Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Hatim Sharif, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas at San Antonio

Texas Hill Country is known for its landscapes, where shallow rivers wind among hills and through rugged valleys. That geography also makes it one of the deadliest places in the U.S. for flash flooding.

In the early hours of July 4, 2025, a flash flood swept through an area of Hill Country dotted with summer camps and small towns about 70 miles northwest of San Antonio. More than 120 people died in the flooding. The majority of them were in Kerr County, including more than two dozen girls and counselors at one summer camp, Camp Mystic. Dozens of people were still unaccounted for a week later.

The flooding began with a heavy downpour, with more than 10 inches of rain in some areas, that sent water sheeting off the hillsides and into creeks. The creeks poured into the Guadalupe River.

A river gauge at Hunt, Texas, near Camp Mystic, showed how quickly the river flooded: Around 3 a.m. on July 4, the Guadalupe River was rising about 1 foot every 5 minutes at the gauge, National Weather Service data shows. By 4:30 a.m., it had risen more than 20 feet. As the water moved downstream, it reached Kerrville, where the river rose even faster.

Flood expert Hatim Sharif, a hydrologist and civil engineer at the University of Texas at San Antonio, explains what makes this part of the country, known as Flash Flood Alley, so dangerous.

What makes Hill Country so prone to flooding?

Texas as a whole leads the nation in flood deaths, and by a wide margin. A colleague and I analyzed data from 1959 to 2019 and found 1,069 people had died in flooding in Texas over those six decades. The next highest total was in Louisiana, with 693.

Many of those flood deaths have been in Hill County. It’s part of an area known as Flash Flood Alley, a crescent of land that curves from near Dallas down to San Antonio and then westward.

The hills are steep, and the water moves quickly when it floods. This is a semi-arid area with soils that don’t soak up much water, so the water sheets off quickly and the shallow creeks can rise fast.

When those creeks converge on a river, they can create a surge of water that wipes out homes and washes away cars and, unfortunately, anyone in its path.

Hill Country has seen some devastating flash floods. In 1987, heavy rain in western Kerr County quickly flooded the Guadalupe River, triggering a flash flood similar to the one in 2025. Ten teenagers being evacuated from a camp died in the rushing water.

San Antonio, at the eastern edge of Hill Country, was hit with a flash flood on June 12, 2025, that killed 13 people whose cars were swept away by high water from a fast-flooding creek near an interstate ramp in the early morning.

Why does the region get such strong downpours?

One reason Hill Country gets powerful downpours is the Balcones Escarpment.

The escarpment is a line of cliffs and steep hills created by a geologic fault. When warm air from the Gulf rushes up the escarpment, it condenses and can dump a lot of moisture. That water flows down the hills quickly, from many different directions, filling streams and rivers below.

As temperature rise, the warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture, increasing the downpour and flood risk.

The same effect can contribute to flash flooding in San Antonio, where the large amount of paved land and lack of updated drainage to control runoff adds to the risk.

What can be done to improve flash flood safety?

First, it’s important for people to understand why flash flooding happens and just how fast the water can rise and flow. In many arid areas, dry or shallow creeks can quickly fill up with fast-moving water and become deadly. So people should be aware of the risks and pay attention to the weather.

Improving flood forecasting, with more detailed models of the physics and water velocity at different locations, can also help.

Probabilistic forecasting, for example, can provide a range of rainfall scenarios, enabling authorities to prepare for worst-case scenarios. A scientific framework linking rainfall forecasts to the local impacts, such as streamflow, flood depth and water velocity, could also help decision-makers implement timely evacuations or road closures.

Education is particularly essential for drivers. One to two feet of moving water can wash away a car. People may think their trucks and SUVs can go through anything, but fast-moving water can flip a truck and carry it away.

Officials can also do more to barricade roads when the flood risk is high to prevent people from driving into harm’s way. We found that 58% of the flood deaths in Texas over the past six decades involved vehicles. The storm on June 12 in San Antonio was an example. It was early morning, and drivers had poor visibility. The cars were hit by fast-rising floodwater from an adjacent creek.

This article, originally published July 5, 2025, has been updated with the death toll rising.

Hatim Sharif 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. Why Texas Hill Country, where a devastating flood killed more than 120 people, is one of the deadliest places in the US for flash flooding – https://theconversation.com/why-texas-hill-country-where-a-devastating-flood-killed-more-than-120-people-is-one-of-the-deadliest-places-in-the-us-for-flash-flooding-260555

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Art Jipson, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Dayton

Vance Boelter, who allegedly shot Melissa Hortman, a Democratic Minnesota state representative, and her husband, Mark Hortman, on June 14, 2025, studied at Christ for the Nations Institute in Dallas. The group is a Bible school linked to the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR.

The NAR is a loosely organized but influential charismatic Christian movement that shares similarities with Pentecostalism, especially in its belief that God actively communicates with believers through the Holy Spirit. Unlike traditional Pentecostalism, however, the organization emphasizes modern-day apostles and prophets as authoritative leaders tasked with transforming society and ushering in God’s kingdom on Earth. Prayer, prophecy and worship are defined not only as acts of devotion but as strategic tools for advancing believers’ vision of government and society.

After the shooting, the Christ for the Nations Institute issued a statement “unequivocally” denouncing “any and all forms of violence and extremism.” It stated: “Our organization’s mission is to educate and equip students to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ through compassion, love, prayer, service, worship, and value for human life.”

But the shooting has drawn attention to the school and the larger Christian movement it belongs to. One of the most important aspects of NAR teachings today is what is called “the Seven Mountain Mandate.”

The Seven Mountain Mandate calls on Christians to gain influence, or “take dominion,” over seven key areas of culture: religion, family, education, government, media, business and the arts.

With over three decades of experience studying extremism, I offer a brief overview of the history and core beliefs of the Seven Mountain Mandate.

‘Dominion of Christians’

The Seven Mountain concept was originally proposed in 1975 by evangelical leader Bill Bright, the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ. Now known as “Cru,” the Campus Crusade for Christ was founded as a global ministry in 1951 to promote Christian evangelism, especially on college campuses.

United by a shared vision to influence society through Christian values, Bright partnered with Loren Cunningham, the founder of Youth With A Mission, a major international missionary training and outreach organization, in the 1970s.

The Seven Mountain Mandate was popularized by theologian Francis Schaeffer, who linked it to a larger critique of secularism and liberal culture. Over time, it evolved.

C. Peter Wagner, a former seminary professor who helped organize and name the New Apostolic Reformation, is often regarded as the theological architect of the group. He developed it into a call for dominion. In his 2008 book “Dominion! How Kingdom Action Can Change the World,” he urged Christians to take authoritative control of cultural institutions.

