Features

WASHINGTON — Global warming could make the planet far hotter than currently projected because today’s scientific models do not correctly account for the influence of clouds, researchers recently said.

The study in the journal Science was led by researchers at Yale University and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

When climate scientists look ahead to how much the planet’s surface temperature may warm up in response to a doubling of carbon dioxide — a byproduct of fossil fuel burning — they typically predict a rise of between 2.1°C and 4.7°C.

But these models overestimate the ability of clouds to reflect back sunlight, and counteract warming in Earth’s atmosphere, researchers said.

“We found that the climate sensitivity increased from 4°C in the default model to 5°C to 5.3°C in versions that were modified to bring liquid and ice amounts into closer agreement with observations,” said lead author Ivy Tan, a researcher at Yale University.

The problem is most models assume there is more ice in clouds than there actually is.

Icier clouds would gain more liquid in a warming environment, and more liquid in clouds would mean less global warming.

“Most climate models are a little too eager to glaciate below freezing, so they are likely exaggerating the increase in cloud reflectivity as the atmosphere warms,” said co-author Mark Zelinka.

“This means they may be systematically underestimating how much warming will occur in response to carbon dioxide.”

Researchers said their findings add to previous studies that have suggested clouds may make warming worse, rather than lessen it.

“The evidence is piling up against an overall stabilising cloud feedback,” said Zelinka. 

“Clouds do not seem to want to do us any favours when it comes to limiting global warming.”

The study was funded by NASA and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.

The news earlier this week that Apple had recycled about 1 tonne of gold from its various devices, for a net value approaching $40 million, should sound, or resound should I say, as a wake-up call to Jordan.

For a company known for enjoying the world’s absolute top spot, amongst all enterprises of any size, in terms of cash availability, it is certainly not the “meagre” lot of $40 million that has motivated Apple to recycle this way. For after all recycling, however it is done, does take time and effort.

The motivation behind the action can only be the honest, honourable, laudable protection of the environment, in a global manner. Whether it is to reduce waste and preserve our planet’s resources, like when recycling gold as in the above case, or to avoid poisoning the phreatic zones of the earth with lead and mercury, each year that passes makes the whole concept a more pressing matter. And we’re not even mentioning plastics that still constitute the bulk of a device’s mass.

The accelerated rate of equipment replacement, more particularly when it comes to mobile devices like smartphones and tablets, simply is making the whole situation clearly worse, in all regions where nothing or so little has been done so far.

The issue was already mentioned in this very column two years ago. Apparently no systematic new recycling initiatives have been launched since; at least none the population is aware of on a large, national scale.

Apple is doing its part, France is taking measures to seriously implement a 2013 law that forbids using plasticbags, and Scandinavian countries, as it is often the case, are showing the world the way to protecting the environment. A plasticbag is manufactured in one second, is used for an average of 20 minutes, but then pollutes the ecosystem for 200 to 400 years.

Because of the various raw materials used in manufacturing them, most being non-biodegradable (think of the rechargeable batteries for example), the negative impact of electronics in general, and of all computer-based devices is one of the biggest and the worst. It is strange that to date no governmental or private initiative has been taken in Jordan to systematically address the issue.

There was a time when the Jordan Computer Society that was established in the early 1980s had a word to say; alas those days are gone. Perhaps the Jordan Engineering Association could do something about it, since this is where computer and electrical engineers are formally registered. Perhaps some good willing private industry or entrepreneur, perhaps…

The issue is not to underestimate. We are generally more concerned about the speed of our Internet connection, the size of our smartphone’s screen and the capacity of our cloud storage. Taking steps to recycle electronics in an organised and comprehensive manner should be included somewhere on our priory list, preferably near the top.

Perhaps a project that would be called iRecycle, somewhat à la Apple, could motivate the authorities.

CHICAGO — Not long ago, two-day delivery was considered a premium service. And fast, too. Fast enough, it seemed.

Now new services — from Amazon and start-up competitors — are trying to get shoppers’ purchases to them even faster.

Analysts said that while there’s a reason a takeout dinner needs to get the customer in 60 minutes or less, it’s less clear shoppers will be willing to pay for the same service when it comes to retail products, which rarely need to arrive so quickly.

When a recent hangout with friends turned dull, Chaim Osina turned to Amazon.com. Two hours later, the game he had ordered showed up at the door, and a lame evening was averted.

“Did I need it? Probably not,” said Osina, a 25-year-old Chicagoan. “But there’s times it’s really useful.”

