CSIRO first initiated litigation in 2005 and settled major cases in 2009 against 14 companies, recording proceeds of $205 million for that year. Since that time, additional licenses have been granted. CSIRO will receive more than $220 million from this round of WLAN licensing. The WLAN technology was invented by a team of CSIRO scientists – Dr John O’Sullivan, Dr Terry Percival, Mr Diet Ostry, Mr Graham Daniels and Dr John Deane.

An infographic on the development of the Wi-Fi technology is available here

Feel free to use these quotes in your stories.  If you would like to speak to an expert, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 7120 8666 or by email.

 ———–

 Nigel Poole is Acting Group Executive, Information Sciences Group at CSIRO

“We are delighted to have made further progress in licensing this very important technology contribution from Australia. The wireless LAN technology, commonly known as wi-fi, is in over three billion devices worldwide – and it will grow to five billion products by 2013 when the patents expire – we guess that means most households in the developed world have more than five wi-fi consumer devices connecting themselves reliably to the internet and to each other without wires.  CSIRO’s commercial and legal teams on both sides of the Pacific have worked very hard over the past several years to gain a reasonable return and I would like to pay particular tribute to them for their extraordinary efforts. Of course, it was the inventors, led by Dr O’Sullivan, whose brilliance in the 1990s made all this possible.  CSIRO has been delivering results to Australia for over 80 years, and to have such an important breakthrough deliver the significant returns announced by the Minister makes us all very proud.”

———–

 Dr Mark Gregory is a Senior Lecturer in network engineering in the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering at RMIT University, Melbourne

“The CSIRO Wi-Fi licensing outcomes have now brought in about $430M since the CSIRO patent claims started in 2005. About three billion items now include Wi-Fi and this number is expected to increase to five billion before the patents expire in 2013. CSIRO is a powerhouse of invention and this is a major outcome for Australia. The CSIRO outcome has highlighted the capability to successfully make a patent claim against some of the largest multi-nationals in the world. Wi-Fi has enhanced the development and use of mobile devices and should be seen to be a major contribution to world society.”

———–

Dr Paul Stephen-Gardner is a Post-Doctoral Fellow in the School of Computer Science, Engineering & Mathematics at Flinders University, Adelaide

“The WiFi patent victory for CSIRO is important, not just for drawing license fees into our country, but for giving Australian researchers a great morale boost as they continue to innovate in many areas, punching well above our population would suggest.

Hopefully the government will have the wisdom to invest this windfall into further research and development activities that can generate value, just as the invention of WiFi now helps billions of people to connect, a value that dwarfs the considerable financial return that his invention has generated.

This is also a case where the value of ‘basic’ or ‘fundamental’ research has been clearly proven, with WiFi emerging from radioastronomy.  This is well worth the government’s notice, given that such basic research is discouraged under government research funding schemes in favour of more applied research.”

U.S. scientists have been investigating whether prenatal exposure to mobile phone radiation has any impact on mice, though the authors caution that their findings may be difficult to translate to human risks.

Female mice were exposed to an active mobile phone call throughout their pregnancy. The authors found that fetal exposure to mobile phone radiation may affect neurological development and function of adult mice, reporting that the exposed mice tended to be more hyperactive and had decreased anxiety and reduced memory capacity.

Feel free to use these quotes in your stories. If you would like a copy of the research or to speak to an expert, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 7120 8666 or by email.

———–

Prof Rodney Croft is Professor of Health Psychology, School of Psychology, University of Wollongong and former Executive Director of the Australian Centre for Radio Frequency Bioeffects Research

“There are two major limitations with the paper that preclude any comment about the effects of mobile phone emissions on ADHD. The first is that the measurement of absorbed doses (dosimetry) was not adequate as we don’t even know if one group of mice was exposed more than the other. The second is that we can’t extrapolate from the mouse results to ADHD in humans (indeed the changes observed in the mice were not even consistent with ADHD).

