Category: Academic Reportage

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Mervin XuYang Lim, Ph.D. Student in Chemical Engineering, University of Arizona

The world is looking for more clean water. Intense storms and warmer weather have worsened droughts and reduced the amount of clean water underground and in rivers and lakes on the surface.

Under pressure to provide water for drinking and irrigation, people around the globe are trying to figure out how to save, conserve and reuse water in a variety of ways, including reusing treated sewage wastewater and removing valuable salts from seawater.

But for all the clean water they may produce, those processes, as well as water-intensive industries like mining, manufacturing and energy production, inevitably leave behind a type of liquid called brine: water that contains high concentrations of salt, metals and other contaminants. I’m working on getting the water out of that potential source, too.

The most recent available assessment of global brine production found that it is 25.2 billion gallons a day, enough to fill nearly 60,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools each day. That’s about one-twelfth of daily household water use in the U.S. However, that brine estimate is from 2019; in the years since, brine production is estimated to have increased due to the continued expansion of desalination plants.

That’s a lot of water, if it could be cleaned and made usable.

How is brine disposed?

Today, most brine produced along the coastline is released into the ocean. Inland cities without this option typically leave brine in ponds to evaporate, blend it with other wastewater, or inject it into deep wells for disposal.

However, most of these methods require strict environmental protections and monitoring strategies to reduce harm to the environment.

For instance, the extremely high salt content in brine from desalination plants can kill fish or drive them away, as has happened increasingly since the 1980s off the coast of Bahrain.

Evaporation ponds require specialized liners to prevent the brine from leaching into the ground and polluting groundwater. And when all the water has evaporated, the remaining solids must be promptly removed to prevent them from blowing away as dust in the wind. This happens in nature, too: As the Great Salt Lake in Utah dries up, salty windblown dust has already contributed to significant air pollution, as recorded by the Utah Division of Air Quality.

Brine injected into the earth in Oklahoma, including into wells used for hydraulic fracking of oil and natural gas, was one of several factors that led to a 40-fold increase in earthquake activity in the five-year period from 2008 to 2013, as compared to the preceding 31 years. And wastewater has been documented to leak from the underground wells up to the surface as well.

Emerging treatment technologies

Researchers like me are increasingly exploring brine’s potential not as waste but as a source of water – and of valuable materials, such as sodium, lithium, magnesium and calcium.

Currently, the most effective brine reclamation methods use heat and pressure to boil the water out of brine, capturing the water as vapor and leaving the metals and salts behind as solids. But those systems are expensive to build, energy-intensive to run and physically large.

Other treatment methods come with unique trade-offs. Electrodialysis uses electricity to pull salt and charged particles out of water through special membranes, separating cleaner water from a more concentrated salty stream. This process works best when the water is already relatively clean, because dirt, oils and minerals can quickly clog or damage the membranes, reducing the performance of the equipment.

Membrane distillation, in contrast, heats water so that only water vapor passes through a water-repelling membrane, leaving salts and other contaminants behind. While effective in principle, this approach can be slow, energy-intensive and expensive, limiting its use at larger scale.

A look at smaller, decentralized systems

Smaller systems can be effective, with lower initial costs and quicker start-up processes.

At the University of Arizona, I am leading the testing of a six-step brine reclamation system known as STREAM – for Separation, Treatment, Recovery via Electrochemistry and Membrane – to continuously reclaim municipal brine, which is salty water left over from sewage treatment.

The system combines conventional methods such as ultrafiltration, which removes particles and microbes using fine filters, and reverse osmosis, which removes dissolved salts by forcing water through a dense membrane, alongside an electrolytic cell – a method not typically employed in water treatment.

Our previous study showed that we can recover usable quantities of chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid at one-sixth the cost of purchasing them commercially. And our initial calculations indicated the integrated system can reclaim as much as 90% of the water, greatly reducing the volume of what remains to be disposed. The cleaned water in turn is suitable for drinking after final disinfection using ultraviolet or chlorine.

We are currently building a larger pilot system in Tucson for further study by researchers. We hope to learn if we can use this system to reclaim other sources of brine and study its efficacy in eliminating viruses and bacteria for human consumption.

We have partnered with other researchers from the University of Nevada Reno, the University of Southern California and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to help communities in the Southwest secure reliable water supplies by safely reusing municipal wastewater to serve everyday water use.

Mervin XuYang Lim receives funding under Cooperative Agreement Number W9132T-23-2-0001 with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (USACE ERDC-CERL).

– ref. Reclaiming water from contaminated brine can increase water supply and reduce environmental harm – https://theconversation.com/reclaiming-water-from-contaminated-brine-can-increase-water-supply-and-reduce-environmental-harm-272232

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Corinne Brion, Associate Professor in Educational Administration, University of Dayton

Cellphones are everywhere – including, until recently, in schools.

