21 Jan, 2019

Natural Disasters Caused $160 Billion in Damage in 2018

Published at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies – January the 8th 2019

Natural disasters caused $160 billion in economic damage worldwide in 2018, dominated by costly wildfires in California and tropical storms in the United States and Asia, according to a new report from the reinsurance giant Munich Re. California’s Camp and Woolsey fires alone caused losses of $21.7 billion, $16.5 billion of which was insured.

Overall, insurance companies paid out $80 billion in claims for damage from natural disasters last year, down from 2017’s $140 billion, but double the 30-year average. California’s wildfires accounted for nearly one in every $4 insurance companies paid out in disaster claims in 2018, Reuters reported.

“Losses from wildfires in California have risen dramatically in recent years,” Ernst Rauch, the chief climatologist at Munich Re, said in a statement. “At the same time, we have experienced a significant increase in hot, dry summers, which has been a major factor in the formation of wildfires. Many scientists see a link between these developments and advancing climate change.”

Rauch told Reuters that the mounting costs bring into question whether people can continue to build in high-risk wildfire areas without protective measures, such as more fire-resistant materials.

Twenty-nine natural disaster events in 2018 caused more than $1 billion in damage each. Tropical cyclones caused $57 billion in damage last year, much of it from hurricanes Michael and Florence that hit the United States and typhoons Jebi, Mangkhut, and Trami in Asia.

A severe drought in Europe that set off major wildfires and agricultural losses caused $3.9 billion in damage last year. But Munich Re reports that just a small fraction of this damage, $280 million, was covered by insurance companies since farmers in Europe don’t typically purchase policies for drought

12 Déc, 2018

ToxicDocs: The largest database on industrial poisons – some 20 million once-secret industry and trade association documents concerning the health hazards of toxic chemicals, such as asbestos, lead and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs.)

Reviewed by James Ives, MPsychDec 12 2018

Johnson & Johnson, the world’s largest health care products maker, is in the midst of more than 10,000 lawsuits claiming that its iconic baby powder is linked to cancer. In July, a verdict by a Missouri jury awarded 22 women $4.6 billion in a lawsuit against the company, supporting their claim that talcum powder caused their ovarian cancer. The case is under appeal.

At issue in that litigation, as in many other cases, is whether the talc-based powder contains asbestos, a known carcinogen, and if the company was aware of the alleged cancer risk for decades and sought to suppress evidence rather than warn consumers.

Now, a powerful resource at Columbia University has opened areas of inquiry about the corporate and regulatory histories of these companies. ToxicDocs is a database of some 20 million once-secret industry and trade association documents concerning the health hazards of toxic chemicals, such as asbestos, lead and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs.)

« This material provides a peek into the government agencies responsible for regulating toxic chemicals and the inner workings of major firms that manufactured and sold toxic substances and the products containing them, » said David Rosner, the Ronald H. Lauterstein Professor of Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia Mailman School of Public Health and a professor in the Department of History. « It is the right of the public to know which industries knowingly profited from public health hazards. »

ToxicDocs, which launched earlier this year, is free and open to all. Its collection consists of discovery documents from myriad lawsuits that were made public once they were introduced in court but were extremely hard for the general public to access. The data includes internal memos, unpublished scientific studies, planning reports for public relations campaigns, meeting minutes and presentations–some dating back to the 1920s–related to the introduction of new products and chemicals into workplaces and commerce. The companies represented in the database range from a small brake manufacturer to multinational giants like J&J and Monsanto

The three-person ToxicDocs team consists of Rosner; Gerald Markowitz, Distinguished Professor of History at John Jay College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York; and Merlin Chowkwanyun, the Donald H. Gemson Assistant Professor of Sociomedical Sciences at Mailman, who spearheaded the effort to index and digitize the materials. Rosner and Markowitz, who began collaborating in the 1980s, have written books about occupational and environmental disease and testified as expert witnesses in dozens of cases on behalf of plaintiffs exposed to industrial toxins. They have spent decades accumulating boxes and boxes of company records.

« We had access to millions of documents uncovered in litigation over toxic chemicals, but they were impossible to sift through, » said Rosner, who co-directs the Center for the History and Ethics of Public Health at Mailman, which maintains ToxicDocs with Columbia’s history department and CUNY.

12 Déc, 2018

Vendre sans conscience ne fonctionne plus.

Une étude d’Edelman Intelligence montre que les deux tiers des consommateurs français (65%) choisissent d’acheter ou de boycotter une marque pour ses prises de position. Ce qui n’était hier qu’un simple avantage devient aujourd’hui une obligation. Pour exister, croître et embellir, une société se doit d’être aux prises de positions sociétales. Voilà le principal enseignement de l’étude Earned Brand 2018 menée dans huit pays par le cabinet d’études et d’analyses Edelman Intelligence auprès de 8000 personnes en ligne et de 32 000 sondés sur mobile. Les chiffres de cette enquête ont de quoi donner à réfléchir aux dirigeants qui essaieraient encore de jouer la carte du « business as usual » en refusant de s’impliquer dans la vie de la société.

