Potential for mRNA technology

 

 

 mRNA technology extends far beyond COVID-19 vaccines and is being developed for cancer immunotherapy, protein replacement, infectious disease prevention, and gene editing. [1]

 

 

Cancer Immunotherapy

Personalized Cancer Vaccines: Scientists analyze a patient's tumor to create custom mRNA sequences that instruct the immune system to recognize and attack specific tumor neoantigens (unique proteins on cancer cells). Late-stage clinical trials have shown strong results for melanoma (such as Moderna and Merck’s mRNA-4157 combined with Keytruda), as well as trials targeting lung, kidney, bladder, and pancreatic cancers. [1, 2, 3, 4]
 
 
Infectious Disease Prevention
Universal Influenza and RSV: Researchers are building fast-adapting multivalent mRNA vaccines for seasonal flu and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) to bypass slow egg-based manufacturing. Other Viruses: Clinical and pre-clinical pipelines target complex pathogens such as HIV, Zika, Ebola, Nipah, cytomegalovirus (CMV), and malaria. [1, 2]
 
 
 
Protein Replacement & Genetic Disorders
Missing Protein Production: Synthetic mRNA can enter cells and instruct ribosomes to manufacture functional proteins that a patient's body fails to produce naturally. [1, 2]  Target Conditions: This approach is being explored for rare and chronic genetic conditions like cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, and muscular dystrophy. [1] Gene Silencing and Editing: mRNA can deliver gene-editing tools—such as CRISPR-Cas components or instructions to silence harmful liver genes (like KLKB1 for hereditary angioedema or transthyretin for ATTR amyloidosis). [1, 2, 3]
 
 
 
 
Autoimmune Diseases & Cardiovascular Care
Immune Tolerance: For autoimmune conditions like multiple sclerosis or rheumatoid arthritis, experimental mRNA is designed to calm an overactive immune response rather than trigger it.  
Cardiovascular Disease: Early-stage studies are testing mRNA therapies to reduce vascular inflammation, stabilize atherosclerotic plaques, or prompt heart muscle repair following a heart attack.
 
 
 
 
 

Vaccination

 This blog is word for word copy from an article in the 7March2026 copy of New Scientist on Page 20.  It details some surprising side benefits of vaccinations.  If it could be summarized in one sentence, it would seem that a vaccination causes a general gingering up of the whole immune system which, as you will read, has some beneficial effects.  The article is written by a New Scientist writer, Michael Le Page.

Heading

The surprising vaccine side effects that boost long-term health.  People often focus on the bad side effects of vaccines, but they can have some great ones too.

I am currently arranging to get a shingles Vaccination.  I had shingles at university and still bear the scars. so I really don't want to risk getting it again.  But I also have in mind the fact that the benefits of the shingles vaccine aren't limited to preventing shingles.  And this isn't unusual.  Many vaccines have benefits that go way beyond protecting against single virus of bacterium - fact that aren't nearly as widely know as they should be.

 

Let's start with shingles.  A study of more than a million people last year reported that those given the Zostavax shingles vaccine were 26% less likely to die from heart disease or experience a stroke, heart attack or heart failure during an average of 6 years after the shot - a massive reduction in the risk for such an easy intervention.

 

What's more, people given a newer shingles vaccine called Shingrix were 17% less likely to develop dementia in the next 6 years, compared with those given Zostavax.  Since, several studies have shown that Zostavax also reduces the risk of dementia, the overall reduction in risk with Shingrix should be even larger.

 

Flue vaccines also have cardiovascular benefits.  For instance, and analysis combining data from more than 9000 people involved in 6 trials found those vaccinated against flu had a 34% lower risk of a heat attack or stroke in the next year.  The benefit was even greater for people with a recent history of heart problems.

 

The new vaccines for respiratory syncytial virus or RSV, seem to help prevent heart problems too.  A study involving around 130,000 people over [age] 60 found that those who had one kind of RSV vaccine were less likely to be hospitalized with heart or lung issues than those who went unvaccinated.

 

Then there are the covid-19 mRNA vaccines.  They turn out to boost the immune response to tumors along with Immunotherapy, extending peoples lives

 

I could keep listing examples, but let's turn instead to why so many vaccines have these wider benefits.  We don't know the precise mechanism but it's not surprising that they do.

 

Viruses can do lasting physical damage to the body and the immune response to them can also harm tissues.  So-called cytokine storms, in which the body overreacts and releases too many immune stimulating signals, are often what kill people with infections such as flu or covid-19

 

Many viruses also target our immune system to help evade it, weakening our defenses.

 

There's this idea in some circles that natural immunity from getting a disease is better than vaccination.  It's bonkers for all the reasons above and more, and measles is a great example of why.

 

Measles vaccines have cut the number of deaths from the disease from more than 2 million a year before 1980 to fewer than 100,000 in 2024.  They have also had the unexpected effect of reducing the number of children dying from other infectious diseases.

 

Why?  Part of the answer is that measles kills off some immune cells, leaving children more vulnerable to a wide range of infections for years afterwards.  But measles vaccines also seem to train the immune system in a way that boosts its wider effectiveness.  This training effect is so beneficial, it's even been suggested we should keep giving children the measles vaccine even if measles is eliminated.