According to a survey by Forrester Research, 29 per cent of US online shoppers said they’re interested in guaranteed same-day delivery, a relatively small share, said e-commerce analyst Brendan Witcher.

“And interested doesn’t mean they’re going to pay for it,” he said, particularly when so many retailers offer a free shipping option that in some cases isn’t much slower.

There’s a difference between delivery in a day or two and same-day or next-hour shipping, said Paula Rosenblum, managing partner at retail consulting firm RSR Research.

“I’ve always viewed that as a very niche market, particularly if you pull groceries out,” she said. “When was the last time you had a T-shirt emergency?”

Companies handling the deliveries, and some customers, say it’s not always about needs.

Mark Morris, 31, likes the convenience of Amazon Prime’s same-day service, though he wouldn’t be willing to pay extra. “There aren’t a lot of things I can’t find just down the street,” he said.

Macy’s spokeswoman Andrea Schwartz said the retailer works with start-up Deliv to offer same-day delivery “for convenience,” even though Macy’s also lets customers buy products online to pick up in-store, in addition to standard shipping options.

“I don’t know if we need it, but we’ve become trained that we can have it,” said Deliv CEO Daphne Carmeli. “Did anyone think we needed two-day shipping when Amazon rolled out Prime? No, but we have it, and it’s addicting.”

Amazon has since picked up the pace, bringing free same-day delivery service on Amazon Prime orders over $35 to select cities. Another service, Prime Now, will deliver a range of items in an hour or two.

One-hour delivery service Postmates recently announced a membership programme of its own. For $9.99 per month, Postmates Plus Unlimited members can get free delivery, with no service fees, on purchases of $30 or more from partner merchants.

About 3,000 merchants are part of Postmates Plus, the company’s network, and those orders make up about 40 per cent of all Postmates deliveries, the company said.

Other orders require a delivery fee calculated based on the distance travelled, in addition to the service fee. Postmates makes enough on the “premium” non-Plus orders and commissions from merchants to help subsidise the membership, said communications director April Conyers.

Postmates started as an on-demand food delivery company, and restaurant deliveries still make-up about 75 per cent of its orders, but it’s working to branch out, she said. The company last month announced a partnership with American Apparel that has Postmates delivering about 50 basic apparel items in no more time than it takes to drop off a lunch.

Conyers said Postmates is trying to build a network that lets companies without Amazon’s logistics deliver just about anything to just about anyone at Amazon-like speed.

It’s not the only one vying to get stuff to you in a day or less.

On-demand delivery service DoorDash is concentrating on meal delivery for now but hopes to branch out to other products, said spokesman Eitan Bencuya.

Instacart is best known for its grocery deliveries, but recently began working with Target to deliver small appliances and home improvement products, said Nilam Ganenthiran, Instacart’s senior vice president of business development. It’s a pilot programme in a handful of markets. The company charges $5.99 for an order above $35 with at least two hours’ notice, or $7.99 for one-hour delivery, and also gets money from stores and brands. Whether item prices differ from in-store prices depends on the merchant, Ganenthiran said.

Deliv pitches its services to companies, not customers, offering same-day delivery for retailers like Macy’s, malls and even some e-commerce companies, said Carmeli.

When a customer orders an item that can be delivered the same day from Macy’s — which charges just $5 for the service on orders of $99 or more — Macy’s packs the items for pickup by a Deliv driver, matched to the order based on proximity, rating and whether the item will fit in their car.

Uber is taking a similar approach with UberRUSH. Businesses can request an Uber driver to make a delivery, sometimes same-day but as fast as 30 minutes or less, said UberEATS and UberRUSH General Manager Paolo Lorenzoni. UberRUSH is betting on the fact that it’s already built up a network of drivers who can deliver packages in between dropping off customers.

“It’s a way of using their downtime where no one’s making money, but there’s a set of people who want goods delivered,” Lorenzoni said.

Witcher and Rosenblum agreed same-day service is most likely to pay off in urban areas with enough affluent customers willing to pay for convenience to support a delivery network, particularly with inconvenient products, like bulky items difficult for shoppers without cars to transport.

Osina, the Amazon customer, said he uses same-day shipping and Prime Now a couple of times a week, often for business. He’s a computer consultant and uses the service to order equipment his clients need, he said.

