−06) with F2 and F3 generation DMR (p < 0.05). e Vinclozolin lineage DMR overlap. f DDT lineage DMR overlap
The next observation was that the DMRs of the F1, F2 and F3 generation had a 20-48% overlap with the DHRs of the F3 generation for the DDT and vinclozolin lineages (Fig. 3). Interestingly, the DHRs of the F3 generation had a 23-47% overlap with the DMRs of the F1, F2 and F3 generations for both challenge lineages. The Venn diagram overlaps in (Fig. 4c, d) supports these overlays of DMR and DHR and suggests that DMRs may help guide DHR formation transgenerationally. The overlapping DMRs and DHRs of the F3 generation are presented in (Additional file 1: Tables S3 and S4).
An interesting observation was the overlap between the F1, F2 and F3 generation DMRs for DDT and vinclozolin exposures (Figs. (Figs. 33 and 4e, 4e, f). The highest overlap for the F1 generation DMRs of DDT was the F2 DMR from the F3 generation with 71% overlap, and for the vinclozolin F2 DMRs with the F3 generation DMRs with 73% overlap. The highest for the F3 generation DMRs was a 79% overlap with the vinclozolin F2 DMRs. Generally, 25-50% There was overlap between the F1, F2 and F3 generation DMRs for both exposures, (Fig. 3). A Venn diagram supports this observation and demonstrates approximately 25% overlap for vinclozolin DMRs and 35% overlap for DDT DMRs, (Fig. 4e, f) Lists of these overlapping DMRs are presented in (Additional File 1: Tables S5 and S6). Therefore, a percentage (25-35%) of the individual DMRs of the F1 generation were retained transgenerationally. Mind.
Generally, the epigenetic alterations of the F3 generation had more overlap with each other and with the other generations for both exposures. Venn diagram analysis was used to identify epigenetic sites with overlapping DMR, ncRNA and DHR (Fig. 4). The overlapping F3 generation epigenetic sites were approximately 25% for the vinclozolin and DDT lineages. A permutation analysis was performed to show that this is significantly greater than the observed random overlap, with a p-value of p ≤ 0.05 for the 1 kb and 10 kb overlap sites. Several sites were randomly selected and mapped to identify the overlapping chromosomal locations of DMR, ncRNA, and DHR (Fig. 5). The actual statistical significance of the overlapping epimutations in these examples includes: (Fig. 5a) (ncRNA p <1e-04, DHR p <0.03 and DMR p <0.005); (Fig. 5b) (ncRNA p <1e-04, DHR p <0.001 and DMR p <0.0004); (Fig. 5c) (DHR p <1e-08, ncRNA p <0.005 and DMR p <0.04); and (Fig. 5d) (ncRNA p <1e-06, DMR p <1e-04 and DHR p <1e-05). The "Discussion" section reviews the possibility of RNA-directed DNA methylation and DMR-directed histone retention.

Characteristics of MIS-C patients being closely monitored by CDC by race and ethnicity, sex, and age.
​
To date, the majority of MIS-C patients have been of Hispanic / Latino race / ethnicity or non-Hispanic black. Hispanic / Latino and non-Hispanic black populations have also been disproportionately affected by COVID-19 in general. Further studies of MIS-C are needed to learn why certain racial or ethnic groups may be disproportionately affected and to understand the risk factors for this disease.

Next steps
MIS-C can occur weeks after COVID-19 and even if the child or family did not know the child had COVID-19. CDC and state authorities will be monitoring additional cases and will adapt the MIS-C recommendations as necessary.

Researchers are evaluating reported cases of MIS-C and associated health outcomes to try to learn more about specific risk factors for MIS-C, disease progression in children and adolescents, and how to better identify MIS-C. and distinguish it from other similar ones. diseases.

Additional comments
Some patients may meet partial or full criteria for Kawasaki disease, but must be reported if they meet the MIS-C case definition
Consider MIS-C in any pediatric death with evidence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Timing of reporting
Case reporting may be delayed due to limited capacity in state / local health departments and as the CDC evaluates the data to ensure that cases meet the MIS-C case definition.
​Source: https://www.cdc.gov/mis-c/cases/index.html

​

When Dewayne “Lee” Johnson was awarded $289 million for damages related to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, he didn’t just triumph over Monsanto. He also may have created a path forward for thousands of similar plaintiffs.

Originally published by  https://www.organicconsumers.org/