Since 2023, 29 states, including New York, Vermont, Florida and Texas, have passed laws that require K-12 public schools to enforce bans or strict limits on students using their cellphones on campus.

Another 10 states have passed other measures that require local school districts to take some kind of action on cellphone usage.

Approximately 77% of public schools now forbid students from having their phones out during class – an increase from the 66% of schools that forbade students from using phones at school in 2015.

Schools across the country are finding different ways to enforce no-phone policies. Some schools have students lock their phones in pouches that only open at the end of the day. Others use simple classroom bins or lockers.

Some research shows that spending a lot of time looking at phones instead of people’s faces can make it harder for children and teenagers to get the basic human skills they need for developing and maintaining friendships and other relationships.

As a scholar of educational leadership, I believe that school is about more than just classes – it’s where young people learn how to get along with others. When phones are put away, students actually start looking at each other and talking again. School hallways and the lunchroom turn into spaces where students learn to resolve conflicts face-to-face and make human connections.

Putting phones away in Ohio

Ohio is an example of a state that has clamped down on students’ cellphone usage over the past 18 months.

In May 2024, Ohio went from suggesting some cellphone guidelines for different schools to adopt to requiring that all public districts limit students’ phone use during class. School districts could choose to allow phones at lunch or between classes.

Many schools began using lockable pouches, plastic bins or lockers to keep phones out of sight. They still needed to allow some students to have phones for medical reasons, like monitoring blood sugar on an app.

Ohio then adopted an even stricter cellphone use policy in 2025. This new law required all Ohio public school boards to adopt policies by Jan. 1, 2026, that prohibit phone use during the entire school day, including lunch and the time between classes.

A needed break

In the fall of 2025, I surveyed 13 Ohio public school principals from rural, urban and suburban districts. Principals reported that the partial phone bans increased students’ social interactions and reduced peer conflicts:

• 62% of principals described more verbal, face-to-face socializing during recess, at lunch time and between classes.

• 68% noted that students can stay on one task for more than 20 minutes without seeking a quick digital break.

• 72% observed a shift from heads-down scrolling to active conversation in common areas such as the cafeteria.

• 61% reported fewer online social conflicts spilling over into the classroom.

A tension for students

In late January 2026, I also surveyed and spoke with 18 Ohio high school students about the new phone bans in place at their schools as part of research that has not yet been published.

Their responses revealed a complex tension between understanding the need for the phone ban and feeling a significant loss of personal safety and autonomy.

A few students said they felt safe knowing a phone in the main office is available for emergencies.

Some students said they felt anxious about not being reachable if there is an emergency – like if a relative were in an accident, or if the younger siblings they care for required their help.

Finally, 13 out of 18 students argued that they should be learning the self-discipline required to balance technology with focus. Students said that phone bans made them feel as though they were children who could not make responsible decisions – rather than young adults preparing for professional environments.

Some students also said that not having their phones made it impossible to fill out college and scholarship applications during the school day, since many application systems require multifactor authentication and require phones to log in.

Lessons from Ohio

Rules are more likely to be respected when students feel they have a voice in the boundaries that affect their daily lives. I think that school leaders could address students’ safety and security concerns in different ways, including by establishing a dedicated family emergency hotline that people can call.

Principals could designate supervised areas where more senior high school students can briefly use their phones for multifactor authentication. School leaders could also offer a specific time window for students to check messages on their phones, or an easy way for the school’s main office to deliver them messages from family.

While these insights from Ohio students and principals offer a helpful starting point, they are just one part of a much larger conversation.

More research is needed to see how these bans affect different types of schools and communities across multiple states. Because every district is different, what works in one town might cause unexpected challenges in another. By continuing to study these effects and listening to everyone involved, especially the students, researchers like myself can figure out how to keep classrooms focused and students interacting without making students feel less safe or less prepared for the adult world.

Corinne Brion does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Schools are increasingly telling students they must put their phones away – Ohio’s example shows mixed results following new bans – https://theconversation.com/schools-are-increasingly-telling-students-they-must-put-their-phones-away-ohios-example-shows-mixed-results-following-new-bans-274261

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Bess Rowen, Assistant Professor of Theatre, Villanova University

Most theater subscriptions offer a patron access to a single theater’s season. But Philadelphia’s new Citywide James Ijames Pass provides tickets to three James Ijames – pronounced EYE-ms, rhymes with “chimes” – plays at three theaters in Philadelphia. Subscribers will also get one mustard-colored beanie, one of Ijames’ signature accessories.

The full pass, which costs US$130, includes tickets for the Arden Theatre’s “Good Bones,” which premiered Jan. 22 and runs through March 22, the Wilma Theater’s “The Most Spectacularly Lamentable Trial of Miz Martha Washington,” which runs March 17 to April 5, and the Philadelphia Theatre Company’s “Wilderness Generation,” a world premiere that runs April 10 to May 3. There is also a two-show pass for $90 without “Good Bones.”