Une lame de fond

Près des deux tiers des consommateurs français (65%) choisissent aujourd’hui d’acheter ou de boycotter une marque pour ses prises de position. Plus intéressant encore, ce chiffre a bondi de quinze points par rapport à l’année dernière. Oui vous avez bien lu : quinze points. Autre enseignement : « Cette tendance était jusqu’alors surtout présente auprès des millennials urbains, informés et CSP + mais elle touche aujourd’hui toutes les couches de la société et toutes les classes d’âge », remarque Amélie Aubry, la directrice du Brand Marketing d’Elan Edelman « Chez les 55 ans et plus, le nombre de personnes qui choisissent une marque en fonction de ses convictions a augmenté 17% en un an. Cette hausse est de 16% pour les revenus moyens et de 8% pour les plus défavorisés ».

L’occasion fait le larron

Le cabinet d’études et d’analyses américain a rangé les degrés d’engagement sociétaux des marques en trois catégories principales. Les premières ont un objectif bien défini (« purpose »). Elles souhaitent remplir une mission et l’affirment haut et fort comme Danone qui se revendique être le spécialiste de l’alimentation pour la santé. L’introduction l’an prochain du plan d’action pour la croissance et la transformation des entreprises (PACTE) va encourager les compagnies à prendre de tels engagements car ce texte prévoit de modifier le Code civil et le Code de Commerce afin de permettre aux sociétés qui le souhaitent de se doter d’une raison d’être dans leurs statuts.

D’autres groupes profitent d’une actualité pour prendre position. Lorsque la Commission Européenne a décidé d’interdire certains produits en plastique à usage unique, certaines multinationales comme McDonald’s et Starbucks ont réagi en affirmant qu’elles allaient retirer immédiatement de leurs points de vente leurs pailles en plastique. Nature & Découvertes a, pour sa part, choisi de détourner le Black Friday cette année en demandant à ses clients de venir voter, dans ses magasins, du 19 au 25 novembre, en faveur de quatre associations qui défendent la biodiversité (Sea Shepherd France, Longitude 181, ASPAS et la Ligue de protection des oiseaux). Pour chaque voix, l’enseigne s’engageait à verser un euro à une association.

Entreprises activistes

« Il existe enfin les entreprises activistes qui sont très rares en France mais beaucoup plus nombreuses aux Etats-Unis », constate Amélie Aubry « C’est le cas notamment de Patagonia qui lutte contre la surconsommation et critique ouvertement Donald Trump ». Ces sociétés qui portent leurs valeurs comme un étendard se savent clivantes mais elles séduisent les consommateurs qui veulent changer la société. Plus de la moitié des personnes interrogées dans le monde (54% vs 49% en France) considèrent ainsi que les marques peuvent faire plus que les gouvernements pour résoudre les problèmes sociaux. Dans l’hexagone, 48% des sondés jugent qu’il est plus facile d’amener les entreprises à prendre en charge les questions sociétales que d’obtenir une action de la part des pouvoirs publics dans ce domaine. 37% des consommateurs français disent même que les sociétés ont des idées plus pertinentes que le gouvernement pour résoudre les problèmes de leur pays. Mais les bonnes intentions ne sont pas toutes suivies d’actes.

« Nous sommes aujourd’hui à un carrefour des paradoxes », analyse la directrice du Brand Marketing d’Elan Edelman « Les gens veulent plus d’informations sur les étiquettes des produits qu’ils achètent mais ils souhaitent moins de packaging. Ils sont en faveur du bio mais refusent de payer davantage pour ces références. Ces problèmes sont très compliqués à résoudre pour les marques et ils ne devraient pas disparaître du jour au lendemain. Bien au contraire. L’implication sociétale des entreprises est une lame de fond qui va devenir de plus en plus mainstream ». Vous voilà prévenus… Article d’Influencia

15 Oct, 2018

Le destin de la médecine à l’époque de l’IA

Très bel article du Lancet sur l’intelligence artificielle et la médecine

Qu’est-ce que cela signifie aujourd’hui d’être un médecin ? Est-ce toujours une discipline que nous pratiquons lorsqu’une machine sait mieux que nous le diagnostic, le traitement ou le destin de notre patient ? Serons-nous toujours la main qui rassure par la parole et le soin ? Il reste difficile de prédire quand l’intelligence artificielle (IA) deviendra si puissante qu’elle devancera les êtres humains. Certains voient ce jour arriver bientôt et les prévisions extrêmes voient disparaître des disciplines entières comme la radiologie ou la dermatologie, remplacées par l’IA. La vérité est beaucoup moins claire. La perspective de l’IA est une tache de Rorschach sur laquelle beaucoup transfèrent leurs rêves technologiques ou leurs angoisses
L’article à lire dans le Lancet – October 11, 2018

15 Oct, 2018

The cost of ignoring the warning signs – EEA publishes ‘Late Lessons from Early Warnings, volume II’

New technologies have sometimes had very harmful effects, but in many cases the early warning signs have been suppressed or ignored. The second volume of Late Lessons from Early Warnings investigates specific cases where danger signals have gone unheeded, in some cases leading to deaths, illness and environmental destruction.