For Wagner, “dominion theology” – the idea that Christians should have control over all aspects of society – was a call to spiritual warfare, so that God’s kingdom would be “manifested here on earth as it is in heaven.”

Since 1996, Bill Johnson, a senior leader of Bethel Church, and Johnny Enlow, a self-described prophet and Seven Mountain advocate, among others, have taken the original idea of the Seven Mountain Mandate and reshaped it into a more aggressive, political and spiritually militant approach. Spiritual militancy reflects an aggressive, us-vs.-them mindset that blurs the line between faith and authoritarianism, promoting dominion over society in the name of spiritual warfare.

Their version doesn’t just aim to influence culture; it frames the effort as a spiritual battle to reclaim and reshape the nation according to their vision of God’s will.

Lance Wallnau, another Christian evangelical preacher, televangelist, speaker and author, has promoted dominion theology since the early 2000s. During the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Wallnau, along with several prominent NAR figures, described Donald Trump as anointed by God to reclaim the “mountain” of government from demonic control.

In their book “Invading Babylon: The 7 Mountain Mandate,” Wallnau and Johnson explicitly call for Christian leadership as the only antidote to perceived moral decay and spiritual darkness.

The beliefs

Sometimes referred to as Seven Mountains of Influence or Seven Mountains of Culture, the seven mountains are not neutral domains but seen as battlegrounds between divine truth and demonic deception.

Adherents believe that Christians are called to reclaim these areas through influence, leadership and even, if necessary, the use of force and to confront demonic political forces, as religion scholar Matthew Taylor demonstrates in his book “The Violent Take It By Force.”

Diverse perspectives and interpretations surround the rhetoric and actions associated with the New Apostolic Reformation. Some analysts have pointed out how the NAR is training its followers for an active confrontation. Other commentators have said that the rhetoric calling for physical violence is anti-biblical and should be denounced.

NAR-aligned leaders have framed electoral contests as struggles between “godly” candidates and those under the sway of “satanic” influence.

Similarly, NAR prophet Cindy Jacobs has repeatedly emphasized the need for “spiritual warfare” in schools to combat what she characterizes as “demonic ideologies” such as sex education, LGBTQ+ inclusion or discussions of systemic racism.

In the NAR worldview, cultural change is not merely political or social but considered a supernatural mission; opponents are not simply wrong but possibly under the sway of demonic influence. Elections become spiritual battles.

This belief system views pluralism as weakness, compromise as betrayal, and coexistence as capitulation. Frederick Clarkson, a senior research analyst at Political Research Associates, a progressive think tank based in Somerville, Massachusetts, defines the Seven Mountain Mandate as “the theocratic idea that Christians are called by God to exercise dominion over every aspect of society by taking control of political and cultural institutions.”

The call to “take back” the culture is not metaphorical but literal, and believers are encouraged to see themselves as soldiers in a holy war to dominate society. Some critics argue that NAR’s call to “take back” culture is about literal domination, but this interpretation is contested.

Many within the movement see the language of warfare as spiritually focused on prayer, evangelism and influencing hearts and minds. Still, the line between metaphor and mandate can blur, especially when rhetoric about “dominion” intersects with political and cultural action. That tension is part of an ongoing debate both within and outside the movement.

Networks that spread the beliefs

This belief system is no longer confined to the margins. It is spread widely through evangelical churches, podcasts, YouTube videos and political networks.

It’s hard to know exactly how many churches are part of the New Apostolic Reformation, but estimates suggest that about 3 million people in the U.S. attend churches that openly follow NAR leaders.

At the same time, the Seven Mountain Mandate doesn’t depend on centralized leadership or formal institutions. It spreads organically through social networks, social media – notably podcasts and livestreams – and revivalist meetings and workshops.

André Gagné, a theologian and author of “American Evangelicals for Trump: Dominion, Spiritual Warfare, and the End Times,” writes about the ways in which the mandate spreads by empowering local leaders and believers. Individuals are authorized – often through teachings on spiritual warfare, prophetic gifting, and apostolic leadership – to see themselves as agents of divine transformation in society, called to reclaim the “mountains,” such as government, media and education, for God’s kingdom.

This approach, Gagné explains, allows different communities to adapt the action mandate to their unique cultural, political and social contexts. It encourages individuals to see themselves as spiritual warriors and leaders in their domains – whether in business, education, government, media or the arts.

Small groups or even individuals can start movements or initiatives without waiting for top-down directives. The only recognized authorities are the apostles and prophets running the church or church network the believers attend.

The framing of the Seven Mountain Mandate as a divinely inspired mission, combined with the movement’s emphasis on direct spiritual experiences and a specific interpretation of scripture, can create an environment where questioning the mandate is perceived as challenging God’s authority.

Slippery slope

These beliefs have increasingly fused with nationalist rhetoric and conspiracy theories.

A powerful example of NAR political rhetoric in action is the rise and influence of the “Appeal to Heaven” flags. For those in the New Apostolic Reformation, these flags symbolize the belief that when all earthly authority fails, people have the right to appeal directly to God’s authority to justify resistance.

This was evident during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection, when these flags were prominently displayed.

To be clear, its leaders are not calling for violence but rather for direct political engagement and protest. For some believers, however, the calls for “spiritual warfare” may become a slippery slope into justification for violence, as in the case of the alleged Minnesota shooter.

Understanding the Seven Mountain Mandate is essential for grasping the dynamics of contemporary efforts to align government and culture with a particular vision of Christian authority and influence.

Art Jipson 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. What is the ‘Seven Mountain Mandate’ and how is it linked to political extremism in the US? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-seven-mountain-mandate-and-how-is-it-linked-to-political-extremism-in-the-us-260034

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Guillaume Chomicki, Professor of Evolutionary Biology, Durham University

In the middle of the South Pacific, a group of Fijian plants have solved a problem that has long puzzled scientists: How can an organism cooperate with multiple partners that are in turn competing for the same resources? The solution turns out to be simple – compartmentalization.

Imagine an apartment building where unfriendly neighbors might clash if they run into each other, but smart design keeps everyone peacefully separated. In our new research published in the journal Science, we show how certain plants build specialized structures that allow multiple aggressive ant species to live side by side inside them without ever meeting.

Ants and plants cooperate in Fijian rainforest

Squamellaria plants are epiphytes – meaning they don’t have roots attached to the ground, and instead grow on another plant for physical support. They live high up in the rainforest canopy, in the South Pacific.

Because they don’t have direct access to the soil’s nutrients, Squamellaria plants have evolved an original strategy to acquire what they need: In a mutually beneficial relationship, they grow structures that appeal to ants looking for a place to live. This kind of long-term relationship between species – whether helpful or harmful – is called symbiosis.