None-the-less, should associations be found between mobile phone emissions and behaviour in mice, this would be very important scientifically, particularly as none have been identified to date. It will thus be important to replicate the study with improved methodology to determine whether mobile phone emissions can affect long-term memory, hyperactivity or anxiety; a pattern that although not relating to ADHD, would be important for human wellbeing more generally.”

———-

UK expert comments – collected by our friends at the UK Science Media Centre:

Dr Mischa de Rover, Cognitive Psychologist, Leiden University, The Netherlands, said:

“I performed scientific studies in mice, rats and humans and I found extrapolation of animal data to humans the most difficult part in that area of science. Good animal data is of crucial importance as a starting point for human studies but should never be used as a basis for risk assessment in humans.”

———-

Eric Taylor, Emeritus Professor of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, said:

“This paper does not show any link between radiofrequency exposure and ADHD.  The rate of ADHD problems has been steady for more than 20 years (any increase is due to greater recognition), so mobile phones are an unlikely cause.

“Taking animal studies and extrapolating directly to humans requires much more care.  The exposure of the animals was very great, and the researchers’ tests of animal memory should not be directly equated to human attention; different species can react differently.”

———-

Professor Malcolm Sperrin, Director of Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, Royal Berkshire Hospital, said:

“This paper presents work from a highly respected organisation and does bring additional insight into how electromagnetic radiation may affect tissue and its development during gestation.  The study is designed appropriately and the conclusions are reasonable.  However, the authors repeatedly state that any correlation between the effects on mice during the study and predicted effects on humans are too tenuous to be reasonably claimed.

“This study does not suggest that mobile phones could be the cause of ADHD in humans for several reasons: Firstly, the developmental model for mice bears no practical resemblance to humans (19 days gestation versus nine months). Secondly, the mice experienced long periods of exposure – in some cases continuously. Thirdly, the distance between the source of radiation and the target tissue is not representative of human usage (a few cm as opposed to a metre or so). And finally, Power density and exposure conditions will be different between the mice and humans.

“It is reasonable to conclude that this study is a worthy step aimed at understanding non-ionising radiation effects, but great caution must be given not to stretch the data too far until more work is done to move toward human equivalent studies.

“It should also be recognised that ADHD is a syndrome which is still being researched and the increase in incidence may arise because of a greater understanding and willingness to describe the occurrence of ADHD.  The paper does recognise this and the presence of other contributory factors as possible confounding influences.

“It would be very interesting to identify control groups including those where mobile phone exposure is very limited and to correlate against ADHD in such communities.”

———-

Katya Rubia, Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, said:

“The extrapolation of the behavioural and brain effects of prenatal mobile phone exposure in mice to human ADHD and its increase in our society is alarmist and unjustified. Some enhancement in motor activity in mice is not translatable to the complex human ADHD behaviour characterised by impulsiveness, inattention and motor activity. ADHD is not associated with memory problems, or with decreased anxiety, and the key brain deficits are in the basal ganglia rather than the frontal lobe. While research in humans is warranted there is no convincing evidence in the data to back up such extrapolations to human ADHD.”

“This research does not show that mobile phone radiation exposure in utero is linked to ADHD in humans because:

• The study is in mice and radiation levels are far higher for a mouse foetus than a human foetus.

• The behavioural outcome features are not comparable to those measured in humans. For example, the mice showed higher motor activity levels and not “hyperactivity”, and the enhanced motoricity does not translate into human ADHD, which is defined as a complex behaviour including hyperactivity, impulsiveness and inattention.

• Long-term memory that is tested in this study is not associated with ADHD, working memory is but this was not tested in the mice. The introduction mentions working memory impairment in ADHD but then the study measures long-term memory which has nothing to do with working memory. These are two separate functions with dissociated neurobiological substrates. Long-term memory is mediated by the hippocampus and not the frontal lobes, which mediate working memory.

• Anxiety was reduced in exposed mice, but this is typically higher in ADHD and a key comorbidity.