 

It would be too good to be true if all vaccines trained our immune system in this way.  There is evidence a few vaccines have the opposite effect.  But this doesn't mean they don't still save lives.

 

The key question is whether you are better off getting vaccinated than not.  All too often the focus is entirely on very rare or entirely imaginary adverse effects of vaccines instead of on the risks of infections or the wider benefits of the vaccine.

 

I have no doubts that will make me better off.  I'll be getting my shingles vaccine and a flu jab every year and the RSV vaccine when it's offered , at the very least.

23

To all Republicans, sane and not so sane.

This is a direct copy of an article on FB by Christina Lorey.  Good on you Christina.  I couldn't have said it better.  Criminals like Trump will arise in all societies.  The measure of a society is how you stop their actions and restore sanity to your society.  America has failed miserably in this and it is the responsibility of Representatives and Senators of the Republican party who have the majority in all four branches of government.  (Supreme Court, Presidency, House of Representives, Senate).  The rule of law is, and has been for many years, a joke in America.  Trump is just the latest and most extreme example and it has exposed that America is a failed society.

 

From Christina Lorey, on FB:

A message to all sane Republicans:

He pardoned 1,600 violent criminals.
You said nothing.

He bulldozed the East Wing.
You said nothing.

He interfered with the release of the Epstein files. You said nothing.

He took over the Kennedy Center and renamed it after himself. You said nothing.

He accepted a $400 million airplane as a personal gift. You said nothing.

He threatened Canada, Cuba, Denmark, Greenland, Venezuela, Colombia, and Brazil. You said nothing.

He tariffed just about everyone but Russia, causing inflation and instability worldwide. You said nothing.

He attacked a nation during mediated negotiations. You said nothing.

His ill-conceived war killed 175 children on day one. You said nothing.

He alienated and insulted our allies. You said nothing.

His ICE Army terrorized and murdered U.S. citizens. You said nothing.

He committed murder on the high seas. You said nothing.

He co-opted the Justice Department and directed it to prosecute his political enemies. You said nothing.

It’s time to start talking.

How to build a beaver deceiver

So why would you want to build a Beaver Deceiver.  Beavers build dams.  Dams make ponds.   This can result in the flooding of something you don't want flooded or can wash away of a piece of road if they dam up a culvert.  If you go the 'human way' and kill or remove the   beavers, you will have a life time job.   Do the job right and build a beaver deceiver and you have solved the problem  You can now benefit from all the myriad  benefits that beaver ponds create.

So how do you build a simple beaver deceiver when your only aim is to limit the level of  the water in a beaver pond (ie - not to protect a culvert).  You start by getting a piece of that black corrugated pipe of a suitable diameter (big enough to take care of the flow of the stream during the spring melt).  It must be long enough to go from the deepest part of the pond, usually found a couple of meters upstream of the dam and to extend a little beyond the dam.  To install it, you cut away a little material in the middle of the top of the beaver dam and lay the pipe in this notch.  Pound a couple of wooden stakes into the top of the dam, one on either side of the pipe and connect them with a board or similar which rests on top of the pipe.  This board will hold the pipe down while the beavers  repair the damage that night that you have done.

Now as shown in the diagram above, you must build some sort of a cage for the inflow end of the pipe.  It should have a mesh lid on it an set so that the top of the cage is below the water level.  In fact it is best if it is below the level that ice or any other floating object will reach.  The wire mesh that is used to reinforce concrete slabs is a good choice and myself, I prefer a round design rather than the rectangular one shown.  Cut off the cross (horizontal) bars from the bottom of the mesh so that the cage can be pounded into the bottom of the pond.

So how about protecting a culvert.  Proceed as above but make sure that the pipe is long enough to extend into the culvert.  Construct a cage over the rest of the culvert.  One more thing and you are finished.  You are in danger of siphoning down the pond and you don't want that.  Beaver pond complexes are a great tourist attraction besides all the good that they do.  Take a hole saw on a battery drill and make a few holes on the top of the pipe where the pipe leaves the dam plus a couple more.  This will break the siphon.

Did climate change wipe out the mega-fauna

Around the time of the transition ~12,000 years ago, between a world with continental glaciers as much as 3km deep, extending, in North America to below the USA-Canadian border, and our present more benign climate, mega-fauna disappeared from  the Americas.  So was this due to the change in the climate as we left, what is popularly called an Ice Age to our present warmer climate.  First we have to establish some terms and a little background.

Over the past 2.75m (million) years, the world has gone through about 40 cycles of Continental glaciers and warmer periods, such as we are living in at present.  During the first half of this 2.75m year period, the cycles were about 41k (thousand) years while over the past half of this two and three quarter million year Ice Age, cycles have been about 100k years.  The exact timelines are hard to establish on the land, because each cold period, when kilometer-thick glaciers grind across the landscape, they wipe out the record of previous glacial an interglacial periods.