The first volume of Late Lessons, published in 2001, was a ground breaking report detailing the history of technologies subsequently found to be harmful. The new 750-page volume includes 20 new case studies, with far-reaching implications for policy, science and society.

Case studies include the stories behind industrial mercury poisoning; fertility problems caused by pesticides; hormone-disrupting chemicals in common plastics; and pharmaceuticals that are changing ecosystems. The report also considers the warning signs emerging from technologies currently in use, including mobile phones, genetically modified organisms and nanotechnology.

The historical case studies show that warnings were ignored or sidelined until damage to health and the environment was inevitable. In some instances, companies put short-term profits ahead of public safety, either hiding or ignoring the evidence of risk. In others, scientists downplayed risks, sometimes under pressure from vested interests. Such lessons could help avoid harm from emerging technologies.  However, five of the stories illustrate  the benefits of quickly responding to early warnings.

The world has changed since the first volume of Late Lessons was published. Technologies are now taken up more quickly than before, and are often rapidly adopted around the world. This means risks may spread faster and further, the report says, outstripping society’s capacity to understand, recognise and respond to these effects in time to avoid harm.

The report recommends the wider use of the ‘precautionary principle’ to reduce hazards in cases of new and largely untested technologies and chemicals. It states that scientific uncertainty is not a justification for inaction, when there is plausible evidence of potentially serious harm.

Such a precautionary approach is nearly always beneficial – after analysing 88 cases of supposed ‘false alarm’, report authors found only four clear cases. The report also shows that precautionary actions can often stimulate rather than stifle innovation.

Key recommendations

  • Science should acknowledge the complexity of biological and environmental systems, particularly where there may be multiple causes of many different effects, the report says. It is increasingly difficult to isolate a single agent and prove beyond doubt that it causes harm. A more holistic view taking many different disciplines into account would also improve the understanding and prevention of potential hazards.
  • Policy makers should respond to early warnings more rapidly, the report says, particularly in cases of large scale emerging technologies. It proposes that those causing any future harm should pay for the damage.
  • Risk assessment can also be improved, the report says, by embracing uncertainty more broadly and acknowledging what is not known. For example, ‘No evidence of harm’ has often been  often misinterpreted to mean ‘evidence of no harm’ when the relevant research was not available.
  • The report calls for new forms of governance involving citizens in choices about innovation pathways and risk analysis. This would help to reduce exposure to hazards and encourage innovations with broader societal benefits. Greater interaction between business, governments and citizens could foster more robust and diverse innovations at less cost to health and the environment.
15 Oct, 2018

Votre obsession pour les technologies embarquées dans vos smartphones pourraient bientôt aider à traiter des maladies mentales

C’est dans le MIT review que j’ai décelé ceci –

Analyzing the way you type and scroll can reveal as much as a psychological test.

There are about 45 million people in the US alone with a mental illness, and those illnesses and their courses of treatment can vary tremendously. But there is something most of those people have in common: a smartphone. A startup founded in Palo Alto, California, by a trio of doctors, including the former director of the US National Institute of Mental Health, is trying to prove that our obsession with the technology in our pockets can help treat some of today’s most intractable medical problems: depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and substance abuse.

Mindstrong Health is using a smartphone app to collect measures of people’s cognition and emotional health as indicated by how they use their phones. Once a patient installs Mindstrong’s app, it monitors things like the way the person types, taps, and scrolls while using other apps. This data is encrypted and analyzed remotely using machine learning, and the results are shared with the patient and the patient’s medical provider. The assessment included classic neuropsychological tests that have been used for decades, like a so-called timed trail-tracing test.

The seemingly mundane minutiae of how you interact with your phone offers surprisingly important clues to your mental health, according to Mindstrong’s research—revealing, for example, a relapse of depression. With details gleaned from the app, Mindstrong says, a patient’s doctor or other care manager gets an alert when something may be amiss and can then check in with the patient by sending a message through the app (patients, too, can use it to message their care provider).

For years now, countless companies have offered everything from app-based therapy to games that help with mood and anxiety to efforts to track smartphone activities or voice and speech for signs of depression. But Mindstrong is different, because it’s considering how users’ physical interactions with the phones—not what they do, but how they do it—can point to signs of mental illness. That may lead to far more accurate ways to track these problems over time. If Mindstrong’s method works, it could be the first that manages to turn the technology in your pocket into the key to helping patients with a wide range of chronic brain disorders—and may even lead to ways to diagnose them before they start.

Digital fingerprints
Before starting Mindstrong, Paul Dagum, its founder and CEO, paid for two Bay Area–based studies to figure out whether there might be a systemic measure of cognitive ability—or disability—hidden in how we use our phones. One hundred and fifty research subjects came into a clinic and underwent a standardized neurocognitive assessment that tested things like episodic memory (how you remember events) and executive function (mental skills that include the ability to control impulses, manage time, and focus on a task)—the kinds of high-order brain functions that are weakened in people with mental illnesses.