He’s also used Postmates to order Coke Slurpees from 7-Eleven while watching movies with a friend — even though there’s a 7-Eleven store just down the street — but said he’d be hesitant to use Postmates for bigger-ticket purchases. He’s comfortable with Amazon but said he’s less certain how newer players would handle problems or returns.

Jill Lindenberg, 52, visiting Chicago from Michigan, said she couldn’t see herself using it. She plans ahead, and couldn’t picture herself getting stuck with a need that immediate. “And I’m too cheap,” she added.

Even Osina said he rarely chooses to pay for same-day delivery if his order isn’t large enough to get the service free, since regular Amazon Prime shipping is only a little slower.

Will fast shipping pay off?

Postmates, Deliv, UberRUSH, Instacart and DoorDash all said they’ve figured out a way to make money on every order, though some said they are taking losses on orders in new markets while trying to attract users.

Even if the economics work for third-party delivery services, retailers have to decide if faster shipping pays off for them. A retailer who passes on the full cost of rapid delivery to customers — and some stores absorb a little, since customers are used to free or nearly free shipping — still has to handle extra logistics, Witcher said.

Offering the service could boost business if it brings in customers who would otherwise shop elsewhere, he said. But if shoppers would have been willing to order online and pick up in-store or wait for ground shipping — sometimes still only two days with companies that ship from stores — retailers could be increasing their costs while getting little in return.

“Most companies don’t really understand if this is creating incremental value,” Witcher said.

Carmeli is also sceptical delivery speeds will get much faster in the retail sector. Promising same-day service, rather than near-immediate service, lets Deliv batch orders along routes, driving down the per-package cost, while also letting customers schedule arrivals at a convenient time, she said.

“Thirty minutes just isn’t the sweet spot in retail,” she said.

Postmates and UberRUSH would disagree, and Amazon, with talk of drone delivery, may be aiming for faster still.

That doesn’t mean all retailers have to keep up, analysts said.

“What a lot of people are saying is, ‘I’d prefer to get it faster, but it’s not that big a deal’,” Witcher said. “If you could teleport it to my house, that would be the best. That doesn’t mean retailers should pursue that.”

TOKYO — The latest scientific assessment paints a likely bleak future for the Pacific bluefin tuna, a sushi lovers’ favourite whose population has dropped by more than 97 per cent from its historic levels.

A draft summary of a report by the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean seen by The Associated Press shows the current population of bluefin tuna is estimated at 2.6 per cent of its “unfished” size. A previous assessment put the population at an already dire 4.2 per cent.

Overfishing has continued despite calls to reduce catches to allow the species to recover. In some areas, bluefin tuna is harvested at triple the levels considered to be sustainable.

“The situation is really as bad as it appears,” said Amanda Nickson, director for Global Tuna Conservation at The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Limits imposed after the previous estimates actually allowed some countries to up their catches, she said.

“If those managers again fail to act in a conservation-minded way this time, it may be time for other actions, such as an international trade ban or complete fishing moratorium,” Nickson said.

The independent scientists who compiled the report said improved data make them more confident in their latest estimates than in previous ones. The report is due to be reviewed by the committee in July.

The report estimated that in 2014, the total recruitment level of the fish, or the percentage of new fish that survive each year, was below 3.7 million fish, the second lowest level ever.

Under current levels of reproduction and management of the fisheries in the Pacific, the likelihood of rebuilding stocks to healthy levels is only 0.1 per cent, the report says.

Cutting catches by a fifth would improve those odds to only 3 per cent.

Japanese eat about 80 per cent of all bluefin tuna caught worldwide, and stocks of all three bluefin species — the Pacific, Southern and Atlantic — have fallen over the past 15 years as demand for the luscious, buttery pink-to-red fleshed fish has soared globally.

Organisations charged with helping to manage bluefin fisheries have set a goal of rebuilding the species’ population to 6.4 per cent, or 42,592 metric tons, of unfished levels by 2024.

But 6.4 per cent levels for a species like the Pacific bluefin, which can live for up to 40 years, are no guarantee of a recovery. Many experts believe 20 per cent of historic levels is the minimum size for a sustainable fishery.

The international body that monitors fisheries in most of the Pacific Ocean, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, was unable to reach consensus last year on either short-term or long-term measures to help restore the bluefin population.

In Europe, officials have agreed last month on implementing a recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean.

A next step by conservationists could include efforts to get Pacific bluefin tuna banned from international trading.