All information was not lost, though.   Ice itself is one path to documenting past fluctuations.  The Antarctic has been glaciated for at least 34m years and the ice is built up in layers which are much like tree rings.  Generally (not always) one layer is laid down per year*.  Glaciation has fluctuated but there is a reliable, continuous record over at least 800,000 years.   In addition there are ocean bottom sediments and a peculiar meteor crater in Northern Siberia called El'Gy'Gytgyn that has a sediment record which extends over 3.6m years.

*Sometimes a layer is not laid down in a given year and a warm period can wipe out a number of layers. A unseasonable warm period in the middle of a year can result in two rings for a year.  But there are work-arounds for these problems.

As mentioned something interesting,  has been observed from these records.  It is that for the first half of this 2.75m year period of alterations between icy and less icy times, the cycle length has been about 41k years while for the second half of this period, the cycle is closer to 100k years*.  Incidentally, the previous warm period goes by various names but the one that many 'westerners' use is the Eemian interglacial period.  The one we are in now is called the Holocene Interglacial Period.

*For some reason different Milankovitch Cycles dominated at the beginning of this 
Ice age than more recently.  Note that the Ice Age has not ended.  We are just in one of the interglacial periods and by now should have been,  sliding toward the next Glacial period (but are not).

The popular literature and even some scientists call the most recent glaciated period an Ice Age. Even in the above video this is so. I have no objection to this term (not much!!!) but if we use it to describe the recent glaciated period then we have to  use a different name for the 2.75m year period during which we have had  many alternations between warm and cold periods.  

So for the rest of this diatribe, I am going to call the last 2.75m year ice age, an Ice Age and will call glaciated periods 'Glacial Periods' and the warmer interglacial periods, 'Interglacial Periods'.  At present we are in the so called Holocene Interglacial Period and as mentioned, the previous one is called the Eemian Interglacial period*.

*Previous Interglacial Periods have different names but in order from the most recent to more ancient ones they are often called, Eemian, La Bouchet, Parfleet, Hoxnian, MI13, Cromerian, Holstein, Waalian, Bramertenian, Passtonian etc.  

Now we come to two problems if we want to insist on the theory that the transition from the recent Glaciated Period to the present Holocene Interglacial period caused the demise of the immensely varied mega-fauna of the Americas.  

I think everyone would agree that, based on our present knowledge of how long it takes to create a new species, that all this megafauna didn't evolve over the past 100k years.  To put it another way, the ancestors of the elephant types, Camel types, Giant ground sloths, Giant beavers, Equinine species and so forth existed at the start of the 2.75m Ice age that we are still in.  Undoubtedly they evolved special adaptations to glaciation over the glaciated periods of the 2.75m year ice age. For instance, greater harryness or thickness of blubber might have increased as we slid into an Glacial Period and decreased as we left a Glacial Period*.  

*If you think that evolution is always a very very slow process, look at how the Galapagos finches change their bill shape over El Nino, La Nina cycles as the food supply changes. Or for that matter look at the proliferation of Dinosaur types following the end-Triasic extinction of the existing reptiles when the Ecological niches suddenly were empty.

The critical point is that they didn't go extinct, during previous slides from a warm period into a cold period or from a cold period into a warm period.  And there were at least 40 such cycles.  So why would we think that the change in the climate, which happened many times before caused their demise only this time.  

In addition, the record from the previous 4 cycles, for which we have the best information, were very similar to the most recent one.  A great treatment of the past handful of glacial cycles is found in the book Plows Plagues and Petroleum by Ruddiman*

*Ruddiman makes a very convincing argument that man has been interfering with the climate for at least the past 8000 years and that the level of interference was just about enough to counter what should have been our next slide into  a glacial period.  Now we have too much of a good thing.

The second problem is the evidence from other continents.  The incredibly varied population of mega-Marsupials and Monotremes in Australia went extinct about  45k years ago, around the time that man arrived in Australia.  The amazingly varied mega-fauna of the Americas disappeared around 12k years ago, just as the first people spread through the Americas and the mega fauna of, of New Zealand, consisting of giant ground living birds, plus a giant eagle and many species of 'dickie birds' disappeared 700 years ago just as the first people arrived in New Zealand.  Coincidence??  I don't think so.

The only conclusion that seems reasonable to me is that in every case, the first people who arrived in a new land multiplied and ate their way through all the megafauna.  There are at least three reasons that many people find this conclusion is hard to accept.

Leaving aside the nutters who believe that the world is only ~6000 years old, It is very hard to grasp deep-time.  Even grasping the length of time back to the previous warm period, which is 62 time as long as from the time of Christ to the present, is hard.  Grasping the idea of millions of years is even more daunting.  

A secibd problem is our difficulty in accepting exponential growth.  It is hard to grasp how fast a small starter population of people can multiply in an environment when all those edible animals are completely unwary of people and all that energy rich meat is there for the taking.  Lets be really conservative and say that a population of humans can double each generation and a generation is 25 years.  I think you would agree that in the absence of birth control methods, this is ridiculously conservative.  Take a starter population of two and see how many individuals we would have in 20 generations (20 x 25 years = 500 years).  Raise 2 to the power of 20 and you get 1,048,576 people.  One more generation (25 years) and you have 2,097152 people.  One more and you have 4,194,304.  You see where this is going.  Exponential growth which only added a handful of people at the beginning each generation is now adding 2m people every generation.