Here’s how it works in this case. The base of the Squamellaria plant stem forms a swollen, hollow structure called a domatium – a perfect place for ants to live. Domatia gradually enlarge to the size of a soccer ball, containing ever more plant-made houses ready for ants to move into. Each apartment can house a colony made up of thousands of ants.

The relationship between the ants and the plants is mutualistic, meaning both parties benefit. The ants gain a nice sturdy and private nest space, while the plants gain essential nutrients. They obtain nitrogen and phosphorus from the ants’ feces and from detritus – including dead insects, plant bits and soil – that the ants bring inside the domatium.

However, tropical rainforest canopies are battlegrounds for survival. Ants compete fiercely for nesting space, taking over any hollow branch or space under tree bark. Any Squamellaria ant house would thus be at risk of being colonized and taken over by other incoming ants, disrupting the existing partnership.

Until now, it was unclear how the cooperative relationships between ants and plants remain stable in this competitive environment.

Walls keep the peace

Our first hint about what keeps the peace in the Squamellaria real estate came when we discovered several ant species living in the same plant domatium. This finding just didn’t make sense. How could aggressively competing ant species live together?

We investigated the structure of domatia using computed-tomography scanning, which revealed an interesting internal architecture. Each plant domatium is divided into distinct compartments, with thick walls isolating each unit. Independent entrances prevent direct contact between the inhabitants of different units. The walls safeguard the peace as they prevent encounters between different ant species.

Back in the lab, when we removed the ant apartments’ walls, placing inhabitants in contact with their neighbors, deadly fights broke out between ant species. The compartmentalized architecture is thus critical in preventing symbiont “wars” and maintaining the stability of the plant’s partnership with all the ants that call it home. By minimizing deadly conflicts that could harm the ants it hosts, this strategy ensures that the plant retains access to sufficient nutrients provided by the ants.

This research reveals a new mechanism that solves a long-standing riddle – the stability of symbioses involving multiple unrelated partners. Scientists hadn’t previously discovered aggressive animal symbionts living together inside a single plant host. Our study reveals for the first time how simple compartmentalization is a highly effective way to reduce conflict, even in the most extreme cases. The ant colonies are living side by side, but not really together.

What’s next

The key to conflict-free living of multipartner symbioses discovered in these Fijian plants – compartmentalization – is likely important in other multispecies partnerships. However, it remains unknown whether compartmentalization is widespread in nature. Research on cooperation between species has long focused on pairwise interactions. Our new insights suggest a need to reinvestigate other multispecies mutualistic symbioses to see how they maintain stability.

Guillaume Chomicki receives funding from UKRI.

Susanne S. Renner received previous funding from the German Research Foundation (DFG)

– ref. This tropical plant builds isolated ‘apartments’ to prevent battles among the aggressive ant tenants it relies on for survival – https://theconversation.com/this-tropical-plant-builds-isolated-apartments-to-prevent-battles-among-the-aggressive-ant-tenants-it-relies-on-for-survival-260674

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Cassandra Burke Robertson, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Professional Ethics, Case Western Reserve University

The Trump administration wants to take away citizenship from naturalized Americans on a massive scale.

While a recent Justice Department memo prioritizes national security cases, it directs the department to “maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence” across 10 broad priority categories.

Denaturalization is different from deportation, which removes noncitizens from the country. With civil denaturalization, the government files a lawsuit to strip people’s U.S. citizenship after they have become citizens, turning them back into noncitizens who can then be deported.

The government can only do this in specific situations. It must prove someone “illegally procured” citizenship by not meeting the requirements, or that they lied or hid important facts during the citizenship process.

The Trump administration’s “maximal enforcement” approach means pursuing any case where evidence might support taking away citizenship, regardless of priority level or strength of evidence. As our earlier research documented, this has already led to cases like that of Baljinder Singh, whose citizenship was revoked based on a name discrepancy that could easily have resulted from a translator’s error rather than intentional fraud.

A brief history

For most of American history, taking away citizenship has been rare. But it increased dramatically during the 1940s and 1950s during the Red Scare period characterized by intense suspicion of communism. The United States government targeted people it thought were communists or Nazi supporters. Between 1907 and 1967, over 22,000 Americans lost their citizenship this way.

Everything changed in 1967 when the Supreme Court decided Afroyim v. Rusk. The court said the government usually cannot take away citizenship without the person’s consent. It left open only cases involving fraud during the citizenship process.

After this decision, denaturalization became extremely rare. From 1968 to 2013, fewer than 150 people lost their citizenship, mostly war criminals who had hidden their past.

How the process works

In criminal lawsuits, defendants get free lawyers if they can’t afford one. They get jury trials. The government must prove guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” – the highest standard of proof.

But in most denaturalization cases, the government files a civil suit, where none of these protections exist.

People facing denaturalization get no free lawyer, meaning poor defendants often face the government alone. There’s no jury trial – just a judge deciding whether someone deserves to remain American. The burden of proof is lower – “clear and convincing evidence” instead of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Most important, there’s no time limit, so the government can go back decades to build cases.

As law professors who study citizenship, we believe this system violates basic constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court has called citizenship a fundamental right. Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1958 described it as the “right to have rights.”

In our reading of the law, taking away such a fundamental right through civil procedures that lack basic constitutional protection – no right to counsel for those who can’t afford it, no jury trial, and a lower burden of proof – seems to violate the due process of law required by the Constitution when the government seeks to deprive someone of their rights.

The bigger problem is what citizenship-stripping policy does to democracy.

When the government can strip citizenship from naturalized Americans for decades-old conduct through civil procedures with minimal due process protection – pursuing cases based on evidence that might not meet criminal standards – it undermines the security and permanence that citizenship is supposed to provide. This creates a system where naturalized citizens face ongoing vulnerability that can last their entire lives, potentially chilling their full participation in American democracy.

The Justice Department memo establishes 10 priority categories for denaturalization cases. They range from national security threats and war crimes to various forms of fraud, financial crimes and, most importantly, any other cases it deems “sufficiently important to pursue.” This “maximal enforcement” approach means pursuing not just clear cases of fraud, but also any case where evidence might support taking away citizenship, no matter how weak or old the evidence is.

This creates fear throughout immigrant communities.

About 20 million naturalized Americans now must worry that any mistake in their decades-old immigration paperwork could cost them their citizenship.

A two-tier system

This policy effectively creates two different types of American citizens. Native-born Americans never have to worry about losing their citizenship, no matter what they do. But naturalized Americans face ongoing vulnerability that can last their entire lives.