There are many problems with drinking one and a half litres of water first thing in the morning. The main deterrent is visiting the toilet repeatedly for the next hour or so after glugging the liquid. But why would anyone have so much of water in one go? 

Researchers have discovered that the body’s biological thirst signals can be mistaken for signs and symptoms of other illnesses. If we treat the root cause of these, which is dehydration, we can avoid costly and unnecessary medical interventions and enjoy long-term well-being. Or so they say. 

Apparently, when the body produces complicated secondary symptoms of dehydration, the result is general confusion. Many doctors misinterpret it as: dyspepsia, rheumatoid arthritis, angina, migraine headaches, colitis, constipation, hypertension, anaemia, obesity, sinusitis, pulmonary tuberculosis, asthma, kidney stones, diabetes, leukaemia, and uterine and breast cancer. Water therapy eliminates and gets rid of all these health issues, is the claim made by people who follow it. 

I was not unduly impressed by this initiative when I was first introduced to it more than 15 years ago but a chance meeting with an Ayurveda specialist made me rethink the whole thing. He dismissed my self-diagnosed arthritis ailment and said what I was suffering from was chronic dehydration. “Your treatment is to drink six glasses of water as soon as you wake up madam, this remedy is a life saver for you,” he told me in a matter of fact manner. 

That was all. He refused to give me any fragrant powders or multi coloured pills for my aching joints and I came back from his dispensary with an inscription chit, which read the exact amount of water I should be drinking first thing in the morning. To tell you the truth I was not impressed and for a few days I did nothing about it. But a week or so later I decided to give it a try. 

To add a bit of excitement to the dull chore, I bought a tall copper glass from the corner Nature Cure store. It kind of blended with the Ayurveda concept and the metal made the water stay cool for longer. 

On day one I sipped the refreshing liquid experimentally. The taste of the toothpaste I had just used got diluted somewhat in my mouth. I had forgotten to ask if I was allowed to brush my teeth before drinking the water. In any case, even if he had told me not to, I would have overruled the caveat anyway. 

I drank the first three glassfuls easily but when I refilled the copper tumbler for the fourth time I felt bile rising up my throat. I persevered somehow and swallowed it back with the water. The fifth one was an effort and by the time I reached the sixth glass I felt like a water balloon, which was filled to its bursting capacity. My trips to the washroom became more urgent and if the loo was occupied I contemplated breaking the door down. 

I abandoned the experiment exactly 10 days after starting it.

“What about the pain in your joints” exclaimed my concerned friend?

“What about it?” I countered. 

“The Ayurveda doctor said it would get better,” she reminded. 

“Yes,” I agreed. 

“Why did you give it up?” she persisted. 

“My bathroom door needs fixing,” I told her.

“What happened?” she asked. 

“I rammed a chair into it,” I confessed. 

“Water, water everywhere?” she laughed. 

“Ahem,” is all I said. 

NEW YORK — The Walt Disney Co.’s “The Jungle Book” opened with $103.3 million in North America, industry data showed on Monday, making it one of the biggest April debuts ever at the box office and continuing the studio’s streak of unearthing live-action riches buried in its animated classics.

Jon Favreau’s update of Disney’s 1967 animated version of Rudyard Kipling’s book tells the tale of Mowgli with computer-generated imagery and big-screen bombast. A sizeable 42 per cent of the film’s domestic sales came from 3-D and premium-format screens.

“The Jungle Book” is just the latest of Disney’s string of live-action remakes of classic cartoons (“Cinderella”, “Alice in Wonderland”, “Maleficent”), most of which have fared well at the box office. More plundering of the Disney library is in the works: “Cruella De Ville” and “Peter Pan” are in development; “Beauty and the Beast” is scheduled for next March.

“There’s some consistency that’s happened here in the last few years as we’ve really made this a priority and a strategy from a company perspective,” said Disney distribution head Dave Hollis, who credited production president, Sean Bailey, with overseeing the live-action adaptations. “He’s been able to do it in a way that really makes them contemporary and, certainly in this case, fully utilises available technology.

“We’ve got a lot more of these stories to tell.”

“The Jungle Book,” made for about $175 million, was propelled by glowing reviews from critics. It ranks as the second biggest April opening ever, behind only “Furious 7’s” $147.2 million debut.

It also took in an estimated $136.1 million overseas that includes $20.1 million so far in India where it’s the third-highest grossing Hollywood release after 10 days. Ahead of the film’s big opening, Warner Bros. — sensing stiff competition — pushed the release of its own “Jungle Book” a year to October 2018.

Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst for comScore, said that the live-action remakes are proving to be another substantial engine for Disney, along with its franchise-building assets in Marvel, Pixar and Lucasfilm.

“To have this incredible vault of content that they can go back to and reimagine, retool and recreate for today’s audiences just gives them a depth and breadth of films that is almost unparallelled,” Dergarabedian said. “Disney has this knack for taking something that’s very old and making it new again.”

Opening in second place was Ice Cube’s “Barbershop: The Next Cut” with $20.2 million. The fourth film in the comedy series (which included the 2005 spinoff “Beauty Shop”) failed to match the $24.2 million debut of the previous “Barber Shop 2: Back in Business” in 2004, but it still supplied a solid opening for New Line and MGM.

The Kevin Costner action thriller “Criminal”, however, opened with a mere $5.9 million for Lionsgate. It cost around $30 million to make.

The Melissa McCarthy comedy “The Boss”, the No. 1 film last weekend, dropped steeply. It slid 58 per cent with $10 million in its second week, landing in third place.

“Batman v Superman”, featuring Ben Affleck and Henry Cavill as the iconic superheroes, was in fourth place, grossing $9 million for an overall take of $311.3 million after four weeks.

Animated Disney family film “Zootopia”, about an intrepid rabbit police officer who works with a fox to solve a crime in the animal kingdom, slipped from third to fifth.

It earned $8.1 million over the weekend for an overall gross of $307.4 million after seven weeks.

Rounding out the rest of the top 10 were “Criminal” ($5.8 million), “My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2” ($3.3 million), “Miracles from Heaven” ($1.9 million), “God’s Not Dead 2” ($1.7 million) and “Eye in the Sky” ($1.6 million).

Two well-reviewed films opened in limited release: the Weinstein Co.’s musical coming-of-age tale “Sing Street” ($69,000 in five theatres) and A24’s bloody thriller “Green Room” ($91,000 in three theatres).

HONOLULU — The Solar Impulse 2 sun-powered plane is set to resume its record-breaking flight around the world within days, leaving Hawaii when weather permits, a spokesman said Friday.

The experimental aircraft was grounded in July when its batteries suffered problems halfway through its 35,000-kilometre trip.

“The Solar Impulse is waiting for a weather window to fly, so we will not be able to confirm the time and date for take-off,” Chris Shigas, a spokesman for the project, told AFP.

The crew took several months to repair the damage from high tropical temperatures during the flight’s final Pacific stage, a record journey of five days and five nights between Nagoya, Japan and Hawaii.

The plane conducted its first successful test flight following repairs in late February, with the next leg, estimated to take four days, expected to end in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Vancouver or Phoenix, Arizona.

Shigas said the timing of the take-off would not affect its landing schedule.

“The destinations in US mainland have not been confirmed yet, and will be dependent on weather conditions,” she said. “We know from experience that crossing the United States is challenging in terms of weather.”

The goal is to reach New York’s JFK Airport before crossing the Atlantic, she added.

Solar Impulse 2 left Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates in March last year and has since travelled nearly 18,025 kilometres.

Its wings are covered with more than 17,000 photovoltaic cells that charge the batteries when the sun is shining during the day.

Pilots Bertrand Piccard and Andre Borschberg are taking alternating turns flying each stage because the aircraft can fit only one at a time.

Dubbed the “paper plane”, Solar Impulse 2 has a wingspan of 72 metres, larger than a Boeing 747’s, and a weight of 2.3 tonnes, approximately that of a van.

It flies at a maximum altitude of 8,634 metres and must withstand high temperature fluctuations, with the pilots using oxygen tanks to breathe inside the tiny cockpit.

The project aims to demonstrate the possibilities of renewable solar energy.

LONDON — The latest dispute to blow up around the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concerns glyphosate, an ingredient in one of the world’s most widely used weed killers, Roundup, made by Monsanto.

In March 2015, an IARC monograph concluded that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic”. Yet, seven months later the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), an independent agency funded by the EU, published a different assessment, saying glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans”.

The EFSA study drew on work by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, which had concluded there was “no validated or significant relationship” between exposure to glyphosate and an increased risk of cancer.

Some campaign groups have suggested EFSA was unduly influenced by studies backed by Roundup’s manufacturer, Monsanto. An EFSA spokesman said its assessment considered hundreds of scientific studies, both independent and industry-sponsored.