I’m a theater theorist, historian and practitioner who has written about Ijames’ work before and after his 2022 Pulitzer Prize. I believe this landmark collaboration between three important Philadelphia theaters is a fitting celebration of a multi-hyphenate theater artist who continues to champion his longtime artistic home.

Actor, playwright, director

Ijames, 46, was born in North Carolina and attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia. He earned his Master of Fine Arts degree at Temple University and stayed in Philadelphia after graduating.

Notably, this playwright’s MFA is in the study of acting. Ijames is also a talented director, and he performed and directed at multiple theaters around Philadelphia before starting to work as a playwright. He was also a tenured professor of theater at Villanova University, where I had the privilege to work with him and watch his creative process before he moved to New York City in 2025 to run the playwriting concentration at Columbia University.

Ijames was already a local celebrity in Philly before winning the Pulitzer Prize for drama for “Fat Ham,” his Hamlet adaptation centered on a queer Black Hamlet named Juicy and the legacy of his father’s barbecue joint. The New York theater scene took notice of him when the National Black Theatre staged “Kill Move Paradise” in 2017. This haunting piece is set in limbo, where unarmed Black men who have been killed by police examine how they have come to this place and how society continues to enable this pattern.

Other Ijames plays include “White,” a satire of the art world that tells the story of a gay white male artist who hires a Black woman actor to pretend to have done his work to see if that makes a difference in how his art is viewed. “TJ Loves Sally 4Ever” sets Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings’ relationship on a college campus where “TJ” is a dean and Sally is a student. And “Reverie” is a chamber play, which is an intimate meditation with an earnest and somber tone. In it, the father of a recently deceased Black gay man comes to meet the man he believed was his son’s partner.

Most recently, in 2025, Ijames partnered with the Australian pop singer Sia on a musical called “Saturday Church.” It is a story about reconciling queer community and Christian faith, and relying on the support of family, both biological and chosen.

Charting new dramatic territory

Although his theatrical styles and genres vary, at his core, Ijames writes nuanced, character-driven works that revolve around interpersonal relationships. His plays are playgrounds for performers, particularly due to his ability to write complex queer Black characters.

Influential American playwright Suzan-Lori Parks notes in her 1994 essay “Elements of Style” that the conflict between Black people and white people is the default trope of how Black people have been represented onstage – by almost exclusively white playwrights – for most of U.S. theater history. Parks posits that a way to avoid this centering of white conflict in Black lives comes from new dramatic territory that depicts conflicts between Black people and anything else.

Ijames never sets his Black characters in opposition to white society alone. He also refuses to take up the tropes of LGBTQ identity as incompatible with religion, or the idea that characters can be only gay or straight. Instead, Ijames creates narratives with queer religious people and pansexual men whose identities are not sources of conflict.

The citywide pass

The plays in the citywide pass offer an exciting cross section of what makes Ijames’s work so vibrant.

“Good Bones” is the story of a now-affluent Black woman, Aisha, who moves back to her blue-collar hometown. Aisha might be from this working-class neighborhood, but her elaborate renovations and white-collar sensibilities make her return seem more like gentrification than homecoming, at least as far as her local contractor can see.

“Miz Martha” follows the titular Martha Washington through a fever-dream-inspired trial in her final moments, as enslaved people care for her while knowing her death means their freedom.

And “Wilderness Generation” follows five cousins reunited in the U.S. South after many years apart, ready to talk about the secrets from their pasts.

With theater’s ever-changing and unstable financial landscape, I believe the Citywide James Ijames Pass is an exciting new subscriber model. The collaboration highlights Philadelphia’s theatrical talent and banks on local theaters working together to build audiences instead of treating each other as competition – a new development that could change how regional theater scenes operate.

James and I worked at Villanova University together for 6 years. I am still in touch with him.

– ref. Philly theaters unite to stage 3 plays by Pulitzer-winning playwright James Ijames – https://theconversation.com/philly-theaters-unite-to-stage-3-plays-by-pulitzer-winning-playwright-james-ijames-274263

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By E. Andrew Taylor, Associate Professor and Director of Arts Management, American University

President Donald Trump announced on Feb. 1, 2026, that he would shut down the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts for two years. Trump said this closure would begin on July 4 and was necessary for “Construction, Revitalization and Complete Rebuilding.” The next day, he denied that this meant he would demolish the facility altogether. The multi-venue arts center has endured cancellations by performing artists and boycotts by patrons throughout the first year of Trump’s second term, during which he made himself chairman of its board. Trump’s handpicked board members then voted to rebrand the center to include his name.