Of course, a starter population would likely be a small tribe which for genetic reasons would be far more viable.

The further reason is PC (political correctness).  We have got so used to maintaining the legend that the first people, whether from the Americas, from Australia or from New Zealand are great ecologists and couldn't possibly be responsible for the demise of the mega fauna of their home range.  In fact they are just people like we are and find it hard to moderate their motivations for the greater long term good of themselves and their societies.  We Europeans have only recently realized what damage we have done to the environment and are far from catching up and modifying our actions to preserve what we have left.  Why do we think that an earlier population of humans would do any better when faced with unbelievable abundance.

 The third reason is hubris.  For some reason we see ourselves as more intelligent than our distant ancestors when recent findings show that this is, pretty clearly not the case.  They just applied their intelligence to different problems.  Just imagine how you would fair if transported back into a glacial period in Europe in a period in which Neanderthals and our ancestors survived and thrived.  

And fourth, we can't imagine that they were capable of killing such huge animals.  If you have this bias, just look at how the pigmies in the jungles kill jungle elephants or how the bushmen of the Kalahari, kill Kudu.

This leaves a contrary problem.  How did some of the mega-fauna of Africa survive until Europeans arrived on the continent.  After all this is where man evolve.  The only explanation I can think of is that the animals evolved a fear of man as man became more and more able to kill them and to kill them at greater and greater distances (first thrusting spears, then throwing spears, then the throwing sticks (atiatl) for throwing spears and then bow and arrow) not to forget the sling for throwing stones.  Animals would have learned that when the strange two legged animal was around, they kept getting hit by heavy and pointy objects. Thus the animals probably evolved avoiding behaviors as man became more and more able to kill them and to kill them at greater distances. A process just like the antelope learning to avoid predatory cats. 

Perhaps, as we Europeans apologize for the wrongs we did to the  ancestors of the first people, we should ask for an apology for the destruction of the mega-fauna at the hands of their ancestors.

Benefits from Beavers

                                                    Benefits From Beavers

It is clear why people feel a certain amount of angst regarding beavers.  A rising pond can threaten infrastructure.  If beavers dam a culvert under a road, a piece of the road can be washed away.  If they dam a stream that runs beside a dwelling, the rising water could flood the house or cabin.  If they build a dam beside an orchard, your fruit trees can be felled.  But with a little thought, one can install a cheap, easily constructed 'beaver deceiver' which protects the road or dwelling.  And a little wire mesh around the trunk of a tree will protect it.  If you keep trying to destroy a dam  or kill the beavers, you will have a lifetime job as new beavers move in and start damming all over again.  Spend a little time and thought and do it right and do it once.  A well designed beaver deceiver will last for decades and allow you  to enjoy the myriad benefits that beavers bring.    So what are these benefits.  They are profound and long lasting.

Beavers don't generally just build one dam.  They have their main pond where their lodge and food-store is located, but they tend to build lesser dams up and downstream from the main pond.  And because the surface of a water table intersects a stream at the surface of the stream, a beaver dam can store far more water in the surrounding land than in the pond(s).  

Beavers control floods. When an extreme rain event occurs, the series of dams and the surrounding water table not only store water but also slow down the water.  This all contributes to reducing the flood peak and hence, reducing down stream damage.  If you have a village that is periodically flooded, you really do want beavers in every stream of your catchment.  And as we go down the climate change path, droughts are more severe and rain events more extreme.

Beavers supply water in the summer.  Beaver dams are always a bit leaky and as their water goes down, water from the surrounding water table leaks into the stream.  Water leaks through the surrounding land on either side of the dam into the stream further down.  This ensures that streams that once went dry each summer, keeps flowing all year round.  A good example happened in 1948 in Vancouver, Canada.

In the winter of 47-48 there was an extremely heavy snow pack  in the catchment of the Frazer River.  Melting didn't start until very late in the season and then the melt came hard and fast.  The lower mainland; the Frazer River delta, where lots of farming occurred, was flooded even up to the second floor of some houses. The only creek that didn't contribute to this flood was Meldrum Creek which is located across the river from Williams Lake.  More than a decade earlier, Eric Collier (Three Against the Wilderness)  had introduced two pair of beaver to the area and they had multiplied and populated the catchment of Meldrum Creek.  Incidentally the ranchers further down slope from Eric's operation were delighted because they now had stock water all summer.

Beavers recharge water tables.  Close to a beaver pond the water table is raised.  Once the water is underground it is protected from evaporation and as it seeps through the ground, it is purified.  Protection from evaporation is another way that water is provided for the summer when the rains fail.

Beavers create great fire breaks.  Not only are beaver ponds good fire breaks, themselves, but beavers clear the trees over a few tens of meters on either side of their pond.  Now if a fire starts somewhere between two tributaries, it is likely that only that area will burn rather than the whole countryside.  Animal that are in the burning section find refuge in the ponds and in the un-burnt area across the stream.  In the fullness of time, the burnt area will go through a regenerative succession of plants, creating ecologies that don't exist under a close-canopy forest.  Fire now enriches and stabilizes the environment rather than destroying it.