This has already happened. A woman who became a naturalized citizen in 2007 helped her boss with paperwork that was later used in fraud. She cooperated with the FBI investigation, was characterized by prosecutors as only a “minimal participant,” completed her sentence, and still faced losing her citizenship decades later because she didn’t report the crime on her citizenship application – even though she hadn’t been charged at the time.

The Justice Department’s directive to “maximally pursue” cases across 10 broad categories – combined with the first Trump administration’s efforts to review over 700,000 naturalization files – represents an unprecedented expansion of denaturalization efforts.

The policy will almost certainly face legal challenges on constitutional grounds, but the damage may already be done. When naturalized citizens fear their status could be revoked, it undermines the security and permanence that citizenship is supposed to provide.

The Supreme Court, in Afroyim v. Rusk, was focused on protecting existing citizens from losing their citizenship. The constitutional principle behind that decision – that citizenship is a fundamental right which can’t be arbitrarily taken away by whoever happens to be in power – applies equally to how the government handles denaturalization cases today.

The Trump administration’s directive, combined with court procedures that lack basic constitutional protections, risks creating a system that the Afroyim v. Rusk decision sought to prevent – one where, as the Supreme Court said, “A group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship.”

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Justice Department efforts to strip citizenship from naturalized Americans likely violate constitutional rights – https://theconversation.com/justice-department-efforts-to-strip-citizenship-from-naturalized-americans-likely-violate-constitutional-rights-260353

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Anurag Srivastava, Professor of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, West Virginia University

It’s hard work soaking up sunlight to generate clean electricity. After about 25 to 30 years, solar panels wear out. Over the years, heating and cooling cycles stress the materials. Small cracks develop, precipitation corrodes the frame and layers of materials can start to peel apart.

In 2023, about 90% of old or faulty solar panels in the U.S. ended up in landfills. Millions of panels have been installed worldwide over the past few decades – and by about 2030, so many will be ready to retire that they could cover about 3,000 football fields.

As an electrical engineer who has studied many aspects of renewable energy, recycling solar panels seems like a smart idea, but it’s complicated. Built to withstand years of wind and weather, solar panels are designed for strength and are not easy to break down.

The cost conundrum

Sending a solar panel to a landfill costs between US$1 and $5 in the U.S. But recycling it can cost three to four times as much, around $18. And the valuable materials inside solar panels, such as silver and copper, are in small amounts, so they’re worth about $10 to $12 – which makes recycling a money-losing prospect. Improvements in the recycling process may change the economics.

But for now, it’s even hard to reclaim the glass in solar panels. Many layers are glued together and need to be separated before they can be melted down for reuse. And if the separation is not precise enough, the glass that is recovered won’t be of high enough quality to use in making other solar panels or windows. It will be suitable only for lower-quality uses such as fill material in construction projects.

Other panels, usually older ones, may contain small amounts of toxic metals such as lead or cadmium. It can be difficult to tell whether toxic materials are present, though. Even experts have trouble, in part because current tests, such as the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure, can give inaccurate results. Therefore, many companies that own large numbers of solar panels just assume their panels are hazardous waste, which increases costs for both disposal and recycling. Clearer labels would help people know what a solar panel contains and how to handle it.

If someone wants to recycle a solar panel, and is willing to bear the cost, there aren’t many places in the U.S. that are willing to do it and are equipped to be safe about it.

Designing for a new life

Despite the Trump administration’s cuts to subsidies for solar projects, millions of solar panels are already in use in the U.S., and millions more are expected to be installed worldwide in the coming years. As a result, the solar industry is working on ways to minimize waste and repeatedly reuse materials.

Some ideas include sending used solar panels that still work at least a bit to developing nations, or even reusing them within the U.S. But there are not clear rules or processes for connecting reused panels to the power grid, so reuse tends to happen in less common, off-grid situations rather than becoming widespread.

Future solar panels could also be designed for easier recycling, using different construction methods and materials, and improved processing systems.

Making panels last longer – perhaps as long as 50 years – using more durable materials, weather-resistant components, real-time monitoring of panel performance and predictive maintenance to replace parts before they wear out would reduce waste significantly.

Building solar panels that are more easily disassembled into separate components made of different materials could also speed recycling. Components that fit together like Lego bricks – instead of using glue – or dissolvable sealants and adhesives could be parts of these designs.

Improved recycling methods could also help. Right now, panels are often simply ground up, mixing all of their components’ materials together and requiring a complicated process to separate them out again for reuse. More advanced approaches can extract individual materials with high purity. For example, a process called salt etching can recover over 99% of silver and 98% of silicon, at purity levels that are appropriate for high-end reuse, potentially even in new solar panels, without using toxic acids. That method can also recover significant quantities of copper and lead for use in new products.

A shared journey

Increasing the practice of recycling solar panels has more than just environmental benefits.

Over the long term, recovering and reusing valuable materials may prove more cost-effective than continually buying new raw materials on the open market. That could lower costs for future solar panel installations. If they are fully reused, the value of these recoverable materials could reach over $15 billion globally by 2050.

In addition, recycling panels and components reduces American reliance on materials imported from overseas, making solar power projects less vulnerable to global disruptions.

Recycling also keeps toxic materials out of landfills. That can help ensure a shift to clean energy doesn’t create new or bigger environmental problems. Also, recycling solar panels emits far less carbon dioxide than manufacturing panels from raw materials.

There are already some efforts underway to boost solar panel recycling. The Solar Energy Industries Association trade group is working to collect and share information about companies that recycle solar panels.

Governments can provide tax breaks or other financial incentives for using recycled materials, or ban disposing of solar panels in landfills. California, Washington, New Jersey and North Carolina have enacted laws or are studying ways to manage solar panel waste, with some even requiring recycling or reuse.

These efforts are important steps toward addressing the growing need for solar panel recycling and promoting a more sustainable solar industry.

Anurag Srivastava receives funding from the US Department of Energy and National Science Foundation to work on renewable energy integration into the grid. He is an IEEE Fellow and member of the IEEE Power and Energy Society and CIGRE working groups.

– ref. Why recycling solar panels is harder than you might think − an electrical engineer explains – https://theconversation.com/why-recycling-solar-panels-is-harder-than-you-might-think-an-electrical-engineer-explains-259115

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Danielle Wilhour, Assistant Professor of Neurology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

“Is it just me, or is there a storm coming?”

If you are one of the 39 million Americans in the U.S. living with migraines, there’s a good chance an intense headache will begin when the weather shifts.

You aren’t alone. Studies find 30% to 50% of people with migraines identify some type of weather change as a trigger, making it the most commonly reported migraine source.

Yet, it’s also one of the most puzzling.