“The status of a study — e.g. independent or industry-sponsored — is irrelevant to the assessment if the study is designed, carried out and reported well,” he said in an e-mailed response. He said EFSA had published detailed information about every study used in its glyphosate assessment, including regulatory studies submitted by companies.

The World Health Organisation — IARC’s parent organisation — and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which first assessed glyphosate in 1986 and has reviewed it several times since then, had also previously concluded that glyphosate “has low toxicity for humans”.

The differences might seem modest, but they have potentially huge implications for farmers, the food industry and consumers because IARC’s ruling may affect whether the European Union continues to authorise glyphosate for use in Europe. EU officials are now faced with conflicting scientific advice. Without the herbicide, say some campaigners, food production may suffer.

A public war of words between EFSA and IARC has ensued. It began with a letter last November from 96 scientists who wrote to a senior EU official urging him to ignore what they said was a “flawed” EFSA assessment of glyphosate and to prefer IARC’s judgement instead.

The letter was led by the American scientist Chris Portier, who has long had links to the Environmental Defence Fund (EDF), a US non-governmental campaign group. The EDF opposes the use of pesticides and describes its mission as preserving “the natural systems on which all life depends”. On IARC’s website Portier was listed in 2013 as affiliated to the EDF as a “Senior Collaborating Scientist”.

In 2014, Portier chaired an IARC meeting at which the agency’s priorities for the coming year were outlined. They included an evaluation of glyphosate. The following year, Portier served as an “invited specialist” to the working group which decided that glyphosate was probably carcinogenic.

Critics say Portier’s EDF connections represent a conflict of interest and argue IARC should not have allowed him to be involved in the glyphosate evaluation. IARC said his involvement presented no problem, since he took part only as an invited specialist, who does not draft any text or participate in the evaluation.

Asked by Reuters whether he had a conflict of interest, Portier said: “I agree that this has the appearance of being a conflict of interest. However, in my opinion, for this to be a real conflict of interest, I would have to be working for the EDF on pesticide related issues and/or specifically on glyphosate related issues. I am not.” He said IARC’s decision to include him as an invited specialist was “proper and reasonable”.

EFSA defended its finding on glyphosate and hit back at IARC. In a speech to the European Parliament in December 2015, EFSA Executive Director Bernhard Url described IARC as engaging in “Facebook science”. He said the agency was taking an approach where “you have a scientific assessment, you put it on Facebook and you count how many people like it”.

Url said that was not how EFSA operated: “For us, this is no way forward. We produce a scientific opinion, we stand by it, but we cannot take into account whether it will be liked or not.”

Url also published an 18-page response to the letter from the 96 scientists, explaining how EFSA took a different approach to IARC. In it he invited IARC to a meeting to discuss their evidence and methodologies. IARC declined, demanding instead that EFSA issue a correction to its letter, which it alleged contained “factual errors”.

Kurt Straif, the head of IARC’s monographs assessing whether substances cause cancer, said his agency had turned down the invitation because EFSA had failed “to correct false statements”, and because “we don’t see a basis for a discussion within closed doors”.

An EFSA spokesman said it was “regrettable that the meeting is not going to take place”, and said EFSA “restates its commitment to co-operate with IARC and any other scientific organisation involved in the assessment of pesticides”.

Launched globally at the Frankfurt Motorshow late last year and arriving in the Middle East market earlier this month, the latest generation Audi A4 is an all-new and thoroughly improved product. Refined and advanced, the new A4 is lighter, more dynamic and luxurious vehicle, and makes big strides in driver assistance and infotainment technology.

So far offered with choice of several petrol — and diesel options for Europe — the A4’s four petrol power models includes two high efficiency models, including the 2.0 TFSI Ultra. Sitting between the 148BHP 1.4 TFSI and 248BHP full-fat 2.0 TFSI, the 187BHP Ultra’s sophisticated combustion cycle delivers big engine low-end responses yet ekes out particularly frugal fuel efficiency.

Elegantly assertive

Slightly larger and roomier than its’ predecessor, the new A4 is nevertheless up to 120kg lighter — depending on model — owing mainly to increased aluminium content in its construction. The new A4 makes weight saving cuts in other components, including aluminium suspension, which reduces overall and unsprung mass, for enhances ride comfort, refinement and handling finesse.

Debuting a sharper and more assertive yet classy and somewhat understated design evolution for Audi’s saloon car range, the A4 features clean, crisp and defined lines and surfacing. However, its design character is dominated by an aggressively sophisticated hexagonal grille, which is flanked by slimmer more moodily browed and angular headlights with defined LED elements and big hungry lower air intakes.