• The frontal lobe glutamate system is associated with most psychiatric disorders and there is therefore no specific association between frontal lobe impairment and ADHD. In fact the basal ganglia are the most consistently associated brain areas with ADHD and not the frontal lobes.

“Overall the association between the behavioural and brain complications in rodents due to prenatal mobile phone exposure and human ADHD is clearly over-egged and not justified by the data.”

———-

Jim Stevenson, Emeritus Professor of Developmental Psychopathology, University of Southampton, said:

“The study by Aldad et al. concerns the effects on behaviour in mice of exposure to cellular telephone radiation in utero.  In introducing their research and in the discussion of their findings the authors propose that the study contributes to our understanding of the origins of hyperactivity and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.  The paper itself presents no findings on behaviour in children.  The authors imply that since a previous study found an association then their work can be seen as suggesting a possible mechanism for the association.

“The paper makes just one reference to a study on humans linking prenatal exposure to cellular radiation to children’s behaviour. The authors of the study referred to conclude:   “These associations may be noncausal and may be due to unmeasured confounding.” (Divan et al., 2008).

“In a subsequent paper from this same research group it was concluded that there was “No evidence of an association between prenatal cell phone use and motor or cognitive/language developmental delays among infants at 6 and 18 months of age was observed. Even when considering dose response associations for cell phone use, associations were null.” (Divan et al, 2011).

“The only other study I have been able to locate on this topic in children concluded: “This study gives little evidence for an adverse effect of maternal cell phone use during pregnancy on the early neurodevelopment of offspring.” (Vrijheid et al., 2010).

“So, rather than established link in humans between prenatal exposure and neurodevelopmental disabilities there is to date only little evidence of an association.  This makes it irresponsible for the Aldad et al. to speculate about the adverse risks of prenatal exposure from their evidence based on mice.  It is known that elevated levels of hyperactivity can arise from genetic and a wide range of environmental factors (for example diet, institutional care and premature birth).  It may be that prenatal exposure to cellular phone radiation is another noxious experience contributing to hyperactivity (we just do not know but at present the evidence suggest it is not) but this conjecture cannot be supported by the evidence from mice reported in this paper.”

———-

Philip Asherson, Professor of Molecular Psychiatry and Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, said:

“There are many causes of hyperactivity in mice and most have nothing to do with ADHD. In the paper the mice are more active and less anxious, potentially meaning that they are less anxious (because anxious mice are less active than non-anxious mice).  I think it is sufficient to say that the intervention may cause changes in some aspects of behaviour and cognition – and could therefore potentially be linked to development of mental health or cognitive problems later in development. There is nothing here to make any specific link to ADHD or what (in the past) some people referred to as childhood hyperactivity.”

———–

* ‘Fetal Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure From 800-1900 Mhz-Rated Cellular Telephones Affects Neurodevelopment and Behavior in Mice‘ by Aldad, T. et al. published in Scientific Reports, Friday 16th March.

On March 11 last year a magnitude 9.0 (Mw) earthquake hit off the coast of Japan triggering a powerful tsunami and resulting in the most serious nuclear accident since Chernobyl. Over 15,000 people were confirmed dead as the tsunami inundated a total area of approximately 561 km2 (217 sq mi) in Japan. A series of fires and explosions within the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station triggered a full meltdown in three reactors whilst a fourth was significantly damaged by fire. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was rated as a level 7 (major accident) on the international nuclear and radiological event scale. Now, one year after the disastrous events unfolded, nuclear and disaster experts examine the current situation and what lessons can be learnt.

Below are comments from Japanese experts gathered by our friends at the Science Media Centre of Japan and translated into English by Translationz. The collaboration between the Australian Science Media and the Science Media Centre of Japan is supported by the Commonwealth through the Australia-Japan Foundation which is part of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

To see comments from Australian, UK and Canadian experts, click here.

Feel free to use these quotes in your stories.  Any further comments will be posted here. If you would like to speak to an expert, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 7120 8666 or by email.