To help readers understand what this upheaval means, The Conversation U.S. asked E. Andrew Taylor, an arts management professor at American University – which like the Kennedy Center is located in Washington, D.C. – to explain whether Trump has the power or justification to carry out a complete overhaul of this living memorial to President Kennedy.

Does Trump have the authority to shut the center?

Trump wears many hats in this drama.

None of them give him individual or direct authority over the Kennedy Center’s buildings, grounds or operations. However, those hats give him multiple points of leverage.

As president of the United States, Trump has authority to appoint about half of the members of the Kennedy Center governing board – which he stacked with his appointees in February 2025. As chair, appointed by that newly constructed board, Trump has significant influence over how the governing body works.

By law, the Kennedy Center is governed by its full board, while its federal funding for operations and facilities is reviewed and approved by Congress. In practice, both the board and Congress appear to have deferred to the President, as have most of the enforcement agencies that might challenge him here.

In yet another twist, the center’s board reportedly changed its bylaws in 2025 to limit voting by the 23 board members not appointed by the president. One of those members, Rep. Joyce Beatty, an Ohio Democrat, sued the board and the center’s executive leadership team in December. In her lawsuit, she claimed the board had exceeded its statutory authority and improperly excluded active board members when it renamed the center to add the president’s name. That lawsuit is pending in federal court; no rulings have been issued.

Why is his actual authority hard to define?

The Kennedy Center was established by Congress as “a living memorial to John Fitzgerald Kennedy.” Since its opening in 1971, it has remained a complex public-private enterprise that is both a part of the federal government and a tax-exempt nonprofit.

The center was built with a and long-term revenue bonds held by the Treasury Department. Its ongoing operations have always been funded by a mix of public money, private contributions and earned revenue from ticket sales, events, food service, parking and the like.

To oversee this complex enterprise, Congress established and authorized a governing board, granting it authority to “plan, design, and construct each capital repair, replacement, improvement, rehabilitation, alteration, or modification necessary to maintain the functionality of the building and site at current standards of life, safety, security, and accessibility.”

Until now, major expansions and updates of the campus have been approved by Congress.

Is Trump’s claim that the center needs major upgrades accurate?

There are two claims here that deserve separate attention.

One is that the center needs major upgrades. That is true. The other is that those upgrades require full closure of the entire campus for multiple years. That is suspect.

As for upgrades, the original Kennedy Center building is a sprawling and complex facility with more than 50 years of wear and tear.

A comprehensive engineering and architectural review of the center in 2021 identified 323 capital and minor repair projects that would cost roughly US$252 million to carry out. Only about $45 million has been spent on those projects so far.

The remaining big-ticket items include fully replacing seats in the Concert Hall, replacing the original Opera House pit lift system, dealing with parking garage and loading dock structural issues, and attending to long-deferred elevator repair and replacement.

At the same time, many parts of the Kennedy Center campus are fairly new. The REACH, a $250 million complex with all new buildings and infrastructure, opened in 2019 to increase capacity for community and educational events.

While the need for major upgrades is well supported, the dramatic and disruptive closure of the entire campus for two years is not. A thoughtful, phased renovation and repair strategy would allow for major improvements while the lifeblood of the center – the artists, audiences and donors – could still flow through the campus with at least some performances, programs and events taking place.

In fact, that phasing was the plan in the most recent budget request the center delivered to Congress, until Trump pivoted.

How have Trump’s interventions affected the center so far?

That depends on who you ask.

Ticket sales and attendance have reportedly dropped dramatically, and multiple artists and arts organizations have canceled their planned performances, including singer Renée Fleming, composer Philip Glass, banjoist Béla Fleck and “Wicked” composer Stephen Schwartz. The Washington National Opera, a longtime resident organization, announced its separation and departure from the center in January.

Kennedy Center communications leader Roma Daravi blamed declining attendance on “liberal intolerance.” She also claimed the center’s renaming “recognizes that the current Chairman saved the institution from financial ruin and physical destruction.” Kennedy Center President Richard Grenell dismissed the artists canceling their shows as being “booked by the previous far left leadership.”

What would happen should the center shut down altogether?

The Kennedy Center is not only a venue for its own productions, programs and touring performances.

It’s a hub for live performing arts and arts education for the entire region and the nation as a whole. Independent producers and promoters rent its venues for their performances and events. Each year, it serves over 2.1 million students, educators and school administrators in all 50 states with professional development, summer intensives for young artists and performances for young audiences. And its free and public performances have been a mainstay of cultural life in Washington for decades.

Where all of this activity would relocate for years is unclear. There are few comparable venues in the region, and those available are already booked with productions and tours that were bypassing the Kennedy Center. The National Symphony Orchestra would be particularly vulnerable to a two-year closure of its primary venue. It is not obvious where a large ensemble with such an active rehearsal and concert schedule would be able to perform.