With broad and tall grille and sculpted sills emphasising width and a sporty side, the A4’s sensible level waistline provides good visibility and an airy cabin, while a shorter front overhang and big footprint provide a confident road stance. With its design, mirrors, wheel wells and underbody covers smoothly managing airflow, the A4’s achieves best-in-class CD0.23 aerodynamics, depending on model and external variables.

Clever combustion

Powered by an innovative adapted Miller-cycle version of Audi’s 2.0 TFSI engine, the Ultra model uses what Audi terms “rightsizing” rather than downsizing to achieve efficiency and performance. With intake valves closing much earlier than usual and shorter compression and longer expansion phases, the Ultra only needs to compress as much as a 1.4 TFSI engine, but takes advantage of its larger displacement during its expansion phase. 

Also featuring specially adapted combustion chambers, intake ducts, piston recesses and turbocharging to allow a short compression phase, the Ultra is designed to greatly enhance fuel efficiency and reduce emissions when driven at partial load — as car are most often driven. Meanwhile, fuel injection pressure is raised, while the engine’s valve-lift system also operates to ensure responsive power and torque delivery.

Clever and effective, the Ultra’s revised combustion method is combined with and electric turbocharger wastegate and exhaust manifold integrated in the cylinder head for optimised thermal management. Mated to a slick and responsive seven-speed dual clutch gearbox with reduced weight and friction, and automatic coasting ability, as well as stop/go city driving and efficient aerodynamics, the Ultra achieves frugal 5.3l/100km combined fuel efficiency.

Smooth and tidy

Developing 187BHP over 4200-6000rpm and 236lb/ft throughout 1450-4200rpm, the 2.0 TFSI Ultra is responsive and consistently muscular, with little turbo lag and a broad generous mid-range providing versatility and underwriting power accumulation. Dispatching the 0-100km/h dash in 7.3 seconds and capable of 240km/h, the Ultra features short low gears for responsive performance and tall higher gears for efficiency and refinement. 

Front-driven with a low-mounted in-line engine and just ahead of equal length drive shafts, the A4 develops super off-the-line traction and well-suppresses torque-steer, which is also controlled by a brake-based torque vectoring system when taking tight corners with heavy and early throttle input. Considerably more agile and balanced than its front drive predecessors, the new A4 enhanced dynamics also benefit from a new light aluminium five-link suspension set-up.

With upper links directly integrated into bodywork for improved stiffness, the new A4 comfortably absorbs longitudinal forces and delivers sporty lateral stiffness. Nimbler and tidier than before, the new A4 tucks in crisply and also features responsive, precise and well-weighted electric-assisted steering. If slightly less nimble with the heavier torquier engine than the 1.4 TFSI, the 2.0 TFSI is offered with comfort or sports suspension with adaptive or fixed dampers.

Advanced assistance

Composed and taut through switchbacks and reassuringly stable, smooth and refined at speed, the driven A4 — riding on optional 245/40R18 tyres — had a good balance between supple rid comfort, grip and control through corners. Over imperfections and on rebound it felt settled. Elegant and ergonomic inside, the A4 offers an alert driving position, good visibility, excellent adjustability, decent space, quality leathhers and materials and an attractive user-friendly layout.

Extensively well-equipped with standard features and a long options list, the A4 is available with head’s up display a versatile configurable Virtual Cockpit instrument cluster screen. Optional equipment includes a Bang and Olufsen sound system and an 8.3-inch centre screen infotainment system upgrade, with voice control, smartphone integration, detachable rear seat tablets and a 3D navigation system able to operate in cooperation with safety and assistance systems.

Available with numerous advanced high-tech semi-autonomous and safety systems include the A4’s driver assistance suite includes Pre-sense City Safety, which can prevent collisions at 40km/h and mitigate severity to 85km/h. Additionally, its Tour package features radar-based adaptive cruise control, lane-keeping and traffic jam assist systems, which can even assume steering control on well-developed roads up to 65km/h, and can even anticipate and prepare for corners.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Engine: 2-litre, in-line turbocharged 4 cylinders