AusSMC hosted an online briefing on this issue on Tuesday 6 March with Japanese, UK and Australian experts – a full copy of the briefing is available here: http://www.aussmc.org/2012/03/background-briefing-fukushima-one-year-on/

———

Tatsujiro Suzuki is Vice-Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission in the Japanese Cabinet office

“The present circumstances assure that Fukushima Daiichi is remarkably stable. However, the condition of the reactor core is not understood and there are still many mysteries about the nuclear reactor.

At present the main concern is the radioactive material being discharged in large quantities into the air. However, I think that this is a short-term concern. I feel as a future prospect, the treatment of contaminated water being generated in large quantities would be more important. The water is being processed; it however is not decreasing. The people at Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant are suffering a lot due to this. The influx has already entered the sea. Effort is being made to build a fence, however this would take time. Groundwater is flowing under the power plant; hence one has to keep watch on underground penetration. In the case of the contaminated water, a liquid waste disposal process has to be set up as it is a high level radioactive waste.

Robots started operating at the power plant a few days ago. However, in the long run, measures have to be taken against the discharge of nuclear fuel. According to an expert of the Atomic Energy Commission, it would take around 30 years for the complete containment of the Fukushima Daiichi accident. There are many matters which have not been experienced so far. Atomic energy experts as well as the best brains from the world over must come together to find the solution to this problem. The government is working towards forming such a system.

When we talk about the area outside the nuclear power plant, the contamination is spreading and a feeling of insecurity has developed amongst the citizens. Hence I think it is necessary that the government and the power company should have a deep sense of responsibility and should search their conscience. I think that the contamination outside the nuclear plant would not affect the health of the citizens. I, however, am extremely sorry that the entire country has fallen into despair due to this.

The government now is trying its best for decontamination. First of all, it is important to provide accurate information for monitoring. Disbelief still exists in the figures provided by the government. The government is putting in effort, but there might be problems in the approaches adopted. The style of communication is bad, the efficiency is poor, the process is not well designed; hence the residents are not feeling relaxed as yet. ICRP is also stating that the residents should be taken into confidence and then decisions should be made together. However the scene has not yet changed. Things are decided by the scientists all by themselves and then they are simply conveyed. The decision making process is not convincing. Therefore there exists a sense of distrust. And this has to be changed.

In the case of decontamination, the standards for external exposure (to radiation) have been set. The annual external exposure of any area should be less than 20mSv. If this isn’t the case, people are not permitted to live there. However if it is less than the set standard, the residents can return to their homes. Hence, in the short run it is important that the areas with external exposure of 1~20mSv are decontaminated and made available for the residents. At present, data collection for decontamination has been stopped. It would, however, being full scale from April. As far as decontamination is concerned, there are challenging topics such as the hot spots (the area where the radiation dose is high locally) being jumbled up and the contamination levels desired by the agricultural people and those desired by the common man are different etc. Normally, monitoring is required to be done along with the residents before the decontamination. However it could not be done in this case. In addition, the present grid of monitoring is oversized. If possible it should be done within 100 meter ×100 meter. Even this is not feasible due to shortage of manpower. We would like to collaborate with various people and find out the best approach.

In the long run, it is necessary to differentiate between areas where residents can return and those where they cannot. This should be done at the earliest possible time. However, this needs a political decision. The residents build up expectations when the scientists state that “decontamination is possible”. However the areas where residents cannot return need to be clearly decided with the judgment of experts.

In addition, the citizens have a sense of distrust concerning the safety of other nuclear power plants. This was a tsunami and earthquake beyond the control of the safety standards. Hence now new standards should be created which would factor in such disasters. And the nuclear power plants must comply with these new standards. It is very difficult to create new safety standards in a short time span. Therefore, a stress test needs to be conducted. It seems that easy-to-follow restart criteria are not yet given. I think it is not necessary from an energy demand and supply point of view. However, if a new regulatory agency is formed then it would specify the standards of restart for the nuclear plants which are not operational at present. The new regulatory agency would do its best to convince the residents and make the nuclear plant operational.