There are also touring productions currently scheduled to perform after the proposed closing date, including “The Outsiders,” “Back to the Future: The Musical” and “Mrs. Doubtfire.” Although those tickets were still for sale as of Feb. 3, whether those performances will take place is now in doubt. Those shows’ national tours may be disrupted if the center shuts down.

The center itself, like all such arts venues, survives and thrives on an enduring and connected network of relationships – among artists, touring productions, artist managers, production teams, technical staff, venue management, audiences and donors.

These relationships are sustained through trust and consistency. My three decades of experience teaching and studying arts management suggest that once those relationships are betrayed or delayed, it’s a long road to build them back.

What might be next? And what does it mean?

It’s anyone’s guess whether Trump’s Truth Social post about closing the center will prove true or merely provocative. The board, the center’s leaders, its staff and the people scheduled to perform there after July 4 appeared to be surprised by the announcement.

As a rule, any multi-hundred-million-dollar renovation or demolition requires deliberate and collaborative effort, rather than a decree.

In the short term, the sudden announcement is yet another twist in a wrenching narrative for makers and lovers of the arts across the Washington region and around the country. While a few years and a few hundred million dollars might restore the building’s physical infrastructure, it may take much more time, effort and energy to restore its reputation.

E. Andrew Taylor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Trump wants to shutter the Kennedy Center for 2 years – an arts management professor explains what that portends – https://theconversation.com/trump-wants-to-shutter-the-kennedy-center-for-2-years-an-arts-management-professor-explains-what-that-portends-274906

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Thomas A. DuBois, Professor of Scandinavian Studies, Folklore, and Religious Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison

At the outset of the Kalevala, Finland’s national epic, a singer bemoans his separation from a beloved friend who grew up beside him. Today, the friends rarely meet “näillä raukoilla rajoilla, poloisilla Pohjan mailla” – lines which translator Keith Bosley renders “on these poor borders, the luckless lands of the North.”

The Kalevala, a poetic masterpiece of nearly 23,000 lines, first appeared in 1835. Now, nearly 200 years later, those “luckless lands of the North” are an increasingly tense border zone.

On one side sits Finland, affluent and famously “happy.” The Nordic nation of 5.6 million is a member of the European Union and, more recently, the NATO alliance. On the other side sits the Republic of Karelia, with a population of around a half-million. Originally home to the Karelians, a people closely related to the Finns, today Karelia is part of the Russian Federation – and the percentage of Karelian speakers is in the single digits.

Finland celebrates Feb. 28 as Kalevala Day, or the “Day of Finnish Culture.” Yet the epic’s songs were collected in both Finland and Karelia, reflecting a cultural affinity sundered by the politics of empire. And as Russia’s war in Ukraine drags on, that border zone has become more tense.

Shared roots

The people of Finland and Karelia – “Suomi” and “Karjala,” in their own languages – have lived in the forests, lakes, marshes and farmlands of northeastern Europe since time immemorial. Their languages are closely related, but they differ markedly from Swedish and Russian, the idioms of the empires that usurped control over the region in the Middle Ages. Finns came under the dominion of Sweden and were converted to Roman Catholicism – and later Lutheranism. Karelians came under the dominion of Russia and were converted to Orthodox Christianity.

Centuries of wars and saber-rattling between the Swedish and Russian empires created hardship for Finns and Karelians alike. Their lands became battlegrounds for warring forces, and their men served as conscripted soldiers for opposing sides in conflicts like the Great Northern War of 1700–1721, which devastated both lands and populations.

Despite the enmity of rival emperors, over the course of centuries daily life and culture had remained remarkably similar for Finns and Karelians. Both sang songs of a mythic past, colorful heroes and powerful magic using a distinctive poetic meter – one that Henry Wadsworth Longfellow later imitated in “The Song of Hiawatha.”

Mythic songs

In 1809, after yet another war, Russia acquired Finland as an autonomous grand duchy, bringing its people under the same crown as Karelians.

Finnish physician and admirer of folklore Elias Lönnrot took advantage of this political union to collect folk songs across the region. Wandering from village to village, writing down songs from dictation, he amassed a body of texts out of which to make an epic.

The contents of the Kalevala are varied and intriguing – starting with the creation of the Earth from an egg, and the felling of a primordial oak tree that threatened to block out the sun.

One of the epic’s most famous tales is the forging of a mysterious object, the Sampo – a sort of magic mill that will produce whatever its owner wishes. It becomes an object of conflict between the people of “Kalevala” and the people of “Pohjola,” the “north.”

The Kalevala hero Väinämöinen, a wizened worker of magic – along with Ilmarinen, the skilled but brooding blacksmith who originally created the Sampo, and their incorrigible friend, Lemminkäinen – attempt to steal the Sampo away from Pohjola, where Louhi, the stern Mistress of the North, has sequestered it. The resulting struggle destroys the Sampo, and its promised life of ease and prosperity.