Some people are more sensitive to weather

As a neurologist and headache specialist practicing in Colorado, a place with frequent weather shifts, patients often tell me that weather is one of their biggest migraine triggers. The results can disrupt work, school and social plans, and create a sense of helplessness.

Doctors still don’t fully understand why some brains are more sensitive to environmental changes.

What we do know is that people with migraines have especially sensitive nervous systems, and that certain environmental changes – like shifts in air pressure, temperature, humidity and air quality – can activate pathways in the brain that lead to pain.

Key ways weather can trigger migraines

Weather triggers can vary from person to person, but there are a few common migraine culprits:

Barometric pressure changes, or changes in atmospheric pressure, are among the most commonly cited triggers.

When a storm system moves in, the air pressure drops. Some scientists believe this change may affect the pressure inside your head or how blood vessels in your brain dilate and constrict.

One theory is that changes in barometric pressure may cause a small imbalance in the pressure between the inside of your skull and the outside environment. That might directly stimulate pain-sensitive nerves in the head, triggering inflammation and the start of a migraine.

Others point to inflammation, the way the brain processes sensory input, and changes in serotonin levels – which play a key role in activating migraine.

Temperature extremes, with very hot or very cold days, or sudden changes in temperature, can throw off the body’s internal balance. High humidity or rapid shifts in moisture levels can have a similar effect.

Air pollutants like ozone and nitrogen dioxide can cause inflammation in the nerves that play a role in migraines.

Bright sunlight can also be especially bothersome, likely due to heightened sensitivity to light and an overactive visual processing system in the brain.

Lightning and strong winds may also be linked to migraine attacks in certain individuals.

In short, weather changes can act as stressors on a brain that’s already wired to be more sensitive. The exact triggers and responses vary from person to person, but the research suggests that the interaction between weather and our biology plays a significant role for a subset of patients with migraines.

Steps you can take to reduce the pain

You can’t change the weather, but you can be proactive. Here are a few tips to help weather-proof your migraine routine:

1. Track your migraines and watch the forecast: Use a migraine diary or app to track when attacks occur, along with weather conditions. Patterns may emerge, such as attacks a day before rain or during temperature changes, that will allow you to adjust your schedule or medication plan.

2. Develop healthy eating, sleeping and exercise habits: Dehydration, poor sleep and skipped meals can magnify the effects of weather triggers, so keeping your body on an even keel helps reduce vulnerability. Regular exercise and a healthy diet can also help.

3. Create a migraine-friendly environment: On days when the sun is harsh or the humidity is high, stay inside. Sunglasses, eye masks or even blue-light glasses can be helpful. Some people find that certain earplugs are able to reduce pressure changes felt in the middle ear.

4. Try meditation, mindfulness techniques or biofeedback, which teaches people to moderate their physiological responses, such as muscle responses and breathing. These strategies can help your nervous system become less reactive over time, which can be especially helpful when dealing with uncontrollable triggers like weather.

5. Consider pretreatment: If you know a storm is likely to trigger your migraines, you can keep rescue medications close by or even preemptively treat yourself during weather events.

6. Look into preventive treatment: If weather triggers frequent migraines, talk to your health care provider about preventive treatments – medications, supplements or neuromodulation devices – which can be used on a regular basis to reduce migraine occurrence.

The bigger picture

It’s important to remember that while weather can be a trigger, it’s rarely the only one. Migraine is usually the result of a perfect storm of factors: genetic susceptibility, hormones, stress, sleep, food and, yes, the weather.

That’s why identifying your personal triggers and building a plan, if necessary, with the support of a medical provider, can make a big difference in managing migraines.

Weather-related migraine can be one of the most frustrating triggers because it feels completely out of your hands. However, with knowledge, tracking and the right treatment strategies, you can take back a sense of control.

Danielle Wilhour 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. How weather changes cause migraines – a neurologist explains the triggers and what you can do to ease the pain – https://theconversation.com/how-weather-changes-cause-migraines-a-neurologist-explains-the-triggers-and-what-you-can-do-to-ease-the-pain-258899

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Pooja Shree Chettiar, Ph.D. Candidate in Medical Sciences, Texas A&M University

Recently, I found myself pouring my heart out, not to a human, but to a chatbot named Wysa on my phone. It nodded – virtually – asked me how I was feeling and gently suggested trying breathing exercises.

As a neuroscientist, I couldn’t help but wonder: Was I actually feeling better, or was I just being expertly redirected by a well-trained algorithm? Could a string of code really help calm a storm of emotions?

Artificial intelligence-powered mental health tools are becoming increasingly popular – and increasingly persuasive. But beneath their soothing prompts lie important questions: How effective are these tools? What do we really know about how they work? And what are we giving up in exchange for convenience?

Of course it’s an exciting moment for digital mental health. But understanding the trade-offs and limitations of AI-based care is crucial.

Stand-in meditation and therapy apps and bots

AI-based therapy is a relatively new player in the digital therapy field. But the U.S. mental health app market has been booming for the past few years, from apps with free tools that text you back to premium versions with an added feature that gives prompts for breathing exercises.

Headspace and Calm are two of the most well-known meditation and mindfulness apps, offering guided meditations, bedtime stories and calming soundscapes to help users relax and sleep better. Talkspace and BetterHelp go a step further, offering actual licensed therapists via chat, video or voice. The apps Happify and Moodfit aim to boost mood and challenge negative thinking with game-based exercises.

Somewhere in the middle are chatbot therapists like Wysa and Woebot, using AI to mimic real therapeutic conversations, often rooted in cognitive behavioral therapy. These apps typically offer free basic versions, with paid plans ranging from US$10 to $100 per month for more comprehensive features or access to licensed professionals.

While not designed specifically for therapy, conversational tools like ChatGPT have sparked curiosity about AI’s emotional intelligence.

Some users have turned to ChatGPT for mental health advice, with mixed outcomes, including a widely reported case in Belgium where a man died by suicide after months of conversations with a chatbot. Elsewhere, a father is seeking answers after his son was fatally shot by police, alleging that distressing conversations with an AI chatbot may have influenced his son’s mental state. These cases raise ethical questions about the role of AI in sensitive situations.

Where AI comes in

Whether your brain is spiraling, sulking or just needs a nap, there’s a chatbot for that. But can AI really help your brain process complex emotions? Or are people just outsourcing stress to silicon-based support systems that sound empathetic?

And how exactly does AI therapy work inside our brains?

Most AI mental health apps promise some flavor of cognitive behavioral therapy, which is basically structured self-talk for your inner chaos. Think of it as Marie Kondo-ing, the Japanese tidying expert known for helping people keep only what “sparks joy.” You identify unhelpful thought patterns like “I’m a failure,” examine them, and decide whether they serve you or just create anxiety.