Future energy policy of Japan

As far as energy policy is concerned, in the short run, the demand and supply measures for this summer must be formulated. Relevant data is now being collected. Investigations are also being made on the assumption that electricity generated using nuclear power would be zero.

In the long run, the only decision that has been made is that dependency on nuclear power plants would be reduced.  Discussion over the future energy mix is not clear. The government has promised that it would provide the alternatives by this spring and things would get decided with a national debate in summer. As national debate is a new concept, it would require cooperation from the government as well as the entire nation including experts from various fields. We need to urgently find a process which would convince everyone that “The decision was taken after a debate”.

A significant philosophy needs to be formed to decide the energy mix with certain standards, as a society. I think apart from the debates by the government commission, it would be better if the debates are done everywhere and communicated to the government at the end.”

※ SMCJ Comment: Tatsujiro Suzuki was associated with sociological studies of science and technology through technology assessment research. He is also active in interaction with the society. Hence, in Japanese organizations where there is a strong tendency of confining issues bureaucratically, he is considered as a significant spokesman of Cabinet office Atomic Energy Commission.

———

Assistant Professor Hiroaki Koide is from the Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute

“Things which have been learnt one year after the Fukushima disaster

We’ve realized that we don’t know anything. If the accident was at a thermal power plant, it would have been possible to inspect the actual accident site and find out the details. However, in the case of a nuclear power plant disaster it is not possible as there are radioactive materials. The people who were promoting nuclear power generation so far say that the disaster was “unanticipated”. As the accident was unanticipated, the measuring devices required to investigate the cause of the disaster are also not installed. Furthermore, the so-called measuring devices which were installed have broken down. It is of utmost importance to know the whereabouts of the nuclear fuel, and the melted reactor core. These facts however are not known.

Future prospects

If we talk about the scene at the nuclear plant, then the problem is that we don’t know the extent the melted reactor core would spread to. It would be important to know the kind of measures that would have to be taken to prevent the spread of the contamination. If the melted reactor core drips underground and comes in contact with groundwater, radioactive material would spread in the environment. Therefore, it is important to set up barriers beforehand and prevent such contact.

Another problem is the spent nuclear fuel in the pool. Daiichi reactor 4 has been badly damaged. Efforts should be made to prevent further damage to this pool. This, however, is difficult due to frequent aftershocks and the high radiological dose levels. In the event of a big aftershock and the pool breaking down, the spent nuclear fuel would spread in the environment in the absence of a barrier. The workers have already started clearing up the debris. Moreover TEPCO might be looking at this problem as a top priority.”

※ SMCJ Comment: Hiroaki Koide is considered by the Japanese media to be a pioneer among the experts who have adopted a stance supporting denuclearization. He has mentioned his stance in a well-known Japanese national daily as well as in weekly magazines. He is in the limelight in the alternative media.

———

Assistant Professor Tetsuo Sawada is at Research Laboratory for Nuclear Reactors Energy Engineering at the Tokyo Institute of Technology

“Various events occurred within a week of the disaster. If the systems before the disaster are compared with those afterwards, does it develop as expected? If the condition of the reactor core is taken into account, then the fuel of the reactor cores is damaged from Daiichi reactor 1 to Daiichi reactor 3. And a significant proportion of the core fuel has melted. It is not very clear about the exact quantity of the core fuel that is damaged and whether it has spread in the furnace. There is a possibility that some fuel might have leaked out of the containment vessel and some quantity has melted. I think there is no marked change according to the circumstances reported by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) a few days after the Fukushima disaster. For example, if Daiichi reactor 1 is taken into consideration, then it is not clear whether the percentage of the core fuel that has melted is 70 or 100.