Lönnrot hoped to unearth a history and an identity for Finns and Karelians, one separate from that of either Sweden or Russia. On the Finnish side of the border, in particular, the epic helped convince people that they were a valuable and creative nation, distinct from the empires that sought to control them.

As the 19th century wore on, the Russian government became less friendly to its cultural minorities. Authorities attempted to “Russify” Finland and other parts of the empire. But Finns resisted, drawing on images from Lönnrot’s Kalevala to articulate their cultural and historical independence.

The paintings of Akseli Gallen-Kallela drew on the epic for themes and inspiration at the turn of the 20th century. Composer Jean Sibelius’ famed Lemminkäinen Suite of 1896, or “Four Legends from the Kalevala,” made elements of the story familiar to audiences around the world and helped bolster international awareness of Finland’s culture. An early Finnish photographer, I.K. Inha, retraced Lönnrot’s wanderings through Finland and Karelia in a book entitled “Finland in Pictures.”

Independent Finland

Finland achieved independence in 1917, in the aftermath of Russia’s Bolshevik Revolution. But civil war soon broke out between the “Finnish Whites” and socialist “Finnish Reds.” It was the first of several conflicts that shifted borders and forced hundreds of thousands of people from their homes.

After the Whites’ victory in Finland’s civil war, many socialist-minded Finns moved to Karelia hoping to build a workers’ paradise. After the rise of Soviet leader Josef Stalin, however, they were labeled as dangerous foreign influences. Thousands were arrested and deported, as Stalin sought to replace the population with Russian-speaking loyalists.

After decades of Russification, assimilation and migration, Karelian-speakers today represent only a small minority of the Republic of Karelia. Another small population resides in Finland, where they were resettled after the wars.

During World War II, Finland fought the Soviet Union several more times, striving to maintain its independence and even incorporate parts of Karelia. Finland managed to remain outside of the Soviet Union, but lost portions of its territory close to the Karelian border.

The Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance, signed in 1948, encouraged cultural exchanges between Finland and the Soviet Union. The first joint Finnish-Soviet feature film, 1959’s “Sampo,” was a recounting of the Kalevala spearheaded by Aleksandr Ptushko, the “Disney of Soviet film” – but stripped of any nationalist symbolism.

Rising tension

In the years following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Finnish-Karelian border became once again a place of lively meeting and exchange. Through the work of organizations like Finland’s Juminkeko foundation, the heritage of the Kalevala has been explored and celebrated on both sides of the border. Finnish and Karelian folk revival and heavy metal bands drew on the Kalevala for inspiration and materials. Shopping centers developed in border towns, and tourists began crossing the border in ever increasing numbers.

Yet Russia’s war in Ukraine has turned the Finnish-Russian border once again into a place of tension. Finland became a member of NATO in 2023, concerned by Vladimir Putin’s regime’s disregard for the rights of other sovereign nations. In December 2023, the Finnish government indefinitely closed the 835-mile (1,344-kilometer) land border, and is now building a fence along part of it. Meanwhile, Russia is expanding military infrastructure near the border, as European countries raise alarm about threats to NATO.

On Feb. 28, the anniversary of the day on which Lönnrot completed the first edition of the Kalevala, public buildings in Finland will fly the country’s flag. Schools and cultural institutions will organize events to celebrate the Kalevala and the cultural and political independence it helped achieve. On the other side of the border, perhaps Karelian speakers and some other inhabitants will celebrate as well. In a Russia where cultural and ethnic minorities’ activism can attract suspicion, though, any observance is likely to be far more muted: The situation remains regrettably tense “on these poor borders, the luckless lands of the North.”

Thomas A. DuBois does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. An epic border: Finland’s poetic masterpiece, the Kalevala, has roots in 2 cultures and 2 countries – https://theconversation.com/an-epic-border-finlands-poetic-masterpiece-the-kalevala-has-roots-in-2-cultures-and-2-countries-261444

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Grace Mackleby, Research scientist of Health Policy and Economics, University of Southern California

Medicare has launched a six-year pilot program that could eventually transform access to health care for some of the millions of people across the U.S. who rely on it for their health insurance coverage.

Traditional Medicare is a government-administered insurance plan for people over 65 or with disabilities. About half of the 67 million Americans insured through Medicare have this coverage. The rest have Medicare Advantage plans administered by private companies.

The pilot program, dubbed the Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction Model, is an experimental program that began to affect people enrolled in traditional Medicare from six states in January 2026.

During this pilot, medical providers must apply for permission, or prior authorization, before giving 14 kinds of health procedures and devices. The program uses artificial intelligence software to identify treatment requests it deems unnecessary or harmful and denies them. This is similar to the way many Medicare Advantage plans work.