Beavers diversify the environment  The areas that the beavers clear of trees on either side of their ponds, now get light right down to the ground which also diversifies the ecology of the area from what used to be only forest.  Forage, which was hard to find is now readily available.

Beaver ponds  are ideal nurseries for fish.  Much of the water in a beaver pond is too deep for wading birds and there are lots of hiding places in the submerged parts of beaver dams, beaver lodges, and beaver food stores for small fish to avoid larger fish.  And when most species of salmon spawn, they die and their bodies drift downstream.  If there are beaver ponds, this rich source of nutrients is caught and incorporated into the pond and even up-slope as grazers feed along pond edges and poop up-slope.  What a great reversal from the general flow of nutrients from the land to the oceans.  This enrichment of the pond also feeds their fry who swim downstream from the redds to the ponds and later to the sea.  Have a look at an Article titled Rivers Are Life, in the Fall 2026 River Issue of Yukon on Page 27.

 

Beaver ponds purify the water flowing through them.  Their effect of settling out silt and floating twigs, leaves, branches and logs is obvious but beaver ponds also remove nitrates, phosphates and other 'ates' that are dissolved in the water.  The water in a beaver pond is aerobic (oxygenated) and under aerobic conditions, a variety of micro-organisms can use cellulose for energy.  About half of the dry weight of leaves, twigs and branches is cellulose and a beaver pond is full of them.  but the micro-organisms need all the 'ates' to build their bodies.  They take them from the water.  Aquatic vegetation does likewise.  And of course these two paths of primary production provide food for an extensive food web both in the pond and in the surrounding land.

Beavers protect culverts and bridges.  There is an irony for you.  We only concentrate on the damming of culverts by beavers which is an easily fixed problem.  Beavers protect culverts by remove floating trash including logs from the water which each spring tend to be flushed down streams and rivers.  This actually protects culverts under roads.  In the fullness of time, the floating debris becomes water logged and sinks to the bottom of the pond.  Note that if a beaver deceiver is installed to protect a culvert, which beavers otherwise could dam up overnight, the beaver deceiver takes water from the bottom of the pond, where there is no floating debris or ice.  Read Building Besides Rivers by Benoit Turcotte from the Fall 2026 Edition of The River Issue of Yukon.

Beavers greatly enrich and stabilize the local ecology.  Read Eric's book (mentioned above) to see the difference that the introduction of beavers into the Meldrum Creek catchment made.

Beavers greatly reduce mosquitoes and biting and biting midges (no-see-ums).  Three types of Arctic fish that feed on mosquito larvae are Arctic Greyling, small trout and native arctic minnows.  Different fish do the job in warmer climates.  Mosquitoes look for quiet water to lay their eggs and  any pond that doesn't have a populations of something that eats mosquito larvae turns into a mosquito breeding farm*.  The quiet water of a beaver pond, especially in amongst the fringe vegetation, the is ideal for mosquitoes to lay their eggs.  But when they hatch out, as long as the beaver ponds have been there for a while and have any or all of the above mentioned fish, the larvae of these pests don't have a chance.  In addition, beaver ponds breed dragon flies which swoop over open water, hoovering up flying insects.  Likewise swallows swoop over water surfaces, hoovering up flying insects where they can fly, uninterrupted by trees and brush.

* For instance a used car tire, no matter in what position it falls on the ground, will have a pocket of water in it after the first rain.  A pile of tires becomes a mosquito breeding farm.

Beavers attract tourism.    This is especially so if along a walk there are explanations of all the good that beavers do and how to mitigate any harm they may do using beaver deceivers.  One could even install a beaver deceiver in one of their minor ponds just to demonstrate the principle along with a plaque showing a diagram and explaining the system.  One of the beaver benefit could be put on each plaque as people walk the path along a beaver dam complex giving them time to think and discuss.  Canadians really do need to be educated about their national animal.

  Beavers produce rich bottom land.  Over time a beaver pond will fill with sediment and organic material and the beavers may exhaust the supply of nearby trees.    (Incidentally, they also eat a large variety of aquatic plants including water lilies and  skunk cabbage).  The dams then begin to leak and the beaver ponds become a stepped series of beaver meadows.  In the fullness of time trees once more start to grow on the banks  where the ponds used to be.  Another family of beavers will move in and another layer is added.  In the long term, this creates the rich, deep 'bottom land' that you read about in western novels.

The problem with our relations with beavers is that the damage they can do is short term and in our face (and easily fixed) while the benefits are long term and profound and humans are not so good at 'long term.  Just look at what we are doing to our environment and our climate.  It is up to those of us who do 'long term' to try to spread the word to those that do not.

                                                   Suggested reading list

Three Against the Wilderness by Eric Collier  (of course)

King Fish by David Montgomery (and all his other books.  They are eye opening, especially Growing a Revolution)

Pilgrims of the Wild and The Adventures of Sajo and  Her Beaver People, both by Grey Owl (AS Belaney - If you can find them.  Both from 1935.  Would be well worth reprinting)

Beavers: Boreal Ecosystem Engineers by Carol A Johnston (far too expensive to buy.  I think there may be a kindle edition available)

Building Beside Rivers from p28 of the fall 2026 issue of  Yukon by Benoit Turcotte.  