The problem of contamination and decontamination of any region due to radioactive material is a serious issue. It has been confirmed that in late March radioactive material was dispersed in areas including Itate, Fukushima Prefecture. The quantity of the discharged radioactive material and the dispersed radioactive material distribution has not changed a lot since then. Major emission into the environment stopped immediately after the disaster. However, the problem is coping with the substances that have already been discharged. Air dose rate observed in Minamisoma and Itate has not yet reduced. The matter has become serious as the circumstances are very difficult to comprehend and deal with. And it can be said that now the seriousness of the matter has increased from last March-April.

There is one more point which needs to be considered seriously. Areas within a 20-kilometer radius of the plant have been left uninhabited. This area was declared as a ‘no-go’ zone. However, this area has been neglected over the past year. The rubble caused by the tsunami and the wreckages of houses due to the earthquake etc. are all lying untouched.  If the situation continues like this then there would be much deterioration and decay. Furthermore, if there is new vegetation growth then it would advance the immobilization of the radioactive material. It has been also heard from the residents who have returned that the circumstances are getting worse due to the stand adopted.

How does one process and control the radioactive material that has been discharged into the environment? How can the people from the affected area cope with the radioactive material? These issues are very important. However, their solution is difficult. There was some information available from the knowledge gained following the Chernobyl accident, regarding the discharge of cesium in large quantities. However, I now comprehend the present circumstances and their gravity, after my frequent visits to Minamisoma and Itate, listening to the tales of residents after the actual discharge. It can be said that even my thoughts have changed.

An atomic energy regulatory agency is to be established in April. It seems that though the organizational structure of the agency would change, the content would be almost the same. I, however, am not clear as to how it should be. Neither am I in a position to comment on it. The future concern is the measures for the Daini power plant. There are frequent big earthquakes in this area following the earthquake in Sumatra in 2004. The possibility of a future earthquake of the same magnitude and that could possibly lead to a tsunami also exist. If such a situation occurs then the Fukushima power plant will become even more compromised. The circulatory system of the cooling pool of the reactors need to be maintained. It is necessary to have preventive measures in order to maintain the present cold shutdown, just in case something else goes wrong.

Lastly, there is another concern regarding the water shielding wall. At first, there was a situation when the water accumulated in the reactor building and the trench would not lessen even after being pumped out. The chances of groundwater leakage have been stated. Therefore it was decided to build a water shielding wall as a temporary measure. Since it would cost approximately 100 billion yen to build it, TEPCO took the stance that it would only build it if it got support from the Government. As a result the plan was cancelled. Even at this point in time, the relation between the groundwater flowing under the power plant and the water flowing outside it is not known. There might not be a leakage of contaminated water on a large scale. The question of quantity remains. I think there is a possibility of leakage being present at the moment.”

※ SMCJ Comment: Tetsuo Sawada faced the media as an expert after the earthquake disaster and tried to explain the situation. As a result, he became popular as ‘a scholar beholden to the government’ on the Internet. However, at present, as one of the founders of the Minna-no (Everybody’s) Energy and Environment Conference (MEEC, http://www.meec.jp/ (only in Japanese), he is participating in a debate for social decision making regarding future energy policies including alternative energy.

———

Useful links:

Information on an International Expert Symposium in Fukushima held last September:

http://www.nippon-foundation.or.jp/eng/media/news/2011/20111114.html

Stream of the symposium (which was followed by a large scale press conference):

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/17194336

Published conclusions and recommendations:

http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/31/4/E02

The March issue of Journal of Radiological Protection has most of the presentations as short papers:

http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/page/Forthcoming%20articles#Notes:_SelFukushima_

———

Feel free to use these quotes in your stories.  Any further comments will be posted here. If you would like to speak to an expert, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 7120 8666 or by email.

———–

Jonathan Nally is a science writer and editor of the Australian space news web site, SpaceInfo.com.au (Sydney-based)

“The solar cycle and accompanying solar storm activity, rises and falls over a period of 11 years and has been doing so for billions of years.

NASA reports that the spectacular storm unleashed by the Sun this week is the second-largest (so far) of the current solar cycle. The cycle is on the rise at the moment and is forecast to peak in the next 12 months, so we can expect to see more of these storms.