But can a chatbot help you rewire your thoughts? Surprisingly, there’s science suggesting it’s possible. Studies have shown that digital forms of talk therapy can reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression, especially for mild to moderate cases. In fact, Woebot has published peer-reviewed research showing reduced depressive symptoms in young adults after just two weeks of chatting.

These apps are designed to simulate therapeutic interaction, offering empathy, asking guided questions and walking you through evidence-based tools. The goal is to help with decision-making and self-control, and to help calm the nervous system.

The neuroscience behind cognitive behavioral therapy is solid: It’s about activating the brain’s executive control centers, helping us shift our attention, challenge automatic thoughts and regulate our emotions.

The question is whether a chatbot can reliably replicate that, and whether our brains actually believe it.

A user’s experience, and what it might mean for the brain

“I had a rough week,” a friend told me recently. I asked her to try out a mental health chatbot for a few days. She told me the bot replied with an encouraging emoji and a prompt generated by its algorithm to try a calming strategy tailored to her mood. Then, to her surprise, it helped her sleep better by week’s end.

As a neuroscientist, I couldn’t help but ask: Which neurons in her brain were kicking in to help her feel calm?

This isn’t a one-off story. A growing number of user surveys and clinical trials suggest that cognitive behavioral therapy-based chatbot interactions can lead to short-term improvements in mood, focus and even sleep. In randomized studies, users of mental health apps have reported reduced symptoms of depression and anxiety – outcomes that closely align with how in-person cognitive behavioral therapy influences the brain.

Several studies show that therapy chatbots can actually help people feel better. In one clinical trial, a chatbot called “Therabot” helped reduce depression and anxiety symptoms by nearly half – similar to what people experience with human therapists. Other research, including a review of over 80 studies, found that AI chatbots are especially helpful for improving mood, reducing stress and even helping people sleep better. In one study, a chatbot outperformed a self-help book in boosting mental health after just two weeks.

While people often report feeling better after using these chatbots, scientists haven’t yet confirmed exactly what’s happening in the brain during those interactions. In other words, we know they work for many people, but we’re still learning how and why.

Red flags and risks

Apps like Wysa have earned FDA Breakthrough Device designation, a status that fast-tracks promising technologies for serious conditions, suggesting they may offer real clinical benefit. Woebot, similarly, runs randomized clinical trials showing improved depression and anxiety symptoms in new moms and college students.

While many mental health apps boast labels like “clinically validated” or “FDA approved,” those claims are often unverified. A review of top apps found that most made bold claims, but fewer than 22% cited actual scientific studies to back them up.

In addition, chatbots collect sensitive information about your mood metrics, triggers and personal stories. What if that data winds up in third-party hands such as advertisers, employers or hackers, a scenario that has occurred with genetic data? In a 2023 breach, nearly 7 million users of the DNA testing company 23andMe had their DNA and personal details exposed after hackers used previously leaked passwords to break into their accounts. Regulators later fined the company more than $2 million for failing to protect user data.

Unlike clinicians, bots aren’t bound by counseling ethics or privacy laws regarding medical information. You might be getting a form of cognitive behavioral therapy, but you’re also feeding a database.

And sure, bots can guide you through breathing exercises or prompt cognitive reappraisal, but when faced with emotional complexity or crisis, they’re often out of their depth. Human therapists tap into nuance, past trauma, empathy and live feedback loops. Can an algorithm say “I hear you” with genuine understanding? Neuroscience suggests that supportive human connection activates social brain networks that AI can’t reach.

So while in mild to moderate cases bot-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy may offer short-term symptom relief, it’s important to be aware of their limitations. For the time being, pairing bots with human care – rather than replacing it – is the safest move.

Pooja Shree Chettiar 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. The AI therapist will see you now: Can chatbots really improve mental health? – https://theconversation.com/the-ai-therapist-will-see-you-now-can-chatbots-really-improve-mental-health-259360

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By John C. Quindry, Professor of Integrative Physiology and Athletic Training, University of Montana

As the summer’s sunny days take hold, many people turn to outdoor exercise.

But in parts of North America, pleasant weather often aligns with wildfire season. As summers get drier, both the frequency and the intensity of wildfires have grown, producing more polluting smoke.

A fire’s smoke can spread across several states, leaving people at risk for the health consequences of air pollution.

Exercisers and health experts are asking whether the benefits of outdoor exercise are negated when the skies are hazy with wildfire smoke.

How does air pollution make people sick?

Air pollution’s components depend on its source. For instance, traffic-related air pollution consists largely of vehicle exhaust and brake and tire wear, while industrial pollution contains significant amounts of ozone.

Wildfires produce huge quantities of airborne particles, also called fine particulate matter. These particles are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter – about a tenth the size of a pollen grain.

Particles of that size, which air quality experts refer to as PM2.5, raise serious health concerns because they are tiny enough to be carried to the air sacs in the deepest parts of the lungs. From there, they can cross into the blood stream, leading to bodywide inflammation – essentially, the immune system’s fight response – which can promote or aggravate multiple chronic illnesses.

Research shows that long-term exposure to wildfire smoke is linked to lung diseases, heart disease and other conditions. Since these illnesses take decades to develop, scientists think that the health problems caused by wildfire smoke inhalation accumulate after years of exposure.

One-time smoke exposures may have cumulative effects

My research team and others are investigating how short-term smoke exposure might also influence long-term health outcomes such as heart and lung diseases.

To estimate the effects of exposure from a single fire event, environmental scientists can study a variety of factors such as immune system markers of inflammation, signs of physiologic stress and changes in heart, blood vessel and nervous system function. How exactly smoke exposures worsen disease is still poorly understood, but these immediate responses in the body may also be linked to developing chronic disease.

In a study published in June 2025, my colleagues and I examined these outcomes in healthy participants who exercised during a wildfire simulation in our air inhalation lab. The air was filtered to contain high concentrations of PM2.5 particles produced by burning local pine trees – the equivalent to being downwind of a major wildfire.

We asked 20 generally healthy participants in their mid-20s to exercise on a stationary cycle at about half their maximum effort for two hours while breathing the smoke. We found that participants’ blood vessel and nervous system function declined immediately after their smoky exercise session. These stress indicators bounced back to normal within an hour of returning to a clean air environment.

Half of our study participants had a heightened response to physiological stress, which scientists think may signify a heightened risk of chronic diseases. We selected them based on a stress test administered before the experiment: Specifically, their blood pressure spiked when their hands were dipped in ice water for two minutes. The stress-responsive participants experienced significantly stronger declines in blood vessel and nervous system function than people in the typical response group, suggesting that exercise in a very smoky climate may affect some people more than others.