Maasa

 When the Europeans got to America in 1492, they discovered that the local people had developed many new vegetables from the local plants.  While in Europe, the farmers had developed the brassica family (cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli etc), the Americans had concentrated on the Solanaceae family (Tomatoes, potatoes, Capsicums, egg plants and hot peppers) and from a scrubby little plant called Teosinte, (tea-o-sin-tay) they developed Corn.  Explorers took these back to Europe and Corn was a big hit.  When you plant grain crops like wheat, Rye, Barley and so forth, If all goes well, one seed gives you, typically, 25 seeds back.  Corn on the other hand gives you about 250 seeds per seed planted.  In addition it gives you large amounts of foliage that you can feed as-is to ruminants or make silage, also for feeding herbivores.

Corn (called maize in the UK) is a C4 plant while the members of the wheat family are C3 plants.  In C3 plants, Oxygen and Carbon dioxide compete with each other, in the chemical process of photosynthesis, limiting production.  C4 plants have somehow 'worked out' a system to diminish this competition and so fix far more Carbon from the atmosphere than C3 plants. (another notable C4 plant is sugar cane).  The explorers (or exploiters, if you like) brought back the plant but not the technology.  Corn seemed to be the ideal food to feed your workers but those that ate it to the exclusion of other crops, became sick.  Their skin roughened, they got diarrhea, dementia and died.  They had what we now call Pellagra which is a Niacin deficiency disease 

Sad, since Corn is actually rich in niacin but it is in a chemically bound up form which is not available to the human digestive system.  The Niacin is easily released and the Americans indigenous people had discovered how to do this.  They boiled the corn first in an alkaline solution.  They used wood ash which, once wetted, is rich in Potassium hydroxide. The precursor of niacin is tryptophan and the nixtamalization process releases this substance and the body turns it into Naicin.   At home we use Slaked lime which is Calcium hydroxide, also a strong base.  Just a quick diversion to describe how to treat corn for home use.

 

Nixtamalizatation

Take however many cups of corn kernels* you want to treat and weigh them.  Weigh out 2% as much Calcium Hydroxide.  Mix the corn and the lime (Calcium hydroxide) with lots of water in a large pot.  The corn is going to absorb a lot of water and expand.  

* Note we are not talking about the corn from corn on the cobb, which once dried is shriveled up but corn that has full rounded seeds when dry.  Flint corn is great for this. 

 

Do it in the morning and leave it to soak until the afternoon.  If necessary, add more water.  When cooked, the corn is going to expand even more and use up more water.  In the afternoon, boil the corn and lime mixture with occasional stirring to bring the lime up from the bottom of the pot.  Boil for at least half an hour or better still bring to a boil and simmer for one hour.  Add more water if necessary.  Stir, put on the lid and let it soak  overnight.

 

In the morning, rinse thoroughly until the water is clear and a much of the sloughed outer coat has been removed.  The outer skin of the corn will have sloughed off and the kernels will be a lovely yellow. Run the corn through your meat grinder with the finest holes you have. Package in plastic bags and freeze.  We find that 300g per package is a useful amount.  Now you can add a package to your bread, waffles, Pizza base, and best of all to a pot of Chilliconcarne that you want to thicken once  the beans have been cooked to tenderness.  

 

Why I say best of all is because the amino acids missing in corn are found in beans and vice versa.  Corn and beans together are a balanced protein but to be absorbed by the body, both must be eaten at the same time. A great meal for a vegetarian but you don't have to be a vegie to love a good pot of Chilli.

 

Masa is also made into tortillas and other favorite Mexican delicacies.  In some stores you can buy flour made from Masa.  It is called masa harina and is not the same as corn starch or corn flour.  These later have not been nixtamalized.  Note that another benefit of the process of nixtamalization is that phytotoxins have been removed, especially Aflatoxins.  Aflatoxins are highly carcinogenic compounds produced by a range of  molds.  They tend to contaminate seed crops, especially in warm, moist environments.

 

Anyway, I don't think the technology ever was used in Europe.  After all, what could a bunch of uneducated, pagan natives know.  Another example of  idiotic hubris. 

Increasing my electricity bill

To my power company

CC to government

 

You have seen fit to increase the cost of electricity to my  family when my former contract ended.  This is a scurrilous abuse of the privilege you have been given as a supplier of electricity in New Zealand.  Why do I say this. There are a number of reasons.

1.  Much of the electricity that we use in New Zealand is generated by our extensive hydro-electric dams (57%).  They were built sufficiently long ago that their capital costs should have been totally paid off.  Now all the cost is for running and maintenance.  The water you use belongs to the people of New Zealand.

 

2.  Another large portion of our electricity is from geo-thermal (20%), meaning that a total of three quarters of our electricity is generated without having to purchase any fuel. Our first geothermal plant was commissioned 68 years ago so the capital costs of that plant should have been long since paid for.  Another plant was commissioned 2 years ago.  The thermal resources of New Zealand belong to the people of New Zealand.