Not all solar storms are ejected in a direction that aims at Earth, although this week’s one was and it has been predicted to reach us today.

These storms can induce effects in technological systems and have the potential to disrupt power grids, long pipelines, and terrestrial and satellite radio communications. But the effects are well understood and the operators of such systems are vigilant and well-prepared to take precautions that minimise or eliminate service interruptions.

Such “space weather” can also produce stunning aurorae – the Northern and Southern Lights – a harmless and beautiful side-effect of the phenomenon.

They can be seen from far northern and southern latitudes, but unfortunately most of Australia is too far north to see the Southern Lights.”

———–

Dr Alina Donea is an astrophysicist in the Monash Centre for Astrophysics, Monash University, Victoria

“With the solar cycle entering a more active phase, today’s solar flare is a sign of things to come. Our dependence on high tech communications systems has made us more vulnerable to such events but we should not panic. Previous flares have taught researchers lessons: we learned more about how to operate the instruments during extreme solar activity.

Solar flares are categorised by their size (according to the peak flux recorded in watts per square meter, W/m²), as an A, B, C, M or X class flare. A B-class solar flare releases 10 times more energy than an A-class flare, while a C-class eruption releases 10 times more than a class B flare (and 100 times more than class A) and so on. Within each letter class there is a finer scale from 1 to 9.

The most powerful flare measured with modern methods was in 2003, during the last solar maximum, and it was so powerful that it overloaded the sensors measuring it. The sensors cut out at X28.

This current flare is expected to be of a similar size as the Bastille Day Flare, which occurred on the 14^th February 2000. That flare was one of the largest geomagnetic storms of the previous solar cycle, accompanied by a massive coronal mass ejection and shock which was initially traveling at a speed of ~1800 km/s.

It was big enough to cause the earth’s magnetosphere to become extremely compressed and eroded (on the day-side), causing 3 geosynchronous satellites to enter the magnetosheath for an extended time period (3h). The Extreme ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (EIT) on NASA’s SOHO satellite found itself so bombarded by high flux from the sun that it became saturated and couldn’t record any useful readings.

The Sun also sent Solar energetic particles (SEPs) towards Earth. Through a series of chemical reactions in our atmosphere, these SEP protons drastically diminished the upper-most areas of the ozone layer, a protective blanket mostly in the stratosphere that blocks life-threatening ultraviolet radiation from reaching the Earth. This did not, however, result in a significant impact on human health, especially considering that most of the ozone loss documented in this study occurs over the northern polar region, they are important scientifically.

So, a general comment is that we should expect more or less a similar impact to the Earth.

A very important question for us in relation to these flares of March 2012 is:  has this March 2012 X5 flare produced a solar quake in the Sun? The Bastille Day flare did not generate a seismic event, but this one might have ignited a very big one. We will find the answer soon (the Monash University team works on this). If the flare generated a sunquake then our puzzle about why some flares produce quakes and other do not is even bigger.”

———–

[*Effectiveness of internet-based cognitive behavioural treatment for adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome (FITNET): a randomised controlled trial, Nijhof et al, The Lancet, Published online March 1, 2012]
Feel free to use these quotes in your stories.   If you would like to speak to an expert, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 7120 8666 or by email.

———–

Dr Rosanne Coutts is an Accredited Exercise Physiologist and  Lecturer in Sport and Exercise Psychology at Southern Cross University

“These results are very encouraging and again demonstrate the importance of the psychological aspects within treatment processes. By using the internet, which adolescents are very familiar with, they have met them ‘where they live’. The patients also seemed fairly involved in what they did, it was quite self-driven, putting patients back in charge of their own recovery. Further detail about the actual physical activity conducted in both groups would be of interest and would assist with understanding any physiological changes that had also occurred. The study also relied on, self-report, however even with consideration for some self-reporting bias the school attendance is a clear indicator of levels of recovery.  Previous studies report a good prognosis for adolescents and this study again supports this.”

———–