While it isn’t possible to predict who is most at risk, our study underscores the need to think carefully about exposure to wildfire smoke.

How smoky is too smoky for outdoor exercise?

Unfortunately, precise air quality thresholds based on factors such as age and medical condition do not exist. But some simple guidelines and considerations can help.

The first step is to check the air quality where you live at the government website AirNow. It uses a scale called the Air Quality Index, created by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1999 – which ranks air quality regionally on a scale from 0 to 500. The website is searchable by ZIP code. The reading for a given region reflects the contribution of several pollutants, including PM2.5 levels.

When the air quality is ranked “good,” the decision is simple – get out there and enjoy the outdoors. And there is little debate that people should generally limit their outdoor exposure when air quality levels cross into the “unhealthy” threshold – or at least be aware that doing so poses health risks.

The risks and benefits of exercising outdoors when air quality is in the “moderate” and “unhealthy for sensitive” ranges are less clear, particularly for people who don’t have chronic health conditions.

Gauging your risk

One major factor in deciding when and whether to exercise outdoors is your health status. AirNow recommends that people with chronic conditions err on the side of caution and remain indoors when smoke levels cause the air quality rating to approach the “unhealthy for sensitive” category.

That advice may be obvious for people with diagnosed lung conditions such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, given that particles from wildfire smoke aggravate the lungs. But studies suggest it’s true for milder disease states, too. For example, a large study of people with elevated but not clinically high blood pressure indicated that those who lived downwind of air pollution were more likely to develop high blood pressure and, ultimately, heart disease.

Another consideration is the time of day. As the afternoon heats up, the column of air we breathe expands, diluting the particulate counts. And afternoon winds frequently blow stagnant air out of the valleys and downtown areas where particulate matter can concentrate during the cooler parts of the day. That means evening workouts may be safer than early-morning ones, though direct confirmation with air quality readings is key.

Also important is the intensity at which you exercise. Higher-intensity exercise means deeper, more frequent breathing, which likely elevates your exposure to harmful air. So you might choose a shorter jog over a longer run when air quality is moderate or poor.

My lab is currently working to quantify how much pollution a person breathes in while exercising in smoky conditions, based on their exercise intensity, exercise duration and local particulate counts. This line of research is still in its infancy, but our early findings and other published research suggest that when wildfire smoke puts air quality into the “moderate” and “unhealthy for sensitive” range, people can dial down the effects of smoke exposure by decreasing their exercise intensity or the time they spend outside.

John C. Quindry received funding from the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the National Institutes of Health – INBRE/RAIN.

– ref. Wildfire smoke can make your outdoor workout hazardous to your health – an exercise scientist explains how to gauge the risk – https://theconversation.com/wildfire-smoke-can-make-your-outdoor-workout-hazardous-to-your-health-an-exercise-scientist-explains-how-to-gauge-the-risk-255812

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Diane Winston, Professor and Knight Center Chair in Media & Religion, USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism

Jimmy Swaggart, one of the most popular and enduring of the 1980s televangelists, died on July 1, 2025, but his legacy lives.

Along with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, he drew an audience in the millions, amassed a personal fortune and introduced a new generation of Americans to a potent mix of religion and politics.

Swaggart was an old-time evangelist whose focus was “saving souls.” But he also preached on conservative social issues, warning followers about the evils of abortion, homosexuality and godless communism.

[Swaggart also denounced] what he called “false cults,” including Catholicism, Judaism and Mormonism. In fact, his denunciations of other religions, as well as his attacks on rival preachers, made him a more polarizing figure than his politicized brethren.

As a reporter, I covered Swaggart in the 1980s. Now, as a scholar of American religion, I argue that while Swaggart did not build institutions like Falwell’s Moral Majority or Robertson’s 700 Club, he helped to spread right-wing positions on social issues, such as sexual orientation and abortion, and to shape the image of televangelists in popular culture..

Swaggart’s cousins

Born into a hardscrabble life in a small Louisiana town, Swaggart grew up alongside his cousins Jerry Lee Lewis, the future rockabilly pioneer, and future country singer Mickey Gilley.

All three loved music and singing. They polished their playing on an uncle’s piano and sneaked into African American nightclubs to hear the jazz and blues forbidden by their parents.

While Gilley and Lewis turned their musical talent into recording and performing careers, Swaggart felt called to the ministry. He dropped out of high school, married at 17, began preaching at 20 and was ordained at 26.

He was licensed by the Assemblies of God, a Pentecostal denomination that believes the Holy Spirit endows believers with spiritual gifts that include speaking in tongues and faith healing.

The glory years

Pentecostals were nicknamed Holy Rollers because of their tendency to shake, quake and roll on the floor when feeling the Holy Spirit. Their preachers excelled at rousing audiences’ ardor, and Swaggart commanded the stage better than most. He paced, pounced and poured forth sweat while begging listeners to turn from sin and accept Jesus.

Starting small, he drew crowds while preaching on a flatbed trailer throughout the South. His following grew, and in 1969 he opened the Family Worship Center in Baton Rouge.

At capacity, the church held 10,000 worshippers, who represented a broad swath of America: young girls and grannies, white and Black, bankers and farmers. His sermons began calmly but built to a fever pitch. CBS newsman Dan Rather once called him the “country’s greatest speaker.”

During services, Swaggart also sang and played piano. In 1982, Newsweek magazine noted his musical chops, naming him the “King of Honky Tonk Heaven.” His music crossed gospel, country and honky-tonk – songs with a strong rhythmic beat – and he sold 17 million albums over his lifetime.

By 1975, Swaggart’s on-stage charisma powered the launch of a television ministry that would reach millions within a decade. Viewers were captivated by his soulful tunes and fire-and-brimstone sermons. At its height, Swaggart’s show was televised in 140 countries, including Peru, the Philippines and South Africa.

His ministry also became the largest mail-order business in Louisiana, selling books, tapes, T-shirts and biblical memorabilia. Thanks to the US$150 million raised annually from donations and sales, Swaggart lived in an opulent mansion, possessed a private jet previously owned by the Rockefellers, sported a yellow gold vintage Rolex and drove a Jaguar.

The downfall

Swaggart disliked competition and had a history of humiliating rival preachers. Wary of the Rev. Marvin Gorman, a Pentecostal minister whose church also was in Louisiana, Swaggart accused the man of adultery. Gorman admitted his infidelity and was defrocked.

Gorman had heard rumors about Swaggart’s own indiscretions, and he and his son decided to tail the famed evangelist. In 1988, they caught Swaggart at a motel with a prostitute, and Gorman reported the incident to Swaggart’s denomination. He also gave news outlets photos of Swaggart and the prostitute. In a tearful, televised apology, Swaggart pleaded for a second chance.