 

3.  We have been installing wind and solar power for some time now.  Both are, by far, the least expensive way of generating power today.  The wind over New Zealand belongs to the people of New Zealand and just as is the case with water and geothermal resources, you have been granted the privilege of being able to use them. Again, no fuel needed.

 

4.  The electricity from wind and solar, including the amount that is sent to you from private dwellings, is generated closer to end users, reducing, or at least delaying the need for you to invest in high voltage power transmission lines.  As private and commercial wind and solar installations increase, this tendency will continue and increase.

 

5.  As we, the people, install more and more solar panels and batteries, excess electricity is being sent to you at a discount, for you to sell at the full retail price.  This costs you nothing in capital costs.  We are bearing the investment costs and you reap part of the benefits. If you install your own mega batteries, you can purchase cheap and sell at a profit.

6. Up to the late 1980s, power generation and transmission was a government function.  The whole system was built and financed by the people of New Zealand.  Starting in the late 80's a misguided government agreed to privatization.  Now you generate revenue which has to be shared with share-holders instead of it being passed back to the exchequer and hence to the people. I would have thought that this would impose on you and the other power generation and transmission companies a duty of care to give the best prices possible to Kiwis and not just think of your share holders. Virtually all the fuel you use (water wind and sunshine) are free.   I think you have got the balance wrong. 

 

7.  With the electrification of our country in the form of, induction cook tops instead of gas, Heat pumps instead of burning fuel, and the uptake of EVs instead of ICE cars, your sales are  steadily increasing.  Your prospects for the future is a continuing of this trend, with some of the capital costs of generation being born by us as we install solar panels on our roves.  Your business is booming.  You should be able to give better prices just simply due to the volume of your businesses.

 

8.  As you find the need for more generation you now have the option of wind, solar and mega batteries.  These options are quick to install compared to hydro, geothermal, nuclear and pumped storage and all generate electricity with lower costs than any of the pre-renewable options.

 

At the core of the problem is the cockamamy system of pricing electricity.  In the  bidding that occurs every half hour, if the first and major bidder gives a quote for each mWh of electricity that they will supply, that is not what they receive.  All bidders get the price of the most expensive bid.  Giving all the bidders the rate of the last and most expensive bidder  (often for gas generated electricity) is just dumb and makes a mockery of the bidding system.  I have heard that there are some disadvantages of paying what was bid, but I am far from understanding why.  This system must be reformed.

If you 'get with the program' and install wind, solar and mega batteries, there soon should be no need for a gas back up.  Is this possibly a reason for dragging your feet on installing such equipment.  With gas out of the picture, and even using the silly bidding system we now have, the highest price electricity might be what a mega battery can provide.  Batteries will be the 'peaker plant'.

By the way, the Hornsdale experiment showed that besides the cost benefit, mega batteries stabilized the voltage and frequency of the grid.  Electronic equipment, which we all have in ever increasing amounts in our houses, do not respond well to spikes and drops in voltage.  Part of the amazing profitability of Hornsdale was due to their voltage/frequency regulation.

Lets get on with the transition and stop charging us ever increasing costs for our electricity.  Costs should be steadily decreasing in our present technical climate.

Punctuated Evolution

 Punctuated evolution refers to a short (in geological time) period in which a burst of evolution occurred with either a species rapidly changing into a different species or a bunch of species evolving from one species.  It is stated that this goes against the theory of gradualism proposed by Darwin.  

To my mind, this is hardly surprising, and Punctuated evolution is happening all the time.  The real surprise, the thing we have to explain, is why species stay the same for long periods.  

The reason is that punctuated evolution is overlayed/restricted by natural selection and natural selection is much more involved in keeping species the same rather than creating new species.  Ever since Darwin we have been focused on the role of natural selection to create new species.  That is pretty understandable, as we advanced from a religious point of view (everything is explained in terms of a belief system, evidence to the contrary not withstanding.)  Examples of punctuated evolution are all around us.

Take the Wolf/dog situation.  If we were looking back on the fossil record from half a million years in the future, and looked at the most recent 30,000 years, when man has apparently being associated with the wolf/dog, we would say that the wolf had experienced a period of punctuated evolution resulting in a vast number of varieties of dogs.  30,000 years is just the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms.  We would also be aware that, if any of these varieties had become geographically isolated (as may well be the case if we destroy our present technological society and have to revert to walking to get anywhere) then by simple genetic drift and the accumulation of different genes, genetic cross overs and flipping of sections of genes,  these varieties would no longer be able to produce viable offspring (in other words would have become separate species).  Looking at the fossilized skeletons of these varieties, a future paleontologist could be excused for positing that the skeletons of a Chiwwawa and a Great Dane were from different species

What this indicates is that the wolf species (and virtually all species) are throwing out sports (mutations) at a rapid rate*.  So, now we have the question, why hasn't the Wolf in nature radiated into a whole bunch of different forms.  This is where natural selection comes in.  Once a species is pretty well adapted to a reasonably unchanging environment, natural selection, will work against new 'sports' that are for the most part more poorly adapted to the environment than the dominant form.