As health economists who have studied Medicare and the use of AI in prior authorization, we believe this pilot could save Medicare money, but it should be closely monitored to ensure that it does not harm the health of patients enrolled in the traditional Medicare program.

Prior authorization

The pilot marks a dramatic change.

Unlike other types of health insurance, including Medicare Advantage, traditional Medicare generally does not require health care providers to submit requests for Medicare to authorize the treatments they recommend to patients.

Requiring prior authorization for these procedures and devices could reduce wasteful spending and help patients by steering them away from unnecessary treatments. However, there is a risk that it could also delay or interfere with some necessary care and add to the paperwork providers must contend with.

Prior authorization is widely used by Medicare Advantage plans. Many insurance companies hire technology firms to make prior authorization decisions for their Medicare Advantage plans.

Pilots are a key way that Medicare improves its services. Medicare tests changes on a small number of people or providers to see whether they should be implemented more broadly.

The six states participating are Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas and Washington. The 14 services that require prior authorization during this pilot include steroid injections for pain management and incontinence-control devices. The pilot ends December 2031.

If the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers Medicare, deems the pilot successful, the Department of Health and Human services could expand the program to include more procedures and more states.

Introducing a hurdle

This pilot isn’t changing the rules for what traditional Medicare covers. Instead, it adds an extra hurdle for medical providers before they can administer, for example, arthroscopic treatment for an osteoarthritic knee.

If Medicare issues a denial rather than authorizing the service, the patient goes without that treatment unless their provider files an appeal and prevails.

Medicare has hired tech companies to do the work of denying or approving prior authorization requests, with the aid of artificial intelligence.

Many of these are the same companies that do prior authorizations for Medicare Advantage plans.

The government pays the companies a percentage of what Medicare would have spent on the denied treatments. This means companies are paid more when they deny more prior authorization requests.

Medicare monitors the pilot program for inappropriate denials.

What to watch for

Past research has shown that when insurers require prior authorization, the people they cover get fewer services. This pilot is likely to reduce treatments and Medicare spending, though how much remains unknown.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services chose the services targeted by the pilot because there is evidence they are given excessively in many cases.

If the program denies cases where a health service is inappropriate, or of “low value” for a patient’s health, people enrolled in traditional Medicare could benefit.

But for each treatment targeted by the pilot, there are some cases where that kind of health care is necessary.

If the program’s AI-based decision method has trouble identifying these necessary cases and denies them, people could lose access to care they need.

The pilot also adds to the paperwork that medical providers must do. Paperwork is already a major burden for providers and contributes to burnout.

AI’s role

No matter how the government evaluates prior authorizations, we think this pilot is likely to reduce use of the targeted treatments.

The impact of using AI to evaluate these prior authorizations is unclear. AI could allow tech companies to automatically approve more cases, which could speed up decisions. However, companies could use time saved by AI to put more effort into having people review cases flagged by AI, which could increase denials.

Many private insurers already use AI for Medicare Advantage prior authorization decisions, although there has been limited research on these models, and little is known about how accurate AI is for this purpose.

What evidence there is suggests that AI-aided prior authorization leads to higher denial rates and larger reductions in health care use than when insurers make prior authorization decisions without using AI.

The bottom line

Any money the government saves during the pilot will depend on whether and how frequently these treatments are used inappropriately and how aggressively tech companies deny care.

In our view, this pilot will likely create winners and losers. Tech companies may benefit financially, though how much will depend on how big the treatment reductions are. But medical providers will have more paperwork to deal with and will get paid less if some of their Medicare requests are denied.

The impact on patients will depend on how well tech companies identify care that probably would be unnecessary and avoid denying care that is essential.

Taxpayers, who pay into Medicare during their working years, stand to benefit if the pilot can cut long-term Medicare costs, an important goal given Medicare’s growing budget crisis.

Like in Medicare Advantage, savings from prior authorization requirements in this pilot are split with private companies. Unlike in Medicare Advantage, however, this split is based on a fixed, observable percentage so that payments to private companies cannot exceed total savings, and the benefits of the program are easier for Medicare to quantify.

In our view, given the potential trade-offs, Medicare will need to evaluate the results of this pilot carefully before expanding it to more states – especially if it also expands the program to include services where unnecessary care is less common.

Grace Mackleby receives funding from Arnold Ventures and the Commonwealth Foundation.

Jeff Marr receives funding from Arnold Ventures and the National Institute on Aging.