While his fans were willing, the Assemblies of God had conditions: Swaggart received the standard two-year suspension for sexual immorality. Defying the ruling, Swaggart went back to work after three months, and the denomination defrocked him.

Swaggart might have succeeded as an independent minister, but in 1991 the police stopped his car for driving on the wrong side of the road. Inside they found the preacher with a prostitute. This time, Swaggart did not ask for forgiveness. Instead, he informed his congregation, “The Lord told me it’s flat none of your business.”

Afterward, Swaggart never regained his former standing. His mail-order business dried up, donations fell, and attendance at services cratered. But up until his death, he kept on, in his own words, as an “old-fashioned, Holy Ghost-filled, shouting, weeping, soul-winning, Gospel-preaching preacher.”

Swaggart’s legacy

Swaggart, like other 1980s televangelists, brought right-wing politics into American homes. But unlike Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, Swaggart was less interested in winning elections than saving souls. In fact, when Robertson considered a presidential run in 1988, Swaggart initially tried to dissuade him – then changed his mind and supported him.

Swaggart’s calls for a return to conservative Christian norms live on – not just in Sunday sermons but also in today’s world of tradwives, abortion restrictions and calls to repeal gay marriage. His music lives on, too. The day before he died, the Southern Gospel Music Association Hall of Fame inducted him as a member.

But his legacy also survives in popular culture. In recent years, both reality television and scripted series have starred preachers shaped in the image of Swaggart and his peers. Most exaggerate his worst characteristics for shock and comedic effect.

“Preachers of L.A.,” a 2013 reality show that profiled six Los Angeles pastors, featured blinged-out ministers whose sermons mixed hip-hop with the Bible. The fictional “Greenleaf” followed the scandals of an extended family’s Memphis megachurch, while “The Righteous Gemstones,” a dark spoof of Southern preachers, turned a family ministry into a site for sex, murder and moneymaking.

But these imitations can’t match the reality. Swaggart was a larger-than-life minister whose story – from small-town wannabe to disgraced pastor, to preaching to those who would listen – had it all: sex, politics, music and religion.

For those who want a taste of the real thing, The King of Honky Tonk Heaven lives on. You can see his old services and Bible studies streaming daily on his network.

Diane Winston 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. Jimmy Swaggart’s rise and fall shaped the landscape of American televangelism – https://theconversation.com/jimmy-swaggarts-rise-and-fall-shaped-the-landscape-of-american-televangelism-260377

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Lauren Berger, Ph.D. Student in Geology, Texas A&M University

Our two-person team loaded the car with a GPS, a drone, notebooks, sample bags, a trowel and a flat spatula lovingly called a scoopula. Then we drove 30 minutes in our rented truck from Yuma, Arizona, to the Algodones Dunes, a sandy field bordering California, Arizona and Mexico. The day was sunny, with a strong breeze. Turning off the highway, we carefully headed onto a gravelly path that acted as our road.

After making decent – if bumpy – progress, we pulled off onto the sand flats and drove slowly toward the dunes, worried we might get stuck in the sand. Having arrived on the outskirts of the Algodones, we stopped and loaded our backpacks, then set off into the desert on foot.

It was November 2022. As a graduate student at Texas A&M University, I was beginning part of my Ph.D. research with my adviser, geology professor Ryan Ewing. We were looking for coarse-grained sand ripples, which are patterned piles of sand shaped by wind. Sand ripples and sand dunes are types of aeolian bedforms, which are wind-created geologic features.

Aeolian bedforms are common on Earth and across the solar system, including on Mars, Venus, Pluto, the Saturn moon Titan, the Neptune moon Triton, and Comet 67P. These geological features, among the first landforms observed by remote images of planetary surfaces, are robust indicators of a world’s wind patterns.

Measuring sand patterns in person

The shapes and patterns of aeolian bedforms can reveal the environmental conditions that created them.

Two sizes of the same bedform, such as small dunes on top of big dunes, are called compound bedforms. I study compound bedforms at two scales – the meter- and centimeter-sized coarse-grained ripples at the dunes here on Earth, and the kilometer- and meter-sized dunes on Mars.

At the Algodones, I measured the height of each large coarse-grained sand ripple and the distance between neighboring ripples. Then we flew our drone low and steady, above the ripples, to create high-resolution images. The drone data allows us to do further measurements on the ripples later, back at my desk.

On that day, I learned an essential rule of fieldwork in the desert: Don’t forget a shovel. Otherwise, if your vehicle gets stuck, as ours did, you’ll have to dig it out by hand. Luckily for us, a dune buggy driver passing by helped us out and we were able to get back to Yuma in time for dinner.

My introduction to Mars

I first became interested in aeolian bedforms during my sophomore year of college, when I interned at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. My job was to view surface images of Mars and then map the sand ripples in the regions where Perseverance, the Mars rover, might land. I assessed the areas where ripples could be hazards – places where the rover could get stuck in the sand, the way our rental truck did in the Algodones.

I mapped those sand ripples on Mars for two years. But while I mapped, I became fascinated with the patterns the ripples made.

Now, as a graduate student and aspiring planetary geologist, my time is split between work in the field and at my computer, where I have stitched together the drone’s photographs of the Algodones to create a large image of the entire study area. I then look for compound dunes on the Martian surface in images taken by the Mars reconnaissance orbiter’s context camera.

Scientists already know about Earth’s weather patterns, sand grain size and wind data. By measuring different parts of bedforms on both planets – such as their height, shape and spacing – I can compare the similarities and differences of the bedforms to find clues to the wind patterns, grains and atmosphere on Mars. Slowly but surely, as I listen to Studio Ghibli soundtracks, I’m creating the first database of compound dunes on Mars.

Developing this database is essential to the proposed human mission to Mars. Dust storms are frequent, and some can encircle the entire planet. Understanding aeolian bedforms will help scientists know where to put bases so they don’t get buried by moving sand.

It is wonderful to spend an afternoon ping-ponging all over a planet that’s 140 million miles from us, seeing gorgeous terrain while I try to answer questions about the compound dunes on Mars. How common are they? Where do they form? How do they compare to those on Earth? I hope to answer these questions as I work toward earning my Ph.D in geology.

Lauren Berger receives funding from NASA FINESST. Lauren Berger would like to acknowledge the help of her mentors Dr. Ryan Ewing (NASA Johnson Space Center), Dr. Marion Nachon (Texas A&M University), and Dr. Julia Reece (Texas A&M University).

– ref. Dune patterns in California desert hold clues that help researchers map Mars’ shifting sands – https://theconversation.com/dune-patterns-in-california-desert-hold-clues-that-help-researchers-map-mars-shifting-sands-251761