*And the rate of the production of 'sports' is far larger than even the variety of dogs suggests.  Add to the apparent number of sports that man has selected for to produce dogs with characteristics different to the wolf, to the number rejected and it is amazing that Natural Selection has kept the Wolf pretty well the same over this period (and before) .

 

The fealty of the wolf to its body plan is less difficult to grasp when we realize that a female alpha wolf in nature can typically produce 5 cubs each year and typically she can live for 7 years.  That is 35 cubs produced during her lifetime.  But,we are not over-run with wolves.  Once population equilibrium in a new area has been achieved, a pair of wolves will leave, on average 2 offspring.  Thirty three have been culled by nature*.  Natural selection is a bitch.  Random accidents will kill some but basically, only the wolfiest cubs will survive to reproduce.  And almost every mutation to an already highly successful wolf will put that wolf at a disadvantage.  Mutations that have no effect on the phenotype of a wolf will, on the other hand, accumulate.

*Sorry, I have played fast and loose with Wolf biology.  In actual fact, in a pack, only the partner of the Alpha Male will produce cubs.  Let's say that an average wolf pack consists of 10 individuals.  Then you could say that 10 wolves produce 35 cubs over 7 years.  10 survive to replace the pack and 25 have been culled by nature. That is still a harsh level of selection against sports surviving plus the fact that the other wolves are likely to kill a less wolfish wolf. Note that wolves are able to have pups at 10 months of age although this is unusual.  But this adds to the potential number of wolves produced by the original pack of wolves and the principle still holds that on average, 10 wolves only leave 10 wolves to carry on the species.

 

Lets look at the somewhat trite example of the color pattern of the common pigeon.  The natural color pattern is that dun grey banded pattern.  Suppose a white pigeon is produced.  As soon as it can fly it is the target of every peregrine falcon in the area. It is far easier to focus on an animal of a different color in a flock.  Same for a stripe-less zebra in a herd of stripy zebras. 

 

You might ask why in the park when we feed the pigeons do we see all sorts of other colors.  This is because man has bred pigeons for thousands of years both for their meat (Squab) and for their homing characteristics.  And we love to save sports and breed from them.  When you have a flock of pigeons, you habituate them to a feeding time and then, after a while, release them to fly just before the feeding time.  These birds of different color patterns "pollute" the wild birds.  

There is another interesting wrinkle to this story.  A very successful animal (and pigeons and people are examples) can show a lot of variety since natural selection is hard pressed to keep the species invariable.

Suppose we went to an island far from the mainland and bred white pigeons.  Once we had a large flock established, we brought in Peregrines.  I bet they would cull any non-white birds that appeared.

 

  So when will punctuated evolution occur.  There are a number of instances but in essence it is when the environment changes. 

This could be when a species finds a new geographical area where its kind is not extant.  There is lots of room, for a while, for sports to get away from the flock/herd

Or it could be when a natural disaster has altered the environment by physically altering  the landscape or by eliminating many existing species.

A key thing is that a disaster has not altered the environment so much that it is outside of the ability of the species in question to survive.  So where do the variations come from that allow a species to branch out and survive.  If the change is too radical, a species will go extinct rather than evolving into a new form.

So where does the vairability come from to create new species.  Of course, there are new mutations but will one come along in time to save the species.  Undoubtedly this is possible and will have happened in the few billion years that organisms have existed on earth.  However there is another source.  

 

Any population will have been accumulating mutations over its existence.  They may have altered some members of the population within the envelope of survivability or they may be recessive genes.  That is to say, ones that are not expressed phenotypically (visibly) unless two of them come together in the same individual.  Very successful species have lots of variability in their genes (look at humans), other species  are very specific in the conditions they need (Panda and Koalas for instance).  Both need very specific foods, Humans can get along with almost anything organic as nutrient. This points out how some species are very vulnerable to a change in their environment while other species are far more robust.

The Galapogos Finches are an interesting example of very fast evolution from existing genes within their genome.  As we shift from El Nino to La Nina and back, some of the islands produce a lot of large hard seeds and then a lot of small easily cracked seeds and back again.  The beaks of one of the species of finches follows these trends with different beaks.  All this really means is that both variations of beaks are coded into the genome of these finches and year by year, the ones that have the greatest number of young with the suitable beaks survive in much larger numbers.  If one of these seed regimes lasted for a long time, pretty well all the less fit genes would be selected out and the finches would be 'fixed' in one state.

Sparrows give us an interesting example.  A successful pair of sparrows can produce 5 young, five times per year and live for over 5 years.  Yet we are not overrun by sparrows.  Their population remains about the same from year to year.  Just think what the attrition rate from natural selection is on sparrows.  Successful sparrows have to be top notch in all sparrowy characteristics to leave offspring.  Once many generations have gone by in a pretty much stable environment, I would take a pretty amazing new mutation to make a sparrow more able to pass on this genetic variation to its offsprings.  Again, natural slection has much more to do with keeping a species the same than to produce new forms.