Bore x stroke: 82.5 x 92.8mm

Compression ratio: 11.7:1

Valve-train: 16-valve, DOHC, direct injection

Gearbox: 7-speed automated dual clutch, front-wheel drive

Power, BHP (PS) [kW]: 187.4 (190) [185.3] @4200-6000rpm

Specific power: 94.4BHP/litre

Power-to-weight: 133.3BHP/tonne

Torque, lb/ft (Nm): 236 (320) @1450-4200rpm

Specific torque: 161.3Nm/litre

Torque-to-weight: 227.7Nm/tonne

0-100km/h: 7.3 seconds

Top speed: 240km/h

Fuel consumption, urban/extra-urban/combined:

6.6/4.5/5.3-litres/100km*

CO2 emissions, combined: 119g/km*

Fuel capacity: 54 litres

Length: 4726mm

Width: 1842mm

Height: 1427mm

Wheelbase: 2820mm

Track, F/R: 1572/1555mm

Aerodynamic drag co-efficient: 0.23-0.27

Overhangs, F/R: 880/1026mm

Headroom, F/R: 1039/953mm

Luggage volume, min/max: 480/965 litres

Unladen weight: 1405kg

Steering: Electric-assisted rack & pinion

Turning circle: 11.5 metres

Suspension: Five-link, adaptive dampers

Brakes: Ventilated discs

Tyres: 245/40R19 (optional)

*As tested, with 18-inch wheels

PITTSBURGH — In the ever-changing, often complicated world of breast cancer detection, a large study led by a Pittsburgh researcher shows that ultrasound screening detected as many breast cancers as mammograms in women with dense breasts.

But don’t expect an ultrasound instead of a mammogram any time soon.

For now, the study recommends it as a complementary test for women with dense breast tissue — a situation facing about 40 per cent of women age 40 and older. While the two methods spotted about the same number of cancers, the study found that more cancers detected on mammography were milk duct carcinomas in situ or DCIS while more cancers seen on ultrasound were invasive breast cancers.

Mammography uses low-dose X-rays and ultrasound uses sound waves to examine breast tissue.

“Where mammography is available, ultrasound should be seen as a supplemental test for women with dense breasts who do not meet high-risk criteria for screening MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) and for high-risk women with dense breasts who are unable to tolerate MRI,” states the study published online this week in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Wendie A. Berg, a physician in the Department of Radiology at Magee-Womens Hospital, led the American College of Radiology Imaging Network protocol 6666 breast cancer screening study, which involved 2,662 women in the United States, Canada and Argentina. Participants underwent three annual breast screenings through ultrasound and digital mammography then had a biopsy or 12-month follow-up examination.

A mammogram often cannot distinguish between white fibrous breast tissue and white tumour cells, unless calcifications are present. Berg says it has been described as trying to see a polar bear in the snow. In ultrasound screenings, however, such tumours show up grey, making them easier to spot.

Berg’s website, DenseBreast-info.org, says dense breasts have more fibrous and glandular rather than fatty tissue. In women with extremely dense breasts, cancer is up to six times more likely than in those with fatty breasts.

While mammograms find cancers undetected by other screening tests, they can miss more than 50 per cent of early cancers present in dense breasts, suggesting the need for additional screening through ultrasound or MRI.

The study, however, did find that ultrasound screening produced more false positives. Berg said they can be reduced by comparing results with previous mammograms and prior ultrasound examinations, and biopsies resulting from ultrasound are done with a needle rather than surgery. “The combination of mammograms and ultrasound cut down on false alarms,” she said.

Ultrasound screenings sometimes can replace mammograms for women who are pregnant or who have disabilities. But the discomfort of mammograms that some women experience alone isn’t sufficient reason for physicians to order an ultrasound, she said. Ultrasound as a diagnostic tool may require out-of-pocket expenses from the deductible or copay for most health insurance plans.

“It’s a case-by-case situation, but we are not encouraging ultrasound alone for the broad population of women,” Berg said.

Screening through tomosynthesis, or 3D mammography, was not included in the study. Berg said she’s just starting a large clinical trial, with participants still being accepted, that uses ultrasound screening after 3D mammography.

Women deemed to be at high risk for breast cancer typically are advised to undergo MRI, which is considerably more expensive but able to spot far more cancers than any other screening method.

For patients in developing countries who do not have access to mammography, ultrasound could be a viable option. Breast cancers are increasing worldwide with more than 1.6 million new cases in 2010 and 425,000 deaths. The number of new cases each year is expected to grow to 2.1 million by 2030.

The study says ultrasound screening can be done with a portable device costing about $15,000, or about a tenth the cost of mammography technology.