– ref. Medicare is experimenting with having AI review claims – a cost-saving measure that could risk denying needed care – https://theconversation.com/medicare-is-experimenting-with-having-ai-review-claims-a-cost-saving-measure-that-could-risk-denying-needed-care-273754

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By William Bahnfleth, Professor of Architectural Engineering, Penn State

Recently, the German term “lüften” has been circulating on social media and trending on Google. The term refers to the practice of opening windows and doors to replace stale indoor air with outdoor air, a longtime practice in many European homes. Americans have dubbed it “house burping” in many videos on Instagram, TikTok and YouTube.

William Bahnfleth, a professor of architectural engineering at Penn State, has personal and professional experience with lüften. He spoke to The Conversation’s Pittsburgh Editor Cassandra Stone about the science behind it and how Pittsburgh homeowners can best navigate the “house burping” trend.

What does “lüften” actually mean in Germany and other parts of Europe, and how is it different from the way Americans typically ventilate homes?

Literally, “lüften” means “to air out.” It refers to opening windows – and sometimes doors – to rapidly flush a house with outdoor air, typically at least twice daily. This improves indoor air quality and controls humidity to prevent condensation, which can damage buildings and promote mold growth.

The practice is not unique to Germany, although it may not go by that name in other regions. I spent a sabbatical leave at the Technical University of Denmark in Copenhagen, and upon arriving at the house I’d been assigned, I found instructions to air it twice a day for about 15 minutes. The stated purpose in this case was to prevent excessive humidity, because the climate in Denmark can be cool and damp. Moisture produced by bathing, laundry and cooking can raise indoor humidity to high levels if not controlled. The house also had a shower squeegee to remove water from walls and a sensor-controlled bathroom exhaust fan. Without mechanical cooling, opening windows for a bit early in the day kept the house comfortable as weather warmed.

Lüften is uncommon in the U.S., even in older, naturally ventilated homes. Americans tend to rely on HVAC systems for thermal comfort with windows closed, disconnecting indoor air quality from temperature control. The way American buildings are heated and cooled actually discourages window opening. After returning from Denmark, I started opening windows during mornings in cooling season – and leaving them open until it became too hot or humid indoors – and briefly in winter. This reduced summer cooling costs and improved indoor air quality all year – I was surprised how many days I could skip the air conditioner.

Is there scientific evidence that short, intense “airing out” improves air quality more effectively than just cracking a window all day?

It depends on whether a “cracked” window admits a lot of outdoor air or a little. Opening windows continuously provides better ventilation than brief, 5- to 10-minute periods, but with potential downsides for thermal comfort and energy use.

The best approach today is continuous outdoor air supply at design standard levels via an energy recovery ventilator. The ventilator uses fans to bring in a reliable outdoor air supply that’s partially conditioned by exchanging heat and moisture with exhausted air, providing good indoor air quality with low energy impact and stable indoor conditions. Researchers have also investigated “smart ventilation” systems that maintain desired average ventilation rates by bringing in more outdoor air to reduce operational strain and reduce energy costs– a kind of “next-generation lüften.”

One important aspect of indoor air quality that may not be improved by lüften is indoor particle control. Small particles that come from cooking, some cleaning activities or burning candles, for example, are the most harmful contaminants in most indoor environments. In urban areas, outdoor particle levels may exceed acceptable limits, so opening windows may release indoor pollutants such as cooking fumes and lower humidity inside, but it can also let in bad air from cars and industry.

Pittsburgh struggles with outdoor air pollution at times. How should locals think about the trade-off between bringing in outdoor air and introducing pollutants into the home?

“Fresh air” isn’t a synonym for outdoor air because it’s not actually “fresh” in many locations. It’s best to filter outdoor air to remove particles before bringing it into the house, which can be done with an energy recovery ventilator. Unit prices range from $600 to $1,500 on average, but these ventilators can reduce utility bills by 10% or more by preconditioning incoming fresh air with the outgoing air’s energy.

If that isn’t possible, portable air purifiers are a good solution with many benefits, such as a reduced risk of transmitting airborne respiratory infections, control of seasonal allergens such as pollen, resilience during wildfires, better air quality when you are using your wood-burning fireplace, and capturing emissions from cooking.

Can lüften make an older, damp home more comfortable?

It can lower humidity in the air, which reduces the potential concentration, but it doesn’t eliminate indoor sources of moisture. If a house is damp, especially if there are specific wet spots, the owner should try to identify and fix the causes. Lüften, and ventilation in general, are mitigation measures, not solutions.

Why do you think practices like lüften persist culturally?

The simplest answer is that they actually work. It’s a good place to start with taking responsibility for managing the air quality in your home. The better understanding of the causes and effects of poor indoor air quality, and the technology available to measure and control it, can beneficially update a good historical practice to obtain even more value from it.

William Bahnfleth does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Lüften sounds simple – but ‘house-burping’ is more complicated in Pittsburgh – https://theconversation.com/luften-sounds-simple-but-house-burping-is-more-complicated-in-pittsburgh-274507